Flanders bridge is just for starters

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

could someone please explain to me why the city can always afford millions of dollars worth of 100,000 dollar consultants but they say at the same time we cant afford to fix the roads and dont have adequate money for basic services?

"m att hew vantress"

(email verified)

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:41 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

A complete waste of money? I don't think so. I don't even live in the Peal or NW but I strongly support this bridge.

It will be great to have that area be more walkable and bikeable. That means more cars off the road. Which lets you drive your car even faster, Phil.

""""

(email verified)

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:43 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Smell Bad Randy and Sam, the scam, know the memories of the voters are short and the bridge will not be seen by auto drivers. And then there is the 9 million bucks for a new county court house..a gift from this addle-minded city council. 9 milliom here 7 million here and soon your talking real money.

"KISS"

(email verified)

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

It is because Sam Adams cares about himself, his ego, his buddies...he doesn't care about the common-folk.

Sam Adams doesn't give a rip about Joe Schmoe who lives in Lents or Outer East or Far Southwest that has to ride a bus to work, or works on the weekends and swing shifts, that doesn't have time to ride a bike or hit up Portland's bar scene (gay or non-gay, it doesn't matter). Sam Adams doesn't care about it unless it makes Sam Adams look bigger. Sam Adams will NEVER campaign in my neighborhood, go door to door. Because that would actually force Sam Adams to see what I face each and every day, and he wants nothing to do with it. Sam Adams doesn't want to see my street with potholes, a lack of sidewalks (or bike lanes, for that matter) and blind corners. Sam Adams doesn't want to see my street where once I get off the bus, I have to run across five lanes of high-speed traffic WITHOUT an alternative, unlike his beloved bike bridge project. Because those kinds of projects aren't sexy. Sam Adams can't stand in the middle of the street and say, "Look at this well maintained street." (Well, maybe he could, but that's just not his style.)

To be honest, I put Sam Adams and George Bush in the EXACT SAME GROUP of politicians - evil, mean-spirited, bows down to special interests and doesn't care about the ordinary person. Their beliefs might be 180 degrees apart, but other than that they are basically one and the same. It's very sad when I wish George Bush would run for Mayor of Portland - just to get a different take on this city (and I hate the guy with a passion, but I'd vote him in as Mayor!) I do not trust Sam Adams for one second.

"Erik H."

(email verified)

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

See South Waterfront and OHSU aerial tram for how this will play out. A mockery of citizen input will be fluffed over as you don't know what your talking about. I ( we the power brokers of the city and our cronnies) will tell you what is going to happen in the nicest way possible. Once we ram this turd down your throat, we will forget everything we said during the public process and begin the plan the PDC and our cronnies came up with. Sam Adams was raised by the crooked Vera Katz and his work will resemble the dissdain her policys and office have for the regular guy. Go ahead, keep this guy around, and in time you will be the one leaving town.

"Francis"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

We need to replace the entire council. Sam Adams and company are making Portland unaffordable.

"John"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"You can’t get much safer than that."

Really? How often do you walk under 405 on Johnson? Because I walk, nay jog, through there at least once a week and to say that I feel unsafe is an understatement. With drunks and homeless camping under 405 and unsavory activity going on, it's a joke of you to suggest that taking that bridge is a good idea.

On Everett there's not a sidewalk. There's a CURB, but I cannot fit my child's stroller on that curb. Please stop referring to Everett as a viable alternative to cross 405, becase it is NOT. As for Glisan, yes, I can fit a stroller on Glisan. It's narrow and certainly not safe, but it can be done.

So, because I live in a neighborhood near the Pearl District, I guess I am not entitled to a truly safe and comfortable alternative to crossing 405 as a pedestrian.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Sam Adams fan, but I feel like there's a lot of sour grapes in this article and the replies, without people actually taking the time to verify what was written in the article, and the author verifying his "theories."

"Gernie"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:22 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Gernie said, "So, because I live in a neighborhood near the Pearl District, I guess I am not entitled to a truly safe and comfortable alternative to crossing 405 as a pedestrian."

Safe and COMFORTABLE alternative? Are you serious? How many would you like, Princess?

