HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 6:55 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
All aboard the light-rail express

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
TOM KOENNINGER editor emeritus of The Columbian

Some 20 progressive cities around the nation, including Portland, either enjoy light rail or are lining up to approve it.

Why is Clark County - badgered by a minority with the mind-set of an ostrich - afraid to do either?

With links to Portland's MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) lines literally welcoming us at two points on the south shore of the Columbia River, the opportune, less-costly moment is here.

True, light rail is an option for the new Columbia River bridge, along with the idea of retaining the existing Interstate 5 bridge and building a new bridge. According to one proposal, the existing bridge would handle northbound traffic. The new bridge would accommodate southbound vehicles and high-capacity transit, either light rail or bus rapid transit.

The light rail versus bus decision could come at the end of 2007. Bridge construction might start in 2009. Light rail could cross the Interstate 5 bridge to Vancouver, and extend across the I-205 Bridge from Portland International Airport.

Critics fuss over the high cost of light rail, and quickly point out it was defeated by Clark County voters in 1995, TWELVE years ago in a different era.

It is expensive, no question, and fares pay only about 25 percent of operating costs. But it does move people - safely and efficiently on relatively pollution-free trains.

Portland was connected by light-rail service to Gresham in 1986, and MAX now operates on 44 miles of track with 64 stations. Businesses opening near those stations add another plus factor.

Last year, more than 1 million people rode the Airport MAX, according to Tri-Met (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon), operators of the system. The Eastside MAX system has carried 199 million passengers in 19 years, and Westside MAX has hauled 62 million since completion in 1998.


Progress elsewhere

While Clark County frets over light rail, other areas move ahead in the 21st century.

The Green Line MAX, expected to open in 2009, will connect Portland south to Clackamas County, and begin with 46,000 riders per day. In a separate project, Washington County Commuter Rail, using existing, upgraded railroad freight train tracks, will serve Washington Square, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville beginning next year. The 14.7-mile line will connect to MAX in Beaverton. It is described as one of the first suburban-to-suburban rail commuter lines in the country.

Meanwhile, Tacoma is welcoming news that "Sound Transit has agreed to extend light rail to the Tacoma Dome if voters approve a nearly $18 billion road and construction plan" in November, according to an Associated Press story. Agreement to extend the line to the city from Fife, 3.5 miles north, came when Sound Transit revised its 20-year estimate of federal grants. Some light-rail sections south of Seattle should be open by 2009.

Editorially, the Tacoma News Tribune newspaper said, "This golden spike would vastly increase the value of light rail to Pierce County," in connecting to points north, including Sea-Tac Airport, Seattle and the University of Washington.

Not everyone gives light rail the bum's rush in Clark County. At least two leaders are supportive of this form of mass transit.

Other than driving, light rail is one of the best ways for people to get across the river, declared Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard on Jan. 23 in his state of the city speech.

"I've said it before. ? Vancouver and Clark County residents have the cheapest buy-in to one of the most successful light-rail systems in the world, the MAX system. There is over $5 billion invested in light rail across the river. We can tap into that system at a very minimal cost. We'd be foolish not to," he said.

State Sen. Craig Pridemore is another supporter. Pridemore said he's heard people talk of bringing light rail here in 20 years. "We should at least start planning for it and setting aside right of way now. If we wait 20 years, we'll never be able to afford it."

Both leaders are on the right track. More people with vision need to get aboard. Today.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 6:56 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
edit:
Eh, I'm obviously in the minority here. I'll stop arguing; it's pointless.
__________________
"Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2007, 7:15 PM
mcbaby mcbaby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 587
68% of Respondents Want Light Rail for Clark County, Wash.
Don Hamilton
The Columbian


http://www.masstransitmag.com/articl...tion=3&id=2218

Light rail appears far more popular in Clark County today than when it was resoundingly defeated by voters nearly 12 years ago, according to a new poll released Thursday by the Columbia River Crossing study group.

