I agree to a large extent but I don't thing the "frame" of this is as far off base as Jill seems to think it is. As a Vancouver resident that works in Portland I have followed this problem for several years now. The current commission looking at the crossing is (as far as I know) the second. The first being a commission that just looked at interstate commerce and then handed it's recommendations to the current group. Every recommendation I have seen has extensive discussion and acknowledgement of the need to incorporate train and bus service into the design of a new crossing. I think this is a very progressive and welcome objective. While I would prefer to ride to work in a bullet train that will not happen for some time.

I consider myself a progressive and environmentalist and agree there are too many cars making the trek to Portland every day. There is a greater discussion that can be had about how to solve this (I would like to see more business development in Vancouver for example). But without trying to widen the debate lets look at the facts. The thousands of cars going10 – 20 MPH for 30 – 60 minutes each way is a lot more fuel burned and emissions released than those same cars going 50 – 60 and making the distance in 15 – 20 minutes. Express lanes for busses and carpools will become more viable with an expanded bridge. Currently there is no incentive to ride the buss. C-Trans “premium” service has become cost prohibitive since annually a pass is over $1100 and riders sit in the same traffic going 15MPH anyway! Also better commercial distribution between Multnomah and Clark counties could help address differential of economic development between the two.

The bridges will be replaced. This will be both a livability, environmental and commercial benefit to all residents on the Oregon and Washington side. I think the open involvement of the community thus far in the process is a testament to the positive frame of this discussion.

The number one priority should be to make absolutely sure Light Rail is not included in any plan. It will devour a huge amount of needed funding, commit more to operating the system while contributing nothing to progress.

Jill,

"Peak oil" seems to be the mantra of the moment. I worry that this is just the topic de jour and that we'll shape policy for the long term without thinking through the consequences. We have to be careful not to overhype this threat as other population, energy, and food threats have been overhyped in the past.

Ken raises one important point above: the problem with the current crossings are that one creates a tremendous bottleneck at the Interstate bridge. Ideally we'd swing folks completely around PDX altogether--the direction of traffic right now is from Vancouver out to Beaverton/Hillsboro, yet we have a highway system designed to funnel people into the center city.

With respect to peak oil specifically, what's happening in these parts is that this claim is used to support a specific type of residential design (high density, heavy reliance on mass transit, reduction in road and highway capacity).

Second, what's not at all clear to me is why "peak oil" may instead accelerate a movement toward environmentally sound automobile technology (hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars). If so, then we may still have to accomodate the American reliance on the automobile as a mode of personal transportation.

Why do we want to spend tax money to make it easier for still more people to live in Washington, shop in Oregon, and beat all taxes?

Paul, You hit the nail on the head. I love mass transit! If I reasonably could I would use it more. America as a whole loves cars! I think eventually peak oil will hit but I don't thing, here in the US anyway, that electric trains and busses are going to be the accepted answer. I think auto consumers will demand solutions from manufacturers and we will finally see some major headway toward alternatives for powering our automobiles. That still means cars and bridge crossings.

TomK, I think this tax thing is a myth! I live in the couve and work in Portland. I spend money in Portland and Vancouver alike. Just like my brother who lives in Gresham and works in Portland spends money in both. I don’t know of anyone that deliberately makes the effort to avoid taxes. And lets be clear, Oregon, Washington and the Feds will be paying for this bridge so it isn’t like Oregon is getting screwed here (as it seems to me you are indicating). Even if this were a tax evasion paradise all the Portland business coming in from the north side of the river would mean more revenue for tax paying companies. Oh and don’t forget I live in state that has NO INCOME TAX and I pay 9% to Oregon.

I will give you this when I go to Jantzen Beach I see lots of Washington License plates. My first impression (when I lived in Oregon!) was “look at all these people evading tax”. Then I moved to Washington. Break open the yellow pages and look for stores that carry big-ticket items. Is there a CompUSA in the couv? Best Buy? Circuit City? Linens N’ Things? Should I turn around and drive several hours to Tacoma to shop? I think I have made my point.

I'm sorry Doretta but you have fallen asleep at the planners wheel.

The anti road lane agenda is a fallacy beyond reason or logic.

The worst use of our public transportation dollars has been light rail.

It will be again if more is spent on it.

Worse yet is there is no measurable impact or benefit from our light rail. Only tremendous cost.
If your logic says waste the money just so it can't be used for anything auto/truck/commerce oriented then you at least are being accurate in that regard.

That waste is the fundemental reality of our light rail.

Believe it or not.

Any person or group prmoting more of our light rail is truly anti-bus, anti-transit and anti-transportation.

