AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CRC Revival?  (Read 29937 times)

Thunderbyrd316

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Clackamas Or.
  • Last Login: October 30, 2021, 04:53:07 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #125 on: June 17, 2019, 10:33:38 AM »

   "Freeway Capacity increases only lead to more traffic" The very concept behind the "induced demand" myth is FATALLY FLAWED. There are a FINITE number of vehicles / persons who wish to travel between any two specific locations at any specific time. (Yes, if you add lanes to an already congested freeway, more people will use it that might have use a different route or even method of travel HOWEVER, 1. That number is FINITE and 2. It is QUITE POSSIBLE to construct a sufficient number of lanes for almost ANY traffic volume.) The problem is government "experts" who almost always grossly underestimate the size of freeways necessary to move everyone when and where they actually want to go.

If you look at a specific point in time, it's not finite vs infinite. It's just a specific number. Finite vs infinite are terms used to describe trips over a period of time. Of course, even then, there's no way you could have a finite number of cars unless the population is perfectly stagnate. How do you stop people from moving to a location without then driving around that location?

Why does everyone in your theoretical world drive everywhere? Are we, like, not allowed to invest in any other transport? Why do freeways have to support all growth?

It is NOT the job of government to stop people from moving anywhere they want to move to nor to stop them from driving where and when they want and in however large and powerful a vehicle they want. This very notion is the antithesis of the concepts of Liberty and Freedom this Constitutional Republic was founded upon!

Private cars are how reasonable and responsible people prefer to travel for a reason. Government funded welfare transit only goes where and when government allows. And it is horrifically inefficient. Even in the WORST conditions it only takes a little over an hour (free flow less than 30 minutes) for me to get home from work but the FASTEST transit trip takes well north of 90 minutes NOT including all the time I would spend waiting around (frequently in the rain) plus transfers and NOT having the ability to stop anywhere along the way, nor the ability to carry what ever I may wish to take with me. (Also add Criminal vagrants, thugs and freaks and their noise that they pass off as "music" blasting from their little cans that most people are too afraid to tell them to turn it off, incorrectly set or malfunctioning heat / a.c., etc. ad nauseam.) Meanwhile, although I am crawling along the 205 at 15 m.p.h. at least I am sitting in air conditioned comfort on real leather seats and able to listen to the finest Country and Western music of the 1970's or enjoying a pleasant and intelligent discussion on one of my favorite conservative talk radio programs and not having my nostrils offended by the sent of puke and piss and the bums from which they emanate.

Just for giggles, lets look at this table:
(Note that Range Per Day is for a "regular person" not some super athlete or long haul driver.)

Pedestrian: Average Speed 3 m.p.h. Max. Range Per Day: 20 - 25 miles

Bicycle: Average Speed: 15 m.p.h. Max Range Per Day: 100 - 150 miles

Transit: Average Speed: 15 - 25 m.p.h. Max Range Per Day: (Limited by System Restrictions i.e. there is no direct transit between say down town Portland and Longview, Wa.) Also, need to get from origin point to nearest bus stop and from final bus stop to final destination. MANY locations are either only accessible at limited times or NOT AT ALL. i.e. try going down to Swan Island at 4 am or South Sound Speedway in Tenino, Wa. EVER without a car.

Commercial Motor Coach: Average Speed: 50 - 65 m.p.h. Only Serves Limited Times and Locations Also, need to get from origin point to nearest access point and from final access point to final destination. MANY locations are either only accessible at limited times or NOT AT ALL.

Personal Car; Average Speed: 35 - 70 m.p.h. Max Range Per Day: 400 - 600 Miles (Able to go directly where you want to go, WHEN you wish to depart and arrive.

Freeways MUST support ALL growth to ENSURE that ALL people have the LIBERTY to travel WHERE they want WHEN they want to go there.

