2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

In some ways the term "high speed rail" is creating unnecessary controversy.  It would make more sense to talk about "regular & reliable rail," since that's the first step in most parts of the US outside the Northeast Corridor.

I travel to Eugene and Seattle occasionally by Amtrak Cascades and would do so more frequently if service was more regular and reliable.  I care less whether speeds exceed 79 MPH or reach 125 MPH than there is a reliable trip to Eugene and Seattle in roughly the same time as driving, which would create a very pleasant trip.

I'd rather have my federal gas tax dollars invested in rail, which reduces oil dependence and keeps money in local economies, than spent on ever more highways, which increases dependence on oil and exports money. 

WSDOT invests more in rail than ODOT; I'd like to see ODOT, Governor Kitzhaber and our state legislators provide more support for rail in Oregon.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Columbia River Crossing staff recently released information showing that a 10 or 12 lane bridge across the Columbia would accomodate enough new vehicle volume to create back-ups from the I-5/I-405 split in Portland to Marine Drive during the morning peak on average weekdays.

Does it make sense to spend $3 billion to move the bottleneck three miles south of the bridge, or should we consider other options?

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

While I respect Dave Vant Hof, it is unlikely we will achieve transportation pollution reduction goals (and thus our overall goals) without including it in cap & auction in the first round (2012).

Transportation professionals know we have the programs to achieve the reductions; we lack the structure (cap & auction), the funds (Oregon DOT spends about 1% of revenues on options to driving alone) and possibly the political will. If we're serious about cutting global warming pollution in Washington and Oregon, we'd include transportation in 2012 in cap & auction.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Regional cap & trade is a good first step given inaction by the US and Canadian national governments.

However, delaying inclusion of transportation to 2015 is a serious problem. Driving is as much of a problem as electricity, so a seven-year delay endangers meeting our 2020 global warming pollution reduction goals.

What is WCI proposing to do to cut transportation carbon emissions before 2015? Thanks!

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Thank you for asking our opinions.

I regularly travel from Portland to Seattle, crossing the bridge during rush hours. While I respect the efforts of the Columbia River Task Force to craft recommendations that work for politicians on both sides of the river, I have watched numerous highway expansion projects in Oregon and Washington fail to reduce congestion.

The traffic projections in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)were based on $59/barrel oil in 2030, which is no longer a reasonable assumption. The DEIS was also developed before the current awareness of the need to reduce global warming pollution from cars; adding six "auxiliary" lanes would increase single occupant vehicle capacity and thus global warming pollution (the claim that free flowing traffic will reduce global warming pollution is not supported by research on the effects of increased highway capacity - see http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/climate-analysis-gge-new-lanes-10-07).

That said, some of the CRC staff conclusions are reasonable: need for safety improvements, transit and bicycle connections to Vancouver.

It would be reasonable for the CRC to take a step back, revise their assumptions and develop a plan that reflects current realities around fuel prices and global warming pollution, retaining the best elements of their current plan. That's why we have a "draft" EIS and not a final EIS, to make midcourse corrections.

Peter in Portland and Seattle

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Governor Gregoire,
Independent experts like Seattle's Sightline Institute have shown that adding new highways lanes for cars increases driving and global warming pollution without reducing congestion (http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/climate-analysis-gge-new-lanes-10-07).

Adding six new lanes to a Columbia River Crossing bridge could significantly undermine your and Governor Kulongoski's goals of cutting global warming pollution by encouraging more and longer commutes.

Would you consider asking WSDOT to evaluate a replacement bridge with new travel capacity for freight, light rail and buses (rather than single occupant vehicles) in order to provide a more sustainable solution?

Thank you for the consideration.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context