The poll showed 68 percent of Clark County respondents favored extending light rail into Vancouver and farther north as one method of addressing Interstate 5 congestion. In the three Portland-area counties, 76 percent of respondents favored light rail across the Columbia River.

Clark County respondents also supported a new bridge, more lanes and employer incentives for flexible work hours, but opposed tolls.

The numbers represent a turnaround for light rail from February 1995, when Clark County voters defeated a proposal extending the line north of the Columbia River by a 2-to-1 margin. Since then, transit planners have accepted as gospel that light rail is a loser on the north side of the river.

But these new poll numbers could re-energize local light-rail supporters and influence policymakers who, over the next year, will make a series of decisions on whether to build a new bridge across the Columbia River and whether to add dedicated lanes for mass transit to it.

The poll, commissioned by the Columbia River Crossing project, surveyed voter feelings on options for improving traffic flow along I-5, with particular attention to ways of crossing the river. The poll, conducted Nov. 27 to Dec. 4 by the Portland firm Davis, Hibbitts and Midghall, questioned 400 registered voters from Clark County -- 180 of them from Vancouver -- and 400 residents of the three Portland-area counties in Oregon.

Highlights of poll

Here are a few highlights:

The poll showed 22 percent of Clark County voters rate traffic congestion as the issue they most want government to address, more than all other topics, including education, growth management, health care and public safety. In the three Portland area counties, 16 percent of voters agreed traffic was their top issue.

Sixty-one percent of Clark County voters opposed tolls as a way to pay for highway maintenance, but 44 percent said they'd be willing to pay a $2 toll to pay for construction of a new bridge. In the Portland area, 53 percent opposed tolling in principle, while 53 percent also said they'd be willing to pay a $2 toll to build the bridge.

Fifty-four percent of Clark County voters said the transportation option they most wanted was a new I-5 lane that could be used by all vehicles. The same option was the choice of 43 voters in the Oregon portion of the survey.

Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, a longtime light-rail supporter, sees the poll as a valid reflection of Clark County sentiments about transportation. But he doesn't think light-rail supporters should see the poll as definitive.

"I looked and it and said, 'Wow!' and said then 'Wait a minute, let's settle down.' I don't think anyone should be jumping up and dow n. A lot of details need to come out and a lot of people need to get engaged. It's probably pretty valid, but there's a lot more to come. There are good signs, but it's not the end of the game yet."

Clark County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris sounded dubious. She pointed to a section of the poll where respondents were asked, without prompting, what was needed to ease I-5's congestion. Only 13 percent of Clark County respondents mentioned light rail or mass transit while 82 percent mentioned highways and new bridges.

"It's always been very clear Metro and TriMet are very anxious to run light rail across the river," Morris said. "Mayor Pollard is very anxious to get it here, but the rest of the community is not persuaded."

Sometime in 2008, the Columbia River Crossing project -- 39 representatives of government and private industry from both sides of the river -- may decide to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge with a new structure at a cost that could exceed $2 billion. Construction could start in 2009. The project is funded by the federal government and the states of Washington and Oregon.

Placing light rail on the new bridge is one of the three proposals to survive the process of narrowing the list of ideas down from 12.

No quizzing on how to pay

The poll, though, did not quiz voters about ways to pay for the project, light rail or not. No cost estimate has yet been prepared, but the price tag, project officials agreed, could exceed $2 billion. Respondents may have said they liked light rail but feelings could change when they're asked to pay for it.

"Money votes are always a bit different," said Fred Hansen, TriMet's general manager. "This poll was not about paying for it. It was about what needs to be done."

State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, a light-rail opponent, predicted that if asked to decide the issue, voters will again oppose light rail.

"When people of Clark County realize what the cost to them as taxpayers will be for light rail," he said, "you'll have an overwhelming percentage who will say no, especially when they understand it will provide no relief to any kind of traffic congestion."