I have no objection to spending tax dollars on FREE welfare transit for the poor and infirm IF the money is spent on MOTOR COACHES NOT RAIL! For the cost of a single mile of track you can purchase well over 100 brand new transit buses. (The number is actually higher than that, I am rounding down for simplification.) For the cost of a second mile of track you can operate those buses for a VERY long time for FREE. When there is an incident (criminal, mechanical, etc.) on a rail system the whole thing shuts down. If there is an incident on a bus, the other buses can just go around it without disrupting the whole system. Bus routes can also be revised, added or eliminated with a minimum of effort vs. rail. Once a rail line ****s off a neighborhood it is ****ed forever. (See Rockwood and Gateway as prime examples of thriving neighborhoods DESTROYED by light rail!) Also, don't forget that those trains and tracks also require expensive maintenance well above the initial investment cost AND some of that maintenance requires shutting off service for periods of time.


Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 438
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: September 21, 2022, 04:57:14 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #126 on: June 17, 2019, 12:09:07 PM »

It is NOT the job of government to stop people from moving anywhere they want to move to nor to stop them from driving where and when they want and in however large and powerful a vehicle they want. This very notion is the antithesis of the concepts of Liberty and Freedom this Constitutional Republic was founded upon!

Yes, I'm sure this is exactly what the Founders had in mind when the Constitution was written.

If you want a country with all sorts of Liberty and Freedom and no pesky government regulation to get in your way, move to Mexico. Plenty of Liberty down there.

Here in the United States though, the elected government, thankfully, exercises the right to:

- Limit unsafe use of motor vehicles
- Limit the amount of pollution motor vehicles can create
- Limit the amount of space dedicated for motor vehicles
- Create conditions under which people can choose to get around without a motor vehicle

Do I always agree with their decisions? Nope. But I'm also willing to take a deep breath and say "If the majority agreed with me, the elected officials making these choices would be out of a job."

Back to the point on Liberty – nobody's ever stopping you from going where you want, when you want. The question is, if you want to go there in a car, how much will you pay for the privilege of traveling there. You're always free to walk instead.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10835
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 11:54:33 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #127 on: June 17, 2019, 12:13:29 PM »



Quote from: Sub-Urbanite
The question is, if you want to go there in a car, how much will you pay for the privilege of traveling there. You're always free to walk instead.

And, thankfully, we can vote out politicians that support policies that raise the cost beyond our tolerances.

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:51:26 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #128 on: June 17, 2019, 11:40:31 PM »

I'm still laughing at how adding more vehicles to our overcrowded, underrepaired highways is a good thing instead of having multiple alternatives.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 03:59:32 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #129 on: June 18, 2019, 09:02:36 AM »

I'm still laughing at how adding more vehicles to our overcrowded, underrepaired highways is a good thing instead of having multiple alternatives.
Don't have overcrowded under-repaired highways by investing in them and keep up with the capacity per demand. Problem solved.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:51:26 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #130 on: June 19, 2019, 05:06:32 PM »

I'm still laughing at how adding more vehicles to our overcrowded, underrepaired highways is a good thing instead of having multiple alternatives.
Don't have overcrowded under-repaired highways by investing in them and keep up with the capacity per demand. Problem solved.
All solutions cost money. Redundancy is a good thing. Alternative modes can come in handy if one mode fails (bridge goes out). Of course, I say this from perhaps the most transit-dense metro in the nation.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5814
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 12:40:08 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #131 on: June 20, 2019, 01:04:27 AM »

I am beginning to think that this roads versus transit war ("us versus them") is due to all around scarcity of investment.  I wonder if there's some magical mix of improvements -- through a true intermodal approach, that would get both sides working together rather than at odds with each other.

That would keep both sides honest and provide true modal choice rather than travelers just being forced into one or the other due to wherever the money goes.

Perhaps, but I do think there is a fundamental truth here that no amount of funding will overcome:

Driving under ideal circumstances will always be faster than taking transit under ideal circumstances. Transit, therefore, can only thrive in environments where driving circumstances are less than ideal.

Because of this, transit advocacy will always inevitably beget some level of anti-car sentiment. It is not feasible to make driving circumstances ideal in a dense urban environment due to lack of space, but any improvement that brings driving circumstances closer to ideal hurts transit patronage.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: September 20, 2022, 05:39:28 AM
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 03:59:32 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #133 on: November 20, 2019, 01:51:52 AM »

Yeah I agree that light rail should be one of the components of this bridge but so should more GP  lanes.

