The proposal would replace the current bridge. Anyone else think this is not necessarily the best solution? What good will it to to increase the number of lanes crossing the freeway only to hit the same arterial bottlenecks? Considering the growth in the East Counties of both Portland and Vancouver why not build a new bridge at 164th st and connect to I-84 out in the Gresham area? That would make more sense to me to have three functional bridges as opposed to two. Plus what do you think about the toll proposal both ways on both existing bridges to cover 1/3 of the cost? That would probably be good so long as once that dollar value is met the tolls are then removed. I think given the current population growth the third bridge solution would be more practical for the long haul.

Proposed New Bridge:
http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/GraphicsandPhotos/DraftConcepts .pdf

Thoughts, Comments......

Well, I-5 is the major arterial between Seattle and Portland, and whenever the old Interstate Bridge(s) have to go up (often), everything stops - I'm sure you're well aware of this. In addition, the bridges are getting old and more expensive to maintain. (I speak of "bridges" because the "Interstate Bridge" is really two separate bridges built 40 years apart, even though they look identical.)

So you really have to fix that bottleneck if you want to fix the worst traffic problems on I-5.

And of course, proponents of light rail want to send MAX over the new bridge. That's probably inevitable. Too bad that MAX is so damned slow.

I'm not sure anyone has yet considered using the old bridges for light rail and local traffic and taking I-5 off of them?

As for tolls...I hate them. Grew up with turnpikes and tolls on the east coast, and leaving them behind (mostly) has been one of the things I've enjoyed the most about driving out west since moving out here 20+ years ago. Tolls suck. They slow down traffic and add bureaucracy. I say, find another way to fund it. If there's enough money to piss away in Iraq, there should be plenty of money to build a complete bridge.

Oh, and why not build a new bridge at 164h Street too? Might need one at some point regardless but it could be lots cheaper to build it now rather than in 20 years.

Andrew

I'm not sure we should be tearing down the Interstate Bridge(s).

A newer smaller span should be built that has limited access -- picks up traffic south of downtown PDX and dumps them north of Hazel Dell and vise versa. Local traffic, including Max and buses, will still have to use the older bridge.

The Interstate Bridge isn't a Sellwood Bridge type ready to fall down. Predicting future traffic patterns in this day and age of diminishing oil is not possible, so lets not build a huge multibillion dollar monster if we're all gonna be driving ity bitty Smart cars 20 years from now.

Andrew, I know what you mean about the tolls. We lived in Chicago for 5 years before moving out here. The highways there suck.

You can't just get on and off like you can here. Once you get on the highway, you might be on it for 10 miles or so!

I like the idea of using the old bridges for local traffic. I don't much care about the loot rail though. (Unless, as I've said several times, they make it self supporting).

Also, a 2nd bridge at either 164th or 192nd would be a good idea and would probably take a big load off the I-205 bridge and the I-205/I-84 interchange.

A new I-5 bridge really won't do anything to help with the traffic jams unless they do 2 things.

1-Widen I-5 to 3 lanes (or more) south of the Interstate Ave. exit. The two lanes "narrows" there really hose things up.

2-Teach people that they DON'T HAVE TO SLOW DOWN TO 10 MPH to cross the bridge. Ever notice that traffic can be backed up all the way to downtown and as soon as you get on the north side of the interstate bridge people go like scalded ass apes? Dipsticks!

I've noticed that the few times I've been to and through Chicago the last few years. How they can justify tolls on those highways, I have no idea. Paying $10 to drive from O'Hare to the Wisconsin border (where the roads instantly become silky smooth, and with NO TOLLS!) is insane to me.

Some of the drawings I've seen for the new Interstate bridge address several bottlenecks, including the Interstate Avenue mess southbound, the Jantzen Beach onramp northbound, Hwy. 14, Mill Plain and Fourth Plain exits on the Vancouver side ... SOMETHING has to be done to adjust for the growth.

I drove through Chicago last July in the dead of night on the way to Dearborn (with an extra axle [trailer]) and they had $15 in tolls from me before I escaped.

On the way back I stayed far the hell away from the greater Chicago area.

Fixing that can be done the same way we did everything else.

There is no reason for a toll. Setting the expectation that a toll is a good idea means nothing but more tolls.

No thanks.

