'T'ain't enough.

Pledge should be:

"No money for the repair or maintainence of any existing road or transit facility of any sort or nature anywhere in Multnomah County, and no money or any new road or transit project until the Sellwood Bridge is replaced by a double decker bridge with a minimum of two 14 foot wide motor vehicle traffic lanes in each directon."

Keeps the bridge in essetially the same footprint, minimizing impact on businesses and homeowners on the east side.

=

So does that means you all are willing to turn Tacoma on the east side basically into a 4-lane highway between McLoughlin and the Sellwood Bridge?

Otherwise, heading eastbound, you would be dumping 2 lanes down to one.

Just a question to see where everyone visiting here stands?

Good grief Hilsy, Tacoma has been a major 4 lane thoroughfare forever.
So a few years ago Charlie Hales put in bubble curbs and took away some of the travel lane.

Is it supposed to be scary for you to use "highway"?

A log jam happens trying to get on and across the bridge from Macadam and the same from Tacoma in the AM.

And despite the delusions that alternatives will suffice, traffic is and will be getting worse.

Deliberately exacerbating traffic by limiting our thoroughfares is reckless.

It will also result in a detriment to Sellwood neighborhood side streets as clogged Tacoma overflows from increased congestion.

It serves nothing but more insanity for anyone to pretend or demand that people simply find other ways to cross the river.

Thoroughfares are for getting through.

My bad on the textual hyperbole of "highway."

So, to rephrase, do you want to see Tacoma moved back to a 4-lane road?

Again, just asking.

But one other thought, should Clackamas County help foot the bill?

Yes Hilsy, Tacoma should be 2 full lanes in each direction.

It was before and there is no reason (other than the selfish idiocy of the fairy tale believing bike fools) why it shouldn't be again.

Through bike traffic needs to be off arterials and main collectors like Tenio and on to Tenino eastbound and Sellwood wesbound.

That should read "off arterials and main connectors like Tacoma and on to Tenino eastbound and Sellwood wesbound."

And no 'highway' is not a bogeyman which scares me, nor is it an accurate description of a 4 lane Tacoma Street.

But using "highway" is a scare tactic which helps Hilsy stampede the ignorant. Typical of the anti motor vehicle nazis.

(See, everyboy can use "scare" words, though they contribute nothing to reasonable and rational policy dicussion.)

Jack, thanks for the link! Any commissioner or candidate who favors using county money on a new road or transit project needs to be able to complete this sentence: "I think this project is more important than replacing the Sellwood Bridge because _____."

Hilsy, the City created two side effects when it removed two lanes from Tacoma. One was that it created traffic congestion and a serpentine weaving pattern for westbound traffic. Two was that it pushed some traffic north to the Ross Island or south to Oregon City, increasing VMT and moving congestion to other streets. The city messed up.

Wow Nonny,

Way to put words and intentions into my text. Even after I graciously admitted my mistake and properly re-worded the question with neutral language. Instead you are the one who continues to ratchet up the ad hominem language. for example:
"selfish idiocy of the fairy tale believing bike fools"
"anti motor vehicle nazis"

I'm the one who apologized and backed off on the "scare" words. Yet you keep using them.

If you want to see a good example of discourse well above the level of language that you are insisting on using, please see Mr. Laquedem's response (who appears to agree with you on a substantive level).

Now, in response to the moving Tacoma back to 4-lanes at all times: How are you going to sell that idea to the Sellwood neighborhood? From my perceptions of attending a couple of the Sellwood Bridge presentations, there seems to be an overwhelming resistance by the neighborhood to return Tacoma to 4-lanes. This is more of a realpolitik question rather than a rhetorical/substantive one. And to me, it seems to be a pretty big stumbling block.

Also, I'm still waiting to read a response to my inquiry regarding Clackamas County.

After the bridge, then open the jail.

Howard is dead on right.

The Sellwood neighbors are reaping the short sighted rewards of a commute which lasts twice as long as a result of Charlie's bottleneck.

More congestion and more smog, with a trail of cars that snakes all the way up Taylor's Ferry until it intersects Terwilliger Blvd.

It is extremely short sighted to replace a 90 year old bridge without any increase in automotive capacity.

Remember, the next bridge will likely last another 90 years.

"I'm still waiting to read a response to my inquiry regarding Clackamas County."

While your at it, how about CoP also? I'd bet mroe CoP residents cross that bridge than Clack Cty residents.

Umm Steve,

The vast majority of residents of the "COP" reside within Multnomah County which is where the current proposed taxing/fee system would be implemented.

but now that you bring it up, I'd love to see harder numbers on who does use the bridge.

There's nothing reasonable about having to get the 4 lane bridge and 4 lane Tacoma approved by Sellwood.
It's an important thoroughfare. Always has been. Anyone who bought any house or biseness ther knew it.
Traffic is best moving well along Tacoma than it is congested and spilling over onto side streets.
We need all the thoroughfares we have because we aren't going to get any new ones as population and traffic grows.

And besides, we're getting a $1.4 BILLION light rail bridge and expansion that NO ONE approved. Or did Sellwood approve that? :)

Should Clackamas County help pay for it?
No. Of course not.
That was a useless canard raised by the stupid and irrespionsible CoP/Mult politicians who let the bridge fall into disrepair resulting in weight restrictions banning trucks and buses.

These same lousy politicians have spent BILLIONS on boondoggles instead of taking care of the Sellwood Bridge and other infrastructure.
Even now their reckless judgement and shameless spending practices are about to take $75 million from the PDOT general fund to bailout projects in SoWa.

There's $75 million right there that should be directed to the Sellwood Bridge or other infrastructure the city says needs a new tax.

These sickening politicians are so emboldened after years of getting away with anything they have become blatant in their spending malfeacence.

Anyone still pretending they are consiensous, astute and well meaning
hasn't been paying attention to their actions.

Throw them out (Sam first), demand outside audits and the rest will follow.

Bridges should be built large like buying clothes for your children. They'll grown into them. For those who want to restrict car trips: You can still build a new bridge large, and close off lanes on the new bridge. If you need these lanes for emergencies later, you can then temporarily open them. Moreover, let's say car technologies change and car's run on hydrogen or electricity in the next generation. Your global warming worries pass, and because you built large, you can readily add back lane(s) to allow more car trips. If the economies of scale are there, why would you not build flexibility into your new infrastructure? Wouldn't this be like "smart" planning? I guess the present crop of planners would have loggers cutting trees with dull axes, and farmers using donkey-pulled plows instead of tractors.