A bridge, yes, but only the right bridge

Bravo Sam!

Its great to see that at least some of our public officials are standing up for common sense in this project.

Keep up the good work!

To avoid inducing auto oriented growth in Washington while accommodating interstate commerce, why not designate lanes (one north, one southbound) specifically for commercial/freight and emergency service uses only? Truckers and delivery vehicles would apply for transponders permitting access. With the exception of regional emergencies, under no circumstances would commuters be allowed to use the lanes. This would support light rail ridership on the extended Yellow Line.

Thanks for all of your hard work, Sam!

The purpose of any bridge is to bring the two sides of the river closer together. Tolling motorists only divides the community farther apart and will negatively impact small businesses and the local economy, a subject that has not been properly addressed as part of the CRC agenda.

“IF” tolling is implemented, then it must have a larger base than just motorists to keep the dollar amounts at the bare minimum and be all inclusive of all vehicular modes of transport including transit passengers and bicyclists paying their share of the bridge and associated costs. One estimate has the cost for the Max piece of the CRC project at $9.00 per passenger crossing. Transit passengers must be obligated to pay any proportionate local share of the transit infrastructure costs with a surcharge on transit fares. Instead of just providing lip service and the usual freeloading, bicyclists too must be expected to pay their own way with a bridge toll to cover any local match monies spent on providing bicycle infrastructure.

As it now stands, the cost estimates are 1.2 billion to replace the I-5 bridges with the interchanges and light rail costing another $2.4 billion (source; Metro Councilor Robert Liberty’s News Letter). The price tag to provide bicycle infrastructure along with any authentic numbers of projected bicycle crossings using the bridge has been concealed from the public. This undoubtedly is a politically motivated cover up that is catering to the special interest bicycle agenda because it is highly probable that any bicycle infrastructure constructed will not pencil out as being anywhere close to being cost effective. Furthermore, any posh ultra expensive so-called world-class bicycle facility must NOT be subsidized by motorists or taxpayers, and MUST be paid for only by the bicyclist users themselves with even higher mandated and pricey pedal pusher tolls.

A real bridge in a reality check world necessitates an equitable cost sharing financing plan. This must be a condition of the CRC that hopefully Clark County will mandate. With the sky rocketing costs of motor fuels, any tolling of motorists in today’s economy is for the wrong purpose at the wrong time. NO outdated, dictatorial and subsidized incentives are needed to promote alternative forms of transport. Suggesting a toll on the I-205 bridge too only does an even greater disservice to the community, small business and low income people than does just tolling a new or updated I-5 crossing.

Instead of legislating from the throne of a bubble with a bias one-sided agenda that attempts to socialistically dictate lifestyle, housing and mode of transport choices, including attempting to restrict motor vehicle travel that only harms the economy, the public servants of the people need to stop ignoring, confront and address the real issue facing the environment – the necessity to reduce and stabilize population growth.

Sam,
With your newly released letter. Why don't we just knock down all the bridges that that lead to Portland and build a fence around the entire city.

This is truly what you want. You want to rule us all and take away our own freedom.

What ridiculous statments you have made about this bridge. GREEN - PICTURESQUE - CAR UNFRIENDLY.

Why don't you just come out and say it. NO NEW BRIDGE !!! ONLY NEW BRIDGE WILL BE FOR LIGHT RAIL AND BIKES ONLY !!!!

Sam this is NOT reality. Even if you don't like it, Portland will grow with or without your blessing. Yes this is a major route for cars and trucks. Many of them just passing through Portland and Oregon completely. But this is where we live. Based on your comments, only people who will suffer are the people of Portland and Oregon. You are only making it even more BUSINESS UNFRIENDLY !!!

I don't use the bridge very often, but I do realize the importance of this to the entire region. If you get your way, the economey for the entire region will suffer. It already is due to some of you and your Portland collegues have introduced.

Sam, now get off your high pedestal and start thinking about keeping Portland and the region economic situation stable and instead of your crazy antics !!!

Oh, by the way where in the heck did you come up with "CAR ABUSE". I hope I never see you ever again in a car. You had darn well walk or ride your bike everywhere. I hope I never hear about you going to foreign cities or distant cities in the USA. I hope your new house is built out of straw and you live only on the land. But I'm sure you are a hyporcrite like Al Gore living in his mansion paying $16,500 a month in electricity only !!!!!