IMHO the existing bottlenecks more or less limit the benefit of fixing / replacing an existing bridge. Better to add one somewhere and allow some growth to shift to take advantage of it.

The problem with that KSKD is that it probably goes against the land-use laws that Metro has set up.

And I couldn't agree more on tolls. Bah!

Well, those land use laws could be reviewed. Also existing land, already in use, could be re-purposed too. We've seen that happen multiple times, largely with good results!

The planning with teeth is one of the things that makes this area distinctive. I see no reason to not continue that trend. That takes quick and easy off the table (which the toll is for the politicians BTW), but there also is the reality that we don't get the quality of life here without working for it.

So we should work for it. Really do some planning for the next 20 years or so. Once that's been done, then funding should be easier. (solid buy in from impacted parties, clear goals in line with what makes PDX, PDX!)

I think Metro has done a lot of planning for the next 20 years or so. They are trying (or think they are trying) to be smart about it and discourage sprawl, as they see a million new people in the Portland metro area in the next few decades. If you look at everywhere else in America, I think you can agree that sprawl is not a good thing!

FYI, the original Interstate bridge did have a toll, back in the day, until the initial costs had been paid off and tolls were removed.

Andrew

One of the wonderful things about Portland is that they foresaw the growth in many ways and were very proactive about it. Yeah there's infrastructure issues and gridlock, but Tri-Met has done a much better job of addressing mass transit needs than most other cities of its size.

We could be Seattle in that area. No thanks.

Interesting about the toll. Well, if they do it exactly that way, with a clear date for the toll to be removed --maybe... I worry in this political climate though. Might not happen as it did last time.

With all the struggles we are gonna have to pay off Iraq, setting that expectation right now is dangerous.

As for the planning, that needs to be talked up some more. Maybe that's how it was before too. Don't know.

Perhaps a rush hour only toll. With a carpool bypass lane. Hmm?

Perhaps a southbound-only (or nonresident-only!) toll...

The problem with putting a bridge out east is that that isn't where the demand is; the 205 bridge already satisfies that demand(more or less).

A bridge to the west of I5 would be nice, but the geography makes it difficult/impossible.

What I'd love to see is a commuter rail line running from Vancouver to Hillsboro by way of the disused Cornelius Pass rail tunnel.

As for the bottleneck at Interstate(actually Columbia Blvd), that's already being resolved by a project that should be starting RealSoonNow.

And the I-5 Coliseum 2-lane bottleneck?

Have you been over to East-Vancouver lately? That area is growing exponentially. It won't be long before that traffic also overwhelms the I-205 bridge. Isn't East-Portland/Gresham/Troutdale growing fast as well. It just seems crazy to drop a good bridge instead of adding a third to the river. For crying out loud, how many bridges are downtown Portland within blocks of each other. You think there would be any traffic problems if we closed a couple of those while adding more commuters to the mix?

HELL NO to loot rail in Vancouver unless it is a Subway/Elevated system so as not to clog our already crowded streets. Loot rail has done so much good for Interstate Avenue.....what a F'in Joke.

HELL NO to loot rail in Vancouver unless it is a Subway/Elevated system so as not to clog our already crowded streets. Loot rail has done so much good for Interstate Avenue.....what a F'in Joke.

I agree 100%.

The only way I'd support loot rain in Vancouver is if it was privately funded and didn't pull a Mongolian Cluster like DT mentioned about Interstate Ave.

Perhaps a southbound-only (or nonresident-only!) toll...

There already is a southbound or non-resident toll for the WA folks working in Oregon. It's called Oregon State Income Tax.

WA residents that work in OR pay it but get no benefit from it.

Oh, I usually get most of my money back with all my large purchases in Oregon with no sales tax, of which Oreeegon bennefit's absolutely nothing for.

Skybill, why do you suppose Washington residents even work in Oregon? Could it be perhaps that the jobs or the jobs that pay well are in Oregon? Those companies have a physical presence in Oregon, and that requires state services (roads, traffic lights, water, sanitation, etc.). In many cases Oregon companies don't pay any tax; if they can show a loss for a fiscal year, they pay a whopping $10 tax. Enron used to do that with PGE; they would pocket all the taxes their customers paid because they could show a loss and pay only the $10.

