Columbia River Crossing forum

Published:

Updated: February 17, 2012, 12:05 PM

 

This is a forum to discuss the Columbia River Crossing.

Starting June 1, Columbian.com readers must comment on stories using a Facebook account. This forum has been created to allow registered users to continue online discussions under your existing profile.

The forums will still be moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply.

Only Columbian staff members can create new forum threads.


176 comments

Comments

So, does anyone here think this category is a backhanded apology to Goldenoldie?

hawkeye — June 7, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Alley...I'm with you....It is time to kick and scream until the ruling elites listen to us poor taxpayers they keep loading up with debt! Cut up the credit cards, now!

tax_payer — June 7, 2011 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If anyone hasn't read the Williamette Week's article "A Bridge Too False" they should do so. The article completely debunks the notion this bridge will end congestion. It also shows the recipients of the millions spent on planning, then having the planners being told what design was going to be used after they'd spent years screwing around. The article is still up-I just checked.

mrd — June 7, 2011 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Alleycat

IS David Evans and Associates the company Tim Leavitt works or worked for? So we can't see the bids? What happened with transparency?

--------------------------------------------

That information is on the city's website:

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/government.asp?menuid=10462&submenuid;=10474

His employer is:

PBS Engineering and Environmental

The Madore Mafia tries to accuse him at council meetings regularly and he refutes them and tells them his employer is not involved. I believe he also has stated that he will recuse himself if that changes.

mrd

Thanks for reminding about the Willy Week article. It's helpful to go back and read the latest comments too. I would add the Portland Tribune article to that.

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Agreed - building a new I5 bridge will accomplish almost nothing as far as clearing up traffic congestion goes. And there's very little indication that Portland or the State of Oregon will ever permit the land acquisitions needed to widen the real choke points around the Markham Bridge and Rose Quarter and further south. Because, all things considered, they see this congestion to be mainly a problem for Washington commuters.

Having said that, the PRIMARY issue with the CRC project is light rail. Adding this will more than double the cost, and for what? All MAX lines run through downtown Portland, with their restriction of two cars per train to avoid blocking traffic. Cars hold 64-76 seats, and claim to have room for nearly 100 standing passengers. Granting this as acceptable (it isn't) for a 3 hour rush hour with the current 15 minute intervals between trains, they can move about 4,000 people from Vancouver south. This won't even put a dent in the 80K people who commute from here every day.

MAX has always run in the red, and Tri-Met buses are even worse - our C-Tran operation is world class in comparison. There is plenty of opinion that if they are allowed to put their rail on the new bridge, then tolls can be used for MAX. If true, then we can also expect to pay these tolls forever. Without light rail, then we have a much cheaper project and a good argument to discontinue tolling when the bridge is paid for.

roger — June 7, 2011 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


As I said in my comment 4:52, Mr Leavitt has said more than once that his employer is not involved and if they do get a contract, he will recuse himself. The subject has come up several times & I'm speaking from a very poor memory. However, the tapes of Council meetings would show those conversations. The comments are towards the end of the meetings. If you don't watch, you can't see the lack of respect for the mayor and members that some of the speakers exhibit. Lately, some speakers have made a point that they don't include Ms Stewart.

Let's just use some common sense here. If the mayor or any council members had any financial ties no matter how tenuous, Madore would have billboards and ads with 20 point type announcing the fact. Don't you think someone would have found out by now? The Madore crew will insinuate during their comments that there is involvement. The mayor and sometimes Mr Burkman will have to reply.

Mr Burkman worked for WADOT 1/07-5/08. That information is on his FB page and he has told it several times. If memory serves, he got a limited contract with WADOT after 28 years with HP. The Madore minions will insinuate that they have had to ferret out some secret connection and then Mr Burkman and/or Mayor Leavitt will explain.

I'll add one caveat. I don't know any of these people. They could be using their energy to destroy their integrity and deceive us. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't be showing the history of service to the community if they were secretly on the take.

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


My 7:42 comment is for alleycat at 5:41.

------------------------------------------

Roger @ 7:16

I am leaning towards your way of thinking. I am so offended by the huge waste and mismanagement of the project but that's water under the bridge now - no pun intended.

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey, GO. I requested this forum and you chimed in with a hearty second. Now it is here (Thank you, Columbian staff, for creating it).

C'mon over and join the party! You know you miss it. :)

manthou — June 7, 2011 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie - I agree with manthou - you've been a leading contributor to this conversation as long as I've been paying attention. This is not the time to go silent!!

roger — June 8, 2011 at 6:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**HEY LOU**

with the strong stench of corruption wafting from your old building,

WHERE'S ALL THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING?

DeeLittle — June 8, 2011 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


June 8 Willamette Week article

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17592-putting_the_crc_on_notice.html

Excerpt

A Joint Ways and Means subcommittee last week approved a “budget note” that ratchets up the Oregon Department of Transportation’s accountability on the controversial CRC. The budget note for the first time requires ODOT to make regular reports to legislators about the status of the CRC project.

ODOT, the note says, “shall include updated information on cost estimates, proposed alternatives, right-of-way procurement schedule, financing plans for the CRC project including initial and updated information regarding projected traffic volumes, fuel/gas rate assumptions, toll rates, cost of toll collections,” and other information.

Even though legislators have yet to approve a dime specifically for the project, ODOT and its Washington counterpart have spent $126 million to date on planning.

buckeye71 — June 8, 2011 at 6:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting article, buckeye71. But perhaps the most telling comment of all comes from that potty mouth who calls himself The Truth. Most of the Oregonians I work with in Portland feel the same way he does. And you know what else? Not a damned one uses light rail except to go to the Waterfront Park area. They drive everywhere else.

Oregon is having a hard enough time finding funds for the Selwood Bridge and for the trolley to Lake Oz. I don't think the CRC is a priority to them.

roger — June 8, 2011 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


From Vancouver Voice 6/9:

http://blotter.vanvoice.com/2011/06/an-article-too-narrow.html

From Blue Oregon 6/3 [This is a follow up to the Willamette Week article.]

http://www.blueoregon.com/2011/06/crc-costly-risky-clusterf/#comments

I'm watching for the vote results at Metro today.

buckeye71 — June 9, 2011 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Here's the Metro vote:

Metro Council says Columbia River Crossing on track to address concerns

In a 5-1 vote, the Metro Council on Thursday affirmed that many of the concerns it has raised about the Columbia River Crossing project have been addressed and said that others will be worked out.

http://news.oregonmetro.gov/1/post.cfm/metro-council-says-columbia-river-crossing-on-track-to-address-concerns

buckeye71 — June 9, 2011 at 7:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nice to see the forum section is alive and well..

AllenAnderson — June 13, 2011 at 7:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, I'll be, Jamie wants a vote on Light Rail. In it's current form, I vote no. I still think it's stupid to take it to Clark College. If it's going anywhere, it needs to go to the Hazel Dell transit station and then to Salmon Creek.

hawkeye — June 15, 2011 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Jamie wants a countywide vote on the C-Tran rail proposition, and she wants it in Nov or in a Feb special election. THEN she says we should use this election to determine whether the people really want light rail or whether to return to the drawing board. If we don't have our election, then she says she won't be able to get the federal funding for the overall project. And she say that being on the Transportation subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee puts her in this position.

Interesting. Patty Murray is chair of the same Senate committee, and supposedly requires light rail.

And, based on recent comments from Gov Gregoire, is it possible the final decision will be to say the hell with the federal funding; we'll just make it up by paying higher tolls?

roger — June 15, 2011 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes, Jamie, Let's vote soon, so I can vote NO! The article yesterday said that the there is going to be adetermination soon by the Feds(I believe) and that preliminary work on the bridge will start this Dec..... And C-Tran wants to wait until NEXT YEAR for a vote of the citizens????? Vote Now! Vote NO!

tax_payer — June 15, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I was at Walmart today (yes I know but that's where my in-laws have their prescriptions) ant there was a guy out front wanting people to sign his petition and his come-on was "please sign this or the government IS going to charge you $7.50 each way to cross the bridge".

I find it interesting how people will say ANYTHING to scare people into signing anything. I didn't look into this but I will, I don't sign ANYTHING without knowing what it ***REALLY*** is.

hawkeye — June 16, 2011 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


While staying away from the Columbian for a couple of weeks, thoughts about the CRC, light rail funding and the reasons behind the delay in C-Tran's request for a sales tax increase have crossed my mind. Mayor Leavitt, if you are monitoring this forum at all, maybe you could answer this question.

Could it be that C-Tran is postponing the vote till after the November 2012 election in the event our Presidential, House and Senate positions with be both in a Republican Majority?

The reason why I ask is because of the high possibility that federal funding for new light rail or light rail extensions will be axed should that happen and the entire project could be thrown on the back burner yet again.

goldenoldie — June 17, 2011 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie: Glad to have you back online with us!

hawkeye: I forgive you for visiting Walmart because it gave you the opportunity to warn us about the petition-gathering fear-monger. :)

Many people have a short attention span (especially rushing into a store for errands) and respond very well to the sound-bite ploy. Good advice to really evaluate every petition before signing.

manthou — June 17, 2011 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie -

Welcome back!!!

Are you certain that the lack of federal funding will shelf the CRC? Don't forget Gov Gregoire's comment that if that money isn't going to come, we'll just have to pay higher tolls.

There's a contradiction built in to the whole project. The "powers" want us out of our cars and onto public transportation, both for environmental reasons and due to this being cheaper than fixing the Portland I5 interchanges problems. But, if we take them up on this, how will this project ever get paid off?

roger — June 17, 2011 at 7:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks, Roger. I've missed sharing notes with everyone. What Gov Gregoire wants and what she gets are two separate issues. She'll be gone in 18 months...just about the time we cast our votes (hopefully). You see Roger, there's a list of proposed budget cuts by the House of Reps in the tune of about $2.5 Trillion in ten years. Included is "New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings," "Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings," and "Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings." As the availability of federal tax dollars narrow, the economy doesn't bounce back, foreclosures continue, cost of living continues to increase and dissension for the crossing project increases...she'd be looking at a virtual lynch mob rope if she kept it up with the ridiculous idea of higher tolls than what is already predicted. To top that, this bridge isn't Washington State's bridge. It's a federal bridge on a federal highway system.

