We need a new bridge. Some dumb shit decided it would be a good idea to pass by the bridge at 6pm this evening on my way home from work and I sat in traffic for almost an hour at a standstill. A lot of pissed off people.
But why do we "need" a new bridge? Studies show it won't lessen gridlock. Oregon has no idea how it will pay for it. All it does is allow for Max to cross over into Vancouver. Does that justify the costs?
As I've heard, because the Glenn Jackson (205) was built with federal money, it cannot be tolled. Can you imagine the gridlock on 84 everyday though if this passes? That thing is already crazy at rush hour!
you have missed the point alltogether, again. The "new" bridge is a replacement,not an additional bridge.
I'm fine with any road project as long as it is paid for by the users. Making it a toll bridge seems to be the most logical.
At first blush, it makes sense. However it would divert so much traffic to I-84 & I-205 that the result coould be chaos there. And while I have no doubt there will be some sort of toll if the entire cost (not counting what the feds put in) is paid for by a toll, it'd be well over $50 each way in order to pay off the debt in any sort of reasonable timeframe.
Exactly. If you wanted to cross for free, you would be stuck in traffic for an hour or so to get across the 205 bridge. If you wanted to pay, you'd get across in a heartbeat. And you would pay off the debt over the life of the bridge, which makes the payment reasonable. It wouldn't be anywhere near $50. All in all, it would hurt the Southern Washington economy as real estate costs would plummet followed by service businesses being hurt by depopulation. Portland would be the big winner.
I thought one reason a new bridge is needed is because the current one does not meet very high earthquake standards. A modest earthquake where the West Hills fault meets the Columbia, or a Cascadia Subduction quake in the ocean and the bridge will be out of service. Looks like I found a link to confirm: http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/jan/26/I-5-Bridge-safety-earthquakes/
That tolls are the way to go. Also, it would remove some of the freeriding that has occurred by Southern Washingtonians.
I have seen that a well, the existing bridge could be up fitted fo a fraction of what the replacement cost will be. If "bridge safety " is the real issue, almost all of the existing ones ons in state would also fail..this just happens to be the one they wantt o stick a light rail on....
Sure the project has become a frankenstein. And sure, the project is dominated by those in Oregon who have a particular "vision" for how public transportation and development occurs. But, their side won decades ago, and nothing has changed in the intervening years. As far as retrofitting a bridge where the foundation is not on bedrock - call me a skeptic. I very much doubt that putting money into a very old bridge with a crappy foundation is worth the money.
