Online Petition Against CRC

As we’ve discussed, this is the legislative session in which the Columbia River Crossing will either get a commitment for the local share of funding, or will likely die for the lack of it. is now hosting a petition to urge Oregon legislators to deny that funding and promote the “Common Sense Alternative.”


43 Responses to Online Petition Against CRC

  1. chrisw443
    January 15, 2013 at 12:48 am Link

    If we could expand max to vancouver, and a bus only lane alot of peoples commute would be much easier…. Not 5 separate bridges.

  2. chrisw443
    January 15, 2013 at 12:52 am Link

    If we could expand max to vancouver, and a bus only lane alot of peoples commute would be much easier…. Not 5 separate bridges.

  3. Chris I
    January 15, 2013 at 7:04 am Link

    You only need two more bridges to have a dedicated lane for MAX and Bus lines, and those are the last two bridges included in the CSA. They would also provide local access for Hayden Island, allowing elimination of the interchange there, which would help traffic on I-5.

  4. hroðberacht
    January 15, 2013 at 10:53 am Link

    As much as I would like to see the CRC dead and buried with a stake through its heart… this petition is just, unfortunately, really poorly written.

  5. Allan
    January 15, 2013 at 11:05 am Link

    I totally agree that it is poorly written. Perhaps an update to the text is possible? I signed it anyways

  6. Aaron Hall
    January 15, 2013 at 12:44 pm Link

    I guess I’m probably the only person on this site that thinks the new 10-lane bridge is a GOOD idea. My only problem with it is the demolition of the existing perfectly stable, perfectly functional bridge. This could, and should, be used as a local access bridge, like the Steele or the Hawthorne. A new lift span just needs to be added to the center of the bridge, and the old lift decommissioned. That would probably be cheaper than demolishing the entire bridge.

    They could even get rid of the entire lower deck of the new bridge altogether and move the transit and bike/ped modes to the old bridge (a much easier climb for those modes) and still have room for local access autos as well. That would alleviate the Coast Guard’s clearance issues, plus save hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

  7. Ron Swaren
    January 15, 2013 at 3:01 pm Link

    Some big problems with the CSA.
    1. Piers for lift mechanism would be placed in the navigation channel. Columbia nav. channel is narrow and has fast currents in the winter and spring. I think the longterm policy should be less intrusions in the channel.
    2.Also, the I-5 Bridges and the CRC (apparently) don’t have fenders—-sacrificial bulwarks of timbers, intended to prevent damage, but putting these anywhere would make the navigation channel even skinnier. Fenders are recommended for bridge piers in heavily navigated channels and in the Bay area proved useful about a week ago, when a ship hit one of the piers.
    3.. Vancouver would still have significant changes in downtown, and people would have to still get to the station at the north end of the CSA. We already have a rail line (AMTRAK)that goes way north of Vancouver, why not use it, instead.

    I think the local bridge connection to Hayden Island, though, is a good idea, and I guess as long as they are tearing out lots of stuff there, there could be a major station linking a Clark County bus network to Portland light rail. The local bridge also would ease a lot of the weaving induced congestion in that vicinity, allowing traffic to access N. Portland points w/o entering I-5.

    There is interest in the RR bridge and improvements. A lift span, though, should be wide enough to free the nav. channel.

  8. Dan
    January 16, 2013 at 4:50 am Link

    In the metro area there are 14 bridges across the Willamette, only 2 across the Columbia. We need more bridges, not an unaffordable remodel job of an existing bridge. The CRC plan was hatched almost 10 years ago before the big recession when money was no object. The wastefull spending needs to end now.

  9. Ron Swaren
    January 16, 2013 at 10:23 am Link

    Better get every available person to call Tina Kotek’s office. She has been one of the biggest CRC supporters around, wants to make a good impression on Kitzhaber, and has, as House Speaker, lots of power to advance bills.


    Some of the CRC opponents in the OR legislature got voted out, so like I said before, now it is going to be even tougher, so get your neighbor, your friend, your dog, etc, to call.

  10. Spencer Boomhower
    January 16, 2013 at 11:33 am Link

    It really seems like the CRC, if built, will demand a massive freeway expansion from the Columbia River to the Willamette River. It’s generally acknowledged that the Rose Quarter couldn’t handle the extra load the CRC will throw at it and will have to be expanded if the CRC is built. But if you look at a typical day’s traffic on Google traffic maps: the big, red, nasty slowdown is centered smack-dab in between the CRC project area and the Rose Quarter. How could that not lead to a push for a whole stretch of freeway widening from the Rose Quarter and north to the crossing?

    I would think that the prospect of this kind of expansion would be of interest to the North Portland neighborhoods along that corridor. And that they might have something to say about it to Rep. Kotek.