Hansen, head of the agency that runs Portland's light-rail system, said Portland-area communities find light rail a benefit. He said Tigard hopes to get connected to the system. Milwaukie rejected it a decade ago but changed its mind and is now planning for a new line down McLoughlin Boulevard. Forest Grove officials told Hansen the city lost a new Pacific University project to Hillsboro because it didn't have light rail.

The apparent shift in attitude toward light rail may reflect a very different demographic picture in Clark County than 1995. In February 1995, the anti-tax revolt had reached one of its pinnacles with the Republican takeover of Congress taking place only three months earlier. Since then, Clark County has grown dramatically while congestion has worsened.

In 1995, Portland's light-rail line reached only 15 miles from Portland to Gresham. Today, light rail has become far more deeply ingrained in the transit psychology of the Portland area, and a Clark County line would offer more connections than the system had in 1995. Since the vote, the system has grown to 44 miles, serving Portland International Airport and north Portland, a line that comes within a mile of the Columbia River.

Don Hamilton can be reached at or 360-759-8010.

Update

* Previously: The Columbia River Crossing project is studying whether to build a new bridge across the Columbia River.

* What's new: The project released a poll Thursday showing 68 percent of Clark County voters would like to see light rail included in the project.

* What's next: A series of public hearings will be held in January to hear comments on the proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2007, 8:11 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Boy it's a good thing we design infrastructure and land-use planning on popular whim, eh?

All in favor of upgrading your water main to 16" instead of 12" say 'aye!'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2007, 8:28 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
If Betty Sue says no to Lightrail, the Oregon side should just propose turning an existing commuter lane to freight only and end the conversion at that. Other then getting Freight out of Commuter gridlock there are NO other problems on the Oregon side as it exists now. If Betty Sue gets what she wants Oregon ends up with 6 lanes of backed up traffic through the heart of N-NE Portland and a bigger mess near the convention center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2007, 8:43 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab View Post
If Betty Sue says no to Lightrail, the Oregon side should just propose turning an existing commuter lane to freight only and end the conversion at that. Other then getting Freight out of Commuter gridlock there are NO other problems on the Oregon side as it exists now. If Betty Sue gets what she wants Oregon ends up with 6 lanes of backed up traffic through the heart of N-NE Portland and a bigger mess near the convention center.
I agree. Morris has been driving me crazy with her pro-sprawl agenda. This last weekend, she was on local CVTV boasting that she had opened up most of the land between Orchards and Battleground for housing development. How could any sane person want this unless they're getting kickbacks. If 68% want light rail, then 68% should want her to lose her commissioner position.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 9:00 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
68 percent?! Light Rail is definitely winning
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2007, 5:10 PM
360Rich 360Rich is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vantucky
Posts: 256
New I-5 bridge has little leeway, council told
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
BY JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer

Building a new Interstate 5 bridge will be the engineering equivalent of threading a needle.

River traffic on the Columbia River requires the new span be high enough to avoid bridge lifts. Air traffic from Pearson Field mandates the bridge be built low enough to avert aeronautical disaster.

Historic buildings along the freeway corridor's east side, representing Vancouver's past, and multistory buildings along its west side, representing the city's future, leave engineers with little room to maneuver as they design the bridge and set an alignment.

"We have a very narrow window," Ron Anderson, a manager for the Columbia River Crossing project, told the Vancouver City Council on Monday during the latest in a series of briefings on a project that likely will reshape west Vancouver.

The Columbia River Crossing is expected to cost anywhere from $2 billion to $6 billion. Most of the money would be spent on road improvements, freeway ramps and other projects that funnel traffic onto the bridge on both sides of the Columbia River. Only one-third of the cost is tied to the actual bridge for cars and some type of high-capacity transit, either light rail or bus rapid transit.

A transit route would come into Vancouver along Washington Street or possibly on a couplet system, with southbound traffic on Washington and northbound traffic on Broadway.