Quote
The Oregonian/OregonLive reported that the two states requested a 10-year extension on their timeline to show progress on the bridge project or face repaying nearly $140 million in planning costs tied to the Columbia River Crossing Project.That request would've given the states until Sept. 30, 2029, to either start buying up rights-of-way or begin construction on the I-5 project.

While seeking a decade delay, the states simultaneously suggested a series of aggressive milestones, including reinitiating an environmental review of a proposed project in spring 2020 and starting construction in the summer of 2025.

The Federal Highway Administration declined the 10-year extension request but endorsed the aggressive timeline. The states now must show considerable progress, including buying up necessary rights-of-way, by the end of September 2024. If the states don't accomplish that goal, they could owe a collective $140 million to the federal government for planning costs related to the past bridge effort.

"We think five years is enough time for us to move forward on the project," said Thomas Fuller, an Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman.

- https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/officials-in-oregon-washington-to-begin-building-i-5-bridge-by-2025/46641
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #134 on: November 20, 2019, 04:04:48 AM »

Yeah I agree that light rail should be one of the components of this bridge but so should more GP  lanes.

I think it would be easier to convince Washington State officials that an extra lane for general-purpose traffic in each direction was worth the extra cost, but Oregon may not be as receptive. I don't know what Oregon's long-term plan is for Interstate 5 south of the Columbia River, but I doubt it includes widening the freeway. At least for anything other than 24/7 HOV lanes.

If it were myself making the calls, I would include three lanes in each direction for general-purpose traffic, one lane each direction for HOV, and two MAX rails (bi-directional), assuming Clark County is open to that. An auxiliary lane between the two junctions, on either side of the river, might be a consideration. But I'm not a huge fan of auxiliary lanes, because they force traffic to stop to merge, if traffic is heavy.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 03:59:32 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #135 on: November 20, 2019, 07:21:59 AM »

I also think a bus lane should be considered but not without LRT.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #136 on: November 20, 2019, 01:14:45 PM »

I also think a bus lane should be considered but not without LRT.

What about a shared bus/LRT lane? Buses do travel at the same speed as the MAX trains (assuming a 55mph speed limit), so it's not like one would be getting held up. Although the MAX trains wouldn't be able to proceed on their own ROW without a roadway surface immediately after the crossing, since the buses would need somewhere to go.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 03:59:32 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #137 on: November 20, 2019, 01:21:25 PM »

That is an interesting thought. Does such a setup exist over a bridge?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #138 on: November 20, 2019, 01:52:54 PM »

That is an interesting thought. Does such a setup exist over a bridge?

I don't know how many routes use it, but the Tilikum Crossing, just to the south in Portland (crossing the Willamette) accepts MAX trains, buses, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The buses and trains occupy the same right-of-way.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2857
  • Last Login: Today at 03:17:55 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #139 on: November 20, 2019, 04:50:15 PM »

That is an interesting thought. Does such a setup exist over a bridge?

I don't know how many routes use it, but the Tilikum Crossing, just to the south in Portland (crossing the Willamette) accepts MAX trains, buses, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The buses and trains occupy the same right-of-way.
But neither Tilikum nor Steel Bridges are high speed crossings. Probably the best comparison and study would be the Seattle Transit Tunnel during the shared bus and LRT phase.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #140 on: November 20, 2019, 08:41:20 PM »

That is an interesting thought. Does such a setup exist over a bridge?

I don't know how many routes use it, but the Tilikum Crossing, just to the south in Portland (crossing the Willamette) accepts MAX trains, buses, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The buses and trains occupy the same right-of-way.
But neither Tilikum nor Steel Bridges are high speed crossings. Probably the best comparison and study would be the Seattle Transit Tunnel during the shared bus and LRT phase.

No doubt. Though it's not like the Tilikum Crossing couldn't be a high-speed crossing. They just made a conscious decision to make it, and the approaches, low-speed. The MAX is very capable of freeway speeds (as is the Link rail in Seattle).
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 03:59:32 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #141 on: November 20, 2019, 10:26:18 PM »

^^^ they should make it go faster. NYC sped up its subway cars.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #142 on: November 21, 2019, 01:33:52 AM »

^^^ they should make it go faster. NYC sped up its subway cars.

