No Tolls on The Bridge!
This is from page S-
This is from page S-
EXISTING: DAILY TRAFFIC LEVELS
Average daily traffic volumes represent the average 24-
At an average of 1.2 people per vehicle, this is 162,000 people crossing daily.
Divide this by two to get the number of people making round trips: 81,000.
From CRC DEIS, Page 3-
a substantial number of pedestrians and bicyclists use the existing crossing facilities.
Year 2007 (September) 14-
We chose to use the 60 pedestrians and 300 bicycle numbers as they appear to be those actually crossing the Interstate Bridge, while the 30 & 350 numbers are for the North Portland Harbor crossing
From CRC DEIS, Page 3-
About 3,300 weekday daily transit passenger trips across the Columbia River used
Of course these people make round trips, so 3300 trips is the result of 1650 people making round trips.
“High Capacity Transit” IS NOT REQUIRED by any government agency.
Steve Stuart said it is not legally true that you must have a multi modal project to get approval or funding from Federal Highway Administration. There has been a lot who have said it because they believe that functionally, it would be necessary to have a project. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities are legally required for transportation improvements.
There are no documents in our possession that claim that the federal government requires light rail as a part of the CRC project.
Email from the CRC:
In response to your request for records dated January 31, 2010,:
" Please provide copies of all documents in your posession that claim that the federal government
requires light rail as part of the CRC project. "
Please find the answers to the your questions below:
There are no documents in our possession that claim that the federal government requires light rail as a
part of the CRC project. The Columbia River Crossing project worked with the public, the CRC Task
Force, local agencies and elected officials to develop the problem definition and the purpose and need
statement. The purpose and need statement received concurrence from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and identifies six problems which
the CRC project will address: growing travel demand and congestion; impaired freight movement;
limited public transportation operation, connectivity and reliability; safety and vulnerability to collisions;
substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and, seismic vulnerability.
To address the problem of limited public transportation operation, CRC analyzed several transit modes,
including light rail, local buses, express buses and bus rapid transit in consultation with the public, the
task force and local agencies and elected officials. Transit alternatives analyzed in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were identified through this public process and received
concurrence by FTA and FHWA. Technical findings in the Draft EIS show that light rail would provide
faster and more direct access to key destinations, which would help attract more daily transit riders than
bus rapid transit. The project’s local partner agencies considered the technical findings, the Task Force
recommendation and about 1,600 public comments when they selected a replacement I-
light rail as the CRC’s Locally Preferred Alternative in summer 2008. These project elements were
selected because they could best address the transportation problems on I-
and need statement.
With this letter, your request for records dated January 31,2010 is complete.
If you have any further questions you may contact me at 360.816.2188.
Tonja L. Gleason C.P.A.
Public Disclosure Coordinator
Columbia River Crossing Project
700 Washington Ave. STE 300,
Vancouver, Washington 98660
From: minutes of the October 20 & 21 2004 Washington Transportation Commission, pg 17 (no longer on line) Archived copy here
CRC DEIS, Page 4-
The preliminary financial scenarios target a cumulative total of $400-
Financial Capacity of Toll Bonds, exhibit 4.3-
22.214.171.124.2 Adjust Project Staging if required to Rebalance the Funding Plan
Some highway improvements (i.e.; the interchanges not physically connected to the
bridge) can be deferred if costs of core project elements exceed estimates. This
would allow the funding associated with the deferred elements to be used for cost
overruns/funding shortfalls on the core improvements. In addition, the finance plan
uses a relatively small amount of residual toll revenues; larger and on-
This shows that the un-