One alternative calls for the transit line to cross over or under I-5 to serve downtown before continuing north and crossing back over the freeway and ending at a Park & Ride garage north of Kiggins Bowl.

A second alternative calls for the line to continue north along Main Street. Initially, planners were considering ending this option at the same Park & Ride north of Kiggins Bowl.

They are now considering using a larger area, either for surface parking or a multistory garage: the former Washington Department of Transportation district headquarters, along the west side of Main Street north of 39th Street.

The transportation property is currently under-used as a maintenance shop and for storage. Officials envision using a 17-acre area, which would involve demolishing a few homes and businesses near the northwest corner of 39th and Main streets, to accommodate surface parking for as many as 1,500 cars or tiered parking for 2,500 vehicles.

Several council members voiced reservations about parking so many cars in what borders a residential area.

Councilwoman Jeanne Stewart, who lives in the not-too-distant Carter Park neighborhood, said the option would effectively isolate part of the city's west side.

"The whole plan for the light-rail portion of this just seems premature to me," Stewart said.

In late March, council members voiced a strong preference for a transit alignment that would follow the freeway.

Both alignments will be evaluated in the project's draft environmental impact statement, which is scheduled to be released in early February 2008. Mayor Royce Pollard urged council members to be patient.

"There's lot of things here I don't like, but I am willing to let them do their work," he said.

Pollard, however, has never tried to hide his disdain for one option: the possibility of retaining the existing I-5 bridges and using them for northbound traffic while building a supplemental bridge for southbound traffic and transit.

Anderson said officials are considering what type of retrofits would be necessary to the existing bridges so they could withstand a significant earthquake, but those retrofits could be so expensive that they might not be built.

"So we tell our citizens you have a 50-50 chance of being on the new bridge that won't fall," Pollard said sarcastically.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localN...news169142.cfm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2007, 3:23 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Great, a big box development on both Washington entries into Portland. F'in no sales tax!

Fate of Jantzen mall, carousel in city’s hands
by DJC Staff
08/01/2007


The Portland Bureau of Development Services will hold a pre-application conference Tuesday to decide the fate of the Jantzen Beach SuperCenter on Hayden Island.

Jerry Baysinger of Baysinger Partners Architecture proposes demolishing most of the shopping mall, adding to existing buildings, reconfiguring the east parking lot and constructing eight new buildings on the site.

The site would include 829,000 square feet of floor area and 3,228 parking spaces.

A historic design review will be required to remove or move the 1921 C.W. Parker Four-Row Park Carousel, which resides within the mall. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

http://www.djcoregon.com/viewStory.c...29865&userID=1
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 6:10 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
Part of the current BTA digest that landed in my mailbox this morning, detailing the struggles to get adequate bike/ped facilites included in a mega-project that is looking increasingly mid-twentieth-century:


Topic 8: I-5 Bridge discussions: Stick up for a decent bike path - 8/4, 8/11

Do you bike across the I-5 bridge? Or do you NOT bike across the I-5 bridge, for a reason?

If so, please go to these informal sessions and stick up for bicyclists and pedestrians. Tell the Columbia River Crossing staff you want bike/ped paths on both sides of the new bridge, or a very very wide (30 feet) path on one side, instead of the narrow two-way 15 foot path they want to serve all bicyclists and pedestrians and Mt Hood gazers crossing there.

For more details, see a few paragraphs below.

Saturday, August 4, 2007 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Vancouver Farmers Market
W. Esther St. and 8th St.
Esther Short Park, Vancouver

Saturday, August 11, 2007 11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Jantzen Beach SuperCenter
1405 Jantzen Beach Center, Portland
(Interstate 5 exit #308 Jantzen Beach)
(Outside the mall entrance near carousel and Target)

More details:

The Columbia River Crossing Ped and Bike Advisory Committee (the PBAC) has been meeting since March 2007. Their goal is to advise the CRC Task Force on the bike/ped facility that will be part of the new I-5 bridge project. The BTA's advocate Emily Gardner is on this committee.

