Craig Williams continues to bury himself politically.

.
One of the many old axioms of politics includes the old saw: "When you find yourself in a hole.... stop digging."

Williams' continuing moronic and unsupportable position on the I-5 Bridge/Loot rail scam just means he's using a bigger shovel:

by Craig Williams : 8/4/09 3:28am - Report Abuse

Paul,

I think your thoughts on the I-5 bridge are well motivated, but unfortunately they are based upon the popular, but inaccurate assumption that the problem is all on the Oregon side.

During the public candidate meetings for county commissioner, one candidate would repeatedly say that we don't have a problem, Oregon does. Then as an example he would point out that Northbound traffic is backed behind the bridge far to the south every afternoon, but once it gets on the Vancouver side - whoosh! no problem.

But his example didn't prove his point, it refuted his own statement. The only way that traffic can be backed up from the I-5 bridge south into Portland is if the Oregon road is fine and the bridge is a chokepoint. You get trapped at the chokepoint and once you get beyond the chokepoint then whoosh - you are on your way again. It's an arguement FOR a replacement bridge, not against.

In the morning commute traffic often backs up Northbound on the Vancouver side. Why? Because the bridge is a chokepoint in both directions. The Portland area does have traffic problems that I don't enjoy commuting in, and they need to be fixed. But fixing all of Potland's congestion won't fix the chokepoint at the I-5 bridge.

The other fallacy often promulgated as truth is that the bridge won't reduce congestion. That is a deceptive half-truth. It is partly true that the planned replacement bridge won't reduce the congestion - but only when you compare the future congestion levels of a new bridge in 2030 (about 3 hours) to today's levels (about 3 hours). If we don't build a replacement bridge, the congestion will increase to about 15 hours a day in 2030. A new bridge will reduce that to 3. The two comparisons are apples and oranges.

IMHO the I-5 bridge is outdated, inadequate, and unsafe. We are spending more money in ****** traffic jams due to "bridge-caused" congestion than a new bridge would cost, so we won't "save" any money by delaying its replacement. In fact, the longer we delay the higher the cost of a new bridge will likely be.

Williams' position here is a classic of self-delusion that flies in the face of the facts. How anyone could possibly expect to get elected running against an anti-bridge candidate (The unarmed candidate that Williams is refering to is Tom Mielke. Williams stupidly (and quite wrongly) indicated after Mielke qualified for the general that he, Mielke, could not win. The title for the unnamed candidate is now "Commissioner," proving that WIlliams knows even less about politics than he doers bridges... and this babble indicates that's nothing at all.) by spewing this downtown Mafia nonsense that directly contradicts Don Wagner, Region 6 DOT Administrator, is beyond belief.

Williams position, which sentences 65000 commuters to an ADDITIONAL $1300 per year in tolls (to start) completely overlooks THE most efficient, cheapest alternative: build a 3rd and 4th bridge somewhere else to relieve congestion on the I-5 Bridge... a fact that puts the lie to all Williams' nonsense.

Further, experts have concluded that the replacement bridge, which will have precisely the same number of through lanes as the current bridge, will do absolutely nothing to relief congestion.

Williams is a classic example of a politician that hasn't yet grasped the concept that while figures don't lie... liars figure.

Replacing this bridge, which is being done only and entirely to bring loot rail into Vancouver, will accomplish nothing that Williams believes it will, and it will suck hundreds of millions of dollars out of our local economy to boot.

Like most political scum that do not want the people to have a say in our lives, Craig Williams is from the "save-us-from-ourselves" school of thought; much more suited to leftist democrats then this, yet another faux Republican.