Did you not look around at the totality of the neighborhood before you moved there?

Can you not elect to jog a different path?

Can you understand that people ALL OVER PORTLAND are being asked to foot the bill for this pet project which will serve only a select few?

If this bridge is so important for your livability, can't you all pass the hat and do an old fashioned barn raising to get it done without dinging the rest of us?

Why must you expect the whole city to provide you with comfortable alternatives? (Your choice of words, not mine.)

Must the rest of us really be responsible for your comfort while some of our roads are not even paved, let alone have a narrow sidewalk? (It's too narrow, WHAAAA!)

Do you understand that the vast majority of people being asked to pay for this project will 1) never use it, and 2) wish their neighborhoods only had such a small problem to deal with?

You moved there, not me. Deal with it.

"Deal with it"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:46 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Take back your government, VOTE FOR SHO!

"the other Steve"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:52 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I live in the Pearl and I oppose the bridge!

""

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:53 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Deal with it" - you sound angry. By your "logic", this or any city, for that matter, wouldn't have any projects that the neighborhoods themselves didn't pay for. You're right. I mean, I don't want to pay for the roads in your neighborhood, or the parks that you frequent either. Also, let's only build roads WITHIN our neighborhoods, and let's not let them connect to other neighborhoods, because somewhere along the connectivity chain, YOU may actually have to pay for a section of the road that YOU don't use. God forbid!

My neighborhood has lots of problems to deal with. Drugs and prostitution, to name a few. Tiny, I know. *eye roll*

"Gernie, the Princess"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:57 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Deal with it,

Have you ever even TRIED to walk across either of those sidewalks? You have no clue what you're talking about. It's not that it's narrow, it's a freaking curb. Grow up with your silly arguments. No one is WAAAAHing over anything. Gernie was pointing out that it's not a bridge for pedestrians, which I agree with. There's no way to cross on Everett, and Phil needs to stop misleading people. This is the second article in which he's done so.

"Chad"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

This is another attempt by Sam the scam to make Portland a haven for the bike Nazis. His real goal is to allow "illegals" and the gay crowd to hold sway over all decisions in Portland. "We", the historic majority, will be relegated to back of the bus status once Sam and his "crowd" take over.

And I wish the person who keeps using my name would stop. Fortunately, your 6th grade grammar betrays you.

"KISS"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:33 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Another bridge to give the homeless a new place to live.

""

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:43 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Don't you love Portland politics? The more nuttier, irrational, irresponsible, incompetent a politician is in Portland, the more Portland voters LOVE them and vote them into office.

I wouldn't condemn Erik Sten,Sam Adams, Randy Leonard. I condemn the idiots in PDX who vote for them.

"Oregon Reality"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

How many times are you going to write about this, Phil? This is your third column in two weeks about the same topic. If you hate Sam Adams so much, why not dig up something else about him. You are being lazy. I also don't appreciate how you are trying to make this into a class issue. There happen to be plenty of people who aren't rich who live in NW Portland. In fact, many of those people would use this bridge.

"Bob"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Do not under any circumstances let the comish's know about the Tower Bridge in London. It would be much more expensive, but it would look way cool. The way to get Saltzman out of lock step is tell him that the trees are against it. It will kill some of them and step all over their rites. As for Randy, tell him Victoria Taft likes the idea, he will excuse the term, rethink it.

"Mr Tolerant"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Oregon Reality", I agree 100%! I also find it hilarious when people who live in the Pearl complain. The vast majority of urban renewal money has been spen down there. They get free wi-fi, free max rides, tax abated condos. etc.... now they snivel for more.

The complain about a sidewalk that is too narrow, when those of us outside the Pearl are lucky to have a sidewalk of any size.

They complain about drunks and bums inhabiting their jogging paths, go down to the waterfront instead! Quit trying to make the rest of the city pay for your privledges and benefits. You may feel that living in the Pearl makes you and elitist but it doesn't, it does however make you an ingrate apparently.

A simple thank you to the rest of the city citizens that pay for your priveldged life, would be nice every once in a while.