So those Oregon revenues are made up from the income taxes of employees working at those companies. Doesn't matter where they work. They should pay the tax.

Any Washington resident who doesn't like Oregon's income tax can easily avoid it by working in Washington State, where the state collects revenue from the companies, not the employees; half of Washington State's revenues come from a Business & Occupation tax (gross, not revenue) on Washington businesses. The other half comes from sales tax. It's just a different tax model from Oregon's. Either way, the state collects the money.

Of course, people who want others to pay their taxes would prefer to pay no state income tax but shop in Oregon and pay no sales tax - no taxes to either state. Let someone else pay the taxes, eh?

Andrew

"FYI, the original Interstate bridge did have a toll, back in the day, until the initial costs had been paid off and tolls were removed."

And the original (??) toll booth is still there in between the spans on the Vancouver side of the bridge to this very day!

We don't need Light Rail here. We have C-Tran (for what it's worth anyways) and pushing Light Rail (or Loot Rail ;o) through here will probably do nothing beneficial except give the politicians bragging rights ("Hey Ridgefield, we have a MAX connection to Portland, whadda' you got besides an amphitheatre and traffic problems on Delfel?")

No bridge tolls! That will only bottleneck traffic even more as people have to stop at the booth to pay. I fear it would make an even bigger mess during rush hours.

Meanwhile, I see a south-bound street ending at 192nd that would be a prime spot for a third bridge into Troutdale................

But who am I kidding? The politicians will just go ahead and build a new bridge anyways, with a Max line, regardless of what the public really needs or even wants. (Mmmmm, do you smell bacon cooking? Oh wait, that's my hard-earned tax dollars in the Government furnace. Sorry, my bad.)

"Have you been over to East-Vancouver lately? That area is growing exponentially."

I'm sort of glad they're choking in their own traffic woes since part of the massive growth in Clark co is a result of people avoiding more restrictive land use rules in Oregon and cheaper land. They deserve what they didn't pay for.

We still need a new I-5 bridge for reasons mentioned above. That doesn't preclude a 3rd bridge being built to the east. Just think how many bridges we could build across the Columbia with all the money being wasted in Iraq or on useless military spending like "Star Wars."

New roads and bridges, when built wisely, are not "pork" - they are investments that can help private industry too. Think of how the US Interstate system has paid huge dividends for the American economy since it was built. Goods can be moved across the country more economically as a result, saving business and consumers money. And of course, some federal money a few years ago to fix that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis would have not only saved lives but would have saved all the money now being lost due to the bridge being out.

While I have problems with the basic design of MAX (and agree that fast C-Tran buses are superior to a slow MAX line if you are trying to get from Vancouver to Portland), MAX also encourages development and pays dividends over time, too. It's not supposed to be a simple replacement for a car.

Andrew

OH BITE ME. I did not create this situation but would be foolish not to take advantage of it from time to time for large purchases other than automobiles. I do buy most of my goods in Washington and pay the sales tax out of convenience of not driving into Oreegon. However if I am going to buy a couple of thousand dollars of appliances I will probably make a trip over to Standard TV and Appliance. Usually best prices anyway and larger selection than any Vancouver store.

I think the biggest thing is the fact the world (and I-5 traffic) has to stop when a tug (or better yet some millionaire's sailboat) has to pass under the bridge. When that happens close enough to rushhour, there is no way the traffic will recover. Other big cities don't have to put up with that. I'll gladly pay tolls. If you don't want to pay more taxes, you may as well get use to the reality the other option to better roads is tolls.

Here's the website for all this madness:
http://columbiarivercrossing.org/
I'd keep track of announcements for any open houses - that way you can stop by and grill project staff if you want. Their calendar currently indicates they're attending various neighborhood meetings, so might be worth if if you live somewhere they're going to be making a presentation.

FYI, there's another study going on in Clark Co. right now about putting "High Capacity Transit" there. Yep, that basically means light rail:
http://rtc.wa.gov/hct/
Chances are good that if it's ever built, it could be run by a new separate government agency, complete with it's own management, policies, expenses, and its own sales tax to fund it (sorta like Sound Transit in the Puget Sound area).