Ken -- Be careful on the idea of higher speeds meaning lower emissions. That is certainly true, but it is an invalid justification for building another bridge. After all, consider how many pounds of CO2 are emitted over the course of mining, refining, shipping, and installing/constructing all the materials for the bridge. Cement, asphalt, steel, etc. That is a LOT of CO2! I'm curious how long it would take before the equation balances out between construction emissions and speed-increase emission-reductions. Were it not for peak oil within the next few years, you might be on to something. But as it stands, we have a choice to use the remaining oil to transition to a sustainable setup or keep squandering our resources on support infrastructure for something we're fated to run out of.

Priority -- I am curious what you do not think light-rail hasn't been a measurable impact on. Light-rail is in the long run far better than busses. Oil-powered busses will become relics as the end of cheap and abundant oil creates prohibitive operating costs. Light-rail, however, is electrically powered, which means that so long as the Columbia flows through Bonneville, we will have a way of powering the MAX. While you may not believe in positive impacts of light-rail today, I believe in ten years when many more of us are dependant on it, you might be whistling a different tune!

"the direction of traffic right now is from Vancouver out to Beaverton/Hillsboro,"

Its not actually. The ovewhelming majority of trips across the bridge from Clark County end in the Columbia Coorridor, Swan Island, Lloyd Center, the Central Eastside and Downtown Portland. Almost none of them go as far as Hillsboro. If you added a direct connection from Vancouver to Hillsboro certainly people would use it to build houses in Vancouver and market them to people who work in Hillsboro.

"The thousands of cars going10 – 20 MPH for 30 – 60 minutes each way is a lot more fuel burned and emissions released than those same cars going 50 – 60 and making the distance in 15 – 20 minutes."

I think this misreads the impact of new capacity in a couple of ways.

First adding new capacity reduces the amount of time each day that speeds will be 10-20 mph, but it won't change the speed during rush hour. And since you have more lanes, there are actually more people going 10-20 during the times that the road is still congested. The benefit of the new capacity is that it allows people to travel at their optimum time rather than earlier or later to miss the worst of the rush hour.

The second problem is that people determine the length of their trip by time, not distance. Faster speeds just mean that people now will buy houses further from work or travel further to go to a particular store. This is why the average length of a commute measured in time has not changed appreciably in the last 100 years. When people walked, they lived within 20 minutes walking distance of their job. When they could drive, they live within about 20 minutes driving distance (on average). I'm not even sure the average transit or bike trip is any different.

I think the central problem here is that Clark County continues to build more homes than it creates jobs. Any effort to reduce congestion on I5 runs up against that reality. If we add capacity to I5 we should do it with our eyes open, the purpose is to provide opportunities for further residential development in Vancouver, not to solve traffic problems in Portland.

In fact, the Portland street grid can't absorb the traffic across the bridges now. Adding capacity to allow 50% more vehicles to cross the bridge at the same time will likely create more congestion whereever that traffic gets off.

The way to move more people across the bridge is simple. Make more efficient use of the vehicle capacity by giving preference to vehicles that carry more people.

"There's not much point in spending that kind of money if it doesn't include light rail and a significantly improved ability to provide bus service."

I think the key question for light rail or bus is the land use plans in Clark County. Given the current auto-dependent development that is taking place, it is unrealistic to think that Clark County will have the kind of residential or employment densities that can support a robust transit system. Extending light rail across the river to connect downtown Vancouver and Clark College makes sense. But assuming a further extension will just create misleading modeling results.

The truth is that there would be no immediate need to expand capacity across the Columbia if they simply put tolls on the existing bridges during their peak use. The result would be an increase in car pools, an increase in transit ridership and a decrease in trips during rush hour. Essentially making more efficient use of the existing vehicle capacity instead of adding more.

The proceeds from the tolls could be used to subsidize the alternatives for people to avoid paying them and ultimately to add capacity when the all the efficiencies have been milked out of whats there now.

The basic problem is that we can't fix the congestion. Ee can only move it around in terms of when it happens or where.

Ross, you make a good argument. I would agree with you about the Vancouver to Hillsboro connection. I don’t think its there as much as some might think. When discussing issues like these it is important that we take off our personally blinders and see things outside our paradigm. I have a close friend that is an electrical engineer and he too believes the Vancouver to Hillsboro idea. That’s because there is lots of engineering in Hillsboro and when he has to meet with clients or collaborators he is driving that route.

I see your point on construction costs and I didn’t intend my message to be that the commute would be 60MPH all day either. The bigger question (and this is getting a bit off topic) is what kind of change are we willing to make? I agree there is more housing in Vancouver than jobs. Should we stop building? Regardless of the answer building will continue. There are a host of issues that need to be resolved before this large problem can be solved. Telecommuting, more jobs in Vancouver, mass transit etc. I can tell you in my case if there were tolls as you suggested I would have to pay them and travel at peak times. I am in IT and support offices that are open 7am to 5pm. I can’t effectively support those operations if I am working 5am to 2pm. Not everyone has the flexibility.