    From the little I’ve seen, Kotek’s push for the CRC seems to be all about freight. A year or two back there was a NE Portland neighborhood gathering at which Joe Cortright gave one of his epic teardowns of the CRC’s financing, alongside compelling testimony from neighbors concerned about more freeway traffic being crammed into their back yard. Then Rep. Kotek got up after to speak for a moment. A fiend of mine described it well: in the face of all that seemingly devastating evidence as to why the CRC is a bad idea, she basically replied: freight. If you look at her district map you can see why that might be the sector that most has her ear. Hopefully the residents in that district can pull together a voice loud enough to match that of their more industrial neighbors.

  11. Lenny Anderson
    January 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm Link

    Tina should know that the obstacle to moving freight is too many commuters alone in their cars. Its true on Swan Island and on I-5. The obvious, low cost solutions follows: give those commuters from Clark county real options to driving in alone to jobs in N/NE Portland. She needs to be reminded of this yet again!

  12. Chris I
    January 16, 2013 at 1:49 pm Link

    North Portland residents should be very afraid of the CRC. If they do go through with it, there won’t be enough capacity through north Portland. Commuters will filter onto surface streets, creating further gridlock on Williams, Vancouver, Interstate, and MLK. The current CRC is a bottleneck, and that is a good thing.

  13. EngineerScotty
    January 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm Link

    If the concern is freight, build some truck lanes.

  14. EngineerScotty
    January 16, 2013 at 2:20 pm Link

    If the concern is freight, build some truck lanes.

  15. al m
    January 16, 2013 at 8:21 pm Link

    Central planning with the intent to keep people from using the mode of transportation they prefer (cars) is undemocratic.
    It’s authoritarian fascism.

  16. Chris I
    January 16, 2013 at 8:48 pm Link

    The democratic process at the local level has elected officials to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. If the voters do not like the decisions, they will elect new representatives.

    If you don’t like their choices, you can always move to a place where planners do exclusively favor cars in their spending decisions.

  17. Douglas K
    January 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm Link

    Congestion pricing would help open space on the road for better freight movement during peak hours. It can be done almost overnight and won’t cost taxpayers a thing. Use part of the money raised to enhance rush-hour express bus service.

  18. JHB
    January 16, 2013 at 9:56 pm Link

    Can a mod remove Al’s comment about facism? It’s inappropriate and offensive hyperbole. Please remove this post at the same time.

  19. Chris Smith
    January 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm Link

    It may be offensive, but since it’s not directed at any particular individual, I’m going to let it stand.

    But I would agree it does not advance the discussion and would ask Al to be a little less hyperbolic.

  20. al m
    January 16, 2013 at 10:45 pm Link

    I believe that, what can I say.
    The majority of people want to use their cars and the government is thwarting their will, which is standard procedure for our government these days.

    You guys here are your own form of fascism.

    Somebody makes a comment that you don’t like and its
    love it or leave it or please remove that comment

    So much for open dialog.
    Thank god Chris didn’t buy into that BS

  21. Bob R.
    January 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm Link

    The majority of people want to use their cars and the government is thwarting their will

    Oh, Al, how cute that you want to cry “fascism” when you of all people should know that the auto-culture of today is built on the back of massive, massive government subsidies, and redlining of the most overt racist nature.

    You guys here are your own form of fascism.

    A private blog with private rules that only asks for politeness == “fascism” in your book. I’ll leave that one for history to judge.

    Somebody makes a comment that you don’t like and its love it or leave it or please remove that comment So much for open dialog.

    Somebody doesn’t like your hyperbolic comment and suddenly you whine, whine, whine. Geez, Al, the Al I used to remember had a spine.

    We do have rules here, and you know about the rules, and you have been previously asked on multiple occasions to tone it down, and here you go again…

    Chris was being magnanimous. I’m being real. Drop the crybaby “fascist” talk. It’s not accurate, it’s counterproductive, and it’s not allowed here, and you know it.

  22. al m
    January 16, 2013 at 11:30 pm Link
  23. al m
    January 16, 2013 at 11:34 pm Link

    I will not respond to Bob R’s childish name calling/tantrum

    Maybe you should follow the rules you love to enforce on everyone else Bob

  24. al m
    January 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm Link

    Just ban me like you did five years ago if you are such wimps and can’t stand ‘rhetoric’.

  25. al m
    January 17, 2013 at 12:01 am Link

    Let me add one more thing here Bob, ever since I have been a participant here you have acted like a tyrant exercising your moderator duties. Scott does not behave as you do and Chris has never behaved as you do!

  26. Aaron Hall
    January 17, 2013 at 1:59 am Link

    *sigh* …and another thread devolves into al-blivion. Very unfortunate.

