This Week in the Mercury
Thursday, January 29, 2009
City Hall / News / Portland Public Wants 12 Lanes For Columbia River Crossing
Posted by Matt Davis on Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM
75 people have signed up this afternoon at a public hearing on the Columbia River Crossing, here at City Hall. Council was expected to make a tentative decision on how many lanes the bridge should have, next week, but Adams just announced that they're going to extend the hearing until late February, so there's time to give consideration to all the options. But whatever. The public wants 12 lanes. 
COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING: Public speaking out today...
Council chambers were packed at 2 pm, when the hearing started. Since then, everyone from the mayor of Vancouver, to residents of Jantzen Beach moorage, and people living on Hayden Island who want to get to hospital on time if they have a heart attack, to folks from the unions, to one guy, Devla Eminck, who admitted "I'm the guy in my SUV causing all the problems," to Jodi Parker, who was stuck in traffic on the bridge, trying to get to her daughter, who had gone into labor, to the Portland Business Alliance, to the Oregon Business Association, I'm yet to hear a single person say they don't want all 12 lanes to be built. The Port of Vancouver wants 12 lanes, as one of the biggest importers of wind energy technology in the United States. "Wind energy means big stuff, like 200-feet-long blades," says their spokesperson.
The consensus: 12 lanes will be safer. 12 lanes will reduce vehicle miles traveled. There's also broad enthusiasm for having bicycle lanes and light rail on the bridge. But people want 12 lanes. That's all there is to it.
Update, 4:11 pm: Zipcar General Manager and former chief-of-staff to Portland's former mayor Neil Goldschmidt, Bill Scott, has spoken up against the 12 lane option.
"I don't think we can pay for it," he says, adding that as more people give up their cars, "I'm not sure you're going to have the need for this capacity when the bridge is built, and I'd urge you to look at tolling alternatives in the short term."
Update, 4:16 pm: Anthony Gomez, an activist from Rising Tide, says that any addition of lanes would "take jobs from low income people here in Portland who really need them." "Adding more lanes will only benefit Vancouverites and free trade advocates," he says. "If you go ahead with adding six lanes and going along with the greedy needs of the folks like the Portland Business Alliance, I believe you are being racist and class-ist," he concludes.
Update, 4:25 pm: Joe Cortright says: "The quality of the financial analysis that has gone into this $4bn project is of the same caliber as that that went into Bernie Madoff's funds."
Update, 4:30 pm: Former city council candidate and transportation activist Chris Smith says "adding lanes in this corridor is not the way to build capacity for future growth." "Vehicle miles traveled will only be reduced across the river if we toll both bridges," says Smith. "If we can take cars that are idling and get them moving, then we'll reduce greenhouse gases, but obviously if we add more lanes to do that, then we end up with more traffic." Smith said there were two risks to the bridge failing. "Firstly, that we overestimate the elasticity of demand." [The Mercury has NO IDEA what that means, but, er, it's economics...] "Second, that we lack the political will to impose tolls that'll make a difference," says Smith. "If tolling fails, then I'd rather it failed on an 8-lane bridge than on a 12-lane bridge."
Update, 4:47 pm: Tom Buchele from the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, representing the Coalition for A Livable Future, says "I've had to sit here all afternoon and listen to this bridge described as "green" and "sustainable"," "but it's rhetoric." "We're tired." "The choice is between a 12 lane concrete monument to everything that was wrong with mid-20th century transportation planning and something much smaller that is truly consistent with Portland's values."
City Commissioner Randy Leonard says he has a problem with Buchele's arguments because he doesn't have any data to back them up. Buchele, for example, says the $2 toll is expected to reduce trips across the bridge by 39,000 a month (or 18%), but that he just doesn't believe it.
"$2 a day is about $80 a month, and that was what led me to believe that people would start to take light rail," says Leonard, challenging Buchele to bring him facts in dispute of the data.
Update, 5:16 pm: From the comments:
"And sorry to repeat myself, but the bridge doesn't belong to Portland. We didn't pay to build or maintain the current one, and we won't pay for the new one either. It isn't Portland's bridge and therefore it doesn't have to comport with our "values.""
