We're so poor we can't even fill potholes in Portland. That's why we "need" a 1/2 BILLION dollar tax on cars. But now we discover that part of the money to buy the lead paint bearing old Sauvie Island Bridge to convert it into a 'bike bridge' at 16th and NW Flanders will come from that tax. 'Scuse me?
Considering that every other "transportation" "plan" around here seems to involve sticking it to the car drivers (sorry, you can't have freedom--not when "global warming" is at stake), why not have turn about as fair play: Toll the Bike Bridge, license bicyclists, and make sure there are HOV bike lanes installed.
See that picture? Andrew Hall has great pictures of bridges at portlandbridges.com.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sauvie Island Bridge Turned Bike Bridge: Toll It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Put a toll and the Sauvie Island/Bike Bridge? License bike riders and their bikes? C'mon Victoria. This is Portland and Tommy and the Toadies you're talking about here. Ain't gonna happen as long as Sam the Tram and Randy Leonard and the other kooks are in City Hall.
But, if Sam and the others were to leave the bridge in a scrap yard, some idiot meth cook/meth head would try to steal it and sell it at another scrap yard.
Tolls on this bike bridge would never happen. This would have a negative impact on bike riders and the city of Portland wouldn't never DARE inconvenience the bicycle crowd.
Actually I think Victoria has a good idea on this..
Considering that Bicycles are supposed to follow traffic laws the same as automobile drivers in this state. From page 76 of the Oregon Drivers manual..
"Bicycle use on streets and highways is growing daily, both for exerciseand transportation in city areas. The same traffic rules and regulationsapply to both bicyclists and vehicle drivers.
Portland has nothing to do with it..
Kitanis
If it were only so .The people that run the city of portland think that bike riders are the only thing that matters. They will do whatever it takes to get you and me on a bike or walking , it will most likely end up with a city that is a car free zone from one end to the other. Only then will they happy. There won't be many people left here to pay for it but yhey will have there perfict city model in place for others to copy !
How about we just build a tram across 405 instead.
The City of Portland understands that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are a much cheaper and effective way moving commuters.
But if you disagree, you are all welcome to move to Portland and help vote in a completely different city council.
Until then, I'll be sure wave hello as I ride (toll-free) across the Flanders/Sauvie overpass while you are stuck on the 405 burning $5/gal gas.
Kitanis: How many of Portland cops have you seen, or even heard of, giving citations to Portland bicyclists for violating any traffic laws? I'll bet that your answer will be "None". Portland bike riders, for the most part, will follow some of the traffic laws, but there are also a whole lot of them that wouldn't stop for a stop sign or a red light if they were paid to do so.
You seem do be doing a lot of wishful thinking here.
As a resident of Vancouver, and working in Hillsboro, I have enough problems with that without actually moving to Portland. With that said,
it inst the city's job to regulate and police how people get around.
By making it harder and more costly to get around, all they will accomplish is driving people out of their city. I may be one of the few residents of Vancouver who can admit the the City of Portland's role in Vancouver's sustainability, but but this is nuts. If they tried pulling this kind of thing in Vancouver, you can bet the people would be filing into city hall in the hundreds if not thousands.
PDXK.TV said...
The City of Portland understands that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are a much cheaper and effective way moving commuters.
But if you disagree, you are all welcome to move to Portland and help vote in a completely different city council.
Until then, I'll be sure wave hello as I ride (toll-free) across the Flanders/Sauvie overpass while you are stuck on the 405 burning $5/gal gas.
Boo hoo, I feel so sorry for the poor motorists. I mean, there's a huge (expensive) network of freeways around the city that are closed to non-motorized traffic, and still they whine that cyclists are getting special treatment. This "special treatment" is more to convenience motorists so they don't have to deal with slower moving traffic as they hurry to get where they're going. By designating lower-traffic streets as preferred bike boulevards, cyclists get a route that's safer and more pleasant, and motorists can still use the higher speed thoroughfares without impediment.
As for the police issuing traffic citations to cyclists, it does happen. I've seen it and heard about it. But how often do cyclists kill other road users through their inattention?