The maximum limit is 25 on the current bridge. Seems that 30 might be fine. But the crossing is only about 1/3 of a mile long, so it's not a big deal.

On the other hand, the CRC would be about a mile long or more, so higher speeds would be far more reasonable, especially if the ROW would be shared with buses. The real issue is where buses would transition away from the MAX right-of-way, between the CRC and the Expo Center MAX station, assuming that's where the MAX tie-in would occur. It would be a great place, given that the MAX system is totally grade-separated from the Expo station, to N Argyle, about 1.5 miles south. This, as opposed to transitioning from the CRC directly into a low-speed environment, which may de-incentive higher MAX speeds on the CRC (flooring it on the bridge, only to scale it way back right afterwards, seems fairly wasteful).
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4516
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:37:50 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #143 on: November 21, 2019, 02:24:57 AM »

A bus lane would have limited utility on the bridge if it already has MAX. The idea would be to truncate all the western cross-river service from C-TRAN to whatever hub they can get at a Vancouver MAX station. Though with the capacity constraints that MAX has to work with, I'm not sure if a full truncation would even be possible.

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 361
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2022, 07:53:06 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #144 on: February 23, 2020, 08:58:33 PM »

More evidence of a revival for this project, looks like both ODOT and WSDOT are looking for someone to lead the project working jointly with both DOTs:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/02/21/highly-effective-leader-sought-direct-bi-state-interstate-bridge-replacement-program
Logged

sp_redelectric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Tigard, OR
  • Last Login: December 20, 2020, 10:55:51 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #145 on: February 26, 2020, 12:37:30 AM »

Light rail is costly and unnecessary to Clark County.

Commuter Rail from Washougal and from Kelso into Portland would make far more sense, at a much lower cost, and could be implemented faster.  BNSF is generally receptive to commuter rail if paid enough for it, and certainly building a new Columbia River drawbridge could be a part of that.  We're already in the process of planning a $3 BILLION boondoggle light rail line from Portland to the very northern border of Tualatin that will do nothing for congestion (but it will build a lot of parking lots) - commuter rail would cost a tiny fraction of it running north.  A six car commuter train with bi-level coaches can haul 900 seated passengers with just one locomotive and a crew of two people. 
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14979
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 09:38:57 PM
    • Flickr
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #146 on: February 26, 2020, 03:18:07 AM »

I don't think commuter rail is necessarily comparable with light rail: the former serves largely suburban areas, whereas the latter is (if done correctly) more helpful in urban areas.

If Clark County wants to develop more dense cores, to move towards development that is less car-focused, particularly in downtown Vancouver (new housing, shops, etc), light rail would be able to accomplish that far better than commuter rail for many reasons:

* light rail generally runs on reserved ROW (no competing usage)
* light rail can run in tighter spaces
* light rail doesn't need lengthy platforms (more compatible with urban areas/street running)
* shorter trains allows for faster acceleration, permitting more stops (diesel trains stopping and starting every 0.5-1 mile wouldn't be practical)
* fixed rail provides incentives for development (more so than with commuter rail and other things like buses or even BRT)
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #147 on: February 26, 2020, 07:27:08 PM »

Light rail is costly and unnecessary to Clark County.

Commuter Rail from Washougal and from Kelso into Portland would make far more sense, at a much lower cost, and could be implemented faster.  BNSF is generally receptive to commuter rail if paid enough for it, and certainly building a new Columbia River drawbridge could be a part of that.  We're already in the process of planning a $3 BILLION boondoggle light rail line from Portland to the very northern border of Tualatin that will do nothing for congestion (but it will build a lot of parking lots) - commuter rail would cost a tiny fraction of it running north.  A six car commuter train with bi-level coaches can haul 900 seated passengers with just one locomotive and a crew of two people. 
I don't think commuter rail is necessarily comparable with light rail: the former serves largely suburban areas, whereas the latter is (if done correctly) more helpful in urban areas.

