Monday, December 12, 2016

Columbian revisionist history on the CRC scam

There's a reason that many with a level of political awareness exceeding that of a board fence despise the local cancer on our community: today's revisionist history lesson is one of them.

The rag is rabidly in favor of the CRC Scam. That never stopped, because when they babble about "achieving a consensus," what they're saying is "let's try and convince the yokels who were smart enough to oppose us that we actually need this rip off and again, no other option is possible."

In today's idiocy, even these clowns want to try and get something done about cross-river transportation issues... IF.... IF.... the result of those discussions is what WE, The Columbian, want.

The democratian has a short memory. Greg Jayne was covering sports at the time and clearly wasn't paying attention to what was going on... about how the leftist swindle sheet he worked for savaged almost anyone opposed to their agenda (Never went after Rivers, though: Brancaccio has expended too much hair color for that) and how Johnny "Cockroach" Laird, then editorial page editor even went so far as to refer to those of us opposed to their scam as "cockroaches."

So, I wasn't surprised that these same clowns would try and frame the issue in their terms and to our detriment.

Excerpts from today's insanity:
Therein lies the problem. As Rubin said, “It’s hard to build a project if the local constituency is in opposition to it,” and much of the constituency was opposed to the proposal that resulted from years of planning the last time around.
Which means that the first step must be to forge some sort of consensus. Opponents of the now-dead Columbia River Crossing claim that the project was generated with little public input; considering the hundreds of public meetings and the years of planning that went into it, this assertion is flat-out inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean that consensus had been reached.
When Jayne falsely claims that the claim of "little public input" (essentially ZERO public input, in reality) is "flat-out inaccurate," he is "flat out lying."

Tiffany Couch, Forensic Accountant extraordinaire discovered the damning document that even the rag couldn't ignore... the document that showed the policy of the CRC to ignore public input and do everything they could to minimize that input so they COULD ignore it, the claim that a meeting where people got up, or people submitted written testimony THAT WAS GOING TO BE IGNORED BY POLICY, that does NOT equate to "public input." "Public input" DOES NOT HAPPEN when agency policy is to do everything possible to ignore it, belittle it and attack it.

Now, Jayne either didn't know about that document (unlikely) or, in fact, he KNEW about it, but is choosing to ignore it. Thus another salvo of the democratian's revisionist history.

But then, "public input" in opposition to the rag's agenda has never concerned them in the past.

The rag goes on to further their agenda:
In the most simplistic terms, Oregon insisted that a new bridge carry Portland’s light-rail system into Clark County, and many county residents were strongly opposed to that portion of the plan. The solution would seem to require building a bridge that is capable of carrying light rail sometime in the future, but not now. We would recommend a provision that calls for light rail when Vancouver reaches a certain level of population density, a density that can adequately support the system
.Sheer, utter, nonsense: If any bridge is built that HAS "loot rail" capability, the pressure will be immense and continuous to get light rail going.

I know it: they know it as well, but let's remember, the ENTIRE reason to replace the I-5 Bridge IS to get loot rail into Vancouver/Clark County, to help bail out the debt-ridden TriMet that is down almost $2 billion.

And then THIS inanity:
The second pressing issue is that many people on this side of the Columbia River believe the priority should be a bridge to the west of I-5 or to the east of I-205. There are valid points to be made in support of these proposals, but the logistics are even more daunting than those for an I-5 replacement, which would simply be expanding an existing highway corridor. And considering that the I-5 Bridge has been derisively dubbed the only stoplight between Mexico and Canada, it should remain the priority.
So, because the "logistics are daunting" (and what does that mean, exactly?) we should IGNORE superior and more sensible alternatives and, you guessed it, replace a perfectly functional, paid-for bridge with loot rail and massive tolls that, I point out for the thousandth time, THE COLUMBIAN WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY..

Ain't it the easiest thing? You know, to spend other people's money for what YOU want?

I'm reminded of President John Kennedy. His famous Moon Speech at Rice University (September 12, 1962)
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too..."
"Daunting logistics," then are NEVER a reason to NOT do anything. If the thing you want to do is the RIGHT thing, difficulties in logistics should have zero play in the decision as to whether or if it should be done.

What Jayne and the rest of the morons at the rag would have us do is tear down a functional, serviceable bridge to get light rail into Clark County because that, in their expressed opinion, is apparently "easier" than the alternative of building other NEEDED bridges first.

So, we should waste billions replacing a bridge that works to get loot rail in here, while we then proceed to ignore the sensible solutions that will actually positively impact I-5 corridor issues the most: namely, building a bridge to the west of I-5 from, perhaps, the Hazel Dell, Ridgefield, Woodland areas to Hillsboro, because, well, doing the thing that has the most positive impact and cost the least amount of money is somehow just too hard.

There is ZERO priority in replacing theI-5 Bridge. None. That it is being called ANYTHING (even a "stoplight") justifies nothing...