If the voters cast their ballots and say "Hell NO" to BRT and LRT improvements, maintenance and operations, she cannot throw in higher tolls to pay for Washington State. The tolls are mandated to pay for the debts incurred in construction. She would have to set up a tolling system somewhere away from the Crossing Project and THAT's what we have to keep on our toes about. The truth about tolls is that people will do whatever they can to avoid paying tolls and that would mean neighborhood roadways constructed with the intent of providing local traffic needs would become thoroughfares and wouldn't withstand the wear and tear of increased traffic loads...hence, higher taxes and tolls.

It's a catch-22 which I believe Governor Gregoire doesn't want to muddy her hands with.

goldenoldie — June 18, 2011 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


george_vancouver: Keep at it. You have introduced a possible conflict-of-interest that no one else seems to want to talk about, but is truly worth digging into.

I repeated your thoughts on the Downtown Development Forum, giving you full credit, of course.

For those interested, our fair city's esteemed namesake is referring to this:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/ju...

Scott Campbell owns this land that the city needs to continue the waterfront development project, but has not accepted a payment offer yet. Remember, he lost his building to foreclosure and this is an opportunity to recoup some funds.

It also poses the question of conflict-of-interest. How objective can The Columbian be in their coverage of city issues when its owner desperately wants this deal to be successful, lucrative, and sweet?

Journalists are bound by clear professional ethical guidelines, which include staying objective and avoiding conflict-of-interest. But what about potential lucrative business deals?

manthou — June 19, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


If we're going to take the conversation to Scott Campbell trying to make money off of the waterfront project, and also resurrect the deal he got selling the old building to the city, then maybe this can/should be expanded a bit further?

For example, who owns the land being dedicated to parking for light rail? Something doesn't pass the smell test here. The Vancouver website has their 2003 and draft 2011 long term plans posted. Both indicate a commitment to making the old downtown south of Mill Plain "walker friendly", and show the area north of Mill Plain as residential. At the same time, the CRC website shows 400-500 car parking garages on the large vacant lots on Washington - one south of 5th Street and one a couple of blocks north of Mill Plain. How does channeling all this extra traffic into these areas support residential quality of life or walking?

roger — June 19, 2011 at 9:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: You add more good questions! Downtown neighborhoods are getting pummeled with quality-of-life threats and are not buying into the rhetoric.

The CRC plans for I-5 threaten to take up to 40 homes in Shumway on I Street between 27th and 39th. The 8 story bridge entering downtown will swallow a couple of other buildings and block views once enjoyed by homeowners and tenants in condos. Light rail lines will reduce street parking and driveway access to homeowners on E 17th, Washington, and Broadway. Fourth Plain freight traffic to the Port will increase when this mainly-residential route is upgraded to an "arterial of regional significance" and widened. The proposed Clark County multi-use stadium will increase traffic, litter, noise, and possibly crime. And, as you mention, Park and Ride lots will sprout in already-congested areas.

Some landowners will benefit greatly. Others will lose value and their homes to eminent domain.

We are not talking about the broad range of issues enough. Shumway and Arnada Neighborhood Associations are the most active and vigilant, from my perspective. Reading their minutes and monthly newsletters should be a ritual most of us adopt to stay fully informed. Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Shumway Chair, is running against Pat Campbell. She is probably one of the most informed neighborhood leader/advocates I have ever met.

Lord knows, the press is not covering the depth of issues. Look to your neighbors to do it.

manthou — June 19, 2011 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Col. Wrightwing, why do the city residents put up with that guy? **Why hasn't he been ousted yet???**

The stench of corruption in the city government is overwhelming.

goldenoldie — June 20, 2011 at 7:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Col_Wrightwing and Goldenoldie

Which item[s]do you find objectionable? Which activity is corrupt? I'd like to start hearing specifics.

Did he do something illegal while serving on Clark College Alumni Association?

There should be meeting minutes available for the other activities so we can see all of his illegal and corrupt activities.

Has anyone brought any charges against him? Are any charges pending that Columbian hasn't reported?

Is anyone getting organized so that charges can be clearly stated and taken to appropriate authorities?

City Council meets tonight. It's televised on CVTV if you can't be there.

buckeye71 — June 20, 2011 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Hello, Buckeye71! Bet you thought I'd never come back and answer you now, did ya! Sorry I haven't checked this column till today. You ask me which activity is corrupt. Did I say "Activity?" I don't believe I did but I believe the actions speak for themselves when describing our elected officials.

You ask a Good Question. Now I'll share a little lesson for you. Mind you, I have provided some information which provides the synonyms for the word "Corruption" from "Thesaurus.com." The wordd I have highlighted are *my* assumption of what synonymous words clearly indicate corruption by at least one elected official. I would also like you to focus on what the Antonyms for the word "Corruption" are. Looks like a recently-elected official who is also on the C-Tran Board of Directors has issues with the antonyms. Shall we begin???

Main Entry: **corruption**
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: ***DISHONESTY***
Synonyms: **breach of trust**, bribery, bribing, crime, **crookedness**, demoralization, **exploitation,** extortion, fiddling, **fraud**, fraudulency, graft, **jobbery**, malfeasance, **misrepresentation**, nepotism, on the take, payoff, payola, profiteering, racket, **shadiness**, shady deal, shuffle, skimming, squeeze*, unscrupulousness, venality

Antonyms: decency, honesty, honor, truthfulness, wholesomeness

-Now-

Shall we also add the words of "deceptive" "Liar" "Manipulative" and "Opportunistic" to the list as well???

goldenoldie — June 24, 2011 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Ahhhh yes, reading the letters to the editor and the comments from the ill informed. Oh Mister Wilson!!! Are you reading anything in the basement here on the C? I've got a little bit of info just for you, sir. According to the first link below, Sound Transit had received a 0.5% sales tax increase to cover increasing costs, coupled with federal, state and local contribution in the amount of $176.6 million as well as a fare increases in 2008 and 2010-11(June 1, 2011, fares increased again).

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/about/financial/2009/2009_Annual_Report.pdf

Now...with regards to TriMet and MAX. Sir, I've provided document after document after document regarding TriMet's financial woes. They've cut service to many neighborhoods, raised fares, received tax funding both state and federal, along with grant money. The Clackamas run still being developed was way over budget and with federal tax dollars out of a magic hat, they are able to continue the construction.

And now we have C-Tran to discuss....

Now Mr. Wilson...if you take a peek at the next link, you will see how C-Tran has had to implement 21 fewer fixed route coach operator positions in which 18 were layoffs (13 involuntary, 5 voluntary). Of the 13 involuntary, 8 have been recalled or refused the recall offer. 5 remain on the recall list and 2 of the 5 are working as Paratransit coach operators. There are also 12 fewer non-service related positions as well. The operators have been working without a contract since August 2010 with the two remaining contracts expiring just this spring as well. I'm not sure if those have been resolved as yet...and benefits such as COLA, merits and steps increases have all been frozen since January of 2010. C-Tran has raised fares multiple times and another increase begins in September of this year AND they are asking for a sales tax increase this fall for maintenance and operations...and this is only a portion of C-Tran's woes. You ought to check it out for yourself.

http://www.c-tran.com/assets/Miscellaneous/C-TRAN_Adopted_2011-12_Budget.pdf

Sir, are you sure you want Ms. Burak to read the documents on the light rail transit services of the PNW??? Mister Wilson...Garland....

...be careful what you request of others before reviewing the information yourself, first because to be honest, the budgets of the PNW Transit Systems who operate light rail or hope to implement light rail are treading in deep water with their heads under the surface 99% of the time.

goldenoldie — June 26, 2011 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK everyone, this is the second time I have seen this statement in a CRC article: "the project hopes to have a federal Record of Decision, which allows final design and construction to begin, by the end of the year." If they are starting construction by the END OF THE YEAR, could this be why they WANT TO DELAY A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS UNTIL NEXT YEAR WHEN IT IS TOO LATE to STOP the train from leaving the station????????

tax_payer — June 27, 2011 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


In an attempt to re-stimulate this basement forum thread, here is a link to an article by Jeff Manning in The Oregonian today:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/07/columbia_river_crossing_has_sp.html

Consultants are making big bucks. Good information I had not heard before.

manthou — July 10, 2011 at 7:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


An interesting side point to the article is that the reader comments addressing the project itself are overwhelmingly against it. More and more people are saying the real solution would be to build bridges in new locations, often tied to a new I5 bypass somewhere to the west.

Some months back pdxtech pointed me to a video that led me to search the CRC website. One of the things I ran across was a comment page from 2007. A rough estimate was that out of hundreds of postings at least 75% were opposed to the CRC plan - mostly due to the obvious FACT that it would do almost nothing to alleviate the daily rush hour gridlock. Interestingly, this page is gone, or buried in the .pdf files where most of the relevant historical info has been hidden with no directory to assist a search.

roger — July 10, 2011 at 8:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


As for the claim that the I5 bridge needs to be replaced to support the national defense, I often see that the military is aware of the existence of the I205 bridge. First, the military has something called movement planning, which includes selecting travel routes - they don't just jump in their vehicles and blindly follow signs. Second, if there was a real emergency, FEMA would be called on to coordinate the necessary routes to allow the military to have priority travel. Guess what? Among other things, river traffic would no longer have priority, and I5 bridge lifts would not be allowed to stop movement. And third, barring an invasion the military traffic in this area would be minimal. Most land travel would be Guard and Reserve units moving to training bases and ports. Once again, this would all be controlled if needed.

roger — July 10, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks for bringing up the thread from the Oregonian in this thread this morning, Manthou. Now that's what I call investigative journalism...and it appears the folks commenting are just about as frustrated on the Oregon side as we/they are here. I thought in order for such a project to get under way, the feds required the locals to be in the majority agreement when it comes to paying tolls, fees or tax increases, but I think Gov. Gregoire had something to do with the changes. It never ceases to amaze me how state rulings can undermine federal.

..

Roger, I might be mistaken in my assumption but I'm wondering if the push for military transport improvements is due to the possibility of their equipment might be too big to pass through the I-5 Bridge or under the overpasses on I-205. Maybe a military expert who is savvy on current military equipment might be able to chime in to verify. No matter what, though...it's not going to move the machinery any faster by having more lanes and ...ahem...MAX crossing the river. They'll still hit the gridlock issues around Rose Garden. I don't think they'd pass through Portland via that region since the Broadway overpass is so low and I-405 is no better.