While I have problems with the basic design of MAX (and agree that fast C-Tran buses are superior to a slow MAX line if you are trying to get from Vancouver to Portland)...
I've asked someone with the project about this at one of their open houses, who said that the traffic is projected to worsen to the point that waiting to board a light rail vehicle and stopping at every stop on Interstate Ave. (not to mention Jantzen Beach, Expo Center, etc.) between downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland will be less time than driving - and that's even with a new bridge!

I see a south-bound street ending at 192nd that would be a prime spot for a third bridge into Troutdale...
They're looking at that, too:
http://rtc.wa.gov/studies.htm#vision
Something tells me that the priorities on this are all messed up... you'd think they'd want to build a new corridor first, divert through traffic, then build a new I-5 bridge in the same location, without tearing out the neighborhoods next to the bridge in order to do it.

---

quote:

Dairy Queen is not the only business that deserves saving (Feb. 7 story, "Local landmark's future in question: 'Save Our Queen' "). All the locally owned businesses on Main Street will need a miracle to stay in business should the Columbia River Crossing project go forward as anticipated. Why? Because many will have their parking spaces in front of their stores taken away and replaced by light-rail track.

At a recent meeting, I learned that and much more about the consequences and costs of this replacement bridge, which ranges up to $6 billion. Our three-lane Interstate 5 Bridge is proposed to be replaced by a bridge with four through lanes. Approximately 100 properties here in Vancouver will probably have to be condemned. That's $6 billion for one more through lane of traffic.

Do the people of Clark County know this? Will they have any say in the humongous cost plus possibly pay at least $2.50 toll per crossing? There is a group, The Third Bridge Now, that is working to put forth an alternative to this monster. I suggest you look them up on the Web ( www.thirdbridgenow.com ) and see what they have to offer.

Marcella Harvey, Vancouver

---

As I regularly sit on Lombard waiting for the G-D train to get out of the way so I can cross Interstate and get on the freeway, it occurs to me that they should have put the damn thing underground, at least at the major street crossings.

tadc, the passengers are gonna be riding something, whether its MAX, busses, bikes or their cars, so no matter what, you're still gonna have to wait.

"Right down main street for loot rail and just rip out Vancouver's historic buildings....BULLSHIT!"

Other than that brick victorian house built by the Hidden family, there's nothing really all that historical worth saving in downtown vancouver. The real stuff of history is on the East side of the freeway.

Tadc writes:
As I regularly sit on Lombard waiting for the G-D train to get out of the way so I can cross Interstate and get on the freeway, it occurs to me that they should have put the damn thing underground, at least at the major street crossings.

No doubt they would have put all the crossing underground or over bridges had they had the money. Let's remember that the original North-South Light Rail project was to be funded by a public bond (with matching federal funds) but that proposal was voted down by the voters (even I voted against it - I didn't like the specific plan). Eventually the plan for the Interstate branch of the project was scaled down and they found funding without requiring a public bond and surely part of that scaling down caused problems like traffic backups at crossings.

Andrew

Lets just look at the new bridge. 3 lanes to 4 with a seperate light rail lane. OK. The best the corridor can support with improvements is 3 lanes through Delta Park and then later bottlenecking again at the colesium exit from 3 down to 2. The only real gain will be for north portland traffic and enable Oreeegon to shove loot rail down our throats. I will not support any mass transit system that will foul up the surface street traffic patterns the way loot rail has. The answer has to remain with the third bridge mentality. The bottom line is that the gain is not worth the expense in this case. Without the ability to expand the I-5 corridor through Portland the whole thing is kind of moot isn't it?

When ever I hear "no loot rail" I think of Dallas, TX. So, when you say "no loot rail", I'll assume you want to turn Portland into Dallas.

Nope, just don't want Vancouver to get hosed with a poorly planned and managed system like Portland got stuck with. I am not opposed to a light rail system that will not interfere with the already overcrowded surface street traffic and one that is managed in a way that it can actually make a profit rather than having the tax payers foot the bill. Ever been to St. Louis? That is how a mass transit system should be. From Lambert field to downtown I think there is like 13 stops, it's high speed, one or two traffic intersections with rr style crossings so it does not have to stop. Hell, I think there are more than 13 stops on interstate avenue alone.

I'll assume you want to turn Portland into Dallas.

If that were to happen I'm sure there would be a HUGE fight! Dallas is a dump!