"the other Steve"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:58 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

the other Steve,

Once again, you spew misinformation. I do not live in the Pearl. I live in a low income housing building in the on NW 19th and NW Everett. I am a single mother, full-time working and making ends meet.

Good luck finding that thank-you. Maybe you'll find it the day you find some common sense. Both are unlikely.

"Gernie, the Princess"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:09 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Another Vote for SHO!

"Pearl's Resident"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:12 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Also, at no point did I state that I want the city to pay for anything. It always amuses me how people make their own conclusions to fit their argument, regardless of merit. The sequence of these replies is simply funny.

I stated that Phil should check his facts and maybe try to walk those bridges, because it was evident based on his writing that he hasn't. At no point did I say I agree with Sam (I dont, and I don't like the man for a variety of reasons). As a rule, I hate it when authors write something, which is taken as a)truth, or b)relevant food for fodder. That was done here, and I will again repeat it is sour grapes on Phil's part, just like it was in his last column. By the way, Phil, how many more times are you going to write essentially the same column?

But, go, go you other Portlanders! Yell louder and write in a more tense tone! Make more faulty conclusions to suit your point. Perhaps that'll get your point across better.

"Gernie, the Princess"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:16 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Phil, how many more times are you going to write essentially the same column?"

Didn't you hear? The hot dog stand is closed, and it's too durn cold out there to sit on the porch shaking my cane at them meddlin' kids. So here I sit, banging away on my new-fangled teletype machine, giving all the Bitter Old Grouches something to whine about.

""Dinosaur Phil" Stanford"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:40 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

The biggest problem with Portland at this time is City Hall. We need to "clean out", and "vote out". These people have no clue. If Portland retains the status quo they deserve what they get!

Lets get on with the Sho

"YaYa"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:01 AM

Re:"Gernie, the Princess"

is that subsidized low income housing, eh?

uh-huh

""

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:06 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Oh, for gods sake, anynomous, now you're really reaching.

Are you insinuating that people who live in subsidized housing do not have a right to speak up on community improvement projects?

What's next? Don't allow them to vote? Maybe only the rich folk should have a say. Maybe only the folks in the West Hills and the Pearl should have a say.

"John"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:20 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Sam may be a smooth orator when he promotes his safe and sound street tax, or when he suggests he represents the average working class Joe on the street, but the truth of the matter is that Sam only represents the special interests such as the bicyclists and some fat cat developers to mention a couple. As proposed by his hand picked stacked deck 89 member citizen committee where taxpayer subsidized alternative transport advocates outnumbered fuel tax paying motorists and motor freight carriers by three to one; and entwined within his proposed Street Maintenance Fee are huge expenditures for bicycle infrastructure that go far beyond what can be considered safety measures. Additionally, the freeloading pedal pusher bicyclists that currently pay no direct taxes for the specialized infrastructure they want and use would also receive a discount on their utility bills thereby demonstrating Sam’s intent is to serve the bicycling community on a silver platter at the expense of other utility customers and motorists. Bicyclists continually want more bicycle infrastructure as long as they are not the ones that are required to pay for it. Bicycle safety however starts with the bicyclists themselves; by stopping at STOP signs, not running red lights and otherwise obeying all the rules of the road expected by other users. Arrogantly Sam refuses to make it a priority for his freeloading pedal pusher buddies to comply and instead continues with his and back room deals and hide and seek approach to funding for unnecessary bicycle infrastructure so the bicycle mayhem can continue. Instead of requiring the price tag for yet a another one of Sam’s shams to be paid for by the bicyclists themselves with a bicycle tax, this unnecessary bridge is a primary example of Sam’s egotistical and wasteful special interest spending agenda that fuels the escalating high costs of living and doing business in Portland, which continues to drive families and businesses to the suburbs. It is total rhetoric for Sam to campaign on the slogan “Portland belongs to all of us” when freeloading bicyclists are not paying their fair share of the infrastructure costs. To keep Portland moving forward, current transport dollars can be better utilized reducing the backlog of street maintenance rather than adding unnecessary transport infrastructure to sway a few votes in Sam's own favor.