I don’t know the specifics of business tax, and regulation in Vancouver but I don’t see why there isn’t more employment there compared to Portland. It seems like you could hire people at slightly lower pay because they would not have to pay income tax. I for one would love to find an equivalent job in Vancouver. I would even take a substantial pay cut to spend less time on I5 and not pay Oregon income tax.

"Not everyone has the flexibility."

I agree. But lots of people do have flexibility and we ought to give them more incentive to use it so that those who don't have the access they need.

"I agree there is more housing in Vancouver than jobs. Should we stop building? Regardless of the answer building will continue."

There are many places in the United States where there are more houses than jobs. As a result, there isn't much new construction in those areas.

Housing construction in Vancouver is directly related to access to the Portland job market. Metro's modeling showed that any new capacity on I5 resulted in relatively higher property values in Vancouver and lower values on the Oregon side of the river.

I think that there is a real "disconnect" with the value of mass transit, especially light rail among more libertarian voters.

I grew up in Southern California. I lived there from the time I was 2-nearly 21 years old. Until recently, the solution to traffic was to build more connector freeways. Unfortunately, "If you build it, they will come." holds very true to freeways. Soon after a connector freeway was built, traffic would first improve and then drastically worsen despite the solution. It is hard to believe that in the 20s, LA had one of the best mass transit light rail train systems in the nation, but all of this was bought and torn out by oil companies seeing the future of the automobile. Now, the average commute in Southern California is about at least an hour and a half.

Yet, many in Oregon and southern Washington refuse to learn from the mistakes of others. We resist light rail at every turn, when trains are packed and much used. The purpose of mass transit is to serve the metropolian areas by heightening the liveablilty of the area. It is ideal if they make money, but is secondary to liveablity benefits. The payoff comes from building attractive communities that are interlinked and provide a convinence to their citizens.

I have not owned a car for nearly 15 years. I rarely miss it. I live in Portland and do not complain about taxes even though I am well below the poverty level. I appeciate my city because I take advantage of the liveability factor that Portland provides to its citizens. I can appreciate this because I have seen the worst in Southern California. I pride myself in my city, its citizens and see the value in building communities rather than isolating ourselves with our own self-interests.

"Housing construction in Vancouver is directly related to access to the Portland job market."

I think you and I both agree the only way to fix this is to increase job growth in Vancouver/Clark Co.

"There are many places in the United States where there are more houses than jobs. As a result, there isn't much new construction in those areas."

Are these areas part of a larger metro region? Like it or not Vancouver is part of the Portland Metropolitan Area. Just like Lake O, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Gresham etc. I agree that too many cars used too much is bad. However, I don't think the answer is to have 1.7 million people live with in 5 miles of city center. I am glad there are folks that live near MAX and use it, or have a home near the bus line and love the access it provides them. Everyone will not fit in that paradigm. I'm sorry. The other issue is people move to this area. We can't turn that off. The population in 20 years will be higher than today.

"Metro's modeling showed that any new capacity on I5 resulted in relatively higher property values in Vancouver and lower values on the Oregon side of the river."

Are we looking at dealing with a capacity issue or is this a Vancouver vs. Portland debate? One reason I moved to Vancouver was because I couldn't afford a house in Portland.

Where is a sample of the model here in the Portland region that you think Clark County should follow?

The possible new bridge will be sold to us as a straighter, safety six lane highway that helps reduce incidents and traffic jams because currently there is no where for the wrecked vehicles to be moved too. By making the deck expandable for future lanes, if needed after the approaches are expanded, the engineers solve the capacity issue of twenty years out.

But for me, High Speed Rail being engineered into the concept is the main issue. Having our "Amtrak" service on the east side of the Willamette River and getting through Portland in ten minutes or less seems to me the best way to get us into the 21st Century (jet travel will only become more expensive people, airlines aren't doing to good right now if you haven't noticed even with all the bail outs in the last four years). Anyone who doesn't believe what the oilmen are saying about "peak oil" needs to understand that Saudi Arabia has stated that 2015 is the estimated year for final demand targets being met.

No other country in the world or group of countries can take up the Saudi oil field output reduction that the Saudi Oil Company is warning the consumers about now. Heck, they are pumping water into the oil fields now to get the oil to rise.

If we don't start investing in clean auto transportation options (bio-diesel and electric), personnel transportation, and yes, mass transit by rail is the way for this region to stay viable in the near future. There has been alot lately about battery technology improvements by Asian companies (15 minutes to charge up for 50 miles of range, OUTSTANDING!!!).

Light Rail for local trips and to support Vancouver higher density will be a needed design feature.

Three phases to the Columbia River Crossing: 1 - New bridge for autos of the future. 2 - Local access/bike paths to Hayden Island using the current Southbound bridge with longer and higher spans. 3 - Use the current Northbound bridge for Light Rail and High Speed Rail with longer and higher spans.