As I said NO. But if a rail system goes into Vancouver it needs to be a mass transit/rapid transit system and not try to stop on every street corner like the maxx does. It also should interfere with current surface street traffic or as little as possible.

...But if a rail system goes into Vancouver it needs to be a mass transit/rapid transit system and not try to stop on every street corner like the maxx does. It also should interfere with current surface street traffic or as little as possible.

Not to keep repeating myself, but I'm gonna!

If they do install a loot rail in Vancouver, it should be self sufficient and pay for itself thru fares NOT thru tax dollars.

I read an article, I don't remember where and can't dig up right now (but I'll keep searching), that stated they could have bought a new car for everyone that rides the Gresham line of the Max and it would have been cheaper than putting that line in.

Don't know if it's true or not, but it's an interesting point if it is true.

I think we should research ways to use the existing roads more efficiently.

Currently the freeways are only packed for about 2.5 hrs in the morning and evening, if we could get the traffic to be more evened out that would help a lot. and save a lot of gas.

Myabe make all of I5 N bound and 205 S Bound during rush hours, it would add a little distance for some, but should really cut commute times.

Skybill, do you think our roads are self sufficient and not paid for partly with tax dollars? How about bridges? Tunnels?

Vitalogy, That's kind of the point I'm making.

The majority of roads and highways are paid for by fuel taxes so it's the people that are using them that are paying for it.

If they do install a loot rail in Vancouver, it should be self sufficient and pay for itself thru fares NOT thru tax dollars.

Never going to happen, with ANY mass transit system, so you should stop wishing for it. Just like the US military will never be "self sufficient." Our tax dollars pay for a lot of things that are not self-sufficient.

Andrew

Just like the US military will never be "self sufficient

That's a silly comparison.

If the Military used their vehicles to haul people back and forth from work or to the mall or grocery store etc, and only charged people a fraction of what the true costs are, it might be.

I know it will never happen. The government is too deeply entrenched in their socialist programs.

All I can do is vote NO any time a tax increase or funding request for it comes up on the ballot.

Every other form of transportation is subsidized by tax dollars in one way or another...why not light rail?

Fuel taxes pay for a sliver of the cost of our roads.

I just don't think that tax dollars should fund public transportation. (Or a host of other socialist programs, but that is fodder for another thread)

If you truly can't afford to pay what it really costs to ride the bus or train, then there can be programs in place to assist you.

But if you are just riding it so you don't have to or want to drive then buck up rather than getting a subsidized ride from the taxpayer.

For the once every two or three years I ride Max from the Gateway station to the Hippie market (and I say that with respect since I believe old Hippies never die, they just trim their beards!), I'd gladly pay $5, $8 or $10 to avoid the hassles of downtown traffic.

Skybill writes:
All I can do is vote NO any time a tax increase or funding request for it comes up on the ballot

Too bad we can't vote on military funding! As the largest component of our federal budget, it is totally out of control. The cost of MAX light rail is a rounding error for the Pentagon every year!

It still mystifies me how some people can get so upset about tax money spent on public funding projects like MAX and not give a damn how much of their tax money on is pissed down a rathole on canceled weapons programs, "Star Wars" weapons that will never work, "missing" money in Iraq, etc.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with the tax money spent and merely the fact that it's a "socialist program" that bothers you, Skybill? I sometimes wish I could pick and choose what my tax money is spent on also but I can't - and I accept that that's how our representative system works, and get over the fact that the government sometimes spends my tax money on things I don't like. Perhaps you could try to do the same?

Andrew

Andrew, right on! I have a feeling that for folks like Skybill, they have an issue with the fact that someone else is using it (MAX) and not them. So because they don't benefit from it, they knock it.

And, I want to make it crystal clear that I'm no fan of MAX. I think it's overpriced and serves too few people. But, in comparison to the money we spend on defense, I'd rather see that waste help the few that ride it rather than lining the pockets of defense contractors who piss our money down the drain.

Andrew,

Unfortunately you are right about picking and choosing where our tax dollars go.

However, the ballot box (or now in WA, the Mailbox!) is the only choice we have.

Personally, I vote NO on ANY tax increase. I don't care what it's for. I have to tighten my belt (not really, I have to loosen it in reality) so I figure that whatever department wants more tax dollars can do the same.