"Terry Parker"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:27 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Gernie - at least in your neighborhood - in Portland, you have sidewalks. Out here in NE Portland, we still have many unpaved roads, areas with no sidewalks, drugs, prostitution, and the infrastructure/water mains along Fremont has collapsed, and the street is still closed for repairs. Cross on a viaduct with a sidewalk - you have a choice and you choose your route. If you are exercising you could cross at Burnside - 5 blocks we don't always have a choice - along NE Cully Road for instance. The city annexed our area with the promise of paving our streets and adding sidewalks - all we got was higher property taxes, an ungodly Sewer Fee and NO additional value.

"mark"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:39 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Why doesnt the city put that 5.5 mill towards REPAIRING the bridges we already have? How many of them are not safe or crumbling before our eyes? No, it is much more entertaining to restrict usage for busses and vehicles over a given weight. Geesh FIX what we have and keep it in good repair and we wont need to build new bridges.

This is up there with the "New Medical Insurance Program" when we HAVE one already its called THE OREGON HEALTH PLAN. Common city officials stop playing with our money and start putting it to GOOD use.

"Irritated"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:10 AM

Re: Deal with it

Mark gets it. He totally gets it. Boris and Natasha, too. Funny stuff.

"Irritated" makes a good point when asking why we don't use those funds to repair the existing bridges. I hear the Sellwood bridge could use some love, and there are pot holes all over town.

And to Gernie, "the Princess", just exactly WHO do you think is going to foot the bill for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian special interest bridge if not the general tax-paying public? One way or another, the funds would come from tax-payers, don't you think? Or do you know something the rest of us do not? And you wonder why people take a tense tone? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You are just too funny.

It seems to me that in the two extemes of class, wealth and poverty, that money just always manages to "come from someplace," and it is not much of a worry. Even if you are of the wealth class and may be annoyed to get dinged for more, at least you have it. And if you are of the poverty class, well, it will not be you paying for it, so again no worries about where those dollars will come from. (Probably have other stuff to worry about anyway, like where the next meal is coming from.) But for the middle class working people that is not so. We pay and pay, and it often comes from resources that are already stretched thin. WE pay for pet projects like this one for YOU while our own streets may not even be paved! WE pay property taxes that pay for fire and police services for people whose taxes are abated as an incentive for their projects to be built. It stretches everyone's services thinner and thinner. Can you see where that might be irritating to the guy who is always on the short end of the stick?

Gernie, why did you move there if it was not pedestrian friendly and you walk and jog? Just curious. It seems illogical to me. Were you limited in some way as to where you and your children could live?

Everyone has a right to request any ammenity they want, regardless of income, but requesting it does not mean that you will absolutely get what you want, just that you have a voice in the conversation.

I'd like all buildings to have wide awnings so I don't need to carry an umbrella. I don't like my feet to get wet. I think is safer that way, and certainly more "comfortable." Does that mean it is a necessity that everyone should pay for? Where do we draw the line? Which needs are really legitimate needs, and which ones are wish lists or wants that do not take top priority? Revenues from taxes are expected to be lower in the next year since the economy has been slow. Is THIS the time to build that bridge?

Gernie, are there alternative funding options you would be willing to investigate, organize, and participate in? If you have some ideas in those areas, please share them. I am interested.

"CN"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I have lived on Johnson Street in the Northwest District for the past few years. Johnson Street, three blocks north of Glisan, is designated as a preferred bike route complete with bicycle-oriented street signs that were installed a year or two ago. When meeting with friends in the Pearl, I walk underneath the I-405 overpass on Johnson Street. Oftentimes, there is a young man with long hair in a sleeping bag underneath the freeway. Occasionally, there is a couple camping there. They’ve always kept to themselves and have never asked me for money but I could understand a parent not wanting to walk their child through there at night. And yet, walking through there at night feels much safer than waiting at an Eastside MAX station in broad daylight.

