President Obama expedites the CRC (corrected)


Note: The original version of this article identified the source as Oregonian reporter Joseph Rose; the Oregonian article was written by Charles Pope. Portland Transport regrets the error.

This evening, Joseph Rose Charles Pope reported that President Obama has ordered the $3.5B Columbia River Crossing to be given “expedited” status. While not providing any additional funding, “expedited” status permits red tape to be cleared out of the way–and in many cases, local objections to be overridden.

This would appear to be bad news for project opponents. When the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York received expedited status last year, the result was the transit components of the project being jettisoned. Whether a similar situation could happen here–with the CRC being built without the transitway, is unclear–in the Tappan Zee case, the transit part was greenwashing that none of the major project stakeholders (including the State of New York) really cared about. Here, of course, the city of Portland insists on light rail as a condition of the project, and the project cleared state regulatory hurdles by virtue of a light rail siting statute (resulting in the infamous declaration from the state Supreme Court that the CRC was a “light rail project”). OTOH, it may well be the case that Salem and Olympia could override any local objections should they choose.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Bush Administration expedited the CRC four years ago, and the project is still stuck in planning limbo.


85 responses to “President Obama expedites the CRC (corrected)”

  1. There’s no money with this order. It sounds bad, but money (and the Coast Guard) are the holdups now, and money isn’t being offered. I have to wonder what effect this will have on the Coast Guard’s objections to the current design.

    That said, this order may result in rallying the opposition and could even push Oregon to Romney if enough Progressives get disgusted & decide to stay home in November.

  2. “Completely predictable.” Exactly, the way that some political groups will always play the “rights” card, long after the fact.

  3. I can’t imagine this having a major influence on the November elections–simply because I doubt a really unpopular decision would happen before then.

    But still, it would be good to get all the major players on the record (Governors Kitzhaber and Gregoire, mayoral candidates Smith and Hales, and Metro President Hughes).

  4. My main concerns are as follows:

    * One of the major roadblocks to the project is Coast Guard approval, specifically the channel depth.
    * Another major roadblock is cost and funding.
    * Many of the activists who would support a LRT crossing of the river, don’t support the project as currently designed.
    * Even among transit advocates, there has been a souring of opinions on light rail–which, rightly or wrongly, gets blamed for recent cuts to bus service.

    Given all of that, deleting the light rail component might be an attractive option for certain movers and shakers–particularly state and national politicians who are mainly on the hook for paying for this, but are less likely to be directly concerned about urban transit. It would subtract $1-1.5B from the cost of the project; and removal of the bottom deck would likely resolve the river clearance issues.

    This would likely enrage Portland’s green community–though a likely retort would be “you didn’t support the project as designed, so you get no say in how it’s built”. A vague future promise would likely be made about future LRT across the river, but given the political situation in Vancouver (and backlash here in Portland), most of us may well be dead before that happens if it’s not tied to the highway project. And yes, I’m quite certain that leftist ambivalence about light rail might be spun as lack of support for transit altogether, if push comes to shove.

    The interesting question is what the city of Portland–the strongest critic of the CRC in the region will do about it. Charlie Hales, a CRC supporter, has stated that he would not approve a CRC without the light rail and ped/bike elements; Smith, unfortunately gave a weasel-worded non-answer when Portland Afoot asked him the question.

    The big question, though–and I have insufficient wonk-fu to answer it–is whether the President’s declaration would permit the opinion of the City of Portland to be overridden; the normal approval process requires sign-off by the relevant local governments.

    The interesting question is: would Portland sign off

  5. dwain–

    I’m not saying Oregon is an overwhelming democratic stranglehold. I grew up in that part that’s really red. I’m saying that the CRC isn’t a big enough issue to make a 6-9% difference that the polls have Obama in the lead right now.

  6. For Portland City Council to support the CRC without lightrail would be a political earthquake comparable to the Mt Hood Freeway, only in reverse. Not likely.
    But, I’d be OK with this: A new eight lane bridge with tolls, no new interchanges, and the “Seattle” solution for the transit piece, i.e. put the LRT tracks in and let Vancouver do what they want. Run buses to a new MAX terminus on Hayden Island or get on board with LRT.

  7. Here’s a theoretical possibility that ventures deep into tinfoil hat territory, and totally disregards Hanlon’s Razor, but I’ll put it out there anyway. :)

    Earlier this year, when the Coast Guard objected to the CRC’s river clearance, many opponents of the project guffawed and chortled. How could a team of managers and engineers, plowing through $100M of planning funds, manage to screw up so badly, and get such a fundamental thing so completely and utterly wrong?

    But what if that was the plan all along–this was intended to be a freeway only bridge–and the 90′ clearance of the current design is no accident or error? Could it be the case that this was intentional–so that when the US Coast Guard objected, the non-highway stuff on the bottom deck would simply be removed, using the justification that it’s too late in the process to elevate the bridge (something which would require a significant re-design)–and the project’s newly-granted expedited status will be used to overrule the local objections to such a scheme?

    Yeah, it sounds pretty far-fetched and unbelievable. As the Brits like to say, cock-up before conspiracy. But everything about this project so far has been a theatre of the absurd. What seems obvious is that quite a few very powerful people want to build a new freeway bridge, want to build it ASAP, and the other design elements are utterly superfluous to their purposes.