Build an iconic bridge that gives us a place (observation deck anyone?) that is known in the way the Golden Gate and the Space Needle are 'known'. Make the Crossing a place where people from all walks of life can come to and belong because they are able to use it and admire its functionality and beauty.

Ray

testing

The real issue with the I-5 bottleneck is frieght mobility. Portland at one time was a significant player in the regions import game but its losing serious ground.

If trucking fleets lose an hour or two a day to congestion they will reroute their fleets and the frieght they pick up/drop off to terminals outside of Portland. We have seen an exodus of trucking fleets moving out of Portland, taking jobs and the economic benefit they provide to Washington.

Realize that these freeways are built for more than commuters. Freeways are the backbone of our economy, and in a free country you shouldn't worry so much about forcing your neighbor to live as you want them to.

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: It is hard to believe that in the 20s, LA had one of the best mass transit light rail train systems in the nation, but all of this was bought and torn out by oil companies seeing the future of the automobile. JK: You are right it is hard to believe. Because it is not true.

See this for the other side: http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQ.HTM

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: We resist light rail at every turn, when trains are packed and much used. JK: Well MAX is a bit expensive - it costs about the same as taxi fare (riders only pay a small percentage of its actual cost) And it does little to relieve congestion since over 60% of its riders would be on the bus if MAX didn’t exist. Its extreme cost has caused reductions in bus service . Bottom line: it carries around 1/3 of the number of people that one lane of freeway does at many times the cost.

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: The purpose of mass transit is to serve the metropolian areas by heightening the liveablilty of the area. It is ideal if they make money, but is secondary to liveablity benefits. The payoff comes from building attractive communities that are interlinked and provide a convinence to their citizens. JK: Interesting theory. Can you cite any place comparable to Portland where this actually worked? (Please don’t cite cities that are many times more dense than Portland like NYC, Chicago or LA - which one of these would you like Portland to become?)

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: I have not owned a car for nearly 15 years. I rarely miss it. I live in Portland and do not complain about taxes even though I am well below the poverty level. JK: So you enjoy living off of others when you use mass transit and have others pay 80% of your ride. If you are “well below the poverty line” I wonder how many other taxpayer subsidies you enjoy getting - care to comment?

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: I appeciate my city because I take advantage of the liveability factor that Portland provides to its citizens. I can appreciate this because I have seen the worst in Southern California. JK: Of course Metro is trying to replicate LA right here in Portland. See Metro Measured, a Metro Publication. (Available free at www.portlanddocs.com or $5.00 at Metro)

dmrusso | Oct 25, 2005 4:31:26 PM: I pride myself in my city, its citizens and see the value in building communities rather than isolating ourselves with our own self-interests. JK: Building communities???? What communities - 30 story, tax freeloading, condo towers? Or do yo mean all those tacky 4-5 story apartments along the MAX line, some of which cost around $38,000 more per unit because of their high density construction?

Portland is not “building communities”, Portland is destroying its communities and reducing its livability.

Thanks JK

Take a good look at America around you now, because when we emerge from the winter of 2005 - 6, we're going to be another country. The reality-oblivious nation of mall hounds, bargain shoppers, happy motorists, Nascar fans, Red State war hawks, and born-again Krispy Kremers is headed into a werewolf-like transformation that will reveal to all the tragic monster we have become. What we will leave behind is the certainty that we have made the right choices. Was it a good thing to buy a 3,600 square foot house 32 miles outside Minneapolis with an interest-only adjustable rate mortgage -- with natural gas for home heating running at $12 a unit and gasoline over $3 a gallon? Was it the right choice to run three credit cards up to their $5000 limit? Was I chump to think my pension from Acme Airlines would really be there for me? Do I really owe the Middletown Hospital $17,678 for a gall bladder operation that took forty-five minutes? And why did they charge me $238 for a plastic catheter? All kinds of assumptions about the okay-ness of our recent collective behavior are headed out the window. This naturally beats a straight path to politics, since that is the theater in which our collective choices are dramatized. It really won't take another jolting event like a major hurricane or a terror incident or an H4N5 flu outbreak to take things over the edge -- though it is very likely that something else will happen. George W. Bush, and the party he represents, are headed into full Hooverization mode. After Katrina, nobody will take claims of governmental competence seriously. The new assumption will be that when shit happens you are on your own. In this remarkable three weeks since New Orleans was shredded, no Democrat has stepped into the vacuum of leadership, either, with a different vision of what we might do now, and who we might become. This is the kind of medium that political maniacs spawn in. Something is out there right now, feeding on the astonishment and grievance of a whipsawed middle class, and it will have a lot more nourishment in the months ahead. There are two things that the newspapers and TV Cable News outfits are not covering very well. One is that the Port of New Orleans is not functioning, with poor prospects for a quick recovery, and with it will go much of the Midwestern grain harvest. Another thing that has fallen off the radar screen is the damage done to the oil and gas infrastructure around the Gulf Coast, especially the onshore facilities for storing and transporting stuff, and for marshaling the crews and equipment to fix stuff. The US is going to run short of its customary supplies for a long time. The idea that these things will not affect an economy of ceaseless mobility is not realistic. These serious problems on-the-ground are going to affect the more ephemeral elements floating around in the financial ether: the value of the dollar, the hazard in hedge funds, the credibility of institutions. By October, the hurricane season will be ending and the stock market crash season will be underway. It is hard to imagine that companies like WalMart really believe they will keep their profits up when their customers are paying twice as much as they did a year ago to heat their houses and fill their gas tanks. Meanwhile, does anybody remember a place called Iraq? A bomb that killed thirty people was reported on page 12 of the Sunday New York Times. That's how important Iraq has become. But, I guess, a nation can hardly pay attention to a bullet in the foot when it has a sucking chest wound.

