MClaim: An investment of $450 million from Washington will result in a $3.1-3.5
billion infrastructure project.
They forgot to mention the $100 million/year tolls which will escalate to over $200
million/yr and total over $4 Billion over 30 years. $4 Billion to get $3.5 Billion
is not a good deal. (59,000 commuters x $2000/yr. tolls)
MClaim: More than a decade of input from citizens and local elected leaders.
Most of the input was ignored. Here is a direct quote from one CRC document: “The
decision meetings would be open to the public, but only minimum legal notices would
be provided and no display advertising would be placed. We would not encourage public
MClaim: Unanimous support for Locally Preferred Alternative.
There is little real support for light rail - Vancouver voters refused to pay even
1/10 cent sales tax to operate light rail.
M Claim: For the Final EIS, the range of one-way toll rates studied for the financial
analysis was between $1 and $3 (2006 dollars, see Exhibit 4.3-3 from the FEIS). This
range in 2020 dollars (post construction) would be $1.41 to $4.24. (pg 23)
The minimum toll is $4.24 each way.Page 4-19 of the FEIS states: “scenarios based
on either the Base (Schedule 1) or Schedule 2 toll rates do not appear to be viable.
The finance plan scenario shown assumes Toll Rate Schedule 3 and employs its entire
borrowing capacity. It employs 3 years of precompletion tolling on a cash basis and
a small amount of residual toll revenues. (Emphasis added) (The actual tolls in Schedule
3 -tolls of $4.24 each way in 2020. That is about $2000/yr for rush hour commuters.)
MClaim: A light rail component is absolutely necessary to secure $850 million
in New Starts federal funding for this project,
Deceptive: New Starts is a Federal Transit Agency program & they only give money
to build transit. It is completely unrelated to Federal Highway money for the freeway
component, including the bridge.
MClaim:Local revenues and tolling will also be needed
Only for the mega project. If we remove the light rail and un-needed interchange
work, then the project comes in at less $800 million. After $400 million from the
Federal Highway Administration, that leaves only $200 million from each state and
MClaim: An estimated 25 % lower operations and maintenance cost per rider
Why does C-Tran need additional revenueto operate it, if it is cheaper?
MClaim: If light rail is removed from the project, additional environmental review
process will be required, which would delay the project for years if not decades.
To quote their own document:“A supplemental EIS would likely require 12 to 24 months
to complete.” That is a small delay to save over a billion dollars.
MClaim: Any further attempt to change the current bridge design will cause years,
if not decades of delay.
Hurry up and buy this baby, before someone else gets it! Just like a used car salesperson.
Actually only 12-24 months to save Billions is a good deal. See above
MClaim: Eliminates last national interstate bridge lift
Low cost changes to railroad bridge will cut lifts by 90+%
MClaim: Improves crossing to modern seismic standards
Reality: The current bridges are less likely to fall than other Portland I5 bridges.
MClaim: Improves commute time and reduces congestion
Only slightly: ONE MINUTE in the am and EIGHT MINUTES in the pm, for a toll cost
of $48/hr. saved
MClaim: Reduces accidents and emergency bottlenecks
Other I5 bridges have more accidents
MClaim: We will lose ... $450 million from Oregon if light rail is eliminated
from the project.
Light rail is not the only contingencyattached to Oregon’s $450 million. It must
also pass muster with Oregon’s State Treasurer among other restrictions.
MClaim: The I-5 Bridge does not meet current safety and seismic standards.
Most bridges DO NOT meet the latest (“current”) standards.
MClaim: Compared to bus rapid transit, light rail provides: Better travel times
[light rail averages 17 mph versus BRT’s 14.5 mph, including stops]
They forgot to tell youthat the current express bus takes 15 minutes from downtown
to downtown while the light rail will take over 30 minutes!
MClaim: Greater potential for nearby transit oriented development
This is the real reason for light rail -to enable high density development with
MClaim: The approved project design anticipates a significant mode shift from
vehicles to transit.
They claim a transit usage approaching that of New York City.That is simply unrealistic.
The history of transit is one of steady decline since the automobile became affordable
almost 100 years ago. Why would people abandon their convenient, fast cars for slow,
MClaim: What happens if light rail ridership projections aren’t met? Will express
bus service be cut?
TriMet has cut bus service more severely than its light rail
MClaim: Based on current modeling, in 2030 during the PM 2-hour peak, trains are
operating at approximately 98 percent capacity with 7.5 minute headways, which equates
to a two hour peak load of approximately 4,180 riders.
Reality: That is with all riders standing and is about the capacity of a single lane
of a freeway, but at the cost of a five lane freeway! Is this really the wave of
MClaim: Generates a regional economic benefit of $5-8 billion
They forgot the cost of tolls & cost over-runs.The cost is over $4 billion when
you include tolls. Even more when you include the depressed economic activity due
to an effective tax increase of $100-$200 million/yr. Still more when you have to
pay for cost over-runs.
The 59,000 residents from Clark County that work in Oregon deserve better than to
be bled of $2000/yr just to get to work. That is a total of $120 million out of the
local economy, about $10 million in lost sales tax due to loss of $300 million in
purchasing power over 30 yrs.
More information: NoBridgeTolls.com crcfacts.info stopcrc.com