    Time for my meds, I guess. :)

  8. “As the Brits like to say, cock-up before conspiracy.”

    Ahh, so you read all the way to the bottom of the Wikipedia page you referenced. :-)

    Time for my meds, I guess. :)

    Legal, prescription, I trust!

  9. Absolutely on both points. (Actually I added the link at the last minute, but yes, the phrase is indeed present in the Wiki article; it’s a quite useful phrase, actually).

    Unfortunately, repeating that particular phrase tends to cause posts to wind up in the moderation queue, so I won’t. :)

  10. Well, if it does turn out that the “solution” is to dump the lower deck and just build the freeway part, it would make sense to save a couple hundred million dollars by not tearing out the existing bridges. They could be converted to handle local arterial traffic and light rail, as well as bike lanes.

  11. NOT so far fetched at all Scott.
    Stuff like you describe happens all the time behind the closed doors of the elites running all this.

    These places are all run like the National Security
    Agency.

    What is so secret about it all?

    You just described it Scott.

  12. If they do eliminate LRT, that would seem to invalidate the inane declaration by the OSC upon which Metro, et. al., granted approval.

    Chris Girard, who had brought the matter to litigation, has destroyed more than a few bridges in an earlier life, usually by releasing “Walleye” TV guided bombs (developed by my friend Bill Woodworth) from the A7 Corsair II he happened to be driving at the time.

    Knowing Chris, I am sure he will be back.

  13. Expidited Status CAN also mean simple funding prioritization. The Columbia River I-5 Crossing bridges will be replaced, therefore funds must be appropriated.

    The latest delay regards Port proposal for oval track and car-offloading facility on West Hayden. Port decisions were influenced by this facility, however, West Hayden is no site for the oval rail track, no question, as it severely impedes flow on main line, as would coal shipment via rail. North Portland has a suitable site on the BNSF dead end where car-offloading operates fairly well. Adamant oppositional business competition has delayed job creation in many occupations.

    Four more years! !!Four!! Count ’em, “4” more years!

  14. Portland has enough rail running through its city, what do they care what is on or off that bridge anyway? It’s not Portland is it?

    Why does Portland have any say?

  15. Why does Portland have any say?

    For the same various reasons that Vancouver and Clark County get a say.

    Do you really want the state DOTs running the entire show without any formal input from Vancouver/Clark Co./Portland/Metro, all of whom will have to deal with the impacts of just whatever it is which may or may not be built?

  16. The squabbling of all the smaller government entities is why this project doesn’t get going.

    It’s a federal project, they should just get it done.

  17. When a federal project potentially causes great detriment to the livability of a city, I think that city can have some say in the matter.

  18. How does it have ‘detriment’ value to Portland?
    If they just built a bridge then things would be exactly the same as they are now!

    I never understood the idea that somehow if they don’t put rail on it there will be MORE traffic than there is now.

    I don’t buy that theory that the bigger you make the road the more it will fill up.

    That can only happen if the population around the highway increases.

    Just building a new bridge CANNOT make it worse for Portland. I just don’t believe that. Sorry.

  19. There are a lot of ways to measure detriment. The environmental impact of causing more people to drive long distances is one. More locally the air quality impact on North/Northeast Portland.

    If you live on Hayden Island, the impact of the bridge structures is HUGE.

    And if we dump more cars into the I-5/I-84 interchange, the impact on mobility in central Portland is going to be impacted.

  20. The environmental impact of causing more people to drive long distances is one.

    I do not understand how replacing the Interstate bridge is going to cause more people to drive long distances ?

    I know I am not that smart but why would more people drive than already drive?

    “Oh honey, there is a new bridge across the river so lets take a drive across it just because its there”

    That’s what your saying will happen if they replace the old bridge.

  21. Because you’re going to have 10 lanes instead of six and rebuilt interchanges will make it even easier to get onto the freeway (the project rebuilds several interchanges on either side of the river). This is not just a bridge project, it’s a huge freeway project.

  22. Well I just don’t understand why making a highway more efficient would actually increase the people that want to come over here.

    Maybe they don’t want to go to Portland at all but want to head south to California.

    I just don’t understand how you can jump to the conclusion that everyone that goes over that bridge actually wants to go to PDX.

    That’s the last thing I will say about it.

  23. The CRC, by itself, probably would have minimal impact–the main issue would be the migration of the I-5 traffic bottleneck further to the south. This isn’t like the proposed Mt. Hood Freeway (or the alignment of I-5 through N. Portland) where neighborhoods are (or would be) ripped up for freeway lanes.

    OTOH, the CRC would put further pressure to rebuild I-5 in the Rose Quarter, a proposal which has been picking up steam–and which would require further demolishing the Rose Quarter neighborhood.

    As far as induced demand–it is a documented phenomenon. There is a limit, of course–at some point there wouldn’t be any additional commuters to use additional capacity; but additional cars on the road means additional pollution and congestion elsewhere.

    Of course, if what you suspect is true–the additional capacity is indeed superfluous–then why do we need to build this at all?

    Why not use the money for this project to improve bus operations?

  24. Of course, if what you suspect is true–the additional capacity is indeed superfluous–then why do we need to build this at all?

    The Interstate bridge is causing HUGE congestion/pollution problems because it CANNOT handle capacity.

    That’s why it needs to be built. Put a rail line on it fine with me. But with all this local bickering that just goes on and on and on nothing gets done but the consultants keep raking in millions of dollars for doing nothing!