It's interesting, isn't it, to watch Portland's city council, which is used to operating in a bubble, trying to matrix its sustainability rhetoric onto an enormous federal project that couldn't care less about 20-minute neighborhoods or what goes on in Sam Adams' pants. Tell most Portlanders "we're going to build a 12-lane freeway," and they'll ask why you need 12 bike lanes. Tell them the bridge is mainly going to benefit commuters from Vancouver, and they'll ask you "Why build it?" Wouldn't the billions of dollars be better invested on building a wall around the city, a border, if you will, patrolled by armed guards requiring creativity credentials from all who would enter? Just some thoughts that occur to me in response to yours.
1
Please explain how a bigger bridge will reduce vehicle miles traveled. I have never seen a case where increased road capacity has led to a decrease in VMT.
2
Keep in mind that if the 12-lane bridge is built, there will be 298 feet of right-of-way. If that right-of-way were striped like the current bridges, it would be 18 lanes wide. In a way, we're not deciding between 8, 10, or 12 lanes, but between 12, 14, or 18 lanes.
It's the people who live south of the river which will bear the brunt of increased congestion, increased activity on local streets... primarily so that Clark County commuters can have a shorter trip.
There's nothing inherently wrong with Clark County commuters having a shorter trip, but the CRC proposal, which refuses to consider alternatives such as a local arterial crossing, creates a disproportionate burden for Portland residents in the I-5 corridor.
It's the people who live south of the river which will bear the brunt of increased congestion, increased activity on local streets... primarily so that Clark County commuters can have a shorter trip.
There's nothing inherently wrong with Clark County commuters having a shorter trip, but the CRC proposal, which refuses to consider alternatives such as a local arterial crossing, creates a disproportionate burden for Portland residents in the I-5 corridor.
4
Fucking A! Some common sense being voiced in the loony Republic of Portland. Thank God.
I know the silent majority isn't insane, but we just don't speak up enough with the Robert Libertys of the world are drooling out their nonsense.
Timbers Fan: It won't reduce VMT. It will increase VMT.
The bridge isn't a weapon owned by Portland to wield against Vancouver. It's a federal interstate that's paid for and maintained by the two states.
I know the silent majority isn't insane, but we just don't speak up enough with the Robert Libertys of the world are drooling out their nonsense.
Timbers Fan: It won't reduce VMT. It will increase VMT.
The bridge isn't a weapon owned by Portland to wield against Vancouver. It's a federal interstate that's paid for and maintained by the two states.
5
Only some 'people' want 12 lanes. I certainly don't (nor does anyone I know) and we're all 'people.'
If the majority is given carte blanche, the world starts to suck even harder.
If the majority is given carte blanche, the world starts to suck even harder.
6
"If the majority is given carte blanche, the world starts to suck even harder."
Yeah, what we need is an enlightened minority to enforce their will over the majority by law. To tell us what's best for us. You know, like fascism.
Yeah, what we need is an enlightened minority to enforce their will over the majority by law. To tell us what's best for us. You know, like fascism.
7
Blabby's right in that some people (cough, Sam Adams and Robert Liberty) want to use the bridge as a weapon against people from Clark County, especially since the giveaways to developers have made it increasingly unaffordable to live in inner parts of the City of Portland.
Poor schools in PPS have exacerbated the problem - if you can't get into the Grant or Lincoln cluster, why not move to Vancouver?
I am worried that a new bridge will get congested as soon as it is built, and am in favor of light rail into Clark County, with plenty of development along the line and park-and-ride lots near the stations.
But using the bridge development as a weapon against Clark County is just childish.
Poor schools in PPS have exacerbated the problem - if you can't get into the Grant or Lincoln cluster, why not move to Vancouver?
I am worried that a new bridge will get congested as soon as it is built, and am in favor of light rail into Clark County, with plenty of development along the line and park-and-ride lots near the stations.
But using the bridge development as a weapon against Clark County is just childish.
8
Blabby,
I enjoy how you equate a policy that was of major concern in the Federalist Papers with Fascism. Because Hamilton was well known to be an influence on Mussolini.
I enjoy how you equate a policy that was of major concern in the Federalist Papers with Fascism. Because Hamilton was well known to be an influence on Mussolini.
9
Soooo, with all the updates to this post, it kind of seems like the "consensus is 12 lanes" except for all the many presenters who don't want 12 lanes. So was the initial post premature?