"I think you and I both agree the only way to fix this is to increase job growth in Vancouver/Clark Co."

I see little evidence that this will fix I5. To control that you need to get housing and jobs in balance. Adding jobs doesn't do anything if you build more houses to go along with them.

"One reason I moved to Vancouver was because I couldn't afford a house in Portland."

Houses in Clark County are less expensive because they offer less access to jobs and other services and are therefore less desireable. That's why adding capacity to I5 makes them less affordable.

"Just like Lake O, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Gresham etc."

Clark County is not like the rest of the metro region. It operates under different land use and transportation constraints. It has made no commmitment to cooperating in developing compact regional centers. Quite the contrary, it seems to be committed to providing services, including transportation, for rural subdivisions.

Clark county has expanded SR14 and SR500 into virtual freeways without any consultation about their impact on the region as a whole. That is not something Washington County or Clackamas County or Multnomah County would be allowed to do. And frankly, it is the expansion of those freeways and the development that goes with it that are causing the congestion on I5. There are seven freeway lanes (I5, SR14, SR500) that dump their traffic onto a three lane bridge - is it surprise that creates congestion?

Compare the concept plans for Damascus or Pleasant Valley to the kind of development pattern that is happening in Clark County. Both plans create space for mixed use communities with jobs and centers of development that are dense enough to support transit and services that are within walking distance.

Clark County has its own ideas about how to grow. That is fine, but it does not mean that those of us who share the region should subsidize their sprawling development by improving access to jobs and services on this side of the river. Especially if they insist on that access being by single occupancy automobiles that fill our streets with traffic and our air with pollution.

"Portland is destroying its communities and reducing its livability."

Which is why the one bedroom house I bought in 1995 for $75,000 just sold for $235,000? There may be people who find Portland less livable, but there are a lot of people who are moving here because of the unique urban environment that has been created over the past 20 years.

"The real issue with the I-5 bottleneck is frieght mobility. Portland at one time was a significant player in the regions import game but its losing serious ground."

A regional distribution center's first need is access to the region it serves. This is why United Parcel maintains a facility in Portland in addition to Vancouver. They avoid having a huge number of local delivery trips across the I5 bridge at rush hour. Its not clear that adding more capacity won't just move more of those distribution jobs out of places that are accessible by transit.

Freight is always going to lose the competition with cars for road space - many commuters don't place as high a value on their time. The best way to address new capacity for freight is to equalize the value by increasing the cost of using an auto on congested facilities. Tolls over the I5 bridge would be one way to do that without adding any new capacity to the bridge. Of course, improving the alternatives is essential to give more people the flexibility to choose not to add to congestion.

Another way to accomplish better freight access would be to create freight-only lanes near the ports and industrial areas in the Columbia Corridor and Swan Island.

The central problem is that adding generic capacity will not reduce congestion for either freight or existing commuters. It will simply attract more users to the freeway. If you want to see more housing development in rural Clark County, that is a good thing. If you want to see more suburban office parks in rural Clark County it is probably a good thing. If you want to have livable neighborhoods in North and Northeast Portland (or the central areas of Vancouver for that matter) with good access to jobs and services then it is not a good thing. If you want to reduce traffic congestion in Portland it is not a good thing.

Peak Oil is much more than the mantra of the moment, it is the defining reality of the future. If one overlays graphs of economic growth and fossil fuel consumption covering several hundred years' time, the curves are strikingly similar. The economic axioms we accept - free trade, globalism, continual growth - are dependent on cheap, plentiful energy, which is about to go away. We are about to enter a new economic age. Commuting from SW Washington to Portland and Washington County will not work for large numbers of people. The amount of freight traveling the I-5 corridor will decrease, especially that carried by truck.

This does not mean that some folks will not be able to live in the country. They should expect, though, to work where they live. There will neither be the fuel to transport them to far off jobs, nor the capital to build expensive transportation infrastructure.