Sam, please get a clue about the real world for Portland's sake !!!!!

Well done Sam. Realistically we can't solve all of the world's problems with this bridge but if we are targeted about our design and environmental goals (including human needs) this project could really put Portland on the map with an intelligent agenda. It's time for Portland to lead the rest of the world for once.

For those knee jerk isolationists, Portland is not an island where people go to avoid the world's problems.

P.S. Sam lives in the real world and nearby the I-5 crossing, as do I.

Toll the ONLY two access points across the river in perpetuity to fund other projects? Sam, that's not right. Driving to/from Vancouver is not a sin, so don't insist on implementing a sin tax. Raise the gas tax to fund transportation projects, that's what it's for.

You want to charge people to visit family and friends they may have on the other side of the river? Charge them to go to soccer or baseball games? Charge them to get to their college classes?

Vancouver is part of the Portland metro area. We need to have free and available access across the river. Would you implement a toll on every bridge that crosses the Willamette thus dividing East and West Portland? Of course not.

Tolls have no place in a progressive city, it's Republican thinking - add fees to everything imaginable in order to avoid raising taxes.

I came to make different comments, but I cannot let the venom of the auto-crats above go unchallenged.

I sometimes cross one of the bridges, usually by car, and usually with more than 1 person in said car.
But if I look around, I see that something like 80% of the vehicles are single-occupancy autos, pickups, or SUVs. This seems especially true when the traffic is heavy. All those cars, getting in each others' way.

Perhaps the "This is MY road" attitude expressed above contributes to the terrible performance of a road full of cars when it gets crowded.
By contrast, the most jam-packed commuter train in Japan or China moves at about the same speed as an empty one: it just takes a little longer in the station to get people on/off.
Also by contrast, rush-hour bike roads at some universities and some cities are very resilient over a wide range of crowding conditions. The riders are smart enough to use more of the pavement when they are all heading the same way (e.g. onto campus in the AM), but still accommodating when an occasional person comes the other way. Bicyclist are also smart enough to reduce lane-width when crowded. The crowd slows down somewhat, but rarely comes to a standstill, unlike cars.
Long-range bike paths rarely even experience such crowding.

I'd like to see a self-centered toll: payed only by vehicles with single drivers (and not by small vehicles such as motorcycles). Perhaps the cost and ignominious waiting would convince some of the self-centered to join the community.

A small amount of community effort for arranging carpooling could greatly reduce the number of cars making the crossing.

We should do that much regardless of any new bridge construction.

Perhaps some people would have an opportunity to meet others. Single-occupancy cars pretty much prevent communication.

If we really wanted to discourage anti-social behavior, the fee should go up sharply with the wasteful mass of the vehicle. An 7000 lb SUV does pollute more than well-tuned small car. (True commercial vehicles on return trips excepted)

I'm not sure 'congestion-priced electronic tolling' really falls under the category of 'reduce automobile reliance' - doesn't it sort of explicitly reinforce it by saying 'pay us money to drive your automobile across this bridge'? It might discourage a few people from driving, I guess, but only if they feel that public transit is a viable option - and a lot of people don't feel that way. Something to consider, anyway.

"But it must be the right kind of new bridge."

I believe this is the process in how the tram went from $10M to $75M. Part of it is liars poker on the City of Portland's part (using faurd in the inducement to get the project sneaked in.)

However, a large part of the cost overrun on this will be Mr Adams recalcitrance to accept anything but his concept of what is the absolute best. Mr Adams, the taxpayers of Portland are having a hard time funding your dreams and self-aggrandizing sense of taste, which even in your post-makeover is questionable.

Once again, Sam Adams is more interested in bowing to his special interests, rather than the needs of the public.

Why do people live in Vancouver, and work in Portland? It's because Sam's developer buddies won't build affordable housing in Portland, and Sam's public policy is to turn Portland into San Francisco North - an exclusive enclave of super-expensive houses which require common folk to transport extensive distances to work.

Instead of fixing the real problem (housing affordability) he is more interested in pandering to his special interests, denying common residents access to decent transportation infrastructure, and forcing transit projects outside of his jurisdiction while continuing to blatently ignore transportation needs right here. Sam Adams is more interested in building light rail projects (even outside of Portland) at the expense of providing quality transit (which includes bus service) within Portland city limits. Sam Adams is more interested in building monuments of waste by demanding a "landmark" design instead of a functional, useful design.