I think it's all a bunch of bunk by the crossing promoters in order to attempt to secure taxpayer funding or any law changes by the feds.

goldenoldie — July 10, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie,

I see military transports on I205 occasionally. Also commercial haulers with larger cargo like boats, prefab houses, construction equipment, and windmill blades. I'm thinking if there was a problem, the last upgrades around the Salmon Creek area corrected it.

Most of what the Army has these days is lower profile and can travel the highways without a problem. They also have lowboy trailers that give extra room for overhead clearance.

roger — July 10, 2011 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie - you are correct. Every argument for a new I5 bridge can be/has been discounted except for one - the back-ups due to bridge lifts. My response to that issue is that if you can't handle waiting one out, then why did you move here in the first place? And a primary outcome with light rail will be to allow people from Vancouver to travel to Portland easier and spend more money there - no need to worry about limited and expensive parking.

roger — July 10, 2011 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: Also, if you cannot handle waiting for bridge lifts, then do what I did: find a job in Clark County. I used to have to leave at about 6 am and come back by 2 to make the trip reasonable. Now, I am less than 2 miles away from my job and can walk, if I choose.

I realize that the economy has tanked since I made that choice in 2006 and options are limited. Many Oregonians believe that the new bridge is only necessary to accommodate the steady stream of interstate commuters that drive to Portland and suburbs from Clark County for their jobs.

It does serve as a major transportation route between 3 countries, but the alternate bridge options were never really studied seriously.

I truly cannot predict where this is going to go. The more we learn about the behind-public-eye dealings, the less confidence I have in the project.

manthou — July 10, 2011 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou...I've been admiring your comments for quite some time now...and I find you to be quite a reasonable person just by your writes. You always try to find the best of any situation and have a natural knack for calming the nerves of some of us here in the basement as evidenced by the suggestions you make and the links you share which I have found to be quite useful. You have some wonderful ideas that you share all the time, especially when it comes to improving our city.

Have you ever thought about running for city council or maybe even in a position as a Clark County Commissioner?

goldenoldie — July 10, 2011 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Folks....if all goes as planned by the promoters of the CRC, here's what we've got to look forward to in the future:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

goldenoldie — July 11, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie: Thank you for the kind compliment, my friend.

Here is a link to Steve Duin's column today in The Oregonian. The comment section give-and-take with the author is interesting, too:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2011/07/in_the_columbia_river_crossing.html

manthou — July 12, 2011 at 6:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie,

As the article says, there will need to be transponders to read cars with the debit account option, cameras to take the license plate pics, and at least one booth to pay the toll. This will be a nice little set-up on its own. I wonder where they plan on putting it?

I went to the CRC website to check the project maps. Latest is June 2011, at this link. http://columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/ConcepMaps/ProjectAreaAerialMap_June2011.pdf I'm not seeing anything like this - I wonder why? I suppose one reason is that the tolling options have to be ironed out first. But it also brings to mind that the issue of whether to toll the I205 bridge hasn't been resolved yet; perhaps the reason is that they'll be placed further north - say right before the I5/I205 split?

What also caught my attention is the upgrades on the Portland side. It looks to me as though the project runs down MLK a bit further than needed to correct on-ramp problems there, sidetracks to Jubitz Truckstop, and a few other things that I'm having a hard time connecting to fixing the I5 traffic movement. And there are future projects on both sides that have notes saying LPA funding future phase options.

All things considered, I'm thinking the CRC is reaching far beyond replacing a bridge and running light rail across the river - that they see the tolls as a permanent source of funding for future projects, many of which have little or nothing to do with moving traffic on the I5.

roger — July 12, 2011 at 7:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou,

WOW!!! That is a great article. The follow-on comments are also interesting, and Duin seems to be holding his own quite well. It looks more and more like the cash cow the CRC has been to date is being exposed. Perhaps a little extreme, but I'm thinking some jail time is due. Martha Stewart was an angel compared to some of the players in this racket.

roger — July 12, 2011 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: I think many consultants have abused government contracts due to lack of oversight. That, plus a lack of confidence from the consultee to challenge a consultant. Some consultants abuse this power: who is going to challenge them, as they are the nation's top expert? There is this amazing switch to sudden ignorance and passivity on the part of the consultee. In my field, I see it all the time. Highly educated people turn over life and limb to a stranger because they think they know nothing and need the consultant to lead the way. That is not collaborative consultation and has a higher risk for financial abuse.

You made an excellent point in another thread. If the Republican legislators are proposing to take away high speed rail funds to cover disaster relief from flooding, then they will very likely pull support for the CRC funding if they gain complete power. Transportation has been the sacred cow of more progressive legislators in the past.

manthou — July 12, 2011 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, they definitely have their work cut out for them. I believe the tolling station/transponder receiver stations couldn't be set up till after the initial crossings are built, but I may be wrong on that one. And thanks for the link. I haven't had a chance to look at either yours or Manthou's but I will be later this morning. Cooking time right now!

Manthou, thanks so much for providing the link to Steve Duin's article. I'll be reading over it later this morning. Busy morning, indeed!

goldenoldie — July 12, 2011 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou,

great article, all the questions that have been asked before are still getting glossed over answers today. At least someone is still looking at what they are doing and able to report it and bring it to the public's attention. I know this is an Oregonian piece, but amazes me that WW and the Tribune are able to write such in depth stories about the CRC and, for that matter, the Lake Oswego cable car, on their limited publication budgets. The "C" could write stories like this if they let their reporters loose, but something is "holding" them back. They have done it for other stories in the past, but for some reason, not this one.

pdxtech91 — July 12, 2011 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger,

Thanks for the .PDF file on the CRC map is great. But I'm not buying it. I'll need to take another walk down to the I-5 bridge again and take another look, but I don't see how this bridge will be at ground level @ 5th street. maybe with the curve in the bridge it might, but I don't see it.

Also about using the CRC tolls as a funding source for more projects, I agree with you completely. The CRC is now ~4.7 miles. What is to say they won't extend it to be 5.5 miles later? To fund an I-5 rebuilding project around the Rose Quarter and the I-84 interchange.

Somewhere else I read that this is not a bridge project with LR and ramps. This is a highway and LR project that includes a bridge.

pdxtech91 — July 12, 2011 at 9:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91 @ 8:43 am: You wrote, "The "C" could write stories like this if they let their reporters loose, but something is "holding" them back."

That good observation has been shared by others. Are there political pressures and conflicts-of-interest? Why was the AP Rob McKenna flimsy stats article, for example, pulled so fast from the front page web carousel? Did someone in Olympia make a call to get it off the local radar? Is the pending land deal between the city and the Campbell family influencing how Vancouver city business is covered? Some subjects are handled aggressively by Columbian reporters, while others seem to be handled with kid gloves.

I truly believe investigative reporting is essential to a democracy. Ask the difficult questions and report the facts. Leave sensationalism and speculation to the forums and tabloids. :)

manthou — July 12, 2011 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I just went to the CRC Project Web site. I was interested because Nancy Boyd was on TV this AM on HLN (Comcast CH45). Actually it's the Comcast Break 5 mins before the hour. She was pushing the project of course.
If you get a chance to see it you should do so. What I got from it was Clark County was holding things up because of LR. LR is important to this project because $850mil of the $1.2bil the feds are going to fund the construction of the LR. She said something to the affect that the public is not asked to fund any of the construction costs?

No mention of tolls.No mention of earthquakes. She explained that this project was mainly to help traffic to get on/off the highway.

But at the CRC site I saw that the FAQs have been updated:

http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/FactSheets/CRC_RecentlyAskedQuestions_061511.pdf

Did you know that most bridge lifts are NOT done for marine traffic?
"...Half of the bridge lifts have nothing to do with barge traffic. Instead, the lifts are required for maintenance and non‐commercial marine traffic..."

And the chances of this project being on budget, with their program, is between 60-90 percent. WOW, talk about giving yourself a spread!

pdxtech91 — July 13, 2011 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91: Thanks for perusing the CRC website and giving us the summary updates. I have not been on in months and will give it a deeper gander tonight.

The 60 to 90 percent confidence interval on the budget is, indeed, very wide!

manthou — July 13, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


reference the document pdxtech91 posted -

What's the meaning of number 12? It sure sounds to me as though the state can reach out and make any interstate highway a toll road - they just have to ask via the process referred to.

Gov Gregoire released a transportation plan recently where this was referred to as an option.

Are there restrictions on the tolls collected, or can the be used for anything?

Time to find a bicycle for the daily commute. And that brings up an idea - what would they do if there were so many bike riders, we started our own rush hour commute down the middle of the freeway? I've got a vague recollection of that happening somewhere before.

roger — July 13, 2011 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger,

Yeah, I looked that up and tried to figure it out.
Part of 129a states...

.Initial construction (except on the Interstate System) of toll highways, bridges, and tunnels, including the approaches to these facilities

.Reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating of any existing toll facility

.Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to toll facilities.

.Reconstruction of a free Federal-aid highway (except on the Interstate system) and conversion to a toll facility;

.Preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of the above toll construction activities

Now looking at 4th bullet, it looks like tolls can not be imposed on the any part of the Interstate System. I don't know what their argument that they "can" is. Except maybe that they "can" because they said so.

GO brought this up awhile backup when she was researching this and then the discussion also talked about the possibility of tolling I-205 and where would that fall in these regulations.

Unless they are trying to ignore bullet 4 and just going with bullet 3?

pdxtech91 — July 13, 2011 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger,

How about a toll for every pedestrian and bike that crosses?

Also how about Critical Mass Rally and bikes take over the bridge the last Friday of the month? Really ugly in San Francisco and Portland when that happens.

pdxtech91 — July 13, 2011 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Much of this got lost when FB came around and all the old posts disappeared and we got sent to the basement.

I know Golden was researching herself to a frazzle on this stuff.

pdxtech91 — July 13, 2011 at 11:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, I've been in contact with Mayor Leavitt lately about the CRC project and tolling of I-205. He clearly stated to me that no funds generated from tolling I-205 could go towards the I-5 crossing.

I have one concern and that is what is written in our US Constitution and transport of freight from state to state as well as charging us all to drive to Oregon or vice versa. It is in Artiicle One, section 9, Limits of Congress and it states the following:

**"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.**

***No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.*"***

Neither statement clarifies if the vessels are ships/boats/barges OR automobiles/trucks/buses, etcetera.