    The main point is to clear up the congestion that the Interstate bridge is causing.

  25. Al,

    While a new bridge probably won’t encourage superfluous trips or joyriding, it might encourage any of the following:

    * Existing C-TRAN users to switch to driving.
    * People who work non-traditional hours to avoid peak commutes to switching back to a 8-5 schedule.
    * More people deciding to live in Brush Prairie or whatever, while working in Portland or Hillsboro.

    Whether or not you think any of these are good or bad, all of these are likely to occur as the result of a new bridge, even if you assume no changes in overall population. In many cases they constitute trip-shifting or trip-lengthening–more inefficient use of infrastructure. And the City of Portland (and other major cities) lose big-time when people are able to use and enjoy their amenities, but avoid paying for them by living in the suburbs.

    The primary stated reason for building the CRC is to benefit freight–but freight doesn’t benefit much when the additional road capacity gets filled with SOVs.

  26. Al,

    If the bridge is crowded and congested, as you say, there’s a good chance that many trips aren’t being made for that reason. Increase the capacity of the bridge, and many of these trips will return, cancelling out the congestion reduction that you would expect.

    If you build it, they will come.

  27. Al and the real estate developers in Clark county on the same side? Amazing.
    The reason the current bridges are full in the peak hours… about 10% of the total operational time, is too many people alone in their cars. Why? because they have no choice; no local bridge for short trips, no reliable transit with its own ROW, lousy bike/ped options. Give Clark county commuters those choices, and even the existing bridges will work pretty well. Freight, now free to move in the non-peak hours…90% of the bridges operational time, will have even more room to move.

  28. Al,

    A congested freeway and a at-capacity freeway pollute the same amount, the only difference is the number of cars it moves. If you make a 6 lane congested freeway into a 10-lane at-capacity freeway (which will happen because of induced demand), you will increase the pollution. This project will also increase the traffic on other north Portland roads, as Clark County commuters seek to avoid the bottleneck of I-5 through north Portland. Many already do this, using Williams/Vancouver, and Interstate.

    http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2012/05/23/widening-highways-does-not-reduce-congestion-over-the-long-term

  29. It’s the price of gas that will stop people from using cars.

    Since the vast MAJORITY of people are not using bikes, buses, or rails, (at least around here) we need to expedite the movement of the majority.

    Its just common sense to me, build the friggen bridge as big as the feds will allow,
    10 lanes each direction if they are paying for it.

    If your gonna do the job do it right!

    We can take one (or 2 or 3 etc) of those lanes anytime in the future and use it for some sort of mass transit mode, who cares what it is.

    It’s just common sense.

    At least to me.

    Stop arguing and start building.

    It should create 300,000 jobs if the Trimet job is creating 13,000 jobs like they are claiming.

    Stop wasting money on studies and move forward.

    The whole process is pathetic, how much tax revenue has gone down the drain so far?

    Unbelievable.

    The older I get the more I see the insanity of everything around me.

  30. Al,

    The feds will only chip in half, at best; the rest has to be funded locally (state bond revenues, tolls, whatever).

    Very similar funding rules to light rail projects, actually. And I suspect you don’t consider “if they [the feds] are paying for it” to be sufficient grounds for more MAX lines.

    One interesting question though: A big reason why many Vancouverites object to the project is the prospect of tolls. If it does get built–I wonder how much the tolls being proposed (several figures I’ve seen are quite steep, in the annual-transit-pass-would-be-way-cheaper category) would affect demand? A big reason for LRT opposition from Vancouver isn’t necessarily ideological, it’s simply to reduce the cost of the project and thus the hit out of pocketbooks of Vancouver commuters.

  31. Lenny,

    You can’t force Clark County to run buses only to Jantzen Beach. I-5 is a public highway and C-Tran has had an established presence on the Portland Transit Mall for nearly fifteen years.

    Al M,

    CRC construction won’t create 300,000 jobs; that’s totally absurd. And Milwaukee Light Rail isn’t creating 13,000 either, no matter what fantasies Tri-Met is spinning. Maybe 2,000, and that’s a lot. So the bridge might create 5,000, and that’s a stretch, too. This isn’t the 1930’s.

    Everybody,

    Scotty’s summary of what’s likely to happen in Clark County is spot on: most people will take the convenient way of life until forced by circumstances — usually economic — to do something different.

    Very few people will ride the Yellow Line from Vancouver into Portland. I know this because I do now on my return from Beaverton the days I work. I have a senior pass so it’s only $1 to go all the way from Milliken to the 99th Street TC and only working part time I want to save a little money instead of taking the expresses in the evening. I do so in the morning in order to make “stand-up” meetings.

    The only people who change to the 4 or 44 at Delta Park/Vanport are poor people. The middle class folks all ride the expresses and will continue to do so as long as C-Tran provides them. Believe me, C-Tran will definitely provide them regardless of any Yellow Line developments. There are enough express “choice” riders in the county to put a fire under the County Council’s bums.

    The bottom line is that bringing LRT across the bridge is a monumental waste of money, but then the whole bridge project is too. If Federal law allowed it, simply putting a $2 southbound toll on the existing bridges during the morning peak and using the money to provide buses like GGT does for Marin and Sonoma counties would solve capacity problems for twenty years.