The two bridge options currently on the table are:

1) Totally new bridge with either MAX or Bus Rapid Transit.
2) Half a new bridge. They will take the current bridge and make it one way northbound, build a new southbound bridge, with MAX or Bus Rapid Transit on the new part.

If Option 1 is selected, the new bridge will be tall, i.e. challenging to bike over. Engineering-wise, it would be difficult (read: expensive) to allow space for people to look at the view or to access from points midway like Hayden Island if they aren't driving cars. For that reason, the CRC project staff is preferring a 1-sided, multi-directional, mixed bike and pedestrian path, probably 15ft wide. That way they won't have to double up on expenses by giving access to bikes and pedestrians on both sides of the bridge.

If Option 2 is selected, CRC staff has directed the PBAC to think in terms of "cutting costs" as the whole point of the supplemental bridge option was to have a lower cost alternative. So again, they're being directed to think 'small' in their vision for the bike/ped access.

A) This is internally inconsistent, to put it mildly. Option 1, the Expensive Option, is so phenomenally expensive that bikes and peds have to get a half-path across it. Option 2, the Cheap Option, is supposed to be cheap, so bikes and peds again have to settle for something half-decent. These two opposite scenarios both, somehow, necessitate short-changing bikers and walkers.

If we're spending $6 billion on a huge car/freight/transit project, then the bikeway should be stellar, not some little tiny ugly bow tied on top of the project. And if cost is a concern, a long term cost avoidance plan should include great bike and ped facilities to make future expansions less likely.

B) One 15 foot all-direction all-users path is going to be hectic and scary. Picture one Hawthorne Bridge sidewalk but a little wider, with bike and ped traffic heading both directions, and with Mt Hood where the Burnside Bridge is, and people stopping to look at it from the middle of the bridge.

C) The I-5 bridge should be nicer to bike across than the Hawthorne Bridge. It is a majestic inter-state connection, and deserves a world-class bicycle and pedestrian facility. In all venues (except with bicyclists and pedestrians) this bridge is envisioned as a "world class facility" but they are asking everyone to settle for an vastly inadequate bicycle and pedestrian route.

So please ask for:

1) A "World Class" bike and ped facility. Wide, one way, with "belvederes" for looking at the view and taking pictures (and for keeping bike and pedestrian traffic flowing).

2) More chances for bicyclists and pedestrians issues to be heard. The Task Force is composed of freight and auto and shipping advocactes. That's it. And there are no meetings planned where bike and ped issues will be discussed.

3) No more gross overexpenditures on single-occupant vehicle auto trips. Freight clearly has to moved along with corridor, but building a huge (and hugely expensive) bridge to serve drive-alone commuters clogging up the highway is bad for N and NE Portland neighborhoods, bad for global warming, and bad for all the people on the streets those freeway lanes empty onto on both sides of the river.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 10:52 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
I didn't think people in Vancouver bicycle?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 1:53 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
I didn't think people in Vancouver bicycle?
http://www.clark.wa.gov/public-works...h/Bike2007.pdf
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 5:35 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
I didn't think people in Vancouver bicycle?
I know my Dad bikes (or does when he can)-in fact I recall he bicycled in from Vancouver to my house in East Portland (a good twenty miles), on July 4th. He... didn't feel well after that for a couple days.
__________________
"Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 5:48 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
^ Ugh, that would be quite a workout. And during the heat no less...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 4:44 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
Reserve trembles at bridge plans

Wednesday, August 08, 2007
TOM KOENNINGER editor emeritus of The Columbian

What threat does construction of a $6 billion Columbia River bridge and its myriad exit and approach ramps pose to the Vancouver National Historic Reserve?

That question is coming into critical focus as the Columbia River Crossing task force nudges closer to selection in late November of a recommendation from a list of preferred alternatives.

