About that bridge

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 24, 2007 - 3:54pm.

Yesterday's Vancouver Columbian carried a report of Mayor Royce Pollard's State of the City speech, in which he advocated for putting light rail on the new $2 billion bridge which is coming down the pike like a triple-trailer in the fast lane. The on-line comments are interesting. Apparently meth dealers are dependent on rapid mass-transit, who knew? I especially enjoyed the comment that there is no need to put light rail to downtown Vancouver because there's nothing there. See my post this morning on Pioneer Courthouse Square.

Update 7:45 p.m.: The Oregonian, in a similar report today, says there were 55,000 Clark County residents paying a total of $121m in Oregon income tax in 2004, i.e., average tax paid = $2,200. For Vancouver residents working in Oregon who feel they are owed a new bridge: the cost at $2b for 55,000 commuters coming south is $36,364 per cross-state taxpayer.

Amanda Fritz's blog | login or register to post comments
downtown Vancouver because
Submitted by FrankDufay on January 25, 2007 - 4:30am.
downtown Vancouver because there's nothing there Anne and I went to Seattle last weekend and stopped in Vancouver for lunch. Salmon Creek Brewery & Pub, right downtown, 108 W Evergreen...the best fish and chips I've had this side of the Atlantic Ocean. VERY Britsh style...one large piece, perfectly battered and fried. Awesome...highly recommended. The bridge idea? Not so awesome, and not recommended. A lot of money --a LOT of money-- to accomplish very little. The slowest part of OUR trip up I-5 was getting onto it from the Morrison Bridge ramp...totally backed up because I-5 there is two lanes. You can make the bridge a hundred lanes each direction...but so what? This is congestion we can't build our way out of unless we're building OTHER ways to get around besides single occupancy vehicles.
login or register to post comments
That's kinda funny, Frank -
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 25, 2007 - 4:36pm.
That's kinda funny, Frank - usually my family makes it to at least Kelso before we need to take a break in the drive to Seattle. Still, thanks for the fish&chips reference, I will check it out. I just read that the US government is planning to increase aid for rebuilding Afghanistan by a little over $10 billion. I wonder if one bridge costs $2 billion there?
login or register to post comments
I believe that with a new
Submitted by doretta on January 28, 2007 - 12:41am.
I believe that with a new bridge they can clean up traffic flow and lessen the number of accidents, build a structure that won't drop into the river in a moderate quake the way the current ones are likely to do, accomodate all marine traffic without stopping bridge traffic and greatly improve access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Still, without mass transit it's hard to justify the cost and I'm with Mayor Pollard--light rail is an obviously right choice. The usefulness of dedicated bus lanes is limited by the fact that at some point not too far from the bridge they have to be reintegrated with the rest of the automobile traffic.
login or register to post comments
Thank you, Doretta - your
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on January 28, 2007 - 8:37am.
Thank you, Doretta - your opinion as someone very aware of a wide range of issues in North Portland is important information for me. The proposal is for five lanes in each direction. Wouldn't that cause reintegration problems on either side of the bridge? Why not three lanes plus ped, bike, and rail - or is that the breakdown of the five lanes being proposed? And do you know why a local bridge to carry the 32% of short trips between Portland and Vancouver wasn't recommended?
login or register to post comments
Home » blogs » Amanda Fritz's blog