Again, you are right. Since it is a socialist program, that's what PO's me a little.

Yeah, there are a lot of defense contractors that abuse the system. And they should be prosecuted for it and permanently banned from ever bidding on a government contract.

$600 hammers are a good example as are $1000 toilet seats.

Most of that is because they contribute big $'s to the politicians and the politicians look the other way. It is something that needs cleaned up in a big way.

That being said, I'd still rather spend the money on the military than speak Russian, Chinese or Farsi.

Well, Skybill, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the benefit of spending tax dollars to build and operate public transit. I happen to believe such money is well spent. While I have problems with the basic design of MAX, the changes I would propose (putting much of it underground, especially downtown) would cost even more money than they are currently able to spend.

Andrew

Andrew, right on! I have a feeling that for folks like Skybill, they have an issue with the fact that someone else is using it (MAX) and not them. So because they don't benefit from it, they knock it.

Actually since I live in Vancouver, I have very little opportunity to ride Max. We have C-Tran busses over here.

And I don't really care who rides it. Even if it went everywhere I wanted to go conveniently, I still would rather drive my own vehicle.

That way I can listen to the music I want (I don't like little headphones), I can go whenever I want, stop along the way and get a diet Coke then stop at the next gas station and get rid of the diet Coke I just drank!

I don't have an issue with other people riding it; I just think it should be paid for by those that use it.

And, those that don't use the roads and pay for them via Federal income taxes feel the same way as you about public transit.

And to go one step further, I think anyone that voted for George W. Bush should be billed for the cost of the Iraq war. All 60+ million of you! How many MAX systems could be have built here for half a trillion dollars?

I'm thinking Vancouver can build their own high speed transit system, with focus on cost savings, eliminating the livability benefits Portland gets from MAX (as Clark co does with nearly everything -- livability is a low priority). TriMet can end their MAX stop at the North end of the Interstate Bridge and Vancouver riders can transfer there to PDX.

So, while we have MAX and the Tram, we're Portland, a great livable city, while Vancouver (and Clark co,) will remain Dallas West.

At least our kid's can read beyond the 4th grade level when they graduate High School! At least we are proactive with things like widening and improving I-5 from main street all the way through 134th street and the new freeway interchange for the Battleground exit on I-5.

"At least we are proactive with things like widening and improving I-5 from main street all the way through 134th street"

Yeah, that only took 14 years.

"the new freeway interchange for the Battleground exit on I-5."

Meanwhile a whole generation of kids grew up in Battlegound knowing nothing of this thing called a "freeway". Stop and go bumper to bumper traffic to anywhere in a car is the only thing they know.

So, I-5 at Delta Park is going on at least 25 years as a bottleneck and still no start on the fix yet!

I dunno, Vancouver isn't a place anybody really needs to rush to see.

Here is a flashback:

P U D

Like Olympia, this section of Interstate 5 has been under construction long enough to support generations of families. Now that all the historic buildings -- like Waddle's, Jantzen Beach, etc. -- are gone, I guess they might as well grab the dozers and start over. We could take the proud legacy of endless construction deep into a second century.

What's this livability everyone keeps talking about? How does MAX make Portland move livable? Moving the crackheads around town easier? The MAX doesn't carry enough people to make a dent on traffic. It's too slow to be beneficial for any trip other than very short ones. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice I don't think it's helping us all that much.

Well, one thing about Portland is many communities where it's completely possible to live and not use a car much at all.

Bikes, MAX, FlexCar, etc.. are all viable for a lot of people.

Many other cities, and Beaverton is an example of this kind of planning, plan for cars, breaking neighborhoods down more coarsely.

Maybe it does not impact traffic, but is distinctive.

Yep, you'll sure remember it after having to wait for ol' Sluggo to go by while traffic piles up. I think someone forgot the aspect of rapid transit and used the damned thing like a bus stopping at every corner the way it does. Kind of goes with that other flying Albatross money sucker Portland has. Yes indeedy, money well spent.

Right now, max stops about every other block. If they changed that to every 5 blocks, the most anyone would have to walk is 2.5 blocks.

Xyar writes:
What's this livability everyone keeps talking about? How does MAX make Portland move livable?