Part of the 366-acre reserve is on the east side of Interstate 5, extending from state Highway 14 to near Mill Plain Boulevard on the north.

When the original I-5 canyon was cut through town in the early 1950s, a piece of the 1904 Barracks Post Hospital was nipped off and moved to accommodate it. Now, some designs would take the freeway up against a concrete bulkhead at the old hospital.

Concern extends to the entire western boundary of the Reserve. Elevated freeway ramps would introduce sight and sound pollution to the property. This reserve - which has one million visitors annually - is expected to receive greater public attention when the Maya Lin-inspired Land Bridge opens in mid-November.

At the south end, connecting lanes from Highway 14 would snip some land from the reserve at the site of Kanaka Village - the Northwest's first neighborhood.

Tracy Fortmann, superintendent of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site for the National Park Service, is worried.

"A poorly-conceived design could do major damage to the reserve in multiple ways," she said, with the highway design grossly impacting the reserve from a sound perspective. Noise pollution, drifting across the reserve from freeway activity "would do much harm to the special ambience of this place. It's hard to create a 'Williamsburg of the West' if everyone has to scream to be heard," Fortmann said.

She said there should be some protection in the federal highway act designed to protect "significant national historic" sites, parks, wildlife refuges and recreation spaces.

But it contains a loophole. An exception is allowed "if there is no prudent alternative to the use" of such land.

Fortmann's hope is that Columbia River Crossing designers will be "as creative and innovative" as possible to avoid encroaching on the reserve. "It's hard to believe so much history is crammed into our compact site."

This is the Euro-American birthplace for the Pacific Northwest. Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of artifacts dating back more than 170 years.

The Post Hospital, imperiled by bridge construction, is where medical procedures transitioned from the 19th century to more modern methods, said Doug Wilson, archaeologist for the Pacific West region of the National Park Service.

The hospital figured in care for 30,000 soldiers cutting spruce trees to provide the lightweight airplanes of World War I. Another 3,000 troops ran the spruce mills.

It was said of Col. Brice P. Disque, commander of the operation, that he "came to see and stayed to saw." At the end of the war, servicemen arrived needing care. During the influenza epidemic of 1918, thousands of soldiers were admitted to the Post Hospital.

Civilian Conservation Corps members also received care here, Wilson said.

As the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Trust, advocacy group for the reserve, of which I am a board member, sought revenue-producing facilities to offset costs of the reserve, it envisioned the hospital as a place for hospitality-food, beverage and lodging.

Elson Strahan, president of the trust, said it soon became apparent another military building - the Artillery Barracks - was better suited for the function. The hospital - "with its wonderfully open spaces" - seems headed for rebirth as a place for arts and education, Strahan said.

The trust board, Strahan said, does not want the hospital removed or cut apart.

Access from Highway 14 might be accomplished by putting the road in a trench, or short tunnel, which would minimize sound. On the I-5 side, a partial freeway cover - allowing pedestrian access to the reserve - is a possibility, Strahan indicated. Also in the thinking stage is some kind of art form that would display a distinctive gateway to the state.

But until a final freeway design is approved, the threat to the reserve is real.


Tom Koenninger is editor emeritus of The Columbian. His column of personal opinion appears on the Other Opinions page each Wednesday. Reach him at

tom.koenninger@columbian.com
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 5:37 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
Scrap this project and put a tunnel back on the boards. This entire project is based on flawed outdated theories that have been proven wrong throughout the country. Its amazing to me this is still being pushed. For 6 billion dollars no less. For that price why can't we get a tunnel. Make the existing bridge a local street and the tunnel the main 1-5 corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:25 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab View Post
Scrap this project and put a tunnel back on the boards. This entire project is based on flawed outdated theories that have been proven wrong throughout the country. Its amazing to me this is still being pushed. For 6 billion dollars no less. For that price why can't we get a tunnel. Make the existing bridge a local street and the tunnel the main 1-5 corridor.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 7:09 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
Just a note: the bridge is supposed to cost only about 1 billion. The CRC project is where the bulk of the cost is going--so no dice on the tunnel (too 'spensive).
__________________
"Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 5:43 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
I want this project stopped in its tracks. Robert Liberty could be my hero.