There may, someday, be breakthroughs in technology that will create a new cheap source of energy, cold fusion perhaps, or some way to tap the earth's mantle. The shortsightedness of energy policy of the past 25 years makes it highly unlikely that such breakthroughs will happen in time to allow our present economic structure to survive. Only those willing to keep their eyes tightly closed can support the status quo of more growth, more long-distance trade, and more energy inefficient transportation.

Clackamas County seems to be following a development course destined to make matters worse. Faced with too many housing units for the available jobs, an explosion of housing growth is planned for the Boring/Damascus area. The new employers, as far as I can tell, will provide few jobs and require lots of land and transportation infrastructure, warehousing, mostly, taking us farther from sustainable economic development.

So, although Clackamas County is operating under a more enlightened planning scheme, the results may be just as inappropriate as SW Washington's.

"Faced with too many housing units for the available jobs, an explosion of housing growth is planned for the Boring/Damascus area."

I don't want to defend Clackamas County development, but the plans for Damascus call for walkable neighborhoods served by transit. Whether they can attract jobs is an open question, but the city is at least developing plans with that in mind. And they are seeking to preserve large amounts of habitat and other open space. If it works, it could be a model for new development.

Ross,

Better housing is not good housing if it's not economically sustainable. The development of Damascus/Boring should begin with job production, not end with hopes that jobs can be attracted. There are already lots of folks in Clackamas, Sunnyside, et al, who commute long distances. It looks to me that they will continue this while competing for lanes with thousands of new residents living even farther from employment.

Tom Civiletti | Oct 26, 2005 1:26:54 PM

Better housing is not good housing if it's not economically sustainable. The development of Damascus/Boring should begin with job production, not end with hopes that jobs can be attracted. There are already lots of folks in Clackamas, Sunnyside, et al, who commute long distances. It looks to me that they will continue this while competing for lanes with thousands of new residents living even farther from employment.

JK: Well said - just remember that METRO planned this.

I maintain that better planning would have been NO GOVERNMENT PLANNING. Private industry would not put housing in Damascus while the jobs are in Hillsboro.

Metro - What Idiots!

Thanks JK

Yes, this was planned under the Metro framework. Of course, Metro is constrained by state regulations on supply of building lots, as well as limitations on system development charges for necessary infrastructure.

Beyond that, no government at any level is able to challenge the myth that continual growth is both beneficial and unavoidable. Until that is possible, there will be no rational development policy.

"Private industry would not put housing in Damascus while the jobs are in Hillsboro."

1) Most jobs are not in Hillsboro and very few people commute from Clackamas to Hillsboro, just as very few commute from Clark County to Hillsboro.

2) Private industry will put houses anywhere they can find a buyer. This is why houses are being built in Clark County where there are not enough jobs.

3) The Damascus planning is being done by Clackamas County and the city of Damascus, not Metro.

"no government at any level is able to challenge the myth that continual growth is both beneficial and unavoidable. "

I don't think growth is unavoidable. The way to avoid it is to make Portland a lousy place to live so people will stop moving here. I don't see how to make Portland an attractive place to live without attracting more people.

Ross,

The business relocation person that I regularly run with (just to give you a sense of the information, don't know if it's good or bad, but this guy does a ton of relocation) scoffs at Damascus. All his relocations are in three directions: PDX to Hillsboro (along with bitter complaints about Metro's unwillingness to expand the UGB in that direction); PDX to Wilsonville; and PDX to Vancouver. No one wants to locate in Damascus, and my gut says that's right.

By the way, I don't agree that houses in Vancouver are farther away from services (job, probably yes, but there is an explosion of business growth along Mill Plain). Much of our family shopping is done in grocery stores and big box retailers; these are more accessible in the Vancouver suburban areas that I've been to.

Tom C,

On peak oil, a 'Couv-PDX commute is very viable in an electric vehicle. Short term, we'll ramp up coal and natural gas burning electric plants (and pay for it). Medium term, we'll likely return to nuclear power, a reality in Europe but something we've ignored in the US.

"No one wants to locate in Damascus, and my gut says that's right."

There is no land ready for development in Damascus so that isn't surprising. They are developing plans for the next 50 years, not the next 5. Nonetheless, I think some healthy scepticism is warranted. You can plan to provide the ability to locate there, but the market will determine whether businesses will choose to do so.

"Much of our family shopping is done in grocery stores and big box retailers; these are more accessible in the Vancouver suburban areas that I've been to."

I'm curious what big box retailers there are in Clark County that aren't on the Portland side of the river. But there is little doubt that you have more choices of both groceries and big box retail in Portland than you do in Vancouver.

paul,

Natural gas supply is as tight as the oil supply. Although there's quite a bit of coal, it is expensive and polluting to extract. Long term, there are not the BTU's available from coal, solar, wind, AND nuclear to replace oil and gas. What is available will be expensive, too expensive for use in commuting to the average job and too expensive to use in moving products long distances that can be produced locally.

Ross,

The first step in making growth rational is to eliminate all subsidies for development, and there are many.