Is it even legal for these tolling stations at interstate crossings???

..and Yes, Pdxtech91, I am researching myself to a frazzle on this "stuff." But someone's got to get the facts out in plain sight now, don't we!!! (wink, wink)

goldenoldie — July 14, 2011 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks GO.

Regarding 129a...as I reed it, it is illegal to toll any part of the Interstate Highway system...This seems to be the big exception in all cases when tolling is mentioned.
Of course the other way I read this same Section, that if their is a plan to toll no federal involvement (money) can be used for the project.

pdxtech91 — July 14, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Exactly, pdx! Yet they're going through like gangbusters with the planning...all the while spending tax dollars they can't afford to spend on such an endeavor. It's not a plutocracy...it's not a democracy. It's an idiocracy...idiots reflecting the type of governing body they represent.

goldenoldie — July 14, 2011 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Internal audit ordered for the CRC:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

manthou — July 18, 2011 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So, organizations have internal audits for what reasons? Let's see: they evaluate how the project is being managed, how funds are being used, where risks are ignored or not mitigated, and where the project objectives are being met (or not).

Audits, if they come out clean, are an attempt to reassure the skeptics. But ya gotta have an outside auditor of impeccable reputation. Right?

manthou — July 18, 2011 at 7:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


David Madore hires a "forensic" auditor in a reactive manner, which means he, like so many others, suspects fraud.

Proactive forensic auditors usually help companies avoid fraud. Reactive forensic audits usually dig up evidence for legal/court challenges.

Nancy Boyd never would have ordered the audit on her own without a big goose from David Madore and his endless disposable cash.

This is going to be interesting.

manthou — July 18, 2011 at 8:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting is right, Manthou. I'm curious to know if David will insist on his forensic auditor being able to review the findings by WSDOT and share her findings. I don't think even if WSDOT claims everything was within reason and was accurate...that David will truly accept it after the fact. Boy oh boy...if they publicize discrepancies....only time will tell!!!

goldenoldie — July 18, 2011 at 8:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, I am certain that the results of Madore's audit will be published, goldie. He has hired someone who is well-respected and quite tenacious.

It is scary, isn't it? Most of us will never know that kind of financial fortune that Madore enjoys. It takes cash to go after the big guys: state governments. None of us have the resources to do it. I imagine that this is not a big gamble for him: he surely knows his investment will pay off.

Problem is: in defending themselves, the CRC will need to hire their own experts to defend their practices, thereby costing the taxpayers even more money.

This bridge/light rail/toll controvery is never-ending in its ability to gobble up resources.

manthou — July 18, 2011 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting reviewing the comments on the CRC audit on the FB penthouse.

Tracy Couch, the forensic auditor hired by Madore, is taking umbrage at Andrea Damewood's reporting. They seem to have worked it out a bit due to Ms. Couch's clarification.

Ms. Couch cannot afford to offend the business community on both sides of the Columbia, which she so frequently serves and who pay her fees. There is great support from these business folks for the CRC. She may rue the day she took on David Madore as a client and is already trying to distance herself from his position on the issue. She is probably really regretting giving Andrea Damewood an interview. That kind of publicity you can do without.

Man, this thing is like a many-headed Hydra. What's next?

manthou — July 18, 2011 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A many-headed Hydra??? Oh, that's a good one, Manthou!!! I can already picture the faces on each of the heads. There's Tim and Sam and Christine and...well, you get the picture. That's one heck of a BIG Hydra!!!

As far as Ms. Couch is concerned or anybody else who is hired to do their job...this could be considered a major plus for her career. In fact, with Mr. Madore's keen business sense in hiring her due to the obvious discrepancies he has discovered, Ms. Couch has opened the can of worms which should have been opened at least a year or more ago before more spending ensued. I would think big business would be on the lookout for a woman with her expertise. I don't think she'll ever have any employment problems.

goldenoldie — July 19, 2011 at 6:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Good morning, goldenoldie! Actually, David Madore opened the can of worms by asking for the public records documents and then hiring Tracy Couch to evaluate and interpret for him.

I still believe that Tracy Couch made a huge tactical error in speaking to The Columbian at this stage.

Here's what worries me about her public posturing: it diminishes her credibility and objectivity. No matter what conclusion she reaches, she will have to explain her biases, as self-reported in her comments here and by the reporter.

She makes a good living serving a range of business interests and is an expert witness in court proceedings. Opposition attorneys will use her statements to impeach her on the stand. The less she says now, the less they can do that.

I really think both these audits will be big news as they unfold and I think they are necessary. Tracy Couch would have maintained a professional demeanor had she kept her yap shut for the time being. I think she is hurting what could be fantastic evidence by giving the opposition a chance to claim she is politically biased. I also think she has risked alienating current and potential clients who support the CRC.

I think she knows this now, belatedly, and we will not be seeing any more comments from her.

manthou — July 19, 2011 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oops: The auditor's name is Tiffany Couch, not Tracy.

Add my blushing face to the Hydra, goldie! Or is it the Columbia River Kraken? :^)

manthou — July 19, 2011 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting to me is that a couple of weeks back Ms. Boyd had no problems with the CRC finances.

This turn has nothing to do with David Madore - he's been getting ignored for a long time.

What happened is that The Oregonian has finally woken up and started looking at the financing. A few good articles in the past few weeks, discussing the CRC, the Lake Oz rail, and the lack of ridership on some of the Max routes. Then, to top it off, last week they had an editorial page cartoon that was great. There was a CRC spokesman at a podium, with an unfinished bridge in the background. Several large sacks of money were in the water, the first labelled $120 billion. The spokesman was saying something like "We prefer to think of them as pilings."

While I find it great that someone in Oregon is waking up to the problems with the project, I'm not exactly happy with the fact that this crowd has been talking about the same things for a loooong time and has been completely ignored.

Now, a nice little challenge for The Columbian. Are you going to follow what The Oregonian has started and begin giving the CRC a serious investigation? Or are you going to remain silent, thus pretty much substantiating claims that you're more interested in a social/political agenda than in presenting complete information to the people of Clark County?

roger — July 19, 2011 at 9:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, The Oregonian...much like the Columbian print what they discover. You can bet your bottom dollar that The Oregonian was paying close attention to folks like David Madore and anybody else affiliated with Couv.com or NOTolls.com only because they wanted to grab the news and run with it. David made it perfectly clear that there were issues in the documentation provided by the CRC which were posted on the Columbian. At first Ms. Boyd had assumed everything was within reason because of the extensive project...TILL David hired Ms. Couch to do the job she is best known for and that is piecing together a mish mash of documentation...clearly presented in a manner consistent with dropping your entire filing system from a 20-story building and picking it up to take it inside...(much like how a certain local hospital had done when my family attorney sought my mother's medical records, btw). Anyhow... I believe there's going to be a lot of red faces who are closely involved with this crossing project, especially when they find the dinero spent on several "general discussion sessions" and just what was discussed, what was provided and who paid for it.

goldenoldie — July 19, 2011 at 9:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou...you are right that without David's selfless move (and yes it was selfless. He could have easily utilized the funding for his business or for personal needs instead) to expedite the independent audit, this might never have come to fruition and would have easily been overlooked by Ms. Boyd. The man sees this project as I see it in the manner that this is a highly overpriced venture.

goldenoldie — July 19, 2011 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger and goldie: I have been impressed, too, with The Oregonian's aggressive reporting on the CRC. It is ethical, but confrontive, which is what good investigative journalism is.

I think, like the Murcoch issue, the CRC project will be soon scrutinized by a higher legal hammer soon. And we do have to thank citizens like Madore and newspapers like The Oregonian for being so tenacious.

I think that Tiffany Couch needs to let the Attorneys General of both states ask the hard questions, though, and simply put forth the facts as she uncovers them in her audit. Her political views are not of interest to me. But her facts are and they will speak with greater validity if I know they are free of bias.

manthou — July 19, 2011 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie: I wouldn't exactly describe David Madore as selfless in this particular endeavor. There is something in it for him and his business, for sure, or he wouldn't be pouring so much money and energy into it. :^)

He is a philanthopist for many non-profits, for sure. I don't want to diminish that. Nor do I want to diminish the effect his advocacy has had on the CRC oversight. But, let's be real: he is motivated by personal reasons first when he writes the checks to support Ms. Couch's audit. He wants to win and he has the stamina and cash to outspend us all.

manthou — July 19, 2011 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Say Manthou...isn't it election year coming up for the both the Oregon and Washington State Attorney General races??? Hmm...

Think we'll see anything regarding the CRC issue any time soon?

I guess we'll just stay tuned.

goldenoldie — July 19, 2011 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well maybe so, Manthou...but I'm thinking of the negative impact of such a project on the local businesses as a whole, not just US Digital. I know I'm motivated by personal reasons because of the financial strain it will put on my friends and my family and everyone else in Clark County...and I think everyone is considering that fact as well...trying to weigh the pros and cons of the project. I don't think he'd be getting any financial gain by having the third bridge built like he would see the need like many others do as well. Of anything, I believe Mr. Madore sees clearly the boondoggle of the current project and what the "business" side of the project will do in crippling the historic district of Vancouver (that's what I refer to the region around Clark as well as Downtown) as well as to every single person who needs to cross the river for either personal or for business use.

There is an obvious reason as to why the existing documentation, followed by the lack of certain documents which were supposed to be available upon request...are either in such disarray or not even in existence. They don't want anybody to question the project because there are certain people who want this project to continue...no questions asked. Too bad, so sad...and thankfully, their wish won't come true. There HAS to BE a Paper Trail and the current one has too many dead ends. Somebody has "Bloobered" and they are going to pay BIG time for their misappropriation of documentation. It might not be right now...and it might surface after the first shovelful is dug...but it's going to come out and folks like myself will be reminding others for the reasoning of our big stink on the project from day one. The skunks who promote this project will be rustled out of rushes...and they'll be running with their tails UP!!!

goldenoldie — July 19, 2011 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


David Madore · Owner/CEO at US Digital
Mr. Moeller, in your post earlier, you suggest that we offer a solution to help save the businesses that will not likely survive the CRC light rail project construction. In response, we have such a plan that is clearly presented at:
http://couv.com/issues/cla​rk-county-today/cct-peters​on

Not only does that plan virtually eliminate the negative impact to the businesses in Vancouver and Hayden Island, but it saves a billion dollars, provides more lane capacity, creates many new city blocks to enhance and reconnect our community, solves the problems with the riverfront development, provides a much better solution for pedestrians and bicycles, has less environmental impact, shields the freeway noise from surrounding areas, and even satisfies those who want a more iconic design. If you want a solution that is appropriate for fit and function in contrast to the amateurish CRC boondoggle, please support the model that world class architect Kevin Peterson has provided at no cost.