  27. Dan
    January 17, 2013 at 6:09 am Link

    In the metro area there are 14 bridges across the Willamette, only 2 across the Columbia. We need more bridges, not an expensive remodel job of an existing bridge. The CRC plan was hatched almost 10 years ago before the big recession when money was no object. The wasteful spending needs to end now.

  28. Chris I
    January 17, 2013 at 6:54 am Link


    You need to sober up and calm down.

  29. JHB
    January 17, 2013 at 7:29 am Link

    I love this sight for the factual and high-minded debate. Hyperbolic rhetoric and insane rants are just … boring and distracting. OregonLive has plenty of that if that’s your thing. I love that this blog is generally a rare refuge where reason and manners triumph over ranting.

    As someone who is a primarily a lurker, thank you to everyone who drives the dialogue in the fantastic and intelligent direction that is most prevalent here. Also Mods, I really appreciate the effort to keep the conversation focused and civil.

  30. Ron Swaren
    January 17, 2013 at 9:12 am Link

    The Third Bridge idea is an all-round better idea.

    1. TOD can still happpen with it, but with the 3rd bridge it would tend to follow natural, logical markets that already exist. Vancouver wants to develop high density on its waterfront property south of the RR berm. This will likely spill out north and west to medium density development because: Cheap land in NW DT VAncouver is close to AMTRAK; other land has views of Vancouver Lake or Columbia River and will tend to multi units.
    2. Nearly a square mile of brownfield’s in the Terminal 6 Bybee Lakes area could become industries. Look at an aerial view; there are a large number of vacant properties outside of the Lakes area.. This could be developed into jobs and people could bicycle over the third bridge or use mass transit.
    3. It can connect to Hwy 30.Hwy 30 traffic can avoid St. John’s bridge, Lombard, Delta Park area of I-5. Express buses can be used on Hwy 30–from St Helens to Scappoose to Linnton and to NW and downtown Portland. Even if Columbia County remains in single family, the only route to Portland is still Hwy 30. But more likely is that waterfront parcels from Linnton to St Helens will trend towards multi units. This already happened in ST Helens with a rowhouse project above the docks.
    4. NW Front Ave will probably end up with condos in the long run. The reason: river views. For transportation this can be part of a St. Helens Portland express bus transit service.
    5. The third bridge route can include a bicycle trail and connect to the upcoming Metro West trail. It could have a number of express bus routes combining into it such as: Mill and Fourth Plain Bvs and Hwy 500 in Washington, Columbia Bv, Hwy 30, Front Ave and I-405 in Oregon. A jog over to Cornelius Pass road would provide access all the way to US Hwy 26. There are various connection scenarios possible.
    6. Our double arch design (like two smaller Fremont bridges) would be seismically strong, free the navigation channel of intrusions, and include a large pier in the middle that could have recreational access, museum/shops, boat dock, etc.
    7. The AMTRAK line could have local passenger transit in the future with minor improvements. View areas even as far out as Ridgfield will likely develop into higher density housing and are along the AMTRAK line.

    There can be lots of transit oriented development in the region in upcoming decades. But it can follow ordinary market trends and use (mostly)existing highway structure, rather than be a sweeping, METRO controlled strategy.

    So get out and stop the CRC so we can have an intelligent discussion of future transportation goals.

  31. Douglas K
    January 17, 2013 at 9:37 am Link

    I prefer the CSA over Third Bridge. But CSA v. Third Bridge is the discussion we SHOULD have been having all along, instead of activists fighting the proposal that does the least, costs the most, and likely creates more problems than it solves.

  32. EngineerScotty
    January 17, 2013 at 10:51 am Link

    To those being uncivil (and there’s more than one of you): knock it off. Since several of you have gotten your licks in, I’m not moderating any of the inflammatory comments above this post; I won’t be so nice for those following.

    To address the “fascism” remark specifically–I seem to recall having this discussion a couple years back after (former) Congresswoman Giffords (and a few others) were shot down in Arizona. Such labels (along with calling things “communism” or “tyranny”) are generally inappropriate in discussions on urban transport and planning.

    More specifically, “Central planning with the intent to keep people from using the mode of transportation they prefer (cars)” is no more or less fascism than “central planning with the intent to keep people from using the mode of transportation they prefer (bus)”; assuming that what is actually being discussed is which modes get what share of resources. As Bob R. notes, we’ve had decades of the latter form of central planning, in the form of zoning requirements limiting density, planning laws requiring acres of free parking everywhere, and a failure to adequately fund other forms of transportation for a good long time. Motorists who think that any minute shift of funding (or re-purposing of existing pavement) from roads to bikes/transit constitutes a “war on cars” are encouraged to read this article.

    No jackbooted thugs are going to come and take away your car at gunpoint; nor force you out of your McMansion into a 600 square ft SoWa loft. Have some perspective, folks.