Columbia River Crossing may get no-vote from Metro
by Libby Tucker
08/17/2007


Metro Councilor Robert Liberty isn’t the council’s designated transportation expert. But the attorney, who represents District Six in most of Southeast Portland, has a fair amount to say on the subject. Since joining the regional government’s council in 2005, Liberty has often challenged Metro’s standard analysis of big projects.

Planners, he says, have yet to fully analyze the costs and benefits of regional transportation priorities. And he cites the $6 billion Columbia River Crossing as an example of a particularly egregious project.

DJC: What’s wrong with transportation planning in the Portland metro region?

Robert Liberty: No business would even buy envelopes using the decision-making process we use for transportation. There’s about eight basic things that are wrong with it, that are serious.

(see sidebar, page 2)

DJC: When you say “we,” do you mean Metro in particular, or do you mean the region?

Liberty: It is endemic: national, state, local, Metro. I was at this national summit on transportation policy in July, and my counterparts in other places said Metro is one of the leaders on these issues. I think we can do far better as a nation, as a state.

I think there’s a lack of awareness about how fundamentally defective our decision-making is.

Transit has to meet substantially more difficult tests than road modeling, so it’s somewhat better. But I still think there are problems there: making clear we have an objective that’s not building a light-rail line or a streetcar line, but what we’re trying to do as a community, whether it’s development patterns or access or so on. And that we’re looking at pieces instead of the whole.

Commissioner Adams is looking at a streetcar system for the city of Portland, which is certainly a step in looking at a whole system. But that is going to draw in some money from the region, and that raises questions of tradeoffs. And how can you compare one project to another unless you have a standard way of looking at costs and benefits?

And I want to be clear, it’s a wide spectrum of costs, economic, social, environmental and fiscal. And, as I say, this is a national problem. We’re spending about $2,000 for every girl, boy, woman and man in the United States in Iraq. The idea that Uncle Sugar, the federal government, is going to bail us out is naïve. We’ve got to be smarter, cheaper, greener. The good news is there’s lots of room for improvement.

DJC: The catch-22 of that is delaying the process also increases the costs of the projects over the long term.

Liberty: Hurrying up and doing something expensive and bad is a mistake. And this argument is used all the time to cut off any thoughtful discussion of alternatives that might be better.

The second point is, if you’re talking about general inflation, that’s irrelevant because you’re going to pay with inflated dollars. The only time that’s relevant, and a lot of times that’s the case, is when construction costs are rising faster. A lot of the solutions I’m talking about don’t involve construction, they involve operations. So that argument doesn’t apply.

Part of the rush to do that is part of the assumption that the best thing to do is always build more stuff. I’d like to apply a little more brains and a little less concrete and still do some of these projects. Because I think we have cheaper solutions that are better for the community and are not so taxing on the citizens.

DJC: What’s the solution for Columbia River Crossing?

Liberty: If I had $80 million, I’d give you a huge spectrum. I wouldn’t be just studying one thing and then adding another alternative. I think the effort to consider other than the new bridge is pro forma and not genuine. So let me start talking about the process, then about the solution.

I’d have taken $10 million and had five teams, different contractors, and say, “we want you to give us a preliminary solution that’s focused on different approaches.” So one would have been a highway bridge, second transit, a third would have been demand management and system management, fourth would have been land use, a fifth would have been arterial connections. And each of those teams get $2 million to give us your best shot.

From that I would have evolved a new spectrum of solutions. One other thing, I would have included I-205 in the study and the railroad bridge. And I would have gone a lot farther north and south. So my study area would have gone at least to downtown Portland, if not Wilsonville, to the Clark County line.