Nothing, then, has changed. I expect the sell out politicians like Rivers will lead the charge to replace an a bridge that works well, that is paid for, that is safe and when the replacement is completed, do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the area's number one transportation problem, traffic congestion.

Meanwhile, the dream of additional bridges built where they actually WOULD make a difference will die an ugly death as the replacement of the I-5 Bridge will suck every dime of transportation money out of the region for decades to come.

Jayne also goes on to babble:
And, finally, there is the issue of tolls for crossing a new bridge. Opposition to any proposed toll is understandable; nobody wants to pay more money. But it makes sense for those who use the bridge to pay a little more of the cost than those who do not use it, and some form of user fee is a more equitable way to pay for massive infrastructure projects.

"Pay a little more of the cost?"

Like $2000 a year (to begin with) in costs... each... for 40 years is a "little more?"

Sometimes, I m amazed by the local cancer on our community.

Rewrite history. Rewrite circumstances. Shove reality out of the way. Stick to their agenda. Lie to us, exaggerate to us, ignore us and belittle us... it never freaking ends.

I will oppose ANY effort to replace the I-5 Bridge until 2 other bridges are built first: one to the East of I-205 and one to the West of I-5.

The same people shilling this crap in the past will be those behind this effort. They will lie. They will steal. They will ignore us THIS time just like they did last time. NOTHING will change if the focus is to be on the I-5 Corridor to the exclusion of everything else, PARTICULARLY when the other options will do more to relieve that corridor than replacing a bridge that will result in a 60 second southbound commute reduction.

You see, I was born on a Saturday... but not LAST Saturday. And as we move forward, I hope for the best... but expect the worst. Because clearly, none of those so rabidly in favor of this scam last time have learned a damned thing.

1 comment:

Pete Masterson said...

Agree with you 100%.

Tolls: In the S.F. Bay Area, various bridges were "paid for" ... but did the tolls stop (as promised years earlier)? No. Money was diverted to subsidize BART, the "futuristic" transit system that gave the Bay Area heavyweight transit trains that were incompatible with every other transit train in the U.S. (requiring custom designed and built equipment).

So, the liars who say tolls are "required" for new bridges crossing the Columbia are just establishing a new means of fleecing the taxpayers and users of the system.

The Interstate bridge is "functionally obsolete" -- along with some 80,000 bridges in the U.S. But what IS "functionally obsolete"? It simply means that the bridge, as it is currently configured, does not meet the lane width and shoulder specifications currently required for new roadways. That does not mean that the bridge is unsafe, or that it is in danger of physical weaknesses. In comparison, California's Richmond-San Rafael bridge, that opened in 1958, was built with 3 lanes in each direction, using the full width of the bridge structure. That bridge suffered from low traffic volumes for many years after it was built ... for a variety of reasons, a "lane" was removed from one deck for a water pipeline to bail out Marin County (one of the richest counties in the U.S.) as they had not built sufficient water collection/retention systems to survive a drought (that occur in California with regularity). When the pipeline was removed, the R-SR Bridge was reconfigured with 2 lanes of traffic in each direction, with generous shoulders on each side. NOW it was NO LONGER functionally obsolete! The same could be done with the Interstate Bridge, though the reduced traffic capacity might be more of a problem than it's "functionality" obsolescence.

I moved from California to SW Washington to get away from the insanity of California politics and anti-automobile biases. It's sad to see that the same type of slimy politicians are here (as well) who think nothing of trying to screw the taxpayers in order to fund wasteful projects where corrupt politicians and contractors can make big bucks.

I have years of experience commuting in the SF Bay Area -- and the obvious solution to many of the problems that exist locally is to build more crossings of the Columbia River. (How many bridges cross the Willamette?) One to the east of I-205 and one to the west of I-5 would be ideal. In 50 or 75 years, when the Interstate bridge may be suffering sufficiently for a complete rebuild, then that bridge could be replaced with little disruption to traffic using the other bridges yet to be built.

During the discussions surrounding the CRC, I read one proposal where a change to the RAILROAD bridge might allow more river traffic to pass under the Interstate bridge instead of having to use the drawbridge segment... it makes sense to spend to reduce the need to open the draw bridge, especially at inconvenient commute hours. It makes NO sense to build a "replacement" bridge that does not allow existing shipping to pass under the Interstate bridge.

Finally, with the advent of self-driving cars -- and driverless "Uber" and "Lyft" services, with likely very cost competitive costs, the need for trolley cars from Portland to serve Vancouver and Clark County may NEVER make financial sense. (And frankly, having experienced BART "service" in the SF Bay Area, I don't think trolly cars are the answer in any event. If some sort of "improved" transit solution is required, a "Bus Rapid transit" makes much better sense, is more flexible (when growth occurs off the rail transit route -- as it has in the SF Bay Area), and is generally more cost effective.