YIPPEE!!!! That said, I am not opposed to a new bridge, but this one was a useless project and I think a toll is not the way to go as well as taking monies for the elderly, schools and poor from outer Oregon counties. I hope they find a new idea with better funding. http://www.kgw.com/news/Kitzhaber-213749731.html PORTLAND -- After years of work and millions of dollars spent, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber says the Columbia River Crossing project is dead. Lawmakers in Washington state finished their 2013 session without funding their half of the project. The CRC would have replaced the interstate 5 bridge between Oregon and Washington. On Saturday, Washington's senate refused to vote on a transportation funding package needed to secure the project. Oregon had committed $450 million to the project, but without a similar pledge from Washington, the project loses its federal funding. Washington Governor Jay Inslee slammed leaders in the senate for not acting. Oregon governor John Kitzhaber released a statement in the wake of the transportation budget failure. “I am extremely disappointed that our legislative partners in the Washington State Senate failed to address the clear and present safety and economic need for this essential I-5 bridge,” he said. Washington Senator Ann Rivers of La Center, a critic of the project, responded as well. “Although a door has closed on what I believe was a deeply-flawed proposal, this is a great opportunity to create a new, much better Columbia River Crossing without the issues of the original plan,” she said. Back in may, Washington state representative Liz Pike said the project planning phase alone had already cost more than $170 million.
Washington would have passed it if Oregon hadn't insisted the bridge include light rail. Vancouver wants nothing to do with Tri-Met and light rail yet Oregon keeps trying to shove it down their throat. Also the federal funding is now gone. I'm not sure how you're going to better fund it while not taking money from other areas of both states and not have a toll without it.
I think there was also a concern over the several hundred millions of dollars in cost overruns they have already identified and how that would be paid for.
Question: what do y'all think about building a private bridge? Would you like that someone could do it (presumably, without a bunch of publicly-funded overruns) at no taxpayer cost, or hate that some big, bad corporation could use it to gouge users out of their money? The toll road out to Dulles Airport in DC/Virginia is corporately-owned, and the oversight on tolls is done by the state's Corporation Board, not the Department of Transportation or any budgetary process. I mean, if Chris Hansen wants to invest half a billion in a bridge he could charge every car $3 to cross instead of the Sonics' new arena, would that be ok with you?
Perhaps, but they (Vancouverites) sure do appear to commute daily across the river....and back. Maybe.....just maybe....the light rail would help reduce some of that afternoon parking lot.
Completely unneeded mega-expense boondoggle. Any bridge between Portland and Vancouver should be 100% Washington expense.
There have been two different ballot measures over the years about extending light rail to Vancouver and they have both been overwhelmingly rejected by Vancouver voters. There have also been polls and focus groups done with Vancouver citizens and those showed that they didn't want light rail. The State of Oregon and Tri-Met ignored this and only submitted plans for a bridge that included light rail.
I say fuck em. The people who avoid taxes by living in WA and working in OR can spend two hours in traffic every day as the problem worsens.
Well fuck, I didn't think of that way. Cheap ass inbreed bastards. They should listen to Portland. We know what's best for Vancouver. We're more liberal and educated.
There's nothing I hate worse than a sales call in Vancouver between 3ish and 5ish. Er, wait! Then, there's Beaverton! :MARIS61:
The problem I have with a toll is that it will shift a lot of traffic to I-205. In particular semi trucks and that corridor will be near unusable. At that time they will have to place a toll on I-205 to relieve the congestion. That is a rip off to people who commute.
I pay 100% Oregon taxes (for which I get nothing) + WA sales tax. I pay double. Why are you bitching about that? You should like the fact of higher taxes.
Well, there's that, and also that they didn't want to add more lanes because they wanted to discourage people from driving. Hey, let's rebuild the same bridge, not increase the car capacity, and sell it to the public.
Because there is no reason for Max to be in "downtown" Vancouver. Maybe if it went east, but 'old' Vancouver is industrial with the Port, Frito Lay, Tetra Pak, etc. Many of the people who work there live in Vancouver, and the Max would be useless.
There are a lot of people living in Vancouver who work in downtown Portland. Extending the yellow line seems like a good idea.
Studies state the current bridge is good for 50 years with minor repairs. It can also be refitted and last for 100 years at a fraction of the cost of a new bridge.
We'd love it if the yellow line is extended into Vancouver. Then you guys could share in the cost of operating it. Only 20-30% of the operating cost is covered by fares. The rest comes from taxes. (For comparison 70% of the operating costs for buses is covered by fares.) Do you guys want a streetcar/trolley too? Only 5% of the fares (no one is riding it and the few that do aren't paying) covers the annual operating costs.
I'm not opposed to making a "MAX bridge". I work in Vancouver a few days a week. What I never understood was rebuilding the same bridge with the same lanes. I was a stupid idea to 'discourage people from driving'. People like their cars. Some people prefer public transit, and I do agree that the MAX line would reduce the southbound congestion in the mornings, and the northbound traffic in the evening. Luckily, I go against traffic on my commutes to Vancouver.