So when people say, What’s your solution? Well, you know, I don’t have the benefit of $80 million worth of studies, so it’s not very fair. But I can tell you what my instincts tell me. Instead of one big project, it would have been a bunch of incremental things that are smaller.

Yes, there should be an additional bridge, but it would be an arterial bridge. Most of the traffic across the Columbia River is arterial traffic – the lines aren’t much longer than 217 or even 39th Avenue. And that bridge would have provided direct city-to-city connection.

Another thing I would have looked at is land-use patterns. Vancouver as a city has made a lot of progress in developing its identity and urban feel, I’m afraid a big bridge will undercut that.

But for Clark County generally, one of the reasons people drive is because it’s very low density, so transit doesn’t work as well. That’s imposing a cost on us. Why do we have to share on the cost of a bridge because they’ve chosen a land-use pattern that involves commuting?

DJC: So what’s the answer now?

Liberty: First of all, the assumption is that the problem is so severe, we need to spend a lot of money right away. The first thing I would do is deal with accident, incident response. The second thing would be the merge lanes. The third would be what you can do on 205 to shift some of the traffic.

For the price they’re talking about, they could build 90 trams across the Columbia River. This does not make sense.

DJC: So can Metro put on the brakes?

Liberty: Well, as a legal matter, yes, because Metro has to agree.

In February we had a big hearing and I had a resolution about that, what kind of alternative approach I thought ought to be developed, and now they’re looking at one. But in a story that I think appeared in the Daily Journal of Commerce, one member said, “Well, we have to do this, but I’m not really interested.” So I am skeptical that the task force has any intention of giving serious consideration to anything but a giant mega-project that will be bad for air, bad for neighborhoods, jam up I-5 and create more problems than it solves and be very expensive. We can do better.

DJC: So you have some ability to take legal action?

Liberty: You’ll have to check with Metro legal counsel, but I believe if Metro says no, it won’t be added to the regional transportation plan.

DJC: Will you?

Liberty: Well I’m certainly, based on what I’ve seen, I’ve already said that unless there’s the kind of study I’ve been talking about, I’m not going to accept the study results. For the reasons I’ve outlined, none of those criteria for good decision-making are in place. So no, I’m going to be opposed to it, against the recommendation.

DJC: So how would that money get spent throughout the region, if it’s not on CRC?

Liberty: We need people to understand that it’s in competition with other projects. Some elements of the business community are just cheerleaders for whatever project the departments of transportation come up with. They need to do their due diligence, too. People in the freight community are supporting projects where trucks are going to be stalled in massive traffic jams. We need to talk about freight movement that’s separate. We need to look at freight lanes that maybe are tolled at certain times of the day.

Another point is we need to maintain what we have. We’re way behind on maintenance. Fix it first. The cost of maintaining and repairing it is a pittance compared to the cost of building it.

DJC: You work in Congressman Blumenauer’s office. Does the money we receive from the federal government fuel the spend-now, think-later mentality?

Liberty: I don’t work on transportation issues in Congressman Blumenauer’s office, so I can talk about it generally, but I don’t want the story to blend this stuff. In the past the federal government paid for 90 percent of these projects, and yes it has fueled the idea that we just get the money. That it’s about getting the money rather than are we using it wisely. Being short of money tends to focus people’s thinking.

DJC: The eastside streetcar loop was in City Council this week, and one of the criticisms has been that there hasn’t been a fleshing out in the race to apply for federal money. Has the project done its due diligence?

Liberty: Let me speak generally. I think it’s better to finish a study before we commit to money. TriMet’s service money has all been in light rail, and bus ridership is flat. As quickly as we can, we need to complete a regional transportation plan. We can’t keep doing the pieces and never get around to looking at the big picture. We already know we have more commitments than money, and the worst is to keep moving ahead without recognizing we have to make choices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 6:15 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
He sure is a lawyer. That's some pretty convoluted language.
__________________
"Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.