    As a final postscript, nobody smart really wants to live in Clark County anymore since it’s been totally Californicated with religio-fascist loons. It’s much better for Portland to cut it loose and make it eat its own right-wing cooking.

  32. Ron Swaren,

    How typically homo sapiens-centric your post is. The western section of Hayden Island is one of the three last large cottonwood stands on the lower Columbia. The other two are the island bisected by I-205 and the one just to the east.

    There are small bird species you’ve probably never heard of which flourish in that ecosystem: brown creepers, four or five kinds of neo-tropical (migratory) warblers, and several thrushes and wrens.

    Of course those species won’t go extinct if Hayden Island is turned into another Port of Portland extravaganza (employing 38 new longshore workers). But it’s pretty cold-hearted of you to write those birds off because they might be involved in an airliner strike. In any case, these little birds would get completely chewed up in the compressor or bounce off the plane if they hit anywhere else.

    The geese which would be an airplane strike problem are mostly on Sauvie Island; they need open wetlands, not thick cottonwood stands.

  33. Douglas K.

    You can’t build the full bi-directional bridge and keep the existing bridges operating. The existing roadway boundaries north of Fifth Street in Vancouver mean that the bend to meet the new bridge will “seal off” the ability to access the old bridges. In fact, that’s going to be a big engineering hassle during construction. There will be some pretty big elevation changes required to move from the new higher roadbed down to the existing bridge decks.

    Now you could build a new southbound-only bridge and keep the existing bridges for northbound traffic. That would work because there would be no need to change elevation for the northbound roadway.

  34. Anandakos says: “The only people who change to the 4 or 44 at Delta Park/Vanport are poor people. The middle class folks all ride the expresses and will continue to do so as long as C-Tran provides them. Believe me, C-Tran will definitely provide them regardless of any Yellow Line developments. There are enough express “choice” riders in the county to put a fire under the County Council’s bums.”

    I work SE Portland and live near Clark. When I take transit, I ride the C-Tran 105 as long as I go in stupid early (5:45) so I can get back without having to crawl through Portland. The C-Tran Express buses are not only comfortable but peaceful and civilized. When my TM-to-105 connection gets missed, I reluctantly take Yellow to Delta and then the 4 home. Recently, it took me 2hours and 20 minutes to get home. Some days, the 4 is most uncivilized. I wouldn’t state folks that use MAX and C-tran 4 or 44 are necessarily poor; it’s a diverse crowd. I would say though, most Express riders are willing to pay the extra fare for the peace and padded, reclining seat.

    The problem in the future for the Express service once a bridge is built will be what many of you have discussed over the years and that’s the added traffic that will clog the Rose Quarter and the Fremont. The decision to put LRT on Interstate pretty much forces rapid transit into Vanc to be LRT. I gag at the thought of having to use that to downtown Portland. I will probably do daily what I do when I drive; go 10 miles further and go via 205.

    The other objection I have to LRT in Vanc is it’s presence at grade. After all the City has done to try to make downtown more attractive as a community living room, having LRT on Washington & Broadway is awful. It should be subterranean.

  35. I don’t think the density of Vancouver would warrant the cost of tunnels. What is wrong with surface-running LRT, anyway? It is the slower alternative, but it saves a lot of money, and is more attractive to riders. You can’t spend time in Portland without realizing MAX is there.

  36. You can’t build the full bi-directional bridge and keep the existing bridges operating. The existing roadway boundaries north of Fifth Street in Vancouver mean that the bend to meet the new bridge will “seal off” the ability to access the old bridges.

    I’m afraid I don’t follow. This project works in three dimensions. The new bridge will be higher than the old one and there will need to be a new approach from the existing freeway. I just don’t see why Washington and Main can’t continue underneath the new bridge ramp to meet the old freeway just north of the railroad, and on to the bridge from there.

    If the old bridge is used for arterial traffic, it can have traffic lights and sharp bends and intersections on the approach. And light rail could certainly go underneath the freeway if needed, just like the Green Line passes underneath I-205 near Division or the Blue Line goes under 26 at Sunset.

  37. Today, the Washington state legislative committee overseeing the CRC met, and was shown this presentation, in which possible solutions to the river clearance problem were discussed.

    Removal of the lower deck (including LRT and the pedestrian/bikeway) was not discussed.

    Adding a lift span–in other words, building the CRC as a drawbridge–is a potential solution.

    Whether both decks would be raised in such a scenario, or just the lower deck raised under the upper one, was not made clear.

    But if we’re just gonna build another drawbridge…. you can finish that question, I’m sure.

  38. How could a structure that is largely concrete, such as the CRC design, outperform metal bridges in a larger earthquake, as it is touted to do? Concrete, no matter how much rebar you put in it, is fragile by nature. And if you are going to use that much steel to reinforce it, why not just go to an all steel understructure? The science of seismic isolation has come a long ways and I would think that with pendulum bearings and a segmented and semi-flexible roadway, a metal bridge would withstand whatever can come our way in this region.

    A heavy concrete structure, which is also probably more labor intensive to build, would have more inertial force on it, especially in a prolonged rolling ground motion. And the longer the duration I think the greater chance of something snapping and compromising the structures safety enough to require a prolonged closure. I have a lot more faith in steel.

    The better high rise buildings use steel framework—as compared to the concrete-piling and concrete-floor method of a residential tower.