"Anthony Gomez, an activist from Rising Tide, says that any addition of lanes would "take jobs from low income people here in Portland who really need them.""
They're really throwing crap to see what sticks aren't they?
"Anthony Gomez, an activist from Rising Tide, says that any addition of lanes would "take jobs from low income people here in Portland who really need them.""
They're really throwing crap to see what sticks aren't they?
10
For clarification: It seems you might be right, Blabby. I guess the business lobbyists all signed up when they got here early. The greenies were too busy smoking hashish to get their names on the list...
Having said that, those against 12 lanes have all been "updated." The broad consensus across the testimony this afternoon still seems to be to go for the 12 lanes.
Having said that, those against 12 lanes have all been "updated." The broad consensus across the testimony this afternoon still seems to be to go for the 12 lanes.
11
A bunch of people testified against the 12 lane option, but they came later: Joe Cortright, Chris Smith, Jill Fuglister, Tom Buchele, and others, and that's not including those who haven't testified yet and those who couldn't wait several hours to testify. In addition, more than 1,000 people emailed city council last summer to argue for better solutions than a 12 lane bridge.
The project ignored the land use implications of expanding the bridge, so it likely significantly underestimated the road demand. This could lead to huge traffic in the Rose Quarter, sprawl way out in Clark County, and greenhouse gas pollution rising even faster than predicted by the project - and GHGs are already estimated to increase 32% by 2030, when we're trying to decrease them.
The project ignored the land use implications of expanding the bridge, so it likely significantly underestimated the road demand. This could lead to huge traffic in the Rose Quarter, sprawl way out in Clark County, and greenhouse gas pollution rising even faster than predicted by the project - and GHGs are already estimated to increase 32% by 2030, when we're trying to decrease them.
12
If adding 12 lanes helps usher more yokels out of the metro area from 5pm-7am, I'm all for it-- I'll take what we can get.
In fact, I say we relocate everyone east of I-205 up to the Washington side of the river. (They'll be much happier up there in the land of pork rhinds and domestic violence.)
Then we'll transform Gresham into new, shit-hot hipster enclave full of eco-sustainable-condos to appease the invading yuppie hoardes' lust for kitschy green monoculture.
In short: I hate you all.
In fact, I say we relocate everyone east of I-205 up to the Washington side of the river. (They'll be much happier up there in the land of pork rhinds and domestic violence.)
Then we'll transform Gresham into new, shit-hot hipster enclave full of eco-sustainable-condos to appease the invading yuppie hoardes' lust for kitschy green monoculture.
In short: I hate you all.
13
"The choice is between a 12 lane concrete monument to everything that was wrong with mid-20th century transportation planning and something much smaller that is truly consistent with Portland's values."
75% of Portlanders commute to work by car or van, so "Portland values" should be to make sure our road system is up-to-date. If we want to spend a little money on a streetcar so that we can put it on a local postcard, so be it.
People who live in inner neighborhoods don't realize that their prejudice against cars screws poor people who are increasingly forced into outer neighborhoods. Your bike worship makes sense if you live in Laurelhurst, not if you live out at 82nd.
And sorry to repeat myself, but the bridge doesn't belong to Portland. We didn't pay to build or maintain the current one, and we won't pay for the new one either. It isn't Portland's bridge and therefore it doesn't have to comport with our "values."
75% of Portlanders commute to work by car or van, so "Portland values" should be to make sure our road system is up-to-date. If we want to spend a little money on a streetcar so that we can put it on a local postcard, so be it.
People who live in inner neighborhoods don't realize that their prejudice against cars screws poor people who are increasingly forced into outer neighborhoods. Your bike worship makes sense if you live in Laurelhurst, not if you live out at 82nd.
And sorry to repeat myself, but the bridge doesn't belong to Portland. We didn't pay to build or maintain the current one, and we won't pay for the new one either. It isn't Portland's bridge and therefore it doesn't have to comport with our "values."
14
The elephant in the room is the impact of carbon taxation and carbon cap and trade on personal vehicles. For instance, when reduced emissions are required will the tax be borne by commuting Vancouverites or Portland? If emissions are mandated to be reduced will the reduction required of Vancouver commuters come from the Vancouver account or the Portland account?
15
Matt, you don't need to preface response to people with "For clarification". The phrase had turned into a pretty meaningless nervous tic quite a few days ago.