Working in Downtown, I walk up to Everett nearly every weekday to catch the #17 bus. Since I own a car and don’t want to buy a bus pass, I must either pay a couple bucks or walk across the Everett Street overpass into Fareless Square. Choosing the latter, I have found that by crossing to the south side of Everett, there is a sidewalk of generous proportions immediately to the right of the bike lane and new green cyclists’ boxes. On my way back from work, I disembark the 17 on Glisan at 14th and again walk across the freeway. The crosswalks are all fully signaled and seem relatively safe.

As far as problems with drugs and prostitutes in the Northwest District, I’ve never purchased either and can’t vouch for their quality. The neighborhood, with its restaurants, nightlife, and proximity to Downtown employment is ideal for me but possibly a bit gritty for some families. Fortunately for those seeking a more sanitized environment, there are family-oriented neighborhoods all over the city with less expensive market-rate and affordable rents.

As far as the pedestrian bridge, a new $3 million bridge on Flanders would be a perfectly nice luxury for my neighborhood but hardly necessary when compared to the issues facing the more neglected neighborhoods outside the central city. The $5.5 million plus transplant of the old Sauvie Island Bridge seems like a bit of an eyesore and a real waste of money. Funny how the CoP will find the money for this project, but will then have to levy additional taxes for the essential services that taxpayers are actually willing to pay for.

"McCoy"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Gernie, the Princess", I did not mention anyone's post by name.

Since you've found it necesary to make this personal between us, so be it!

MOVE!

Move out of your subsidized housing, they have subsidized housing elsewhere in the city, I'm sure there are plenty of store that accept Oregon Trail around them.

For heavens sake, move somwhere that you arn't afraid to jog near or are you just complaining to complain?

I didn't think you'd thank anybody for the subsidized housing or what other benefits your receive that you obviously feel you are owed. Like you, that was a joke!

"the other Steve"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

when the cars are finally all gone whose gonna pay for the bike roads?

"livermore"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"livermore", Sam has already thought of that :) He'll just raise our utility bills !

"Steveo"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

can't please all the people all the time...

"d"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

the other Steve; I am relieved to read that at least you do not live in subsidized housing, given the virulence with which you seem to attach to those who do.

So how is that double-wide?

"KISS"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:06 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Ever tried to bike from SE to NW Portland?

There is not direct route. You have to zigzag your way through busy streets --- drivers get a direct route on Burnside, glisan, and everett (which only have bike lanes over the hwy then stop). Try telling a driver going across brnside bridge trying to get to the Mission theater to turn right on 2nd, left on couch, right on 9th, left on johnson, left on 19th, and it will be on your left.

Cyclists need a direct route to.

"David"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:21 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Phil has obviously never tried to walk in the neighborhood. If Phil or anyone else who doesn't like this would like to join me in walking across NW Everett, just let me know when.

I also live in outer SE and anytime I go to Northwest, it's horrible to get across the highway.

For those who can't see beyond your front bumper than you are welcome to live in a city like Los Angeles, Detroit, or even Vancouver.

However I want to stop seeing parents frantically grabbing for their child's hand at the curb. I want to have just one or two streets that are quiet. I want to stop reading about 'pedestrian fatalities' in the paper.

How about you??

"Aaron"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:45 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

David - Think of the bicycle obstacles you encounter as a form of "Traffic Calming" that "breaks up" the flow of bicycles so pedestrians and automobiles are not inconvenienced or endangered by bicycles. If you think in those terms we could actually remove bicycle thoroughfares to encourage more walking or driving.

"mark"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:50 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Who will pay for this? The elderly, people with disabilities, ot people who cannot bicycle pay taxes. Will their money be used for a bridge the cannot use. How about if we use our tax money for services that all of Portland's citizens can use and enjoy. If not, how about if the city begins to license and tax bicycles to pay for services.

"Joann"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Bottom line is there was a entire network of interstates built for the benefit of Portland's first priority: the automobile. So what's the big outcry over one structure, built for people coming from all parts of town, to cross I-405 on foot? Let's be honest, almost all of us drive a car at some point, but doesn't everyone want to safely walk down the street once we open our car doors? Portland is a city of optimists, so if you disagree with this proposal please suggest another tactic to address the dangers because this is not about a single bridge, it's about a single vision of accessibility for all.

