Saturday, March 29, 2014

Why even bother to try? (Bridge consensus)

Earlier, I posited the proposition that there is no point in seeking consensus.  I wrote:
And now, we have a pile of dust and a cadre' of bureaucrats and misguided electeds who will attempt to wreak their revenge on us all by doing everything they can to teach US a lesson: by stopping any of the many other solutions available for our transportation issues.

How many times did we hear... "no light rail, no bridge?"

Where were the interests of the people in that?

Nowhere.

Yet, I feel no joy in this project's demise.  Imagine where we would be right now if this energy had been expended in an effort to fix the problems confronting us instead of the waste of social engineering... of ethics violations... of betrayal of an entire community.

No... I don't feel all that great about this.  Instead, I quietly grieve over what might have been... and how badly those who work for us are now going to try to damage us even more.
So, yesterday, 3 GOP representatives made the classic political error of believing that it was a good idea to meet with Lou Brancaccio.

It's wasn't.  And if you're GOP... it never is... unless you're a Boldt clone... but how'd that work out for Marc?

Under that article is a series of comments that merely serve to reenforce the conclusion that there will be no compromise.  It will only be the replacement of the I-5 Bridge and the stuffing of the loot rail system and the ultimate salvation of TriMet down our throats... against our wishes.

Brancaccio talks about "compromise."  Pike talks about how the voters have made it clear that light rail is DOA.

And the pro-CRC Scammers, what have they had to say about all this?

There is no compromise.  There is no point in even trying.  There is THEIR way, or NO way.

So, why even try?
Kelly Keigwin ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
Harold, if you are retired, then you are out of the loop as to what commuters who work in Portland need. It isn't a 3rd bridge to the east and light rail would take drivers off of the road as we have more and more people moving here every day. You obviously don't know how many workers current;y bus over or would take light rail instead of driving if it was an option. It isn't some plan to milk taxpayers, it is wanted by many, including the elderly and disabled.
Reply · Like · 22 minutes ago
Andrew Cleveland · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
To start with the "preconceived notion" that there will be no light rail is by definition a failure to consider all options. These very legislators have forced us to go all the way back to the early 1990's and yet they aren't starting with a truly clean slate. Might as well just build another drawbridge.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 2 hours ago

Dylan Normington ·  Top Commenter · Arizona State University
You will not get a new bridge in place without light rail. It will be a non-starter with Oregon and with the federal government. You also will not be able to build a west-side bypass over Sauvie island. Oregon residents will not let that happen.
Reply · Like · about an hour ago

George Kolin ·  Top Commenter · Stevenson High School
Why not build a MAX transfer station at Janzen Beach and use buses to cross over?
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · 2 hours ago
Kelly Keigwin ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
Please just stop with your smart ass, non-productive, troll comments. You obviously have never had to do that commute. Please stop crapping on people who do it every day.
Reply · Like · 20 minutes ago
Shea Michael Anderson ·  Top Commenter · Owner & Lead Gardener at The Sacred Garden
Having said that, this "Bistate" business (why can't they call it the "Interstate Bridge Coalition"?) and its "reaching out" to all parties still doesn't take into account the disparate views and stances of interested parties - a majority of Vancouver voters favor some sort of light rail addition, as does Salem, as does Portland. In fact (as we've seen) Oregon won't approve any new bridge WITHOUT light rail on it. Furthermore, the first thing the "Bistate" folks need to be doing is mending fences not only with Gov. Inslee, but also with Sen. Murray - the folks who pushed for funding in the first place. They also need to check in with 13th & Franklin to make sure M&M are on board, rather than winding up with egg on their faces if the Commishes stand opposed. Finally, Pike/Rivers et al need to face facts that NO new highway construction is funded in Washington state without it being able to pay for itself - this means, yes, TOLLS.

Dylan Normington ·  Top Commenter · Arizona State University
Oregon will not approve a bridge without light rail on it. Pike is wasting her time.
Reply · Like · 1 · about an hour ago

Robert Ives ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
Ms. Pike probably needs to work on her pitch for a new bridge effort. "No light rail" is a guaranteed non-starter for any real negotiation. The harsh fact that the Washington "no CRC" troops have to come to terms with is the bridge needs buy-in from the Oregon side, the feds, and those of us in SW WA who favor light rail. All options and all locations need to be on the table if one is truly starting the process over.
Reply · Like · 2 · Follow Post · 3 hours ago

Steve Tubbs · University of Washington
Re: No Light Rail! If non-Vancouver city residents could avoid any taxes to pay for the capital investment, then the question should be reserved for City residents, who may have a different perspective, along with Portland's Metro, which perhaps has the largest say in the matter. I agree that La Center residents, and Yacolt residents, and Battle Ground residents, for example should not have to shoulder the burden of such an investment, although their user fees will be higher if such an amenity were to become available. In any event, if the City wants it, and is willing to pay for it, along with the Feds and the two States, then the critical dialogue lies appropriately with City residents, who are not nearly as vociferous in their opposition to light rail. /s/ 'Whacking the bee's nest', along with Ms. Pike
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · 3 hours ago

Dylan Normington ·  Top Commenter · Arizona State University
Oregon will not allow a third bridge. A bridge will not be built over Sauvie Island. A bridge from HWY 14 to Airport way is woefully inadequate. Building the Madore bridge will do nothing to help traffic on I-5.
Reply · Like · about an hour ago

Chad Pettingill · Milwaukie, Oregon
Oregon lawmakers will never vote for a third bridge. It goes against the growth plan and not to contribute to Clark County's sprawl.
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · 4 hours ago

Jim Moeller · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Clark College -- Vancouver, Washington · 125 subscribers
Interesting. Reps. Pike and Rivers have been meeting with myself and other D's in the county for some time. I'm pleased that there is feeling that a consensus exists that the bridge needs to be replaced. I'm also pleased that the Madore "3rd bridge" idea is seen as a "diversion" from the task at hand - replacement of the I-5 bridge. However, Liz essentially states, "Let's start again - this time without light-rail".