It makes much more business sense to create jobs.

mangoboy — July 19, 2011 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mangoboy: Thanks for the link to Madore's couv.com. This particular one was broken and I could not find it. However, there is a lot of interesting material here and, once again, I am impressed with the effort that David Madore has devoted to his vision of 3, 4, and even 5 bridges across the Columbia, as opposed to the CRC's version.

I did notice that Tiffany Couch, the forensic auditor, was seated next to Mr. Madore as he interviewed Rob McKenna on video. She was furiously taking notes. My guess is, Madore is a cash cow for her now. In this economy, she hit pay dirt. I repeat that, in order for her to protect her ability to serve as an unimpeachable expert witness in court for her other clients, she needs to distance herself from the politics of this issue. Let Madore do the politicking. She needs to focus on her investigation away from the press and cameras. She is hurting what could be could data and information and she is injuring her professional credibility.

There are businesses who, unlike David Madore, are behind the CRC.

www.couv.com is impressive. Hats off to David Madore. Shows what you can do with brains and disposable income!

manthou — July 20, 2011 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mangoboy: Here is the unbroken link to the video you posted earlier:

http://couv.com/issues/clark-county-today/cct-peterson

manthou — July 20, 2011 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Tiffany Couch can't help herself or keep her opinions to herself until she is finished with this audit. She continues to speak on behalf of Madore on the FB Penthouse forums.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I urge her to stop. She may actually come up with some very valuable data in her investigation, but it won't be worth the paper it is printed on if we think her professional opinion is clouded by personal politics. And she is handing the CRC a good argument for that on a platter here. Her youth may play into it. But, for all her smarts and poise, she is making a huge tactical error.

'nuf said. Sorry for my soapbox.

manthou — July 20, 2011 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh Manthou...I'm glad you got on your "soapbox." Before, I didn't quite understand your stance regarding Ms. Couch till your further explanation. I couldn't agree more with you. She would best serve herself and the cause by David Madore by playing the role of a politician...and that is to keep her mouth shut while her investigative process is complete. Once her findings are complete...then she could reveal what she has discovered (if anything). She wouldn't have to plead her case. Any evidence found would speak for itself. It would be those who have been involved in the CRC process who would find it necessary to plead their case.

goldenoldie — July 20, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie: I knew I could count on you to get the big picture! I really, really, really want to see some facts and I think Tiffany Couch is in the perfect position to produce very valuable information that we all need to know. But if there is any wiff of political bias, it will appear tainted and lose credibility. I can see the arguments being formed right now if she continues to be seen on camera and in print echoing David Madore's viewpoint before the investigation is complete. Opinions are for sale all the time. We all need respected, unbiased data. Does it exist any longer?

Who is on Madore's contractor payroll? How much have each of them earned so far? That information is not public record, I think.

We should question all data on all sides.

manthou — July 20, 2011 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I find it refreshing in a sense that Tiffany Couch is not pretending to be fair, objective and unbiased. It doesn't matter, if the inquiry is purely factual and is primarily concerned with finding specific expenditure records. People are going to say she works for Madore any way you slice it...

mangoboy — July 20, 2011 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oregon is starting to ask questions. See today's Columbian article entitled "Oregon Treasurer questions CRC traffic, tolls, governance". One of the concerns is that tolling revenues have been woefully underestimated, which means other funding sources may be required. They also come up with an estimated toll that says traveling both ways will run around $5.60 per day. This'll be a financial killer for many.

Also interesting was the response from Andrea Damewood to a facebook post that was pretty much "so what" to the reduced tolling income estimates. She rightly pointed out that there'll be bills and interest payments that have to be made on time - the message was if tolls aren't generating the required amount, then we'll need to get the money elsewhere. THANK YOU!!! It's about time The Columbian starts pointing out the many potential problems we'll be facing with this project. Until these problems are clearly addressed and planned for, we're looking at a potential long term disaster.

roger — July 20, 2011 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou's earlier post about Madore's motivation for opposing the project was a good observation - this isn't an altruistic campaign; he's got his own motives. For start, his push for a third bridge in the 19? Ave area. There will be something of an advantage for far eastside businesses - to include Madore's? But this bridge could only go to I84. All this will accomplish for most will be to create another freeway parking lot on I84 - worse than already exists there. And this will in turn make I205 traffic worse. Yes, a third bridge is probably the best of all options, but it needs to go west of the I5, and eventually work down to hook up with the I5 south of Portland. This would clear a lot of traffic off of the I5, which in turn would make the 84 and 205 less crowded.

Which has all been said by others.

roger — July 20, 2011 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, I don't believe the third bridge would be that beneficial for Mr. Madore's company since it is closer to the vicinity of I-205 than it would be a bridge at 192nd Avenue. Also, I believe the 192nd Avenue Bridge could easily tie in with Airport Way at 181st Avenue or with Marine Drive right into Troutdale which is already a truck route anyhow.

..

Manthou, Ms. Couch would have to provide absolutely accurate data in order to allow Mr. Madore to confront the officials regarding the handling of funding for the project thus far or she could end up making him look like a fool. I don't think they'd listen to her if it was based on opinions alone.

goldenoldie — July 20, 2011 at 6:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger, mangoboy, goldie: You all are making such good points about this CRC project. I swear, the deeper I go, the more confused I get and the less hopeful that any of this will be resolved.

Like goldie, I have been following this for years. Early on, hardly anyone was showing up to the CRC public input meetings. I mean no one. A big yawn. So, they proceed, without scrutiny (who is gonna listen to the underwhelming crowds of citizens showing up?) and get very comfy with the freedom. The first time it burgeoned in my neighborhood was when people found out that they might lose their homes to the I-5 improvements. Then all hell broke loose.

In one of Madore's well-produced videos, Tiffany Couch describes making a recent presentation to Oregon legislators as close to us as Lake Oswego who had no clue what the initials CRC stood for!

Anyone have a crystal ball or is prescient? Tell me how you think this thing is gonna go........Honestly, I am pretty good at predicting outcomes, but I feel like goat guts and dice would offer me a clearer picture of the future of the CRC than my feeble brain can imagine!

manthou — July 20, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Here is the link to the article to which roger refers at 5:22 PM yesterday:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

Excellent reporting, Andrea Damewood!

Will there be a conflict between the two states on how this underestimated revenue will be collected? No one seems to be working together on anything here. Amazing.

manthou — July 21, 2011 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A public works project so divisive and as murky as the waters beneath the bridge will yield nothing but headaches for anyone trying to figure out the end result. My best guess is it will drag on for years, and result in a less than optimal solution, unless there is a dramatic change in leadership that will suspend the project, such as what has happened with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility.
The CRC project is emblematic of many of our current national difficulties, such as mountainous debt, political polarization and too many governmental agencies and entities.

mangoboy — July 21, 2011 at 6:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Mantou, your comment..."I swear, the deeper I go, the more confused I get and the less hopeful that any of this will be resolved."...is exactly what our fine government and the promoters of this project set out to do. They didn't want community involvement. They wanted their special interest accomplished without our input. The more involvement by the people who pay these clowns (Us)...the more discouraging news reports such as the Treasurer from Oregon hits the back side of the promoters and local governments. Now if they had just promoted the idea of upgrading on ramps, eliminating or extending a useless HOV lane in the northbound lanes to Main Street in Vancouver...and maybe even replacing the current bridge across the board and forgetting all about the light rail altogether into our city....

They might have had more support by the community. The officials know their jobs are on the line with our screaming at them and pressing them to do their jobs correctly... providing obvious documentation which proves they are overstepping their bounds and ignoring preset federal laws and regulations including the replacement of a bridge listed on the National Register of Historic Places in order to accomplish what their special interest-guided endeavors...that people are going to stand up for what's right. Manthou, it's clear that there is one big issue which is standing in the way of this project. Every single official I have contacted have told me "they'll have to look into it," and not one single person, Including David Madore who is fighting the current bridge project have come into the open and said..."Oh...we might have a problem here (which David acknowledged but never got back to me after 3 weeks" or "Well, this puts the situation into a whole new perspective." Instead...**ZERO response.** Manthou...I speak of this document:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fbridge.asp

goldenoldie — July 21, 2011 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting find, goldie. Maybe the historic preservation advocates (I include myself among them), can be the ones to put the brakes on the destruction of the current bridge.

Ya know, though, it takes mounds of cash or an aggressive and talented attorney willing to take a case pro bono to get some attention. I would love to know what David Madore has poured into his efforts in time and money.

mangoboy: Your 6:53 am comment is spot-on. This CRC project is the poster child for overbloated, poorly managed and under-monitored government.

manthou — July 21, 2011 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Info from Allen on another thread:

The citizen-activist group, Third Bridge Now, is hosting a discussion session to present alternatives to the Columbia River Crossing Project. Supporters of alternate ideas are invited to present their concept. The public is invited. Friday, July 29 5:30-8 pm and Saturday, June 30 10am -8 pm. Clark County Public Service Building, 6th floor, 1300 Franklin St., Vancouver WA.

manthou — July 21, 2011 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"It's like a bird flying around in ever-smaller concentric circles until it rams itself up its own keister."
Jack Bogdanski 7/21/11

Tolls now, new bridge later?

http://bojack.org/2011/07/tolls_now_new_bridge_later.html#comments

buckeye71 — July 21, 2011 at 11:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Its not a bad old bridge. It could use a good painting, with a color other than slime lime green, and some slower speed limits to prolong its life and reduce traffic accidents.

mangoboy — July 21, 2011 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Just checked the facebook article to see the comments. Jim Moeller was the only CRC project supporter out of about 30 comments. And even he paid lip service to the need to monitor expenses more closely.