16
I like how each added lane will affect 'low income' people and finally, the capper to any reasonable argument - 12 lanes are RAAAYYCCISSST!
18
Jesus, Anthony Gomez, really?:
"If you go ahead with adding six lanes and going along with the greedy needs of the folks like the Portland Business Alliance, I believe you are being racist and class-ist."
I hate the PBA too, but you're making all of us look like fools. Between using the tired construct of equating one thing you aren't in favor of with a convenient 'ist' and how far away from the scope of the actual debate you have wandered, you truly need to shut the fuck up.
"If you go ahead with adding six lanes and going along with the greedy needs of the folks like the Portland Business Alliance, I believe you are being racist and class-ist."
I hate the PBA too, but you're making all of us look like fools. Between using the tired construct of equating one thing you aren't in favor of with a convenient 'ist' and how far away from the scope of the actual debate you have wandered, you truly need to shut the fuck up.
19
Matt, I'd like to ask that this post be retitled. I was at the hearing too, testifying for the Cascade Climate Network, the regional organization of Northwest youth advocating for a "sustainable, just and prosperous future for all."
The first rounds of speakers were dominated by business and labor representatives supporting the bridge, but your blanket statement that "the public wants 12 lanes" is false. A few dozen people doesn't constitute "the public," and a large number of those people, including myself, were most definitely not for 12 lanes. There was no "consensus," as you claim.
It's interesting that you follow the remark "that's all there is to it" with five updates describing objections to the twelve-lane project. I think it would be more sensible to go back and edit your previous statements, though as I said, I wish you hadn't made these blanket statements before the hearing was over in the first place.
Your description of the CRC as a "federal project" is also incorrect. If you go to the CRC webpage, you'll see that the lead partners are the Oregon Department of Transportation and its Washington equivalent. Sponsoring agencies include Metro, TriMet, and the City of Portland. So yes, the bridge is "ours," and we absolutely will pay for it.
Finally, to suggest that bridge opponents want to keep people out of Portland is insulting and absolutely wrong. This has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that a twelve-lane bridge will fuel global warming, cost four billion dollars, and also fail to solve the congestion problem, as Amy Ruiz reported almost a year ago.
For better or worse, a lot of people get news from the Mercury and its blogs, and I don't think it's too much to ask you to uphold a few basic standards of journalism. I'd appreciate your response to these concerns.
Thanks,
Joel Batterman
More...
The first rounds of speakers were dominated by business and labor representatives supporting the bridge, but your blanket statement that "the public wants 12 lanes" is false. A few dozen people doesn't constitute "the public," and a large number of those people, including myself, were most definitely not for 12 lanes. There was no "consensus," as you claim.
It's interesting that you follow the remark "that's all there is to it" with five updates describing objections to the twelve-lane project. I think it would be more sensible to go back and edit your previous statements, though as I said, I wish you hadn't made these blanket statements before the hearing was over in the first place.
Your description of the CRC as a "federal project" is also incorrect. If you go to the CRC webpage, you'll see that the lead partners are the Oregon Department of Transportation and its Washington equivalent. Sponsoring agencies include Metro, TriMet, and the City of Portland. So yes, the bridge is "ours," and we absolutely will pay for it.
Finally, to suggest that bridge opponents want to keep people out of Portland is insulting and absolutely wrong. This has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that a twelve-lane bridge will fuel global warming, cost four billion dollars, and also fail to solve the congestion problem, as Amy Ruiz reported almost a year ago.
For better or worse, a lot of people get news from the Mercury and its blogs, and I don't think it's too much to ask you to uphold a few basic standards of journalism. I'd appreciate your response to these concerns.
Thanks,
Joel Batterman
20
"Firstly, that we overestimate the elasticity of demand." [The Mercury has NO IDEA what that means, but, er, it's economics...]
Really? You call yourself a writer and you can't figure that one out? It means exactly what anyone would think those two (relatively easy) words mean when put together. overestimate = to expect something to be bigger than it actually is. elasticity = flexibility. You know, like an elastic band? demand = demand. Hence, "overestimate elasticity of demand" means "expect that the flexibility of demand will be bigger than it is" and since we are talking about *expanding* a road, of course the direction of flexibility is increase. So they overestimate how much traffic demand will grow to meet the new capacity.