    So if seismic safety factors in as an issue in advancing the CRC project—why replace a metal structure with a concrete one? Sure, IN THEORY, it’s rated for Richter 9. But nobody really knows what will happen to the ground in a Richter 9. Could be a lot more than local liquefaction. In the Alaska ’64 the ground collapsed or buckled in some places

  39. “The western section of Hayden Island is one of the three last large cottonwood stands on the lower Columbia. The other two are the island bisected by I-205 and the one just to the east.”

    I was wondering where that white fluffy stuff you almost can’t avoid inhaling on the Springwater Trail comes from. I guess it’s not cottonwood trees? And there are probably a dozen large cottonwood Islands and stands further down the Columbia.

  40. The single-deck CRC design for the southbound span includes extra width on west side for LRT/BRT +ped/bikeway.

    Installing these LRT/BRT lanes should NOT be rejected because they become an emergency vehicle access corridor in worst accident scenario. Why install these lanes below deck where they could not save lives? Answer: Whut Engneer Scot sayd.

    Once again, Port of Portland opposition to Concept #1 ‘Off-island Access’ was based on their proposed oval-track facility. Other public agencies and various organizations reject the oval-track facility as a major restriction of the BNSF Main Line crossing.

    Therefore, Port rejection of Concept #1 was based on faulty grounds. The study of a single-deck Southbound-Only span combined with Concept #1 has NOT been conducted. It’s annoying how so many Portland-Transport regulars REFUSE to consider the significant advantages/benefits of Concept #1.

  41. Al, people are buying houses in Centralia to commute to their jobs at Nike and Intel in Washington County. Developers are building housing developments in Longview. Washingtonians are salivating at 100+ mile commutes into Portland once the bridge is finished.

    Currently, few will do it because of the congestion trying to get over the bridge and through downtown Portland causes that length of commute to take too long for most people.

  42. That said, if I lived in Longview and wanted to commute to Washington County, I’d probably cross the Lewis and Clark bridge and come down US30 to Cornelius Pass, and avoid Vancouver and Portland altogether….

  43. Some people already do that. Fine, but that should not drive public policy. The CRC needs to be trimmed down…fewer lanes (4 including 1 toll-free HOV lane each way), no new interchanges… all paid for with tolls, $5 inbound only. And Clark county residents need to have the real option that LRT and excellent bike/ped facilities offer. We will see many new bike and transit riders who opt out of their cars for their commute.

  44. ” The CRC needs to be trimmed down.”

    I guess that would reduce the employment creation from 30,000 jobs to 20,000—or something like that.

    ” all paid for with tolls, $5 inbound only”
    So, even though Washington is an equal partner (with more population, yet) they don’t get to charge a toll for entering their turf? They do have two out of the four signatory applicants, as I recall.

    ” And Clark county residents need to have the real option that LRT and excellent bike/ped facilities offer. We will see many new bike and transit riders who opt out of their cars for their commute.”

    Or they could have the option to have an express bus system (comparable to Everett, WA) and not be burdened with excessive taxes for generations to come.

  45. Ron–only tolling one direction of a bridge is a common cost-saving measure, which assumes that most trips are bidirectional. Revenue from such a toll would be shared between Washington and Oregon state, as though an equal toll of half the amount were charged in each direction.

    The same arrangement is found in the Bay Area bridges. Generally, you pay entering San Francisco or leaving Oakland; all the cross-bay bridges are tolled westbound, the Golden Gate is tolled southbound, and the bridges across the Siusun Bay are tolled northbound. Don’t ask me why, that’s just how it is. Oaklanders of course don’t like that tolling scheme, but there you have it.

    Washington also has a bit stricter laws about when and where tolls may be levied on highways than Oregon does.

    Of course, that might cause a morning shift of traffic to the Glenn Jackson (I-205) bridge, but without the corresponding shift in the evening, if tolls are only collected inbound.

  46. Ron–only tolling one direction of a bridge is a common cost-saving measure, which assumes that most trips are bidirectional

    Tacoma Narrows Bridge only tolls southbound trips into Tacoma. Northbound traffic does not have a toll booth.

    Washington also has a bit stricter laws about when and where tolls may be levied on highways than Oregon does.

    Yet Washington has more toll facilities than Oregon? (ODOT does not currently have a single toll facility anywhere. The only toll crossings of the Columbia River are bridges owned by port authorities or a county owned ferry.)

    You can’t force Clark County to run buses only to Jantzen Beach. I-5 is a public highway and C-Tran has had an established presence on the Portland Transit Mall for nearly fifteen years.

    Sure you can. What authority does C-Tran have in operating vehicles in Oregon state? That authority can be eliminated. Just because it’s a “public highway” doesn’t mean you have a right to operate any vehicle at any time on it. Interstate commercial vehicles generally must be registered, and thus C-Tran buses have an exemption in Oregon law (or administrative rule) that grants them a privilege to operate outside of normal interstate trucking rules. Just as while most states grant me a privilege to operate my Oregon plated and titled vehicle in another state, that privilege is only good for 30 days before I am required to re-register the vehicle in that state.

    Of course, C-Tran buses operating in Oregon provides benefits to Oregonians (less traffic) so it would be foolish stop the buses; as a TriMet district resident I would find it stupid and foolish to tie up district resources on Vancouver who does not pay into TriMet’s tax base.

    Why does Portland have any say?