So, the opposition is just a few "say no to everything" conservatives? Guess again.

roger — July 21, 2011 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Allen: The ONLY reason why they are pushing so hard for the team to come here is so they have an excuse to include light rail from Portland to a Dead End. They REALLY think Oregonians will flock to Vancouver to watch a minor league baseball team, even though the popularity of Major League Soccer by Portlanders is right in their home town. Heck...I'd rather watch a high school baseball team any day...or better yet - city leagues!!! I'm wondering if anybody who has promoted the Bears has really checked them out as a baseball team rather than a money pot...which could just as easily show up empty as it could full.

goldenoldie — July 21, 2011 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

By the sound of things...our elected powers that be are scrambling for the necessary federal funding to replace the historic bridge in order to replace it...*AND*...it appears they have finally realized what those of us have been saying all along is the truth they've been denying for how long now???

Well CRC promoters...the clock is ticking away. That's TWO major hurdles facing our leaders in September and without the BIG one...the politicians are facing the distinct possibility of nailing us taxpayers with an outrageous toll for a crossing they refuse to give up on and that toll??? ...most likely closer to that $7 mark one way...and they can't afford such a hit against the voters as it would be a political career suicide for any politician who has supported the crossing (which is almost all of them in this region, btw).

If they'd only kept on track and accepted the BRT lane idea with only 4 lanes each direction OR a bypass bridge for freight transit rather than a billion dollar light rail conceptual theme...they would've had more support from the voters.

That's what happens when you plan far beyond your budget. It'll get ya every time!

goldenoldie — July 27, 2011 at 6:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


David Madore points out in the FB penthouse:

"Did you notice? All that money that the CRC is after is not from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) because the FHA builds highways that move traffic. Instead, they are after $850 million from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Light Rail."

He makes a point.

manthou — July 27, 2011 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Andrea Damewood: Excellent reporting!

manthou — July 27, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes Manthou...and it was pointed out to him by me about a month ago, that there are no federal tax dollars in the actual replacement of the historic bridge...only federal funding through the number one government entity which backs light rail and high speed rails along highway corridors. Amazing, isn't it what can be surfaced when common everyday folks can stick their heads together to share notes and read the information, check and double check the laws and mandates and verify any and every bit of documentation they can find, huh!!!

goldenoldie — July 27, 2011 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Allen...the ONLY reason why I back a straight across the board replacement of the bridge is because of the lift spans and river traffic. I remember several years ago when we had that nasty winter spell which caused one of the lifts to freeze in the UP position. The dinosaur is getting old.

I just don't believe in incorporating light rail at this time. I believe that is a billion-dollar waste of money which will not provide what the FTA and CRC are seeking...and it's definitely not worth the investment...especially when we have an outdated swing bridge railroad in a lot worse shape than the I-5 Bridge and could easily incorporate a light rail lane in each direction which would not affect heavy rail traffic...but again, that's common sense...a two word description which doesn't appeal to the powers that be.

goldenoldie — July 27, 2011 at 10:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Allen,

IIMO the reason not to go further west with a bridge and to use the current path all the way through Portland is that it would bring more drivers through Portland to spend more money and also most of the truck trafiic leaves I-5 a to more easily access Ports, railroads and other shipping terminals. You brought up a great point though that most just don't understand.. Its an important strech of highway fro transpotaion. I beleive that within 10-15 years we'll see a widening and additional lanes on I-5 south through town, heck they just made an extra lane htrough delat park and it's so much easier to drive through there now, they just need to kep going through Portland now....

rtsidethinker — July 27, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


rtsidethinker: The widening of I-5 in Vancouver and 4th Plain from I-5 to the Port is already in the works.

Up to 40 homeowners in Shumway have been wrestling with letters from the CRC that show various scenarios to partially or fully take their homes on I Street between 27th and 39th Streets. They are living in limbo, not able to sell, not able to perform upgrades, not knowing when their homes will go and how much they will receive for the pain and inconvenience.

Fourth Plain Blvd has been designated a route of "regional significance" which is an upgrade. Instead of Mill Plain, it is being groomed to be the main truck route to the Port and it will need to be widenened to accept the large wind turbines coming through. Seventy-five percent of the properties on Fourth Plain are residential.

manthou — July 27, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie: I forgot about your excellent Q and A with Mr. Madore before we got booted off Press Talk by the Facebook "improvement." I sent an email to the editor, suggesting he put you on salary, since you were doing his job so well. ;)

Not surprising, I never heard back from him.

manthou — July 27, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I wouldn't have accepted it even if he had considered it, Manthou. Actually the information I speak of...I sent to Mr. Madore in a private email away from the C. In his own indirect way...he answered me in his comment on FB.

goldenoldie — July 27, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou,

Thats great..I hope they take off all the ruck traffic from 39th st and 4th plain west... 39th st is so tight now with the new pop outs they "city" has created and you can barley drive two vehicles past each other in opposite directions now. Whe trucks drive on them , they move over the yellow line...

I remember reading about a new home owner who didn't know of the impending widening of I-5. The new bridge project was going to take there home potentially.. What I find off is that the realtors and the previous homeowner didn't divulge the impending possibility...

One should also do there due dilligence when purchasing any property. Go to the city and county to look for any pending or potential changes in classification or potential zoning changes...

rtsidethinker — July 27, 2011 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

Isn't Max such a wonderful and safe experience for us women???

And he's been caught. What a danged low life this pathetic individual is!!! His momma should be proud of him beating on an 84-year-old woman.

goldenoldie — July 29, 2011 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I think he suffers from severe mental illness, goldie. I am not excusing the behavior, just putting some perspective behind it. I would bet his momma is devastated for the once-healthy son she lost to this cruel illness. And I would also bet she is devastated for the injury he caused.

I see that Tiffany Couch keeps waxing eloquent on the FB side, which is her right to do, of course. Keep it up, Tif. The opposition will chew up your audit report and discredit it due to conflict-of-interest. Mark my word.

manthou — July 30, 2011 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Tri-Met is adding 6 more fare inspectors, goldie. I just read that and heard it on a news broadcast. I think I remember reading a study that showed there was less crime when there were more fare inspectors.

So maybe Tri Met is taking that to heart, afterall. You cannot have little old ladies roughed up and expect people to feel safe. That's for sure. :(

manthou — July 30, 2011 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou...even if Tiffany wasn't sharing her perspective as she did today, the opposition would find some way to chew up her audit report because they are going to go through with this project even if it breaks each and every one of us. It is my opinion that she brought up a good food for thought.

As far as the young man is concerned...I'm sure his momma would be upset...but the 84-year-old woman is the one with lasting issues; not only physical injuries but emotional injuries as well. My thoughts are with her. And Manthou...she's not his only victim. Wouldn't you think after the first attack, that momma should have stepped in??? BTW, the young man was listed as a transient. Does he even have any family??? Sorry...in this case, I have no sympathy for the young man and until I hear the whole story...my thoughts for his family are to be held back from this write.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2011/07/gresham_police_arrest_teenager.html

goldenoldie — July 30, 2011 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou...with their recent cuts and downsizing of bus routes and pending closure of WES, I'm just wondering how much longer those "fare inspectors" will be on the job. Still...MAX in my opinion is not as safe as some try to portray it to be. If the platforms aren't secure...who's going to ride? They've wasted money on "Classic Music" at these stations thinking it's going to reduce crime..um, yeah...well, I'm sure you know what I'm thinking on *that* one. I'm just saying...TriMet hasn't grabbed hold of control on crime when it comes to the MAX and a few keystone cop security guards on board isn't going to take care of the issue at the stations.

I still believe it's a baaaaad decision by CRC, RTA and FTA to recommend MAX lightrail into Vancouver...especially with the limited run into the section of Vancouver that is trying to regain it's footing as a prosperous and upbeat community.

goldenoldie — July 30, 2011 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie: You wrote in another Forum topic yesterday the question of how much this debt crisis and cut backs will impact the CRC.

My guess is that it threatens it significantly. We need infrastructure support, but priorities are changing as I type in DC.

The sad postscript to this crisis is: how do we recover the immense funds already spent on the CRC? We could really use them, wouldn't you say?

manthou — August 1, 2011 at 8:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"""The sad postscript to this crisis is: how do we recover the immense funds already spent on the CRC? We could really use them, wouldn't you say?"""

Congrats, Manthou!!! You have provided the $160 million dollar (and growing daily) question of the century!!!

Now...like Allen says, what has been spent thus far...

...is history. Chock it up to yet another embarrassing example of our leaders at their worst.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2011 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Common sense says the project should die.

But don't forget the governors' press conference a couple of months ago. Gov Gregoire referenced the possibility of no federal monies, and said the project will go ahead anyhow. We'll just have to pay higher tolls. Remember?

roger — August 1, 2011 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger, goldie, et al: Have you seen Tim Leavitt's FB comments on Press Talk today? Worth a gander.

manthou — August 2, 2011 at 8:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou,

Yep - I read them. I'm thinking the Mayor's story is a little too pat. As I've said before, given his previous service as city councilor and C-Tran Board member, there is NO way he could have "suddenly" learned new info that would cause him to change his "no tolls" position. And when I was doing my research on the history of the CRC project his name popped up a few times - he served with groups that were supporting the CRC project with all bells and whistles.

What I'm starting to wonder is whether the whole election was a bit of a sham - perhaps to keep a candidate that was truly opposed to the CRC from being elected. Is it possible that Mayor Pollard was ready to move on, and Tim Leavitt was picked by ICC (or whoever) as the successor? Mayor Pollard said there would need to be tolling, but he wanted it to be as low as possible. Leavitt said "No tolls", playing to the growing anti-CRC sentiment, and won. And then quickly reverted to ex-Mayor Pollard's position. Interesting. Meanwhile, I've seen Royce Pollard's name pop up a couple of times since the election on documents posted to the CRC website. Now, throw in one more point. Royce Pollard is retired Army Colonel Pollard. This kind of misdirection is something he would be more than capable of planning and orchestrating.

And still another point. Vancouver was on an annexation binge during Mayor Pollard's tenure - the often stated goal was to grow the city large enough so we could be considered a big time player in the state. Then, once a growing number of people began speaking out against the CRC, the Vancouver City Council suddenly became so insignificant that they have no input in any of the decision making process. Or so they say.