That's really not hard at all. Or were you just being all cute and feigning idiocy because it's totes ironic and makes it look like you kinda sorta care but not really too much because ewww?
God The Mercury is such a hack paper. Learn english.
Really? You call yourself a writer and you can't figure that one out? It means exactly what anyone would think those two (relatively easy) words mean when put together. overestimate = to expect something to be bigger than it actually is. elasticity = flexibility. You know, like an elastic band? demand = demand. Hence, "overestimate elasticity of demand" means "expect that the flexibility of demand will be bigger than it is" and since we are talking about *expanding* a road, of course the direction of flexibility is increase. So they overestimate how much traffic demand will grow to meet the new capacity.
That's really not hard at all. Or were you just being all cute and feigning idiocy because it's totes ironic and makes it look like you kinda sorta care but not really too much because ewww?
God The Mercury is such a hack paper. Learn english.
22
Alex, you're confusing elasticity of demand with induced demand. They key component of elasticity of demand is price: how much will people pay to cross the bridge before they find another alternative? Example: drinking water and gasoline are fairly inelastic, meaning people will pay almost anything for it. Sugar is elastic, meaning if the price rises just a little bit, people will find an alternative. So when they say the city is overestimating the elasticity of demand, they're saying they think people will actually pay more to cross the bridge.
23
"the regional organization of Northwest youth advocating for a 'sustainable, just and prosperous future for all.'"
Gag me.
"So yes, the bridge is "ours," and we absolutely will pay for it."
How much do you figure Portland's portion is out of $4 billion? Do you think we're responsible for even 25%, $1 billion? How about $500 million (12%)? We won't put in even close that, so why do we act like we own the project? We don't. Most of the money will come from the federal government.
If it's being run by ODOT and WSDOT then that means the bridge should reflect the needs of everyone in both states. I'm guessing that outside certain group-think bubbles which exist in Portland, people in these two states would prefer to have a larger bridge that keeps traffic moving and to not pay a toll.
Gag me.
"So yes, the bridge is "ours," and we absolutely will pay for it."
How much do you figure Portland's portion is out of $4 billion? Do you think we're responsible for even 25%, $1 billion? How about $500 million (12%)? We won't put in even close that, so why do we act like we own the project? We don't. Most of the money will come from the federal government.
If it's being run by ODOT and WSDOT then that means the bridge should reflect the needs of everyone in both states. I'm guessing that outside certain group-think bubbles which exist in Portland, people in these two states would prefer to have a larger bridge that keeps traffic moving and to not pay a toll.
24
@not an economist
I was referring to the literal definition of the sentence, not the formal economics concept, though in this case I believe the former is a decent functional explanation of the outcome of the latter.
I did horribly in the econ classes I took, so this may be totally wrong, but in terms of elasticity of demand in an economics sense, doesn't overestimating the price elasticity of people's desire to drive over a big new bridge many many times a day functionally mean that they are expecting people will pay more for the priveledge to drive over the bridge than they actually will, meaning they are overstimating how much new traffic there will be as I said?
I can see how me saying "how much traffic will grow to meet the new capacity" is not actually price elasticity, I should have rephrased that. But I was pointing out that an understanding of the general gist of Smith's statement was possible with a fairly basic level of english profiency, no econ neccessary.
I was referring to the literal definition of the sentence, not the formal economics concept, though in this case I believe the former is a decent functional explanation of the outcome of the latter.
I did horribly in the econ classes I took, so this may be totally wrong, but in terms of elasticity of demand in an economics sense, doesn't overestimating the price elasticity of people's desire to drive over a big new bridge many many times a day functionally mean that they are expecting people will pay more for the priveledge to drive over the bridge than they actually will, meaning they are overstimating how much new traffic there will be as I said?
I can see how me saying "how much traffic will grow to meet the new capacity" is not actually price elasticity, I should have rephrased that. But I was pointing out that an understanding of the general gist of Smith's statement was possible with a fairly basic level of english profiency, no econ neccessary.
25
No, Alex. Wrong again.
Let's try explaining it this way. If the crossing the bridge is very elastic, that means desire to cross the bridge is highly influenced by price. Any change in price will cause people to look for alternatives. So if someone is overestimating the elasticity, that person is actually underestimating how much people are willing to pay. The person who accused the city of "overestimating" elasticity of demand actually feels the tolls should be higher than whatever toll price is on the table.