"The first step in making growth rational is to eliminate all subsidies for development, and there are many."

I agree there are many subsidies for specific development. Its not clear to me that these promote growth so much as rearrange where and how it happens. While I understand the intent of some subsidies is to attract jobs, I am not sure they are really the deciding factor very often. To the extent they do create jobs for people who don't already live here, they promote growth. But I am not sure that is a very substantial cause of Portland's growth. What attracts jobs and people is Portland's livability.

"The first step in making growth rational is to eliminate all subsidies for development, and there are many."

Primarily in the Urban Renewal Areas such as Airport Way, the Pearl and South Waterfront

UPS is not a good example of your average freight mobility company. They specialize in individual packages delivered throughout vast areas.

Intermodel operations concentrate on truckload containers that are delivered to warehouses that rejuggle pallets and then reloaded for large deliveries by either truck or train. A good intermodel infrastructure also bolsters the port activity making a city an international shipping point.

The type of trucking operations running from the Metro region are small businesses that provide thousands of living wage jobs at all levels of their operation. Everything you buy comes by truck. The moment rail is able to back up to my loading dock I'll be convinced The role of trucks isn't going to be reduced even if dieesl hits $5 a gallon. Compound this witht the fact that shipping by rail cost more than trucking, requires larger loads, and gets lost for days at a time I don't see trucking going anywhere.

The Columbia Crossing should be addressing multiple bridges with an emphasis on getting big trucks out of neighborhoods and connecting our industrial areas together as a region. This is one element that Metro fails to address and can be done for much less than adding twenty miles of light rail in conjunction with a new I5 crossing.

Note: I'm playing devil's advocate on this issue. Most of the time any transportation debate is taking place it forgets completely about the positive economic impact freeways offer. Roads are for more than commuters and trucking outfits would gladly pay via tolls for an express freight cooridor to bypass the I5 crossing.

"Intermodel operations concentrate on truckload containers that are delivered to warehouses that rejuggle pallets and then reloaded for large deliveries by either truck or train. A good intermodel infrastructure also bolsters the port activity making a city an international shipping point."

The barriers to Portland as a international shipping point have little to do with its freeway system. The port can't handle large container ships. It has always been primarily an export facility for bulk commodities like wheat which is barged in on the Columbia.

I agree we ought to try to provide better freight movement. My point is that adding capacity to a multi-use freeway like I5 doesn't do that because freight needs can't compete with commuters.

"Roads are for more than commuters and trucking outfits would gladly pay via tolls for an express freight corridor to bypass the I5 crossing."

I agree entirely. The freight issue is really an economic decision. Unfortunately freeway decisions are largely political and commuters vote and freight doesn't. The result is that the freight community tries to tag along on the commuters' political clout. We end up adding capacity that doesn't really benefit anyone very much except the contractors who build it and their employees. And those folks would be just as happy building a new freight-only facility, or a local bridge or any other public work.

Ross are you a comedian? You just described our current light rail and other follies.

"We end up adding capacity that doesn't really benefit anyone very much except the contractors who build it and their employees."

That is MAX.

Really Ross do you have any grasp of commerce (or anything but rail and bikes)at all?

Your take on the Port, freight, commerce mobility and transportation could not be more convoluted. Goods and Services, jobs and our economy are reliant upon mobility.

The light rail and bike agenda have hobbled all of the above.

What you preach would be funny if not so destructive.

It is really something else to watch your coalition promote utter failure. You seemingly have absolutely no regard for any impacts of what you propose while clinging to imaginary outcomes.

All delivered with asinine explainations.

"You seemingly have absolutely no regard for any impacts of what you propose while clinging to imaginary outcomes."

The outcomes I have suggested are supported by the information available. More capacity across the river will just create more congestion and less mobility in Portland. Where are the Portland roads that can absorb more traffic at the peak of rush hour?

Ross Williams | Oct 26, 2005 1:12:33 PM I don't want to defend Clackamas County development, but the plans for Damascus call for walkable neighborhoods served by transit. Whether they can attract jobs is an open question, but the city is at least developing plans with that in mind. And they are seeking to preserve large amounts of habitat and other open space. JK: Above provided for context of the below: Ross Williams | Oct 26, 2005 1:12:33 PM If it works, it could be a model for new development. JK: IF!!! You mean that we are building a whole city and HOPING THAT IT WORKS.

What idiot is doing this experiment on real living people?

Thanks JK

Ross Williams | Oct 26, 2005 5:56:42 PM I don't think growth is unavoidable. The way to avoid it is to make Portland a lousy place to live so people will stop moving here. I don't see how to make Portland an attractive place to live without attracting more people. JK: A good first step would be to stop spending taxpayer money to advertize what a great place we are. Thanks JK

"IF!!! You mean that we are building a whole city and HOPING THAT IT WORKS."