Maybe this little theory deserves to be dismissed as pure silliness. I've no way of beginning to prove it. But I'll bet the Editor in Chief of The Columbian knows the details if there is in fact more to the story we've been told.

roger — August 3, 2011 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think it is interesting that The Columbian decided to print something in the Op-Ed section questioning some of the data used to back the CRC Project. Even though it was not written by anyone on the "C" staff. It might show that maybe the "C" might sometime soon take a stance regarding this project.

The next step might be a probative article or two regarding financing and/or about deals to groups backing this project.

BTW, I read Tim's letter on the FB side and what struck me was his comments in the middle of the letter about anyone that questions any of the decisions made by the CRC Board or who have any suggestions that differ from those made by the board are no more than obstructionist and that all we want is to stop any "progress" in the region.

One more thing. The more I think about it the idea of a bridge @ 192nd ave is a good idea but for maybe the 4th bridge across the Columbia in this area. The 3rd bridge, in my estimation, needs to be on the westside. Something needs to be done to improve the flow on traffic on I-5 through Portland and a new bridge will need to be built to speed up the flow of traffic North/South. Something that will intersect HWY30 in PDX and either go directly HWY405 or tunnel through to HWY26 and 217. (but that will be Oregon's problem to solve)

pdxtech91 — August 7, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I just saw the scroll on the main page of the "C" and I'll need to go back and read the articles on the CRC and bridge but I just read this in the WW. It's about trying to "fast track" the process in Portland.

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17810-all_aboard_.html

pdxtech91 — August 7, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91: Wow. Thanks for that WW link! Hope this stimulates a discussion.

manthou — August 8, 2011 at 7:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


From an article posted sometime yesterday, entitled something about agency having CRC funding concerns --

Clark County Commissioner and RTC member Steve Stuart said that highlights “significant unresolved” issues regarding the CRC’s financing.

Any changes that make tolls more costly for local residents is “unacceptable to RTC and unacceptable to me,” he said Friday.

I can read this two ways.

The way I WANT to interpret his comment is that if the 2/3 funding from the feds and 2 states isn't forthcoming, then the project will need to be shelved.

What I'm afraid he's saying, however, is that tolling the 205 bridge might be put on the table again.

roger — August 8, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The Oregonian published this on Saturday:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/08/columbia_river_crossing_could.html

We will see how this shakes out with the budget crisis in bloom.

manthou — August 15, 2011 at 6:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Manthou, I was just saying to a friend of mine that the promoters of the current bridge design, equipped with light rail, had stars in their eyes, trying to promote an iconic "attractive" design rather than what was truly needed in the corridor. If they had only gone for a straight-across replacement with a higher span to prevent any need for a bridge with a lift capability, changing the on ramps, eliminating the two narrow pedestrian paths with a centrally-located bike/ped path like I-205 Bridge, they would have most likely had more support of the people. Instead, they were looking to spend like it was going out of style. Funny how none of the articles ever mentioned the FACT that Trimet was pushing for light rail to come to Vancouver because of the fact that their revenue district would increase which would inevitable help them to secure more federal grants and funding to fill their pocketbooks...er...I mean to say to help cover their administrative costs. They tried and almost succeeded in brainwashing the commuters that the light rail would improve commuter transit in the corridor...as though we were all stupid enough to fall for THAT one!

The project was doomed from the start. The wasted funding spent thus far could have easily gone towards retrofitting or replacement of concrete weights or even better structural integrity of the footing of the bridge till our economic climate settled enough in order for us to actually get a bridge everyone would be comfortable in spending their tax dollars on.

Now...looks like we'd have to face a natural disaster in order for the dinosaur to be replaced...and NOBODY wants a natural disaster of that proportion here!!! Sad to say...now it will become a headache for the folks who use I-5...especially in the winter if either lift jams in the "Open" position again like it did a few years back when we could have had a functional replacement by now.

This is definitely a prime example of what is wrong with our current government.

goldenoldie — August 15, 2011 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Wonder what Ryan Hurley and Casey Wycoff (principal at LSW Architects and designer of the new rock climbing gym), think of light rail?

Seems to me that Mr. Hurley is snapping up properties and development opportunities (cannot blame him one bit) on the proposed light rail line area. Koplan's building is right on it.

Could a friend of David Madore's actually be in favor of light rail? Afterall, it will bring business to the buildings he is developing. I look forward to seeing where both Hurley and Wycoff stand on this issue.

I do know of downtown businesses who support the concept of LR to our city.......

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/au...

manthou — August 17, 2011 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


141 comments in one day. Not bad. Shows there is a real interest in the 10 billion dollar distruction of this regions economy, called Columbia River Crossing.
Campbell is being voted out of office because of his support of the CRC, a few more local political supporters to vote out of office and the head of this snake will be cut off.
Taxpayers need to remember all of the supporters of the CRC, not only the political but their business supporters. We need to take our hard earned dollars and not support those businesses that support the CRC. Support local businesses that support you, not the special interest groups and businesses that support the CRC.

AllenAnderson — August 17, 2011 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


AllenAnderson: Calm down, brother. I think the local church mega-congregations, the ones associated with these developers, could easily keep the new climbing gym in operation with steady business for years. :) Who knows what is going to happen to Koplan's. Another church perhaps? Whatever, it is better than a vacant building.

Boycotts don't really work. Here's some evidence-based research on the subject, just in case you are interested:

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/why_boycotts_succeed_and_fail

On the FB side, you claim that Bill Turlay is the only people's choice for city council. We'll see. I think Anne McEnerny-Ogle has the attention of some of us peoples. :)

manthou — August 17, 2011 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


From Andrea's article posted late on Aug 17 -

"The Interstate Maintenance Discretionary program gave a $2 million grant to the Washington State Department of Transportation and a $3 million grant to the Oregon Department of Transportation for the CRC. The grants apply for fiscal year 2011.
"A total of $100 million was awarded nationwide under the discretionary program and priority was given to projects with high traffic volumes in urban areas."

I'm somewhat curious about why Oregon gets more than Washington for what SHOULD be identical project plans. Is it possible they're not?

But these people are really making my head hurt with the ever changing reasons for the new bridge. I thought the CRC itself recognized that the project would do little to alleviate the traffic volume. Rather, they've pretty much focused on bridge lifts, earthquakes, and light rail providing an alternate way to cross the river when (if) gas prices soar. So now we're back to the project having an impact on traffic? In what way? Is it possible they're still saying it'll relieve the congestion in downtown Portland?

roger — August 18, 2011 at 6:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey AllenAnderson...good to see you're in the Basement!!! Long time no chat!!! You have a good idea about boycotting but unfortunately, the majority of Clark County's businesses support the CRC by being listed on the website for Identity Clark County, whether they want to admit it or not. Any comments made by the Execs with emphasis on their website with ICC which clearly display the list of supporters and is a comment representing the companies...so you'd be boycotting those businesses which would defeat the purpose of promoting jobs for the people of our county.

goldenoldie — August 18, 2011 at 6:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks Golden.. Going to be a slugfest worthy of a good country bar fight in Western Montana on the CRC. Personally I would perfer to put my efforts into tax cuts and a balanced approach to taxes, but this insane idea has got to come to a stop. Believe Golden the only way we are going to be able to stop the CRC is in court. A class action lawsuit is the only way we will legally be able to stop the spending, and maybe hold the spenders accountable in some legal fashion.
Miss ya young lady, you always brought so much class to the debate, miss your point of views.
Ever in Camas look me up, we'll have a cup of tea at the Chinese Gardens.

AllenAnderson — August 18, 2011 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


By the way today my wife and I have been married 32 years... Life Is Good.

AllenAnderson — August 18, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Golden witholding our dollars from supporters of the CRC is not anti business, anti worker, anti job. Where you spend your hard earned dollars is very much a personal choice. If you spend at a business that supports you, not the CRC is still being job friendly, and I would argue even more so. The unnecessary 10 billion dollar drain on this regions economy will cripple SW Washington for decades, and require generations to repay. This will finically cripple thousands of familys and businesses, and may just break some that are just holding their own. If a person chooses to spend their dollars at a business that promotes stopping this insane idea called CRC I am all for it. That business will support this region by providing needed employment with my dollars. By not supporting a business that wants me held hostage every time I cross the Columbia River to see my grandkids to be is being very pro business, thus being very pro job.

AllenAnderson — August 18, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Congrats on your anniversary, Allen. We celebrated our 32nd anniversary this year as well!!!! It's a special club us couples belong to, huh!!! I don't get to Camas very often but maybe you, your wife...me and my husband can meet some time in the future for that tea. Regarding the CRC...I think you're right that it will take the courts to decide...but which ones??? County, State or Federal? I'm thinking Federal.

Also, we're experiencing yet another deja vu with the $6 million dollar "grant" to study the design of the crossing. Don't they get it yet??? You can't change the design or the route of the crossing. They're going to disturb the underwater landscape...claiming it will be better than what is currently there. Anybody who has done any kind of study will find it is very limited where the structure can be located (my non-expert opinion of course) and no matter what...any replacement will disturb the migratory fish habitat as well as the habitat of the Columbia River sturgeon population in the area...but I guess dinero has the preference in the eyes of the ICC, CRC, ODOT, WSDOT, Corps of Engineers, Trimet, C-TRAN and everyone else involved.

goldenoldie — August 19, 2011 at 6:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Start in any court we can, but will be kicked up to where it needs to be in short order. Just where to start?....

AllenAnderson — August 19, 2011 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/au...

Well, it is something else to see Lew Waters and Debbie Peterson on the FB side embracing an environmental group's report! They certainly are not questioning the science or rationale behind the recommendation on this one.

Hell hath frozen, methinks.

manthou — August 24, 2011 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I hale from the St Louis, MO area. Many bridges across the Mississippi between Missouri and Illinois. I moved here several years ago from Northern California. Anyone ever been to the Bay Area? Multiple bridges.

Yet in the Portland-Vancouver metro area there are only 2??? That is absurd.

Anyway, the price tag on this new I-5 bridge has bugged me for awhile. I simply can't wrap my brain around why this thing is going to cost in excess of $3 billion. So, I did some research...

Remember the I-35W bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis? Replacement cost on that one was $234 million.

I also found a project page for building 2 new bridges and replacing a third one in the Louisville, KY-Southern Indiana region. This involves 2 states so I thought it was relevant.