Hey, mechanic mark: While it is true that some bike riders get run over by drivers not paying attention, how many bike riders are hit and likely killed due to their own inattention to what is around them and not obeying traffic signs and signals?
Almost every single morning, I see MULTIPLE motor vehicles, speed up to rush through a yellow light (that they had time to stop for) and end up going through a red.
This is the norm.
Yes, I sometimes see Bicyclists break traffic laws.
But on a percentage basis, I observe far MORE motor vehicles breaking the laws.
Roads are built and maintained using funds from multiple sources, not just vehicle and fuel taxes.
Those who do not operate motor vehicles DO HELP PAY for the roads.
Motor vehicle transportation is more subsidized than many people realize.
Tax dollars have been used to do research which has led to cleaner operating vehicles, so that massive amounts of people can drive, while still allowing the city to have breathable air.
Why not use market forces to solve the problem?
Why not have the city sell the roads to the highest bidder, and then allow the owners to charge whatever tolls they want.
Why does the city need to own anything?
Make it all private, regulated only by market forces.
I think this would make for an interesting model.
It really might work.
Eileen, You can't be serious about letting all the streets and roads be privately owned and then a toll put on them. That would bring Portland to a bigger stand-still than it already is. I really hope Sam Adams doesn't see your blog. He would love the idea and probably use what public funds they don't have to put in a toll booth at every intersection around the city, and especially in the downtown core area.
I don't go into Portland any more than is absolutely necessary, and that is to go to two woodworking shops and to a fabric store that my quilter wife likes. Other that that, forget it.
I don't care if the private companies charge toll or not. They can come up with their own model, decide how to make a profit.
I am thinking maybe chips in vehicles and automatic deduction from your bank account.
But, in all fairness, a system of non-maintained, dirt roads should be kept, for those who can not afford to use the private roads.
With all this argument about who is paying their share; what better than a pure market model to sort it all out.
Government maintained/owned roads is so Marxist.
"I think she's got it! By Jove, I do believe she's got it!"
Credit to Professor Henry Higgins
$5 million is nothing in comparison to the $5 billion they are planning for the Columbia River Crossing CRC.
$5 million doesn't even start the Sellwood project. Yet, so-call fiscal-conservatives are all up in arms about a project that will likely ease congestion and improve the health of our entire city. It accomplishes this very cost effectively.
We are told this type of project caters to special interests. Are pedestrians a "special interest" now?
If that's the casse motorists are the most subsidized special interest there is.
Let's start with the free use of public right of way at the exclusion and/or inconvenience of all other modes of travel.
Gasoline taxes don't even begin to cover the cost of construction and maintenance.
Remember, too, that many of the roads were built well before automobiles existed so not only were cars granted exclusionary right-of-way they didn't even help pay for the initial construction.
Motorists also have their fuel costs subsidized by the Federal gov't which grants oil companies tax breaks and funds wars to help control the resource.
Further, property destruction, injury and pollution by cars are all costs suffered collectively even if we don't use a car.
I am motorist but I am really SICK AND TIRED of the ration of sh!t bike/ped advocates get every time they ask for the mere scraps of our transportation budget even though bikes/peds represent a FAR greater portion of the users than the transportation funding they receive.
If you really think you are some fair-mined fiscally-conservative libertarian-leaning thinker then you should put 1000-times more energy into fighting the CRC boondoggle.
But you won't do that, will you? Instead you'll talk about how bicycles run red lights, how Sam Adams is a commie, NW Portlanders are latte sipping trust fund babies who want a free ride on the back of the over-oppressed motorist. You'll argue that we could have sidewalks in Cully if in were not for this pedestrian bridge.
You're arguments are hollow and mean, meaningless yet destructive to the livability of our city which you probably don't even reside in. If that's the case, I don't want to hear how my city should be accommodating your gasoline-powered lifestyle, especially when these improvements benefit your commute.
I'll be supporting Sauvie Reuse on Flanders and Opposing the CRC. If you think about it you will, too.
Scottie
:-)
I am somewhat serious, and you probably think I was kidding.
Is anyone going to address pdxk.tv's points?
Because they are pretty much in line with what I have been reading (but not specifically related to Portland) related to the private vehicle being as (or more) subsidized than other forms of transportation.
Post a Comment