    Exactly. Unless there are city permitting issues involved, local agencies should have no need to get involved. In this case there is no need for the City to be involved and certainly not to the respect that the City has been given wild powers to dictate the design of the bridge, the “green” and “art” features, etc. This isn’t I-505 removing a swath of six blocks wide by 10 miles. This is a bridge replacement.

    Should it not be argued that if these questionable adverse reactions be regulated, that there is an implied responsibility on all parties to review and manage the loss of bus service for each light rail line? And thus, Sherwood, who will be directly impacted by TriMet’s service cuts, should have a “veto” on Milwaukie’s MAX line or the Eastside Streetcar Loop, because TriMet is using Sherwood funding to reduce bus service to apply it to other areas? Should Forest Grove be able to veto an Oregon City transit project or vice-versa?

  47. Me: Washington also has a bit stricter laws about when and where tolls may be levied on highways than Oregon does.

    EH: Yet Washington has more toll facilities than Oregon? (ODOT does not currently have a single toll facility anywhere. The only toll crossings of the Columbia River are bridges owned by port authorities or a county owned ferry.)

    Interesting, isn’t it? Tolls have been discussed in regard to various proposed highways in Oregon (attempts to toll the proposed Pinot-Casino Freeway and a parallel stretch of OR99W ran into significant opposition); but most of the toll bridges once operated by Oregon are no longer tolled, as the construction bonds have been paid off. I still remember a toll to cross the Astoria-Megler Bridge; now it’s free.

    Washington State has been busy building all manner of new freeway bridges in the Puget Sound area, where there’s a lot more water to cross. (And the state of Washington seems to have issues with bridges falling down, sinking, or otherwise failing in spectacular fashion); many of these new facilities are toll-financed, totally or partially.

  48. The talk of unidirectional tolling and traffic shifts reminds me of those days of yore, back in the mid-to-late 90’s, when I lived in NJ and would often visit friends out on Long Island.

    It didn’t take long to realize that, from Newark, I could save about the price of two packs of cigarettes (which, incidentally, is exactly what I was smoking per day at that time, back when I did that stuff!) in 1996-ish rates (cigarettes and tolls), by going out to Long Island via the Goethals into Staten Island and the Verrazano into Brooklyn, then returning through Manhattan via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel ($3.50 westbound, vs. $7 westbound at the Verrazano) and back into NJ via the Lincoln or the Hudson Tunnels (no toll NJ-bound).

    The Hudson River crossings were $4 back then, eastbound (into NY), no toll westbound; while the East River crossings (intercity / interstate, from Manhattan into the boroughs, or vice versa) were $3.50 each way. Except for the Verrazano, which was the exception and didn’t toll from Staten Island into Brooklyn, for some reason. They only tolled $7 ($3.50 X 2) heading back into Staten Island from Brooklyn.

    Later, I also often went out to Brooklyn and Nassau for work, sometimes five days a week, and my bosses encouraged this so-called ‘cost-saving’ measure. And even though in the end they probably paid me in overtime more for sitting in extra traffic in Midtown Manhattan in rush hour (34th Avenue in those days, before anyone in City Hall ever seriously considered congestion pricing, back when gas sometimes dipped below 90 cents a gallon and never topped the $1.10’s for long, pretty much summed up our general national attitude in the 90’s for me) than they would have paid for the ‘extra’ toll and the quicker route back to the lab in NJ through Staten Island, they seemed to hate reimbursing me for tolls more than they hated just paying me overtime. The old ‘pennywise, pound foolish’ thing comes to mind, but maybe my boss in those days just really hated ‘big government.’ ;)

    Anyway. Of course I wasn’t complaining about that set-up at the time.

    But yeah, gas back then was never expensive enough to discourage ‘choices’ like that, and never will be again. So I wonder if that will come into play there in whether or not there will be potential patterns of shifting traffic onto the Glenn Jackson? Perhaps that could still work out economically for hybrids, but Prius drivers dodging tolls seems kinda… hypocritical on the ‘values’ thing? Maybe?

  49. Back in the early 60’s it was 20 cents to cross the Interstate Bridge…one could throw two dimes into the basket without even stopping! That was a one way toll. Since then, managers of toll bridges figured out that its a wash to collect a two-way toll in just once direction, saving alot of time and collection cost. Prices for fuel have gone up since those days by better than a factor of 10, from about 30 cents/gal to almost $4. So a $5 two way toll, collected southbound, is about the same as what was collected in 1962 corrected for inflation. We should start collecting it today and put the $ in an escrow fund for whatever gets built…probably a slimmed down bridge project with LRT.

  50. Oops, correction in the earlier post, btw – that would be the Holland Tunnel, of course. Not the “Hudson.”

    I left NJ long ago, and even though in the end (after years in Oregon and California) I still wound up right back just a few blocks away from that state here in Kensington, the River Wards of Philadelphia, I still managed to block out most of that period of my life… ;-P

    Agree on the slimmed-down bridge with LRT. I didn’t follow it as closely as I otherwise would have, as last year I was busily involved with my relocation back East from Portland, but the reconstruction of the Tappan Zee (north of NYC, another bridge I used to use often) had similar issues recently. As for me, I love watching PATCO trains cross the Ben Franklin between Philadelphia and Camden whenever I’m sitting under it. And I wonder, isn’t this the way it should ben everywhere?