*The project is comprised of a new downtown bridge just east of the Kennedy Bridge (I-65); an east end bridge about eight miles from downtown, connecting the Gene Snyder Freeway (KY 841) to the Lee Hamilton Highway (IN 265); and a rebuild of the Kennedy Interchange where I-64, I-65 and I-71 converge in downtown Louisville.*

http://www.kyinbridges.com/project/overview.aspx

Cost for this project? $4.1 billion.

Kayla — August 25, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Kayla: Good to see a new name posting! Your information shared is interesting to me on a couple of levels.

I used to live in the Louisville KY/Jeffersonville IN area, residing at different times in both cities. These two cities are very comparable to Portland/Vancouver, as they are right across the bridge from each other. There has been a great deal of growth in both areas and traffic has increased dramatically.

Do you think CRC planners ever reviewed the costs of construction and engineering that occurred in planning for comparable bridges? Boggles the mind, if they did not.

manthou — August 25, 2011 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, it looks like the GUVNERS of Warshington and Orygun have signed off on the bridge design. Even if we vote down any funding for maintenance and operations of the light rail segment of the blasted project, our trigger-happy Chrissy will be more than pleased to sign yet another one of her controlling executive orders and we won't have a choice OR a voice.

I can't wait till election time when we choose a new governor!!! Hopefully, whoever is chosen, will think of the people rather than the transit companies first.

goldenoldie — September 9, 2011 at 6:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/se...

"""*Columbia River Crossing planners made several key changes to the project’s environmental plans before sending them to federal authorities last week, but opted to wait on at least one other matter — updating traffic forecasts that remain overinflated.*"""

Why does this not surprise me that the key information is being withheld from the Federal Government which would determine the necessity of replacement in the first place? Shiftless, deceptive, underhanded and flat out wrong. There's no quick fix to the problem of our recession and people out of work and the FACT is that more people are driving BECAUSE they're looking for jobs beyond the lists on the internet.

SHAME ON YOU CRC OFFICIALS and GOVERNORS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON!!!

SHAME ON YOU!!!

goldenoldie — September 19, 2011 at 6:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/09/at_hayden_island_interchange_t.html

Pretty stark information here on the mammoth footprint to be created on Hayden Island by the interchange. At least the homeless will have plenty of bridge to shelter under.

mangoboy — September 25, 2011 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Eminent domain of the waterways, mango???

goldenoldie — September 25, 2011 at 6:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A link to an article Jeff Manning had in the Saturday (Sep 24) Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/09/at_hayden_island_interchange_t.html

A large part is about the expected "death" of Hayden Island during the 5 years the CRC project will be building there.

What I find especially interesting is the comments - there is some real hatred being spewed, and most seems to be from Portlanders directed toward Vancouverites. But they have a point - no one "down there" gives a damn about the I5 Bridge. They see it as an expensive monstrosity being built because people from here don't want to sit in traffic waiting for bridge lifts while commuting to/from jobs that they feel should be filled by Oregonians. My only real counter to that is that if they'd take the time to cruise Vancouver, they might see all the green and gold O stickers and the Oregon license plates, and come to the realization that a large number of these commuters are in fact Oregonians who moved here to escape the high housing costs and poorer quality schools "down there."

roger — September 27, 2011 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/se...

Hmm...anybody want to take a guess if this hearing will accomplish anything?

goldenoldie — September 27, 2011 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Today I was out and about...made a trip to Troutdale to the Outlet Stores. Instead of going back on Marine Drive or I-84, we decided to go back to my old stomping grounds where I was born and raised. All the farms that once stood...gone. The Satellite??? Gone. Instead, shops and condos and stores and minimalls and boarded up buildings and trash and cement walls lined Stark Street from 242nd Avenue west to where Stark crosses over Burnside. And that neighborhood??? The old Fred Meyers Building is gone, HEAVY construction at the new transit station at 185th and Burnside continues...and the iconic eyesore of someone's "artistic" structure (The Rockwood Sunrise, they call it) at the transit station is ugly as aitch ee double toothpicks. The roads are so cluttered...not with cars mind you, but just plain too crowded. (BTW, East Burnside is right behind those Booths) It's currently only one lane and the other lane is a turn lane just a couple of blocks up). It is obviously a problem with community planning in that neighborhood. Buildings are jutted right up to the narrow sidewalks and bike paths are just about nonexistent.

http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/news/RockwoodInMotion_March2011.pdf

My old neighborhood...the place we called home...I never got to see. The disaster in Rockwood was very troubling to me, knowing what I used to know as home...

is no longer there.

Get Ready folks in downtown Vancouver and at the neighborhood on Fort Vancouver Way as well as Fourth Plain Road. If it's any indication of how they have ruined Rockwood...your neighborhood will be next, my friends.

goldenoldie — September 27, 2011 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie,

I've had an epiphany of sorts.

Our local movers and shakers say light rail will get people from South of The River to come here to spend money and watch baseball. But, strangely, I've not yet had any of the people from THERE, the people that I work with and meet every day, agree with this. In fact, most think this is the dumbest thing I've ever said to them.

On the other hand, I can see light rail moving a LOT MORE money to the South. Portland figures we earned it there, and thus it makes sense to push for a system that'll expedite the return of it as quickly as possible. Vancouver's payback is 3 parking garages to support light rail; never mind that the large one at Clark College should prove more than sufficient. They'll make plenty of money from all three.

This idea hit me when I made my usual stop at Cascade Station to catch the Red Line downtown. I wonder - how many other people from HERE do the same, and how much money can they make by giving us secure parking here at home? See, now I'll do the fast walk from VooDoo Doughnuts to Powells and then on to Everyday Music. But after a couple of hours I start getting antsy about my car sitting on a side street by the station, and I usually cut the leisurely trip I'd envisioned short - this just isn't satisfying. Now, if there was in fact a safe place to park my car in Vancouver and a short train ride to Portland - EVERYONE will win. Vancouver will get a few dollars from me, Portland will get a LOT, and I'll happily hand it all over.

roger — September 27, 2011 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


It's all too frustrating for me, Roger. I can see what's going to happen around Fort Vancouver, north to SR-500. Will it be worth the transition??? Just remember how difficult it is to move about in Downtown Portland and now on MLK, soon to be on McLoughlin Blvd in Milwaukie. Has light rail helped business in downtown Portland??? Or what about in Clackamas???

sigh...

Progress sucks when it only benefits a select group instead of the entire community.

goldenoldie — September 28, 2011 at 6:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.ajc.com/news/hot-lanes-empty-saturday-1192725.html

Taxed to pay for it, now paying again to use it. sounds familiar.

mangoboy — October 1, 2011 at 6:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sometimes it's hard to please everyone as well. old adage...As far as taxed to pay for it,and pay to use it.. There doing that in Seattle.. Were just not and haven't had to in the recent past.. I like many people I know don't go to Pee-Town that much anyway.. I can get what I want here in vancouver and I support local businesses here also. There is not a business or store I would drive to in Pee town that I cant find the same thing here in Couv...

vanwadreamer — October 2, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Just a bit of info on that, vanwadreamer. Many of the stores will order the product on site in your presence and have it delivered to their store...or even to your home, alleviating any travel to Portland.

goldenoldie — October 2, 2011 at 2:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Hey Manthou, sorry I didn't get back to you till this morning. Thanks for bringing up that article!!! It makes you wonder what David Evans has to hide, huh! Now they're wasting tax dollars suing the WSDOT on top??? And the CRC still continues with this facade of the betterment of transit ...er, I mean freight mobility???

goldenoldie — October 12, 2011 at 6:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Manthou...you can't get anything past the writers of the Columbian, even if it were a day late and a dollar short. I see they've taken the same article and put it on their site to share with the folks on the FB side. Glad to see they've done so. Now...regarding David Evans & Associates...

why are they wasting time and precious money with legal action??? Oh wait, I forgot. They're wasting OUR time and OUR tax dollars with the design fundamentals of a project which I see as becoming a dead end one very soon.

goldenoldie — October 12, 2011 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


From the Columbian's Editorial desk on 12/11/2011:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/de...

I am looking forward to the start of this critical local infrastructure improvement that impacts a global economy. Seems like we have been waiting and planning forever.

Good call, Columbian, in your editorial support.

The only regret I feel about this project is that the design could not be one that would be an iconic image of the region for decades to come. WPA projects still infused art and form with function............

manthou — December 11, 2011 at 9:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OK,

Just read:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/de...

Along with the link that Manthou has in the comment above.

**I'LL SAY this on more time...**

There is a reason why for $140mil dollars we haven't seen a model.

I was just reading about the concrete lid and wondering why it was part of the project and from the way this article is written it is a partial pay back to Vancouver for taking 3 acres of the fort for freeway expansion. Plus the loss of the homes on the west side of I-5. Add the ramps and the spur for the light rail and this will totally change the landscape in downtown Vancouver and not for the better.

CRC...Instead of showing drawing and large prints, **build a MODEL & DISPLAY IT TO ALL OF US THAT LIVE IN VANCOUVER**
What are you hiding?

Big C...I know Lou never gets to this forum but someone pass the word to him...Go to the CRC and ask them for a model. For $140Mil we deserve it. We paid for it.

If these guys can build a model of a working airport, I think the CRC should be able to come up with something to show 4.4 miles of highway and a bridge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383532/Knuffingen-Airport-German-builds-worlds-largest-model-airport.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4NcT...

pdxtech91 — December 28, 2011 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91: Not much action on this Forum, is there? :)

I never realized there was not a model of the bridge and the 5 miles of highway improvement. Good for you for drawing our attention to it.

Have you written the CRC for an answer?

manthou — January 14, 2012 at 6:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Echo. Echo.....

Hello?

Anyone else notice that the most recent report on Tiffany Couch's forensic accounting investigation of the CRC disappeared mighty fast from the web's rotating carousel of featured stories VERY VERY FAST?

It was generating tons of hits and comments and interest.

Who do you suppose made the call to get it off the web honor roll ASAP?ghstiyou 150%

manthou — January 22, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The last two words are echoes from the CAPTCHA. At least I can count on that to be here.....

manthou — January 22, 2012 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou

YEAH, not much action here...Now that this forum is on page 2, no one gets over here. Every now and again I'll write something on the weekly forum I try to keep them sparse and short because I know how this one issue can take over the talk. But to me it is more important than discussing republican primaries. **It's closer to home!**

pdxtech91 — February 7, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login