However I fully expect Sam Adams doesn't care about my opinion, of the businesses who rely on Vancouver residents as employers, of businesses who rely on Washington for customers or suppliers, or the 85% of Portland metro residents that use motor vehicles as a primary form of transportation. Sam Adams has been invited numerous times to personally witness my public transit needs and has continually failed to do so, because he's more interested in photo ops in front of his monuments over mundane tasks as pedestrian safety, fixing potholes, installing sidewalks, fixing broken street lights, painting new delineators, and the like. So while he is pushing his light rail agenda on Vancouver (while he refuses to become Mayor of Vancouver) I, as a City of Portland resident, continue to ride old, outdated busses and run across a five lane street due to a total lack of pedestrian amenities - in the City of Portland.

I am continually amazed at the provinciality of some USers!

My intention is not to inflame anybody, but really, it couldnt be more obvious that some of the posters here are living in their own alternate reality. A reality in which global warming, congestion, peak oil and other real world problems just do not exist.

The fact is, Sam is proposing that we should be very careful to select the right type of bridge. THAT IS ALL!

It seems like common sense, but common sense isnt what weve been getting from the CRC project.

Thank the gods that we have leaders like Sam instead of some of these reactionary posters.

Some of the comments are absolutely mindless, and they are an embarassment to the United States.

I agree with Nathan, some of the posts are incrediably selfish and reflect some kind of perceived entitlement on the writer's part.

As to whether Sam represents the people of Portland - some of you may recall that he was overwhelmingly elected mayor based on his record as a City Commissioner.

Sam is the selfish one here that continues to represent the only special interests of Portland and not the people of Portland as a whole. His control wonk agenda is aimed at dictating lifestyles, housing and transportation choices for all who live here or pass through here. Bit by bit he proposes to take away the democratic personal freedoms this country was built upon.

As consumers, we do not know how the next generation of cars and trucks will be powered or what the fuel source will be. Development is still occurring on that front, but it is highly likely the vehicles of the future will be both more efficient and more eco-friendly. Approximately 80 percent of the trips in the region are made by car or truck. It would be cost prohibitive to develop a transit system, even more cost prohibitive with streetcars, to meet all these travel needs. By proposing to restrict car and truck capacity on the CRC at today’s or at less than today’s level is extremely short sighted, and not representing the 80 percent who drive and who also, unlike other modes of transport, are the transport taxpayers that actually pay for transport infrastructure through fuel taxes.

Furthermore, by proposing tolling and congestion pricing (with venom I might add) for both the I-5 and I-205 crossings, he is not only hosing drivers and family incomes, but also hosing the small business people who rely on their (often nondescript) vehicles to earn a living and those independent small businesses that rely on customers from the opposite side of the river. Bridges should bring people and communities closer together, not farther apart.

Suggesting the Gods have given us leaders like Sam is a misnomer and only demonstrates how selfish the special interest groups in Portland really are - receiving payback taxpayer subsidy after payback taxpayer subsidy (such as the bicycling community that wants more exclusive infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it). Sam’s manipulative style of socialist and autocratic control may lead the recipients of his subventions into thinking he is a God, or may even give rise to Sam thinking he is a God himself. If anything Sam is the embarrassment, not being a Mayor (elect) of the people, but rather a dictator to the people.

Please, add a fourth lane each way for freight. Commerce is at a standstill from 7 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6:30 in the evening. How can we build a new bridge that needs building and make it the same size as the old bridge? Come on Sam!!!! Through traffic on I5 is going to grow whether you want it to or not. We have to plan for the future. What does the 2040 plan say? It does not say population will decrease. You know that. Lets get real. Build one that will accomodate the future not one that will accomodate the environmentalists. Please Sam, you are the only one who really used to listen to the common man on both sides of the fence. Please do so again. What do we gain by building a new bridge that will have increasing traffic on it and increasing traffic jams?

There is NO question that we need a new interstate bridge...anyone can see that. Anyone traveling during rush hour can kiss a good piece of time away idling in traffic....If we can speed traffic flow across the river it will improve the city's carbon footprint significantly and enhance commerce too...isn't that novel!
I have traveled the length of I-5 many times and I do not recall any tolls ...I would hate to think that Portland would find itself the only one charging along it's entire length....Nice reputation....