"Tim"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:44 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

to CN and other Steve,

Dear Christ, read my posts! You're somehow concluding that I don't like where I live and that I want a new bridge. I never said that in any of my posts. I said I live in the neighborhood and that somehow made me a target and someone who wants very badly to sponge off the taxpayers' dollars to fund an unecessary project.

In fact, if you were to re-read my posts, I specifically say that Glisan bridge, while not optimal, does the job just fine. But I take issue with the I-405 underpass being considered as safe, and with Everett as being a viable crossing for pedestrians. That was just lazy journalism on Phil's part. (In fact, the good folks at ODOT verified for me that the Everett bridge is not intended as a pedestrian overpass and is considered substandard for such use.)

So, once again. Let's try this in simpler terms. I am not pro-bridge. I am not taking issue with this neighborhood or its walkability. I'm taking issue with the author's points in the article.

Let's see if it sticks this time.

"Gernie, the Princess"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:45 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Think of the bicycle obstacles you encounter as a form of "Traffic Calming..."

Mark; Why don't you think of your synapses as obstacles and your brain as obstructing the free flow of reasoned thought.

"KISS"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

To those who are commenting about the lack of a sidewalk on NW Everett Street:

I can use this nifty little (and Free!) program called Google Earth, which provides some remarkably clear aerial photographs of the entire Portland metropolitan area (and beyond - actually, of the entire world!), and zoom right into the Everett Street overpass.

While, it is true that there is not a sidewalk on the NORTH side of the overpass, there IS a sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. There are also signalized intersections with crosswalks on BOTH sides of the freeway.

Since there are no sidewalks that extend north from the north side of the bridge along I-405, the lack of a sidewalk on that side of the bridge poses a mere minor inconvenience at best. By using the available sidewalks and crosswalks, the total distance to cross the street is 430 feet. The straight line distance (by using the side of the street that lacks a sidewalk) is 315 feet. Apparently, 115 feet is too much hassle.

The distance from Everett to Flanders is 210 feet.

The distance to cross over I-405 on Flanders, using the current available route, is 840 feet.

Meanwhile, in my wonderful Far Southwest neighborhood where I'm not good enough for Sam Adams' programs to improve transportation, I have a bus stop located on the north side of Barbur Blvd. that has a 85 foot stretch of sidewalk - connected to NOTHING at either end. There's no sidewalk east, no sidewalk west. And no crosswalk across Barbur Boulevard, which has a posted 40 MPH speed limit.

The nearest traffic light is 470 feet to the west. BUT, there is no pedestrian signal - the signal is located on the I-5 overpass, and lacks a sidewalk on the same side of the street. The next nearest safe crosswalk to the east is 1,600 feet (a quarter mile), AND involves walking through the parking lot of a strip joint (so much for family friendly).

If I decide to use a bus stop that has safe sidewalk access for me, then I must ride a bus that continues past I-5, and stops at the west end. (I should note that by now, I have just crossed the Portland/Tigard city line.) Now my walking distance has increased to 1,900 feet, and includes 445 feet without a sidewalk as well.

So, your argument that it's too tough to walk 840 feet (using 100% sidewalk accessible routes) falls on a deaf ear to me. That you have to deal with an "unsafe" environment - try crossing five lanes of Barbur Boulevard with cars whizzing by at 40 MPH (or faster!).

If you live in the Pearl District, one of the issues you are GOING to face is homeless folks/panhandlers in your neighborhood. They tend to congregate in downtown areas (because that's where everything else is). Get used to it. You might as well welcome them...maybe provide them with some services, housing, etc. They're under that bridge because they too need a dry place to sleep whether you like it or not. I've very seldom come across a panhandler that I felt "unsafe" near - all you have to do is ignore them. I've seen exactly ONE instance of a panhandler getting violent with someone (a jogger) and multiple people were calling 9-1-1 on their cell phones to stop it. ONE! Most of them just sit their quietly hoping someone will give them something.

If you feel unsafe, there are Neighborhood Block programs you can join; the Portland Police Bureau probably has some programs to help you out with as well. Spending $5.5 million on a bridge so you don't have to walk/ride your bike near them - well, who's to say that they won't just hang out on the bridge?