  51. Well, public image notwithstanding, a great many Prius owners bought the cars with because of their established “values” of penny-pinching (over the long term), rather than coming from a purely “green” perspective. Just check out some of the non-car-related forums on PriusChat and on some threads you may wonder if you’ve stumbled upon an Americans for Prosperity rally. Strange bedfellows, and all that. :-)

    But how many people are currently taking I-5 to destinations where the combination of I-205 all the way or (presumably) in combination with peak-direction I-84 is going to make it at least feel worth the trip? I don’t doubt it will be some small percentage, but will it be enough to matter for toll revenue overall?

  52. Good point, Bob. Must admit I never really considered that Prius thing, having gotten rid of my last car (a 2000 Mitsubishi Mirage, which I kept in pristine shape and at peak running condition, until an unlicensed and uninsured driver smashed into me while I was sitting at a red light in Central New Jersey almost a decade ago, and both me and the thing were never quite the same again) generally before they even became widely available here. I’ve lived car-free all over the country (from NJ to Portland to Oakland to Portland again to Philadelphia) ever since. :)

    As for the toll thing. For the scenario I imagine above, it would obviously mostly be people who live in the triangle there between Salmon Creek, downtown Vancouver and Fisher’s Landing, and who work in downtown Portland or the Lloyd District.

    Those who live in the above area, and work in the Silicon Forest, who may combine off-peak hours coming into the office two or three times a week, with telecommuting, would probably be the wild card here. Such a population could still induce sprawl, even if their breadwinners aren’t necessarily avoiding tolls, when I think about it?

  53. ” We should start collecting it today and put the $ in an escrow fund for whatever gets built…probably a slimmed down bridge project with LRT.”

    Except Congress just passed federal policy against that. Next dream, please.

  54. That’s probably the dumbest thing ever. Basically they’re reducing the ability to intelligently save money for projects. Investing in public infrastructure should be based on savings not on bonding. Just because Americans don’t know how to save money doesn’t mean our government shouldn’t. This money could be borrowed against for other projects and interest could be collected

  55. “Well, public image notwithstanding, a great many Prius owners bought the cars with because of their established “values” of penny-pinching (over the long term), rather than coming from a purely “green” perspective.”

    Jeez, and I thought it was a mark of enlightenment, solidarity and respect to to buy foreign cars….. no matter how bad it hurts the United Auto Workers. :)

  56. Jeez, and I thought it was a mark of enlightenment, solidarity and respect to to buy foreign cars….. no matter how bad it hurts the United Auto Workers. :)

    Who on earth, of any political persuasion, ever said that?

    In any case, there are indeed popular American-manufactured hybrid cars. Ford has been particularly successful. (Perhaps because early-on they engaged in a patent cross-licensing agreement with Toyota?).

    But so far, nobody has marketed a vehicle in the U.S. in the mid-size class with higher MPG than Toyota.

    “Free Market” rulez, and all that, right?

    To bring this back to the topic: Can anyone show whether if everyone who now solo-commutes over the I-5 bridges were to solo-commute over the proposed CRC in a Toyota Prius, would carbon emissions improve region-wide to a point where electrified transit (BRT or rail) could not compete?

  57. I don’t know how to address that question, Bob, but I can sure state that even if they could… well, I wouldn’t want to live in such a world. Give me my walkable rowhouse blocks and my elevated rapid transit any day over that.

  58. “But so far, nobody has marketed a vehicle in the U.S. in the mid-size class with higher MPG than Toyota.”

    In the past decade Toyota’s mid-sized offerings have been beaten at MPG in various years by models from Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen.

    It varies year to year, and yes Toyota does well every year – but make no mistake, there are plenty of high mileage vehicles that are not Toyota.

    As of late Ford has been a serious contender as well. Once we get in to “plug-in” hybrids the game changes again, as both Ford and Chevy will have vehicles with better MPG than Toyota.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled CRC discussion.

  59. “But so far, nobody has marketed a vehicle in the U.S. in the mid-size class with higher MPG than Toyota”

    Beating a dead horse and all, but I meant to say “than the Toyota Prius”, to be accurate. Otherwise, you are correct, at various stages in time there have been other mfrs winning the top MPG spot.

  60. re who uses the I-5 bridge, the Governors I-5 TF got data that clearly shows a majority of Clark county commuters travel to the Columbia Corridor, Swan Island, etc. in N & NE Portland, not downtown. Fewer still go to Wash county. A free HOV lane on any new structure will help keep a free I-205 from bogging down.
    re tolls now…Congress has been know to pass special exceptions, though I admit this would be a long shot. Its what WSDOT is doing for the new Lake Wash bridge.

  61. ” Otherwise, you are correct, at various stages in time there have been other mfrs winning the top MPG spot.”
    The Ford Fiesta sold around the world, but so far not in the US, is reputed to get 70 mpg US gal. with its diesel engine (1.6 I think). Ford also has a three cylinder 1.0 liter, and they have hybrid technology as well. So when they combine them, look out. The personal auto is far from dead, peak oil will not occur, because other technologies will make petroleum relatively obsolete; coal fired power plants may get a radical CO2 reduction plan. As I have mentioned several times Green Car Congress has all of this covered. Do you ever go there and educate yourselves?

