Comments on: ‘What good is a shiny new bridge when our kids can’t safely cross the street in our neighborhoods?’

By: Janet Roxburgh

Janet Roxburgh — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:34:01 +0000

Thank you so much Clark County Today for this excellent article!! Well done!

By: John Ley

John Ley — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 07:36:34 +0000

In reply to Nike. Well said. The "real" bottleneck in the Portland metro region is the 2-lane section of I-5 at the Rose Quarter.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 04:11:29 +0000

A bridge should prioritize facilitating people crossing, not climate change — a quasi-science, quasi-religious ideology. And 7.5+ Billion is an obscene price tag.

By: Nike

Nike — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:13:31 +0000

The unfortunate fact about “the Bridge” is the following: “the Bridge” could be 20 lanes wide in each direction, and every party could get everything they want in “the Bridge”, but, (and you just knew there was going to be a “but”), the problem is not, and never was the current bridge over the creek. The traffic congestion problem is 1.5 miles south of the current bridge where traffic comes to a complete stop due to the antiquated road system and adjoining on-feeders dumping far more cars onto the current insufficient “highway”. Maybe 30 years ago, I-5 just south of the current bridge was sufficient for the traffic southbound on I-5, but I-5 southbound is no longer even sufficient, it is not just insufficient to handle the traffic load, it is incapable of handling the traffic load. Same for northbound I-5 just south of the bridge: far too many on-feeders adding to the already clogged northbound I-5. I’m sure that most of the people that have to commute back into Washington will attest to the fact that once at the 14 off-ramp, congestion somehow just disappears.

However, TPTB will continue to push for a “new” bridge, but never recognize that the current bridge in not the problem: Portlands antiquated and insufficient highway system is THE Problem.

By: John Ley

John Ley — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:44:50 +0000

Portland economist Joe Cortright threw water on the IBR team’s claim about inflation. He pointed out that their Nov. 2020 updated cost estimates of $3.2 billion to $4.8 billion were inflated to “Year of Expenditure”. So the 50-70% increase in costs were NOT due to inflation.

Imagine a corporate Board of Directors being pitched the largest project in corporate history. After 3 years and the expenditure of $50-$60 million, the cost has nearly DOUBLED, and they they only have a “conceptual design” and no specific cost estimates.

Surely the management team would be fired!

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/mediaplayer?clientID=4879615486&eventID=2022121059&startStreamAt=9302&stopStreamAt=9460

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 13 Dec 2022 23:22:25 +0000

Upwards of $7.5 billion? And we all know it will eventually pan out to 20% more… so upwards of $9 billion once completed?!?!

Am I the only one who thinks Greg et al need a dose of reality? Are they out of their friggin’ minds? We don’t need a cathedral-like monument; we need a simple bridge for cars, trucks, and buses. Period.

In all likelihood, this estimate of billions of dollars has put the final nail in the coffin…. it’ll never happen. Again. The involved States won’t pony-up enough, the Feds won’t pony-up enough, and the citizens won’t stand for the tolls that will be needed to pay for the thing.

Count me out. Oh, and I’ll continue to monitor which of our elected leaders are supporting this boondoggle and I’ll be helping to vote them out next time, too.