If my choice is to have a new 6 lane bridge for cars with light rail, and the crime it'll bring on it, then I'll suffer with the old bridge. And so why do we want a new bridge with tolls & the same number of lanes for autos as the old one? So I can subsidize light rail? Hey how about we toll each person that get on the train to pay for "their own train"
We could always put it to a Vote of the people, wait we did that before and it did not pass, Of course the Socialist Republic of Portland knew better then the people.
Taxes, fees, & tolls oh my, can I subsidize anything else.
Look at "ALL" the science people, not just the one they let speak at the council meetings.

Sam,

From reading all of these postings. All I can say,

PLEASE SEND ME MONEY !!!!

I CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF PORTLAND WHEN WE HAVE CRAZY CITY LEADERS MAKING UP MY MIND FOR ME !!!

Sam, if you really want to feel good about yourself please send me $2,000,000 every month. This should just about cover the taxes / fees / and any other idiotic idea you come up with to help me live in your city.

Sam, if cars ran on carbon dioxide and emitted only oxygen, would you still be against them?

It concerns me that the goals put forth as "Portland's Goals" do not address the future needs of our region, nor the reality that we live in a region, not just a town, and not just a state.

Despite popular belief not everyone can live near where they work. Yes, people do live in East and North Clark County and drive to Washington County to work. I in fact live within walking distance of my office, but that does not mean my husband does. It is unrealistic to think we both would be able to find work that allows us to use mass transit to get to work reliably (and still be able to pick up our children from school and day care).

It is unrealistic to think the bridge will reduce auto traffic. In fact, it will more likely keep it from increasing as fast. It is more rational to have a goal that we decrease the percent of commuters using their cars. If we do this, we likely won't see a decrease in actual autos, because we will have population growth and that will mean more traffic.

Also, Portland should support Clark County in boosting its public transit. It should help Vancouver find ways to increase its funding for C-Tran so it is a viable options. As a former commuter to Portland, I wasn't able to use C-Tran because I didn't get off work soon enough (yes, I was a public employee who rarely left work before 7 or 8pm).

The bridge should also be focused on getting freight across the river. Portland does not give enough attention to economic development. If you want people to be able to afford to live in Portland, there need to be jobs. Some key industries include freight by semi or other trucks. The movement of this traffic is important. It isn't the "evil" drivers, but instead the business that puts food on our residents tables. Also, many of these evil drivers are helping pay for services in Oregon through their income taxes. They are a stakeholder and they should be treated like a stakeholder with a voice even if they don't have a vote. Look at what the City of Portland and Oregon would lose if all of the employees in Oregon that are from Clark County were gone. How many businesses would be hurting, how much income would Oregon lose in taxes?

Lastly, nowhere in your missive do you mention the goals of Vancouver. Aren't those important too? Do you even know what they are? Next time you threaten to kill a project that will serve our entire region, make sure you understand the impact that project has on all cities, all counties, the state, and the businesses.

I also hope you realize that one thing that is important to Vancouver is fiscal responsibility. The project needs to meet important goals, and it needs to be done well, but there isn't an endless pot of money. Vancouver needs to be fiscally responsible, which I know isn't something that is a goal of Portland.

Nathan wrote: "The fact is, Sam is proposing that we should be very careful to select the right type of bridge. THAT IS ALL! "

And part of that problem is that Commissioner Sam is demand that we build yet another monument to himself like the Tram; something that costs far more than what is necessary, because God forbid that we build a bridge that is simply functional.

Ms. Greenwood brings up a good point about Vancouver's fiscal conservacy. Vancouver has some nice things going for it; it has a nice park in the heart of downtown (Esther Short Park) and the Historic Reserve, which is also a designated National Park (name one National Park in Portland City Limits.)

But Vancouver, unlike Portland, isn't going for grandieose projects.

If "Portland" (and since I am a Portland resident, the reality is "Commissioner Sam") wants an artistic bridge, then he is welcome to find a source of money that doesn't pull from my wallet to pay for it. He's welcome to commission donations from private citizens or corporate sponsors that will pay the difference in cost between the functional bridge (one that will look like the Glenn Jackson Bridge) and the artistic bridge that he wants.