By the way, you know, you've got a lot of moxie for someone who is talking completely out of his ass. You misunderstood the point that guy was making. In fact, you're saying the exact opposite. Or maybe I missed the irony here. Are you being cutesy and feigning idiocy?
Let's try explaining it this way. If the crossing the bridge is very elastic, that means desire to cross the bridge is highly influenced by price. Any change in price will cause people to look for alternatives. So if someone is overestimating the elasticity, that person is actually underestimating how much people are willing to pay. The person who accused the city of "overestimating" elasticity of demand actually feels the tolls should be higher than whatever toll price is on the table.
By the way, you know, you've got a lot of moxie for someone who is talking completely out of his ass. You misunderstood the point that guy was making. In fact, you're saying the exact opposite. Or maybe I missed the irony here. Are you being cutesy and feigning idiocy?
27
This paper used to have a REAL reporter that understood issues like this, and could cover them in depth. And then the Mayor made her his sustainability adviser, and it became obvious to everyone why she was qualified: She understands issues like this.
28
Matthew I think the reporter in this case actually got it right, and without just regurgitating some bridge report verbatim.
29
Jesus people. Matt was at some meeting. Some other dude said some economic term that he wasn't at 100% about. So rather than interpreting what the guy said into "stupid-speak" he conveyed a direct quote. Yeah, he was snarky and stupid about conveying the quote... but whatever. That's the prerogative of the news source. You don't like it? Start your own.
30
@Blabby: "Most of the money will come from the federal government."
Uh, where do you think the federal government gets its money?
Uh, where do you think the federal government gets its money?
31
"Uh, where do you think the federal government gets its money?"
Easy: from the City of Portland. No one from Troutdale, Beaverton, Gresham, The Dalles, Pendleton, Boise, Phoenix, New York City, or anywhere other than good old PDX pays a dime to the feds. Therefore, the bridge design should be wholly dictated by Portland's democratically elected leaders, which consists entirely of the 10,000 or so of us who own bicycles.
Easy: from the City of Portland. No one from Troutdale, Beaverton, Gresham, The Dalles, Pendleton, Boise, Phoenix, New York City, or anywhere other than good old PDX pays a dime to the feds. Therefore, the bridge design should be wholly dictated by Portland's democratically elected leaders, which consists entirely of the 10,000 or so of us who own bicycles.
32
I think you will find that Oregon pays more in federal income tax than we receive back from social security (fewer old people than other states), military (no major military bases, few military contractors), and other federal programs.
The Portland metro area pays more in state taxes than we consume in state programs.
The bridge overwhelmingly is paid for by the Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington County taxpayers and benefits them and Vancouverites.
(I believe Washington as a state is a net gainer between federal taxes paid and benefits received and ditto Vancouver at the state level)
So Seattle and the feds are paying for the Washington share and Portland metro is paying for the Oregon share.
So yes it is a bare knuckle negotiation with Vancouver over lanes, tolls, bike, light rail, carbon taxes and all the improvements and maintenance Portland (you, I) will have to pay for in North-South side streets.
33
I can't even believe this debate is even happening!
If your gonna build a new bridge, build it AS BIG AS POSSIBLE!
There are not going to be less people as the years go by, OBVIOUSLY.
This "fortress" mentality of Portland is distressing.
Hopefully the feds will just ignore Portland's stupidity.
If your gonna build a new bridge, build it AS BIG AS POSSIBLE!
There are not going to be less people as the years go by, OBVIOUSLY.
This "fortress" mentality of Portland is distressing.
Hopefully the feds will just ignore Portland's stupidity.
34
Al M, such common sense will get you no where in this town.
Here, up is down, black is white, and "economics" is a bad word.
Here, up is down, black is white, and "economics" is a bad word.
35
Al, Blabby -
The point is not to build a new bridge "as big as possible", but rather to build the right bridges (emphasis on plural) where they are needed.
Imagine if in Portland the Willamette was only crossed by one or two mega-bridges, what nonsense would ensue with local traffic in the bridge access areas, and how difficult it would be for any other areas to access a river crossing. Everything would bottleneck on the mega-bridges.
But that's what we have now between Portland and Clark County -- we currently have 14 freeway lanes and no local access lanes.