Several reasons. Number one, for whatever reason, people will ride a train before they will ride a bus. It's partially a cultural thing ("only poor people ride the bus") and partially a confusion thing (people may find all the bus routes very confusing but trains are fairly easy to follow). So, a train like MAX means more people will ride it (and not drive) than will take a bus.

Secondly, whether it's achieved its goals or not, MAX was intended not as a freeway replacement but as a growth planning backbone. The idea was to encourage high-density growth around new rail stops, so people can walk to the train from their homes, not have to drive everywhere. This is not a new concept in urban planning; commuter rail lines were built this way a hundred years ago, when driving on demand wasn't the option it has become in the last 50 or 60 years.

The growth around MAX stops has I'd say been of limited success so far. There haven't been a ton of new apartments and condos springing up near MAX stops although many attempts have been made. The planning for the Portland Streetcar has been far more successful - just look at the Pearl District and the new South Waterfront district, where the streetcar will allow lots of people not to need a car to get around.

MAX itself is sort of flawed because it's a hybrid of a streetcar and a commuter train. Between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, it's a streetcar (and I agree with Nwokie, it stops far too often). Elsewhere it is more of a commuter train and stops are much further apart. I wish they turn the existing tracks between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow into another branch of the Streetcar and add a fast bypass through downtown with stops only at Rose Quarter/Convention Center, Pioneer Courthouse Square, and PGE Park. I prefer San Francisco's design of MUNI for short-distance commutes and BART for long-distance, rapid transit. But it would cost a whole lot of money. Not going to happen now, sadly.

Andrew

"Between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, it's a streetcar...."

Actually Trimet *did* have a streetcar that ran along the MAX lines not too long ago. It was a replica (I think, coulda' been an actual car from the era that was restored) vintage-1920s-30s streetcar like the ones you still see in San Francisco. It started at Lloyd Centre and ran to the West end of town somewhere (think it stops near Civic Stadium then turns around.)

I rode it with some friends just for fun one summer some 10 years ago. But I don't know if they still have it or not...........

MAX itself is sort of flawed because it's a hybrid of a streetcar and a commuter train. Between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, it's a streetcar (and I agree with Nwokie, it stops far too often).

You have defined what light rail is. So, you are saying light rail is flawed because it is not a Rapid Transit (commuter) system. It's not supposed to be.

Motozak2, you are talking about the Vintage Trolley, and yes, it still runs, both on the MAX line and on the Streetcar line:

http://www.portlandbridges.com/00,5D0IMG12735,219,1,0,0-portland-oregon.html

Andy, not all light rail systems are built with the constraints MAX has (2 cars maximum per train, stop every other block downtown). I have no problem with MAX running on the streets downtown except that it's so slow. It's original design made more sense when downtown was the endpoint. Once it went through downtown to Hillsboro all the stops became a bottleneck. Since we now have a separate streetcar concept for Portland, having MAX be a slow streetcar downtown makes no sense. If bypassing all those existing downtown stops to make it faster makes MAX no longer "light rail" who cares?

Andrew

BTW, this is a great video, and I think sums up some of the reason why Vancouver/Clark Co. doesn't want TriMet's brand of light rail service. The video is part of an entire site of videos created by a TriMet bus operator.
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-ride-what-to-expect.html

After reading more about the bridge thing in Sunday's Oregonian (tomorrow), I think I'm in favor now of a scaled down bridge with a sliding toll based on the time of the day. I'm pulling the environmental card.

The point is this: If we build it, we will fill it. People will continue to build in Clark co. and work in Oregon. Our planet cannot take much more of this. Lets hit people in the pocketbook for living destructive lifestyles. (Or they can take MAX! )

Time-of-Day tolls, GREAT idea. That would probably be the best way to get a handle on the I5 lineup to Vancouver.

Oh and get rid of the HOV lane.. it doesn't do any good, and there's no enforcement. A Vancouver-dwelling coworker drives home every day in the HOV lane and has never been stopped.

Just because one person has never been caught, we should end the HOV lanes. By that reasoning, just because a lot of tax cheats never get caught, we should quit prosecuting people for tax evasion.

But I agree the HOV lanes should be ended, they cause more problems than their worth.

Simply put, HOV lanes are an inefficient use of highway space.

I have a Love-Hate relationship with HOV lanes.....

Love them when someone is with me.

Hate them when I'm by myself.

Go figure!!