Why? I suspect the answer lies within the question. Because (given the public process, expert review panels, compromise between the two states, federal funding, etc) we will likely end up again with the project we had, with light-rail - except at a higher local (tolls) price. Why is that not pandering to one part of a local "advisory" vote yet ignoring another "advisory" vote of a bridge with no tolls?
Reply · Like · 4 · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

Kelly Keigwin ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
Light rail is needed to move Clark County and the people who live here and commute into Portland for work or pleasure forward. If building a new, non-Madore, privatized bridge can happen with the possibility of adding light rail in the future, we should all be on board. Those with racist, phobic, aka "crime train", responses to light rail need to face the facts that the !-5 bridge is a major artery and cannot handle the amount of traffic on it. At some point we will need more public transportation, for those who work in Portland, as well as the elderly and disabled. Adding another bridge to the east is a joke and does nothing to ease the congestion or improve the safety issues we are facing now. It's time for a sensible solution and I would love to see both parties come together to make it happen without the ideas Madore has put forth. It is obvious he is just one of those guys who says he can get it done for less, when in reality he has no idea what he's doing and will end up creating a mess and wasting all of our taxpayer dollars, just like he has by waving fees for developers. Also, those who don't want tolls and have delayed a new bridge will be the first ones to point fingers if and when the bridge collapses. And George, please stop with your idiotic talk. We ALL pay for our roads and most of us want a new bridge. Please stop being hysterical. Madore's bridge would result in much higher tolls in the end than a sanely planned out solution that goes across party lines, because he is promising something that cannot be done on the cheap. Thanks for working on this Jim Moeller. The majority of us appreciate your hard work.
Reply · Like · about an hour ago

Mike W Baur ·  Top Commenter · Hudsons Bay High School
Pike and Rivers are as delusional as Madore and his "free" five year fantasy bridge.
Had those two republicans really cared for our safety, they would have been more constructive with the CRC. Instead they followed right down party lines and bought into the boondoggle conspiracy. And in the end it will now cost more to replace the 100 year old structure.
Reply · Like · 2 · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

Ed Ruttledge ·  Top Commenter · Vancouver, Washington
“Let’s start at the beginning and have no preconceived notion of what this is going to look like... and then Rep. Pike goes onto say what Clark County voters "wanted" must control certain features of a bi-state regionally interstate highway bridge critical to multi-state west coast commerce .

Note to Rep. Pike: In building your "coalition," you may discover that a "coalition" will have to include interested parties not residing in Clark County who don't really care to enable Clark County commuters' short-sighted self-serving self-righteous demand for inflexible single modality infrastructure for their daily use without paying for any of it.

Douglas Green ·  Top Commenter · Publisher at Telecom Reseller Inc
Good luck Ms Pile but observe: you're not even in idea stage yet and the Third Bridge quacks are already on force. No one tell there is zero support in Oregon for a third bridge and no federal money for such a project. It's a funny thing with lunacy- you can't just turn it off. The business wing of the GOP is waking up to the prospect of having crazied themselves right out of a cool 4 billion that would have trickled through the local economy - and now comes the Hail Mary pass to bring it back. It's hard when you've blown up the ocean liner to pretend that a row boat can pull off the journey
Reply · Like · 2 · Follow Post · 12 hours ago

Michael R. Newton ·  Top Commenter · Portland, Oregon
It will NEVER happen. We will vote NO on replace or new bridges over the Columbia River. That it!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 13 hours ago

Jim West · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Licensed Commercial Real Estate Broker at Clark West Development
I agree with Reps Pike, Vick and Harris -and I assume Senator Rivers that there is no need for an East County bridge. I-5 is where the focus should be.
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · 15 hours ago
They're whistling in the wind.  With some of the hatred expressed in these and many other comments, what is the point of bloodying their heads?

1 comment:

Lew Waters said...

As I said before, any Republican that caves on light rail, no matter how much I like them, will not receive a positive comment from me anywhere.

I will do whatever I can to see them ousted.

The CRC scum will use every trick they can muster to force that antiquated mode of transportation off on us and bankrupt the community.

You don't need to be a rock scientist to understand a third bridge, at least, must be built first to relieve the expected 8 or so years of increased congestion resulting from building anything alongside the existing bridges.

And that 8 years will be enough to completely destroy the downtown of the city while leaving Vancouver citizens on the hook to pay for Portland's folly.

As well as, if resurrected, that hastily agreed upon contract with Trimet becomes valid again since I see no effort to seek an agreement to terminate it fully.

I hope Liz, Ann and anybody else realizes just what is at play here.

I have no problem just turning my back on more R's and leaving them to their own accord.