  33. Ron Swaren
    January 17, 2013 at 10:59 am Link

    Scotty, you said that…….

  34. EngineerScotty
    January 17, 2013 at 11:23 am Link

    For some reason, the “duplicate posts” issue that Movable Type has been having of late seems to like my posts especially. (I’m not hitting “reload”, honest…)

  35. Ron Swaren
    January 17, 2013 at 11:33 am Link

    Sure…….They always say that…

    Anyway, better start pestering Tina. I don’t know exactly how a Speaker advances bills, but they do.

  36. Cameron Johnson
    January 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm Link

    You know Bob, as a professional moderator myself, if I had behaved any way like you did, the teens and preteens in the Site I used to run would have my head on a platter. I don’t think that if you really dislike someone this much you should ‘sink to their level.’ Why don’t you save them the trouble and enact a ‘If I don’t like you, I will ban you and/or remove your posts’ rule. It’d save us people who dare to disagree with the majority here and their ‘if you don’t like it git tha f— out Murrca’ attitude the trouble of commenting.

  37. Chris Smith
    January 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm Link

    Cameron, I want to draw a distinction. Al can disagree with us all day long, and we won’t make a peep.

    What the rules forbid is being uncivil about it. And calling a policy or person fascist is definitely not civil.

  38. Ron Swaren
    January 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm Link

    Just call the number of Speaker Tina Kotek right now. An aide will take your comment:

    (503) 986-1200


    The high paid lobbyists will be in Salem agitating for more expenditures for their pet little projects, so get as many people as you can to call or email. Phone calls are better

  39. Bob R.
    January 17, 2013 at 3:12 pm Link

    Cameron, a few responses:

    1. I’m not a professional moderator, this is a volunteer gig.
    2. Al is not a teen or pre-teen and should therefore know how to behave appropriately in this particular forum. Pushback is a moderator’s prerogative.
    3. I don’t dislike Al and in fact have worked with him directly on a project or two. A longtime commenter on this blog and collaborator with Al currently has one of my video cameras for the valuable service of documenting TriMet board meetings and other transit-related events.
    4. If you think this blog supports a “if you don’t like it git tha f— out Murrca” attitude (do professional moderators allude to the F-word regularly?), you haven’t read any of my comments specifically rejecting the “love it or leave it” school of thought, including when it’s leveled against people with whom I disagree.
    5. I can think of exactly three individuals who have been asked to permanently refrain from commenting here, over all the years of existence of this blog, and it wasn’t over a matter of policy disagreement.

    That’s all I have to say in this thread about this incident.

  40. EngineerScotty
    January 17, 2013 at 3:12 pm Link

    Note 3b in the rules:

    Use of inflammatory words or comparisons (“tyranny”, “fascism”, “communist”, “genocide”, “Hitler”, “un-American”) in the context of discussing transportation or land-use issues, is out of bounds.

  41. Lenny Anderson
    January 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm Link

    re fascism, not even the Nazis rammed freeways (Autobahns) thru the middle of German cities.
    As an Ex auto-addict (BMW1602), I can say that the transition to a less auto dependent life for an individual and for a community has its bumps.
    Tina should know that history demonstrates that more capacity improves thru-put for a relatively short time only. It is eventually overrun with induced demand, and after billions of dollars, we are back where we started. Meanwhile the streets of Portland which cannot be widened are subjected to still more auto traffic.
    The alternative strategy…making it safer and more convenient for those who don’t drive…costs less and actually serves those who must drive better. “I can be in my car in front of you, or in the bike lane next to you. Which do you prefer?” Same for transit…give me reliable, comfortable and affordable transit options (for me that means rail for longer trips), and I will happily surrender to you my patch of pavement for many trips. Likewise a denser urban form supports a stronger retail and services sector accessible on foot, by bike or via transit. No auto trip needed for life’s necessaries.
    What is missing across the Columbia are real alternatives to driving alone on the freeway…poor transit, ridiculous bike paths, and no local access.

  42. dan w
    January 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm Link

    7. The AMTRAK line could have local passenger transit in the future with minor improvements. View areas even as far out as Ridgfield will likely develop into higher density housing and are along the AMTRAK line.

    Good call, although given freight railroads’ general reluctance to allow commuter trains to share their trackage, a third set of tracks would probably need to be added to reduce conflicts with freight trains (this could tie in with a long-overdue replacement of the Columbia River railroad bridge’s swing span with a lift span).

    Not all commuter rail traffic originating in Clark Co. would even need to end up in downtown Portland; most of the ROW still exists to also allow travel to Washington Co.

  43. was carless
    January 22, 2013 at 11:35 am Link

    Yeah, last time I checked, we have spent more than $130 on planning.

    I signed it, but… FAIL!

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.