    GCC is also covering the latest in mass transit technology, so forget your lumbering MAX trains with the overhead catenary wires and the noisy wheels and the clickety clack ride and the expensive. limited use bridges, too. Hopefully we will not plunge further into debt to the Chinese and also import them to do our projects, as they are doing in SF-Oakland …….before things get straightened out.

    And the UAW would also appreciate it if you buy US brand cars made in the States. It’s hard to believe that liberals really care much when you see them driving imported cars costing up to $100,000 and meanwhile folks in Detroit can barely survive into the next week. It’s shameless hypocrisy.

  62. So you should pay for an inferior product purely because it is made by someone that lives in the same country you do? Maybe these wealthy liberals are more socially connected to the cultures of western Europe and Japan than they are with Michigan. Borders are just lines on a map. You need to broaden your perspective.

  63. Chris I, I hope you can sell your ideas at a UAW local meeting…..

    As far as broadening MY perspective I have frequently put links on here to the United Nations World Urban Forum, which I began tracking (attended in 2006) since going to the United Nations State of the World Forum in 2000. In fact the sixth WUF is set to begin next week in Naples, Italy. http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=672

    Wish I were going. Here is the main page for the UN’s Center for Human Settlements/Habitat program:
    http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=9

    In previous WUF’s there have been some online discussions of urban issues, including transportation, preceding the real-world Forum.

    No back to the points you raised about US made quality. Which automobile would be cheaper to use and maintain in the long run—-especially after your monster-indebtedness going to German or Japanese shareholders is paid off? I bet A US auto would be far cheaper to get parts for, on the average. And a car that has cheap parts can be resuscitated/recycled far easier than the spendy, exotic models.

    I’ve been looking at used Buick Rendesvous—I bet they are cheaper than the Land Rover, BMW, Audi SUV types. How many foreign made cars do you see at Car collector shows? And Cubans seem to do pretty well with their 1950’s US made cars, thank you. But to broaden my perspective ( I have owned recycled Volvos and now, a Saab, which was rebuilt from a total with local, US labor) perhaps investing an old VW beetle ragtop wouldn’t be such a bad idea :)

  64. “Cheap” does not equate to “quality.” Who cares what replacement parts cost if the car won’t need them very often?

    The American auto industry spent decades in decline because they weren’t willing to build better cars that were competitive in the market with cars from Europe and Japan. If both an American company and a Japanese company build the car I want, I’ll buy American. But if the car I want is manufactured only be a Japanese company … well, I’ll take my business to them.

  65. “”Cheap” does not equate to “quality.””

    What? You sidestepped the point. Show me the car that has the lowest long term operating costs. Cars like Ford Focus or Toyotoa Corolla, Honda, probably. Then tell me why enlightened, supposedly politically savvy and correct citizens would instead buy a vehicle that has several times the operating cost? And further would be far too costly to restore; so therefore represents a waste of value, not a preservation of it.

    Maybe so their other conspicuous “quality” foreign objects will seem more consistent? I give.

    There’s no logical reason for it; just conformity to a herd mentality that in effect destroys American industry. But sidestepping the point seems to be the norm in passive-aggressive Portland.

  66. No, YOU sidestepped the point. Chris I made a point about product quality, you changed the subject to operating and maintenance costs. Not everyone uses “money” as their first, last and only yardstick when it comes to the decisions they make in their lives.

  67. @ChrisI, and your point is? I still am looking for a logical answer as to why so many people in Portland buy expensive foreign cars, when people in Detroit and other upper Midwest cities are living in poverty.

    “Quality” is very subjective. Much more than cost per mile. I call BS on you due to some political indignation you seem to have.

  68. You can’t build this without light rail,If you don’t implement light rail what you’ll get is a clogged bridge with busses on it. Which is what we have now. Plus, I believe that C-Tran’s brt plan has tooken into consideration eventually there will be light rail around the routes beginning in downtown.

    It’s just getting more absurd. We shoulda put the yellow line there by itself there in 2001. I would bet 10 bucks if you did, there wouldn’t be gridlock like we have today on that bridge everyday around 5.

  69. People don’t care about the workers that produce the products that they buy. If you are expecting people to be charitable in this sense, then we would buy everything from companies that produce in 3rd world countries. The conditions that workers face in China are much worse than those faced by workers in Detroit. Should we all buy Chinese cars?

  70. “People don’t care about the workers that produce the products that they buy. If you are expecting people to be charitable in this sense, then we would buy everything from companies that produce in 3rd world countries. The conditions that workers face in China are much worse than those faced by workers in Detroit. Should we all buy Chinese cars?”

    Let’s not go there, Chris.

  71. Lenny,

    “We should start collecting it today”. YES! As a variable time of day toll. High at the commute hour and low other times, because most of the time there’s no need to limit congestion.

    Use some of the revenue to fund the C-Tran expresses to go to more destinations.

    And “yes”, I live in Clark County and work out in the tech corridor. A few days a month when there’s an early meeting I do drive, but mostly I take C-Tran then Max and walk to my building.

    It’s only about twenty to twenty-five (relaxing) minutes longer in the morning, but in the evening if I have to work late to finish a body of work an d the expresses have quit running, it take a long time to get home.

    The primary benefit for me is that I don’t have to be abused by all of you selfish drivers.

  72. Lenny and Others,

    P.S. I know that the law forbids what I want to do, but it doesn’t mean it’s not the best thing.

Leave a Reply to Allan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *