To find everything that is wrong with American transportation, you only need to look at the process for replacing the Interstate 5 crossing of the Columbia River. Planning for a new bridge or bridges between Portland and Vancouver began at least six years ago, and planners have so far spent well over $130 million without turning a single spade of dirt. The Antiplanner suspects planners are perfectly happy to spend as many highway dollars as possible on anything that doesn’t actually increase roadway capacity.
The current proposal calls for two double-deck bridges.
The bridge itself is expected to cost a little over $1 billion. But all the various government agencies that have jumped on the planning effort have managed to drive the cost up to $4 billion. A big part of this increase is the cost of light rail to Vancouver, including a special bridge or bridge deck for a rail line.
Portland’s TriMet persists in calling light rail “high-capacity transit” even though limits to Portland light-rail system mean that it will only be able to move about 7.5 two-car trains to Vancouver each hour. At 300 people per train, that’s about 2,150 people an hour–no more than a freeway lane full of single-occupancy vehicles, and far less than a bus lane.
Tollbooths in 1965.
Now, an independent review has found that the agencies planning the bridge overestimated traffic, which is important as they were counting on bridge tolls to help pay for the bridge. Of course, they wouldn’t need those tolls (or, alternatively, tolls alone would be sufficient) to pay for an auto bridge without the light rail and all the other add-ons various agencies have included in the project.
Henry J. Kaiser, who once built ships in both Portland and Vancouver, would be spinning in his grave in frustration if he knew about this comedy of fools. As the Antiplanner noted once before, Kaiser once responded to a proposal to do a study to build a four-lane road to a housing development he was building by building the road for less than the cost of the study and finishing it before the study would have been done.
We have people like Henry J. Kaiser today. Unfortunately, we also have government bureaucrats who are more interested in expanding their empires than safeguarding taxpayer dollars.
Not only are the anti-auto, planning thugs in Portland government opposed to creating additional mobility for autos, but when they are finally dragged to the table, their ascent depends on a long list of pork to be added to the project in question.
If I remember right, both the imbecile mayors of Vancouver and Portland demand that light rail be included in the Columbia Crossing project, a lunacy that will add over a billion to the cost of the bridge.
And who are these planners who wage their war against the automobile, drool dripping from their chins as they lust over MAX expansion and streetcar construction? The “all-knowing” idiots with their book knowledge and bluster about “sustainability, green, livability” and so forth. Why, the same ones that post their hate on this blog. Dan being the most prominent example, with msetty a short distance behind.
Hey Metro sucks, quit being so nice to the Portland deluded fools.
These people are on the path to bankrupting people who have jobs across the state line, just to build a toy train that will replace a bus that currently carries 1650 daily round trip commuters (compared to 81,000 in cars).
They simply do not care who they hurt, or who the bankrupt or how many children go hungry in order to get the money to build their worthless toy train.
They lied to get elected.
They lied to convince people to support the toy train:
1. They claimed the Feds required LRt on the project. The feds don’t.
2. They said this bridge was the worst bottleneck in the nation. It isn’t.
3. They said construction will create 20,000 jobs. Actual number: 1907.
4. They said the bridge was substandard for earthquake resistance without mentioning that “two dozen†other I5 brides are worse.
5. They claimed the bridge has a high crash rate, but lied by omitting the fact that two other close by bridges have higher rates.
6. They claim that Trimet brings in projects on time and on budget. Trimet lied.
see: http://www.stoppinglightrail.com/cannot_be_trusted.html/
http://www.NoBridgeTolls.com
Thanks
JK
The Antiplanner wrote:
Of course, they wouldn’t need those tolls (or, alternatively, tolls alone would be sufficient) to pay for an auto bridge without the light rail and all the other add-ons various agencies have included in the project.
According to this, promoters of a light rail line across the Columbia River from Oregon to Washington want $750 million in FTA New Starts money. What happens if the reauthorized transportation bill has no New Starts funding?
The Mica proposal apparently zeros-out New Starts.
A few other thoughts:
1. I would assume, even if it is not clearly stated, that Tri-Met sees this bridge as an opportunity to enter a new “market” for transit operating and capital subsidies.
2. Speaking of subsidies, it also seems pretty clear that if tolls are imposed, then Tri-Met and its friends and enablers will be clamoring for their “fair share” of the toll revenue, even though I presume that Tri-Met’s trains would not have to pay any tolls to cross the river. Compare and contrast with the bridge-tunnel across the Øresund between Sweden and Denmark (which includes a railroad with many commuter trains crossing), but the operators of those trains must pay toll to use the crossing.
3. I saw the proposal by John Charles of Cascade Policy Institute to toll the entire freeway network around Portland. Has this gotten any serious discussion by Portland Metro?
You need to understand that these people are mentally ill (the planners). They think we should all live in 50 story skyscrapers and obediently walked to the mixed-use grocery store on the bottom, buy our shade-grown, organic coffee (fair trade), and take the trolley to the light rail station, where we head over to our job at the Sustainability Center in Downtown, that mythical area that everyone wants to go to as often as possible, and more importantly, wants to live in. They are utterly obsessed with their own self-importance, and their assurance of their own infallibility (cue Dan).
That being said, look at this site. It’s from the Hillsboro OR planning department. Take a look at the image of the supposed Amberglen build-out concept, then come back here and tell me that these planners aren’t getting high on meth and coke all day long at METRO:
http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/Planning/OHSUAmberGlen.aspx
During Al Gore’s Vice Presidency he attended all of the Congress for New Urbanism meetings and various urban planning lectures throughout his eight years. I don’t think once he ever mentioned his intentions during the 2000 campaign at all. I guess he didn’t want to diss or piss off the tens of millions of potential “suburban” voters until after he was in office. It’s a good thing people in Florida don’t know how to count. That’s why I spell s-uckers with an F.
metrosucks says: “You need to understand that these people are mentally ill (the planners). They think we should all live in 50 story skyscrapers and obediently walked to the mixed-use grocery store on the bottom…” Bla, bla, bla, yaddy, yaddy, yadda.
You are so full of shit it boggles the mind. Here is a link that refutes all of you bogus hyperbole (http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=34248). Neighborhood plans in Portland, produced by professional (supposedly “mentally ill”) planners, seem to have one thing in common, “preserving the character of the neighborhood,” which is completely dominated by single family scale and forms.
I’m sure there is plenty in these plans that you can find fault with, but not a single one supports you hyperbolic rant. I think that deep down inside you have an intelligent point about land use restrictions and free market intervention that is dieing to get out, but you get all worked up and just spew polarizing insults. Step your game up.
bennett wrote [responding to metrosucks]:
Neighborhood plans in Portland, produced by professional (supposedly “mentally illâ€) planners, seem to have one thing in common, “preserving the character of the neighborhood,†which is completely dominated by single family scale and forms.
bennett, I will not speak for metrosucks (who speaks well without any help from me), but I suggest that some of what was said about 50-story high-rises was intended to exaggerate somewhat (and note that I do not personally approve of much of what Portland Metro does).
The “preserving” of single-family detached housing (and even rural-type “hobby farms”) in and near Portland and elsewhere is something I have seen pitched by persons (including elected officials) and groups advocating for Smart Growth-type solutions. All too often, that is an attempt to pander to NIMBYist sentiment, which is shared by many people that do not want anything built near them, and see Smart Growth (or “better land use” [someplace else]) as a reasonable “alternative solution” to whatever it is that the NIMBYs do not want, frequently new homes or new highways or sometimes both.
Metrosucks, if you talk in person to people the way you do on this blog, many individuals, well, would not be as calm or forgiving as I am with you.
^5 bennett
C.P.
I feel you. The point I’m trying to make is that planning is a diverse profession and planners views on urbanism are diverse as well. For example, most incorporated suburban communities have planning departments and planners working for them, and often their primary job is to protect the status quo of the suburban scale. NIMBYism indeed.
As a professional planner (who lives in and enjoys the single family form) I take a little offense to “sucks” claims. I’m getting tired of sucks telling me what I think, what I care about and what I’m against. It’s not adding any substance to the conversation.
Bingo Frank! Not to toot my own horn, but I’m 6ft 7in tall, 230lbs, was an all state athlete in hs, and an amateur boxer for several years. Something tells me a conversation with sucks would be much more cordial in person. He’s got a bad case of internet cojones. Actually, it’s an epidemic these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWFZPJZTxU
There most certainly are planners who are conscious of cost, durations, economics, etc.
It does not sound like they are involved in the planning of this bridge.
The major problem I see today with projects like this is the out of control expansion of the environmental review process.
Of course, if Washington and Oregon were not looking for Free Federal Funds, they could just go ahead and build the damn bridge.
Awww bennett, did I hurt your fweelings? Or do you just feel compelled to stick up for the rest of the planning profession? Funny that none of you took a look at that Amberglen lunacy.
Anyway, I wasn’t actually referring to you with my post. I was referring to people like Dan, msetty (yes), and the planners who work in Portland and Hillsboro.
Metrosucks, I can’t take anything you say seriously because you lack the ability to describe ANYTHING correctly.
That Hillboro plan you insist we look at does mention some buildings up to 25 floors, not 50; most of the proposed development is 1-6 story buildings, not Manhattan.
If you want to argue the market for such development is smaller than the Hillsboro planners AND developers believe, that’s one thing and a a valid discussion.
But to accuse people who disagree with you on this and other matters to be “mentally ill” is not a valid discussion, appearing to me to be a strong indicator of your own possible fears about your own mental processes. “Projection” is a significant problem with those of right wing, sometimes libertarian, persuasions who subconsciously know and fear much of what they believe consciously is wrong.
Randal does not engage in such mental gymnastics and personal insults because he is correct in at least some of his beliefs, such as his insights about the shortcomings of the Forest Service. More to the point, Randal respects the fact of life that others inevitably disagree with him based on differing interpretations of the facts and differing values, and casts no aspersions about their character or mental health.
Fine msetty, you scored your little point with 25 floor skyscrapers instead of 50 floor condos. Whatever. I think the south waterfront district has 25-30 floor units, and they sure would be “skyscrapers” to the average Joe. But to a Planner Who Knows All, I understand that a 30 floor condo is really only low to medium density.
Nevertheless, the rest of us can also read, and more importantly, translate the feel-good gibberish in those concept plans. The planners think that Amberglen and Tanasbourne is going to be a new Bellevue, WA, driven, of course, by the magical streetcar & lightrail. I wonder if the current residents realized that they would be “densified” as part of Metro’s Communist 50 year 2040 plan??
Even though I often generally agree with The Antiplanner, I enjoy reading most of the opposing and supplemental comments Frank, Andrew, bennett, msetty, CPZ, Jim Karlock, LazyReader, and others, who are civil and who add intelligent ideas and discussion.
Responding to this thread, I can’t see why cars should pay a toll to go over a bridge that doesn’t have a comparable toll for the light rail. The global warming and congestion arguments for not having a toll are very weak, and a comparable toll would be a great system to keep incentives aligned for agencies and commuters.
What sense would a light rail toll make, though? Especially in Portland? The money would be funneled through the tolling mechanism, minus 25% for administration, of course, and then right back into Trimet’s pockets, knowing the level of corruption around here.
Sandy Teal asks: “I can’t see why cars should pay a toll to go over a bridge that doesn’t have a comparable toll for the light rail.”
I suppose that is an “incentive” to use transit. But point taken. Buses don’t go on toll roads here in Austin, probably because they have to pay.
Is there a non-toll option to cross anywhere near this location?
Is there a non-toll option to cross anywhere near this location?
Glenn Jackson, the only other crossing period (which was never tolled to begin with), but if they toll the 1-5 bridge, Glenn Jackson will surely follow.
metrosucks asked:
What sense would a light rail toll make, though?
In my opinion, plenty, given that building two light rail tracks for Tri-Met’s light rail vehicles will be very expensive (and presumably will not be used at all by freight traffic. And as I suggested above, the Øresund crossing between Denmark and Sweden (which is owned by the national governments, not a private-sector concession), and about 30,000 person trips per day, according to a 2009 report.
Especially in Portland? The money would be funneled through the tolling mechanism, minus 25% for administration, of course, and then right back into Trimet’s pockets, knowing the level of corruption around here.
If Tri-Met’s customers had to pay even part of the construction cost of the bridge that’s for light rail as part of the fare for crossing the Columbia River, then it is possible that the line would never get extended.
I’m a toll man…………………..(*insert “Soul Man” music)
What the hell did they spend 130 million on? A bridge which is what they we’re supposed to do with the money. The Romans built bridges we can still drive on today. Talk about bang for the buck or whatever money they used back then. The French built the Milau Viaduct entierly out of private money. I think it cost like 400 million Euros (less than a billion dollars) and they charge a toll and built it all modularly in less than four years.
Who would advocate such a toll, and to what agency would the proceeds go? Trimet is already subsidized by the tri-county tax and by various thefts from the US and state treasury. Unless the toll is added directly and 100% to the cost of a ticket, everyday taxpayers would end up subsidizing the toll for light rail users.
I did go and read the link at CPI about tolling all Portland area roads. In principle, I think it’s a good idea, but only if the proceeds go towards the improvements Portland metro roads desperately need. Tolls should not be used as a weapon to discourage overall driving or redirect people to transit. With the current corrupt ruling class in the Portland area, toll revenue from roads would be a slush fund for the wildest dreams of anti-auto, pro light rail psychopaths at Metro.
Just read the link I provided to the Hillsboro Amberglen buildout plans. Skyscrapers in the middle of suburbia! These idiots think Hillsboro is going to have a quarter million residents by 2030.
CPZ: If Tri-Met’s customers had to pay even part of the construction cost of the bridge that’s for light rail as part of the fare for crossing the Columbia River, then it is possible that the line would never get extended.
THWM: Though Trimet already has fare zones. So people on the north side of the Columbia river are going to pay a higher fare than those on the south side.
LazyReader wrote:
I’m a toll man…………………..(*insert “Soul Man†music)
Very good.
What the hell did they spend 130 million on? A bridge which is what they we’re supposed to do with the money. The Romans built bridges we can still drive on today. Talk about bang for the buck or whatever money they used back then. The French built the Milau Viaduct entierly out of private money. I think it cost like 400 million Euros (less than a billion dollars) and they charge a toll and built it all modularly in less than four years.
The Millau Viaduct carries Highway E11/A75 over the Tarn River in France and cost about €400 million to construct, according to its official Web site. It’s owned by the French national government, but the builder, Eiffage group, has a 75 year concession which allows it to collect tolls to pay off the construction bonds and earn a profit (unlike most other long-distance motorways (or autoroutes, as the French call them), A75 is not tolled except at the viaduct). Tolls on automobiles range from €5.02 to €7.70 depending on the time of year and how payment is made.
And no, Eiffage did not have to build parallel tracks for a light rail line or even a new SNCF TGV (HSR) line across the Tarn River valley.
“To find everything that is wrong with American transportation, you only need to look at the process for replacing the Interstate 5 crossing of the Columbia River.”
What’s your take on the process to replace Seattle’s Alaska Way Viaduct? It’s a projected $4.25 billion for a two-mile tunnel.
Who knows how much all the infighting has added to the cost of the Viaduct. Everyone’s trying to score political points on this one up here. Of course, the SR520 bridge rebuild is also supposed to cost 4-5 billion, and won’t even, technically, add new capacity: just tolls and HOV lanes!
I’ve heard several times about Seattle’s viaduct problem. With options for tunnels, new overhead highway or repairing it as is. I’m surprised no private firm offered to build the tunnel at their cost and toll it. Better traffic signal coordination along the rest of Seattle may reduce the number of drivers along the viaduct. Ultimately they’re gonna build that tunnel sooner or later.
The interesting part is the about traffic volume on the viaduct, which is about 110,000 a day. So opponents say this project favors a minority. However, what they overlook is the fact that if there is a huge problem on I-5, which has one of the worst bottlenecks in the nation, many re-route to 99. Peak viaduct traffic can be much higher than the daily average on occasion, especially before and after Seahawks and Mariners games. Why the tunnel stinks, in my opinion, is the price, the potential for cost overruns, and the fact that it will mess up downtown traffic.
In addition to the 520 bridge, the I-90 bridge is torn apart because of the addition of light rail in the express lanes. It seems like Seattle transportation planners are trying to frustrate drivers out of their cars.
Seattle (King County) is absolutely waging a war on cars. But most drivers are too blind to see it.
“Seattle (King County) is absolutely waging a war on cars. But most drivers are too blind to see it.”
It must be the $4.25 billion that’s being spent on cars that’s making them blind. I wish King County would wage that kind of war on me.
Also, Bill-O’s “War on Christmas” comes to mind for some reason.
4.25 billion on the 520 bridge, if that’s what you’re talking about, is not being spent on cars, bennett. It’s being spent strictly to give them an excuse for tolls and the utterly worthless HOV lanes.
As for the viaduct replacement, they will do their best to make drivers suffer for using the new facility. Whether from excessive tolls that will be siphoned off to “Link” or by some new devilry that’s yet to be discovered.
A tunnel is the ultimate answer for intense NIMBYs. Move the road/train out of sight and gain some surface land. Only works if the cost is mostly paid by other people, but if you can get someone else to pay for it than it is the ultimate answer. See for example the Boston Big Dig.
Will Seattle be the Little Dig, or the Rainy Dig?
Sandy, I’ll agree with you there.
NIMBY’s increase costs to insane levels!
Ms; Seattle (King County) is absolutely waging a war on cars. But most drivers are too blind to see it.
THWM: Though some how you think waging a war on railroads, public transit, cyclists and pedestrians is just fine & dandy?
I would estimate the %age of planners who think the tunnel in SEA is a good idea to be in the single digits.
DS
THWM: Though some how you think waging a war on railroads, public transit, cyclists and pedestrians is just fine & dandy?
Please point out the parties in Seattle (or anywhere else), who are “waging a war” on railroads, transit, cyclists, or pedestrians. That’s right, you won’t.
We must all realize that planners obviously created the tunnel plan and the split appears a lot closer to 50/50 overall against or for.
Metrosucks: Please point out the parties, who are “waging a war†on railroads, transit, cyclists & pedestrians.
THWM: You, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, Fox News, Charles Koch, David Koch, Randal O’Toole, Wendell Cox, Tom Rubin, Mel Zucker, C Patrick Zilliacus, Ed Braddy, the Heritage Foundation, the American Dream Coalition, the Cascade Policy Institute & etc.