When I drive across the bridge at 50 MPH, I don't care what the bridge looks like. If I am to be concerned with what my neighborhood looks like, then where has Commissioner Sam been all these years with my substandard bus stop, lack of crosswalks to cross 45 MPH five-laned Barbur Boulevard, the lack of sidewalks and bike lanes on my road, neighborhood parks, etc.? Could it be because there is no developer who is out to get rich in my neighborhood to benefit from those small, but resident-friendly, improvements? Could it be because there is a campaign donor who is out to make millions re-developing downtown Vancouver that is in Sam's pockets?

This is not a "green" issue. If it were, Commissioner Sam would be heavily investing to rebuild Portland's transportation system, by replacing all bus lines within the city with either trolley busses or streetcars; reducing the city's carbon emissions to near zero; building city-owned power plants to replace the coal plant that provides much of the city's power - and much of the Gorge's air pollution; ensuring that there is affordable housing in the downtown core and inner eastside so that anyone who works downtown can afford to live downtown instead of in the suburbs, and so on and so forth. Commissioner Sam's "green" record is pathetic, and using this one bridge to save his image is nothing more than another monument to Sam.

Anyone who cares to disagree with me is welcome to show me where the 10,000 units of affordable (to anyone making 80% of the median income in Portland) housing in the downtown core is; the improvements made in the far Southwest part of Portland along with the eastern (east of I-205) neighborhoods; and Sam's committment towards Portland's bus system (of which on KGW television his "committment" was pathetic, and he had to force himself to say the word "bus" twice in order to answer the question that he largely ran around in circles with).

Someone should tell Sam that the bridge is a regional one, not a portland bridge. He is but one voice in this project. also, the tolls he is talking about are not for use just south of the bridge. Where does he come off demanding a perpetual toll for Oregon/Portland. There are others involved in this bridge. We, north of the bridge, expect some consideration for all the money we will be spending. Remember, some of the tolls paid by the same people that send all the tax money to oregon without a say in the spending. These tolls will be different

Sam, I think your ego is beginning to eat itself. Congrats Portland, you deserve what you get by electing this guy.

I ride my bike to work and cross the I-5 bridge just a few times a year. Nonetheless, I think tolling is a bad idea because the bridge is an interstate bridge. The new bridge should focus on frieght and light rail while being beautiful and green (pollution is costly--see big pipe project). The bridge is our economic welcome mat to our state. It it our front door not our garage door and needs to be attractive.

Everybody benefits from the bridge and everbody should pay. Oregon should pay for their part of the bridge with a sales tax on out of state goods. Part of a interstate sales tax could be use as a seed fund for Oregon business.

Anyone who's slightly in touch with current affairs realizes that we are heading towards an inevitable crisis. High-priced gas (still cheap, compared to other countries) and the lack of easy solutions for petroleum substitutes are a proof that a lot of energy will be necessary to avoid economic, social and environmental catastrophes.

Spending money and energy onto a quick solution to a problem that shall become irrelevant really soon is a very irresponsible waste of resources.

It is unfortunate that most of the people are:
1- unaware of the consequences of following the same growth pattern that lead us to this crisis point or;
2- satisfied with "designer-green" alternatives.

We have 2 bridges that connect Vancouver to Portland, and they are enough.

It is about time to stop supporting auto-America, and focusing, while we still have the energy and resources, on becoming seriously sustainable.

Numara taşınabilirliği, cep telefonu kullanıcılarının mevcut numaralarını aynen koruyarak hizmet aldıkları operatörü özgürce değiştirebilmeleridir. Bu şekilde kullanıcılar operatörünü değiştirdiklerinde kullandıkları numara 11 hane olarak bütünüyle aynı kalacağından, o döneme kadar kendilerine mevcut numaralarından ulaşmış olan kişiler aynı şekilde ulaşmaya devam edebileceklerdir.Numara taşıma Böylece kullanıcılar operatörlerini değiştirdiklerinde kendilerine ulaşmalarını istedikleri kişilere yeni bir numaralarını bildirmek durumunda kalmayacaklardır.

Tekno nakliyat vinç kiralama forklift mobil
vinç kiralama hizmetleri.

"aytug akdogan ödüllü 1. seo yarışması ve yurtta barış dünyada barış"
aytug akdogan ödüllü 1. seo yarışması ve yurtta barış dünyada barış