If Clark County wants to develop more dense cores, to move towards development that is less car-focused, particularly in downtown Vancouver (new housing, shops, etc), light rail would be able to accomplish that far better than commuter rail for many reasons:

* light rail generally runs on reserved ROW (no competing usage)
* light rail can run in tighter spaces
* light rail doesn't need lengthy platforms (more compatible with urban areas/street running)
* shorter trains allows for faster acceleration, permitting more stops (diesel trains stopping and starting every 0.5-1 mile wouldn't be practical)
* fixed rail provides incentives for development (more so than with commuter rail and other things like buses or even BRT)

With regards to Clark County, the location of the BNSF lines -- well away from the city center -- doesn't bode well for heavy/commuter rail prospects.   Both the old SP&S line along the north bank of the Columbia and the NP line north to Kelso (and eventually Seattle) converge right at the north end of the Columbia rail bridge -- there's a wye, with the Amtrak station tucked in between the line divergence from the bridge.  The north side of the wye is one of BNSF's major freight yards -- and grain trains bound for the Port of Kalama downriver are ever-present along that portion of the wye.  And north along the Kelso line there is a slough separating the tracks from central Vancouver (and WSU/V, for that matter).  Amtrak patrons must cross the busy tracks to get to the station (saving grace -- great place for rail photography!).  And the line paralleling the Columbia is flanked by the WA 14 freeway -- hardly conducive to usage by potential Clark County riders -- hardly any access to the rail line until well out by Camas.   In short -- really no place to locate stations except for the existing Amtrak depot, which can barely handle the traffic that it serves.   Commuter rail would be functionally ineffective within the more populated areas of Clark County; its raison d'etre would be service to such outlying areas as Woodland and Kelso, where the tracks lie closer to the city centers.  OTOH, LR, while never cheap to deploy, does have the advantage of doubling as a commute line (provided the alignment is reasonably efficient at serving locations accessible to most potential riders) as well as a local server.   But in this instance, while all the benefits cited in the above post are generally valid, Clark County doesn't have the best track record regarding support for transit links across the river (I was around for the '94 electoral debacle!).  Getting the citizenry on that side of the river behind the concept has never been simple -- but would require cooperation beween the states' agencies regarding the details of route and service parameters -- not to mention cobbling up a way to get it across the river without significantly reducing the overall capacity of the crossing(s).  The latter point may well become a point of contention between PDX Metro and Clark County due to the diverging priorities of each entity.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: September 25, 2022, 12:00:30 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #148 on: February 26, 2020, 11:49:56 PM »

Light rail with a downtown Vancouver station and one north of that with a Park-n-Ride will do the job for commuters IMO.  Let time pass to see how Vancouver and Clark County decide on expanding light rail.  PDX/Vancouver is a single metro area, which means it all needs to be part of the system.  Major bridge crossings can be choke points or flow points depending on how many methods are put in place on the bridge for people to cross it.  The more the merrier! 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #149 on: February 27, 2020, 04:47:47 AM »

Light rail with a downtown Vancouver station and one north of that with a Park-n-Ride will do the job for commuters IMO.  Let time pass to see how Vancouver and Clark County decide on expanding light rail.  PDX/Vancouver is a single metro area, which means it all needs to be part of the system.  Major bridge crossings can be choke points or flow points depending on how many methods are put in place on the bridge for people to cross it.  The more the merrier! 

Rick

While Portland and the remainder of its metro government and Vancouver are, statistically, within one larger metro area, the fact is that Portland Metro remains a singular and unique entity with relatively vast powers over development -- but on the south side of the Columbia River only!  No WA entity, including Clark County, has elected to formally join the metro government (which would require the consent of the WA legislature in any case, something that would hardly be an automatic assent), including adopting its strictures regarding development.  That would mean abandoning Clark County's status as the one location within shouting distance of Portland that continues to maintain a friendly -- or at least non-hostile -- attitude toward housing development, including larger single-family properties.  And given the political history of the area, including a simmering level of animosity toward Portland and its sociopolitical leanings (all while taking advantage of OR's lack of sales taxes!), it's probable that even though there might be avenues of cooperation across the river from time to time, WA jurisdictions will continue to maintain a separate identity, including the continuation of certain activities, such as suburban growth, frowned upon south of the state line.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.