This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 9, 2012 2:47 PM. The previous post in this blog was A trip to the moon on gossamer wings. The next post in this blog is Holier than thou. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, June 9, 2012

How to get nothing done and go broke

It isn't easy -- it takes a lot of planning.

Comments (21)

I noticed a comment after the story by someone called Metrosucks - probably not a real name. Anyway, I felt a familiar feeling of dread thinking it might be true. Here goes. The first 2 lines are quoted from the article followed by Metrosucks' reaction:

"The higher bridge creates safety issues and potential problems for other interested parties."

"A higher bridge would require a steeper grade up and over the river, which CRC engineers felt was unacceptable for safety reasons."

In other words, with a higher bridge, the grade would be too steep for, wait for it, the most "important" part of the project, the light rail! Anyone surprised by this? Screw the hundreds of jobs, the private employers dependent on a tall bridge, the Coast Guard and the Corp of Engineers, what really matters is getting light rail to Vancouver, so METRO shills civiletti, msallen, and Clackamas Captive can sleep well at night, knowing their job is done and their METRO pieces of silver are in the bank!"

And so another aspect of livability gets Blumenauered.

Seriously? The concerns over the height of the bridge for shipping were laid out at least 5 years ago. 95 feet? That wasn't acceptable when the process started.

Why the height requirements for shipping are "news" to anybody is beyond me.

Hey at least now we can spend another hundred million or so to re-evaluate the bridge height. That should create 10 or 12 jobs.

The Columbia is a major navigable waterway. Didn't the Coast Guard have any say-so in this? Or was the plan all along to make sure it never got built, i.e, traffic flow is never improved?

The next time Earl's in town peddling more of his shill's b.s., could someone please publicly present him with a propellered beanie to go with his bow tie, bike pin, and google glasses?

Earl reminds me of the Frank Gorshin character in "Where the Boys Are," only not anywhere near as smart or hip ("Purely dialectic.") -- musical interlude:

("Turn On The Sunshine")

I'd suggest that the CRC team has failed to do a comprehensive job.
In fact their failure is of such a magnitude I believe they have not earned the fee(s) the public agencies have paid them.
consequently I would expect a check, for the full amount within the next 30 days payable to those agencies that have paid to those working on the CRC studies.

In one of Jack's earlier post many months ago about CRC, I stated how there are several manufacturing companies dependent on higher heights, even beyond those recently stated in the O article. The photo in the O is a picture of oilrigs built by Columbia Inc. in Hillsboro and reassembled at Thompson then shipped by barge to the Alaskan Slope. Over 150 jobs and their suppliers would be affected.

There are many jobs dependent on a higher bridge height than 95ft than those mentioned. And like PDC likes to do, think of the multiplier job affect on job counts.

There's also the bridge height affect on upriver needs. Recently the locks at Bonneville needed major reconstruction, and other dams have the same needs. These projects require a bridge height of more than 95 ft. Future upriver shipping needs, even the unanticipated, need to be considered. Coast Guard, Corp of Engineer, etc. are right to insist on a minimum height equal to the 205 bridge.

I've contacted both consultants Parsons Binckerhoff and David Evans about these issues and was surprised by their disregard of the issues-"we know better". They don't and should be fired.

And as reported, the CRC costs are not at the $140 Million level. An independent foresnic audit puts it at over $200 Million. And Evans has over $80 Million of that. Consulting is all about forever jobs and little accomplishments.

Sorry Jack,
The CRC has done an fine job at its real task - showering millions upon millions of dollars on political cronies!

You guys didn't really think anything involving light rail was about transportation did you?

:) Thanks

Don't we already have a bridge there?

This whole CRC business is actually in line with Portland's ambition to be a center for the creative class. Think of it: $140 million that we've spent almost entirely on ideas, with near-zero carbon emissions, no harm to salmon, and no non-recyclable materials created, except maybe those spiral plastic ring binders that hold the consultants' reports together.

This should help David Evans pay for that Greek Island he wanted.

Lower the water level. That's what dams are for. That advice costs you only 5 million. A freakin' bargain!

The whole thing smells of Bluemanure.

jobs! jobs! jobs!...for the creative planner class
No real work, not an end in sight, and money to burn
The taxpayers are screwed again!

You really only needed to be paying a mere modicum of attention to see that throughout the process CRC was worried about (1) light rail, (2) bicycles, and (3) and making sure that all the slacker layabouts from the keep Portland weird contingency were well well represented. River traffic? Screw them. So typical. It's becoming a stereotype.

Wow. What an utter disaster. This is really crazy. It makes you wonder if they even want a bridge. The whole plan has been ill conceived from the beginning. Its the rail bridge that needs to be replaced most anyway. I can only hope this will open the project up to some of the cost effective--and more livable--alternatives that have been suggested.

Parsons Brinckerhoff has contributed $16,500 to Blumenauer's (non) campaigns since 2010.

I'd like to see a little poll of the Jack Bog universe as to just which project most deserves to be shut down -- this, Milwaukie light rail, Barbur Blvd., and "your nominee here." Or maybe pick two out of a list ...

It might also be noted that commercial ships are getting larger every year. Everywhere from cruise liner docks in the Bahamas to the widening of the Panama Canal, commercial ship facilities are getting longer and wider and taller. Obviously the fools hired as planners for the CRC haven't been paying attention to what's happening in the rest of the world.

freakin' idiots. Maybe we should go back to the catapult...not for the users of the bridge, but for the arrogant planners.

Clicky Web Analytics