What's missing, and what wasn't studied by the CRC, is local access bridges. If you connect Marine Drive and Interstate Avenue to Hayden Island and Vancouver with a local arterial bridge, and remove the Hayden Island I-5 ramps, you suddenly have improved local access *and* improved freeway traffic.
And for pedestrians, bikes, and transit, a local-access bridge just makes more sense.
We don't need "as big as possible", we need "as smart as possible". We need to knit these communities together in multiple ways, not in one or two clogged arteries.
The point is not to build a new bridge "as big as possible", but rather to build the right bridges (emphasis on plural) where they are needed.
Imagine if in Portland the Willamette was only crossed by one or two mega-bridges, what nonsense would ensue with local traffic in the bridge access areas, and how difficult it would be for any other areas to access a river crossing. Everything would bottleneck on the mega-bridges.
But that's what we have now between Portland and Clark County -- we currently have 14 freeway lanes and no local access lanes.
What's missing, and what wasn't studied by the CRC, is local access bridges. If you connect Marine Drive and Interstate Avenue to Hayden Island and Vancouver with a local arterial bridge, and remove the Hayden Island I-5 ramps, you suddenly have improved local access *and* improved freeway traffic.
And for pedestrians, bikes, and transit, a local-access bridge just makes more sense.
We don't need "as big as possible", we need "as smart as possible". We need to knit these communities together in multiple ways, not in one or two clogged arteries.
36
Bob, I would be interested to see a study on that. One issue would be the need to still fit big ships under such an arterial bridge (i.e. it would still be a big bridge).
The second issue is the cost of building more than one bridge. Hard to see how it would be cheaper. The current I-5 crossing has be replaced regardless.
Local connections between Hayden Island and Portland definitely make sense. But over to Vancouver, it's tough to envision.
The second issue is the cost of building more than one bridge. Hard to see how it would be cheaper. The current I-5 crossing has be replaced regardless.
Local connections between Hayden Island and Portland definitely make sense. But over to Vancouver, it's tough to envision.
37
"I would be interested to see a study on that."
So would a lot of people. But the CRC specifically defined alternatives out of their "scope"... they didn't examine realigning the railroad bridge (which would eliminate most freeway bridge lifts, and completely eliminate the curved path which ships must now navigate)... they didn't examine local arterial crossings... anything which didn't involve solely the freeway and freeway interchanges was excluded.
So would a lot of people. But the CRC specifically defined alternatives out of their "scope"... they didn't examine realigning the railroad bridge (which would eliminate most freeway bridge lifts, and completely eliminate the curved path which ships must now navigate)... they didn't examine local arterial crossings... anything which didn't involve solely the freeway and freeway interchanges was excluded.
Most Commented on Blogtown, PDX
-
City's "Overnight Sleeping" Program Finds First Host—and Neighbors React in Ugly Fashion by Denis C. Theriault
-
Game of Thrones Recap: Calm Before the Storm Edition by Joe Streckert
-
Portland Button Works Opens on Killingsworth by Alison Hallett
-
We're Number One! by Alex Zielinski
-
Win Tickets to Hecklevision: Point Break! by Erik Henriksen
-
Thursday TV Recaps for Poor People! The Final Finales. by Elinor Jones
-
Good Morning, News! by Nathan Gilles
-
Weekend Eatings: Corazón and The Slide Inn by Marjorie Skinner
-
North Williams Open House by Alex Zielinski
-
Mad Men: Christmas in Spring by Jacob Schraer
Our Friends
- UrbanHonking
- Culture Shock
- Portland Roundball Society
- Steph Cassano
- Cort and Fatboy
- Street Roots
- Powell's Books Blog
- Portland Transport
- Portland Afoot
- Bike Portland
- Eater: PDX
- Portland Food and Drink
- Mr. Movie
- Sunday Softball
- BlueOregon
- Sightline Institute
- Ultra: Arts Portland
- Bitch Magazine
- Blazer's Edge
- Reading Local: Portland
- Portland Food Carts
- Stumptown Vegans
Our Enemies
The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.
Bands Page
Housing
Jobs
Musicians
For Sale
Wheels
Services
Health
The Arts
Friends 'N' Neighbors
Bulletin Board
Personals
Adult
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Comments (37) RSS