Kind of the way we build our lives.

foxtrot 13 and ben richards view freight transport through 20th century spectacles. We have a high percentage of workers in the frieght industry because we have a concentrated, globalized production system. This will become too expensive after Peak Oil. Locally produced items will not be tranported long distances. Workers will produce instead of transport. They will work at small local retailers instead of big boxes.

Unlike jim karlock, I do not oppose planning. I do oppose planning based on false and outdated presumptions. As generals always fight the last war, planners seem to build the last city.

...the present now Will later be past The order is Rapidly fadin'. And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'.

Tom Civiletti | Oct 27, 2005 11:03:30 AM Unlike jim karlock, I do not oppose planning. JK: I don’t oppose planning based on what people really want. That type planning is NOT PRACTICED in Oregon. The process was hijacked by special interests years ago.

Tom Civiletti | Oct 27, 2005 11:03:30 AM I do oppose planning based on false and outdated presumptions. As generals always fight the last war, planners seem to build the last city. JK: We agree on this. What we disagree on is whether it is possible to plan in any other manner since none of us can see the future. (Planners claim they see the future as sell their snake oil.)

Thanks JK

Planners: Citizens like myself who back in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 200xs decided to join committee, working groups, volunteer, and go to open houses on light rail, 2040, etc.. Its so funny and sad that the citizens who decided to spend their evenings thinking about the future of Portland are forgotting about by the last century types.

If Portland is so bad, why are citizens from around the world moving here. Maybe we have another "white flight" process going on.

Damascus will be successful when job are created there. This point is also a given for the Springwater Concept area which is two years ahead of Damascus/Boring.

Columbia River Crossing will be a success when ALL modes of travel are included (that means High Speed Rail too!!!). Building a bridge that only supports one way of travel will be so 20th Century. Everyone on the CRC Group seems very concerned about freight mobility (truck and rail), so lets hope they create a plan that gives addressed it. My hope is that separating intra-city passenger rail service from the rail freight route through the metro area will create that capacity we all are demanding.

With "Peak Oil" in the cards (it was always there) after the Saudi announcement, I don't cars going away. So congestion will always be with us. I see the breakthroughs in battery technology by the Asian companies bringing good quality "commuter cars" to worldwide car users. American companies will go under since they placed all their chips into the SUV basket (american companies are truly so short sighted and "Quarterly Driven").

Personnally, I wouldn't have any US auto maker stock unless the Volvo management takes over Ford. GM is history and Chrysler will be bought out soon, in my opinion. Get in on sustainable energy production companies (wind turbines and solar panel manufacturing). Diesel capacity will be needed for trucks, trains, and home heating oil. Bio-diesel will be for us VW TDI owners avenue.

Have fun selling your SUVs you smart GOP types! Maybe we need to charge you to get rid of them for you. Four dollar per gallon is on the horizon in maybe two years time. Bank on it.

Ray

Ray,

I wouldn't say the Portland metro area is "so bad" compared to the rest of the US. Most of the world still works under the infinite growth paradigm, which works only as long as we consume like there is no tomorrow. The option of doing that will soon gone.

Northwestern Oregon is actually doing better than almost anywhere in the country, which is not to say that we are doing well enough to prevent a severe economic contraction due to energy price inflation.

Tom,

Read the sentence over, I was trying to say that Portland seems to be attracting new citizens like crazy.

I'm in total agreement with you on your point. Portland and cities and towns with agriculture commodites worth having will be better off then cities, town, and states which depend totally on goods being transported from locations not in their geographic/cultural area.

What is interesting is Oregon decided thirty five years ago to save farmland and forests from sprawl. What we didn't realize was our plans and ideals creates a place that might be manageable in a "peak oil" world. Unintended consequences for our good I would say.

Ray

Yes, preserving farmland near urban areas is a big plus. It's unfortunate that berry farmers have taken such a hit from globalized trade, though.

What will not turn out well is the Oregon wheat business. Between the cost of natural gas based nitrogen fertilizer, power to pump irrigation water, and shipping costs, wheat will likely be too expensive to export.

I was talking with an energy analyst tonight who said that the world carrying capacity population without fossil fuel produced fertilizer increasing agricultural production is about 3.5 billion. That may mean a lot of hungry folks in the near future.

Yes, we have a major issue looking us in the face that no one will admit too. Maybe worries about mass hysteria is the reason but to not talk about it is creating fear (planned?) without a release valve.

At some point, our region should plan ahead and forget about the Feds, they are really not very effective any more. I'm hoping to go next Wednesday to Portland Peak Oil. I think any contact I can make will help me and my family in the next ten years.

Ray

Ray,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Given the sway of the fossil fuel interests over the federal government, we can expect little, or, at least, not quick enough action on the national level. The Portland area is already a bit ahead of the curve, comparatively. If we make a regional commitment to developing local, sustainable economy and alternative energy, we could prevent a whole lot of suffering down the line.