The bridge fails the sniff test, period. If the Pearl District wants their bridge, the Pearl District can start a "Pearl Bridge" Tax on all homeowners and businesses within a five block radius of their bridge. They can even toll the bridge too if they want. Don't spend my taxdollars claiming "safety" until you see what I put up with every day.

"Erik H."

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Errr... exactly who is asking to spend your taxdollars, Erik? I have yet to see anyone (except for one short random comment up top) endorse the bridge plan.

"Al Capitano"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:29 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Google Earth. Great idea.

Ahhh...there it is, just like little Erik said. Now, zoom in. OMG, it is Erik! A little closer, closer...OMG, it is all dark now. Like Erik's head, I am stuck up his.....

"KISS"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:31 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Erik, check again. There are no signals on the Everett and 16th. I've walked it and it's no fun. Also, again, until you walk the so-called sidewalk, don't call it one.

"Chad"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:34 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

There is a perfectly wide sidewalk over I-405 on the south side of Everett. It is surrounded by signaled crosswalks and is perfectly safe. Additionaly the sidewalk is buffered from traffic by a bike lane. I cross it daily and find it to feel as safe as any of the sidewalks in the neighborhood. For all the people frightened by it, how are they going to get to the pedestrian bridge anyway. They will have to traverse car-traveled streets with so-called drug users, prostitutes, and homeless people anyway. I think a comprehensive bike system is a good idea, if done at a reasonable price, but this project is too expensive for its potential benefit.

"McCoy"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:31 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Chad, you are blind! In fact there is a signal there, that works really well, you can't even turn right on red when heading east on everett. I drive through this intersection at least 4 times a week to get onto i-405.

There are also designated crosswalks and sidewalks along most of the i-405 overpasses, minus a couple that are designated as freeway on/offramps.

Saying how you need grab hold of your/a childs hand while crossing the street, thats called PARENTING! Oh, wait I'm sorry, that's no longer practiced in this country. And at an intersection that doesnt have a crossing signal, theres a super simple concept that used to be taught, look both ways and cross only when clear.

Now, anyone that says how dangerous the Glisan and Everett overpasses are to cross over on foot or bike, please go and walk down NE Alberta from NE 42nd ave to NE 60th ave. Or walk down NE Cully BLVD or NE 60th AVE from NE Prescott st to NE Killingsworth st, and tell me just how safe you feel, at any time of day. When you do that, then tell me how bad the overpasses are.

When the citizens of this city stop supporting the FRIVALOUS projects such as this, Burnside/Couch couplet, eastside street car, OHSU tram, milwaukie light rail and other ridiculous projects and focus more on repairing and maintaining our current infrastructure and services we may go back to having a city that actually works and is safe.

"Sammy (NOT ADAMS)"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 05:03 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

To everyone:

It would be nice to have a perfect world where we could do all these little great things to make everything so much nicer to exsist.

It has to come to priorities in which the world we do live in.

This project is just bull crap.

The roads and other infrastructure need to come first.

These problems are simply not being addressed.

Just wait, in another dozen or so months when it is realized we are in a very severe economic slump and money is not there.

This is a idea of a few idiots (though well intentioned or whatever?) is not very important or what people will be thinking of.

Get on with getting our current infrastructure maintained. You will be glad you did.

Think!

"Roc"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:12 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Dont think with your little Adams.

This bridge is just crap!

We are on the verge of a bad depression.

Fix the current infrastructure.

Toss these dumb idiots pressing this stupid project.

Think of your whole community instead of your bike seat.

Quit expecting us to subsidize your little crap projects.

If You want something like this, go do some grass root efforts, get off your bike seat (yes lift your butt up) and pay for it yourself.

Get real....

"Roc"

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 06:27 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Gernie the Princess,

Don't eve bother with the other Steve and the like. They hate everything. They keep lies, like everyone in the Pearl gets a tax abated condo and there are no kids in the Pearl, alive.

They don't know what they are talking about and simply post here because they have nothing else to do in their miserable lives.

""

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Hey people!

Look a the sources of funding. Gues what, the money can't be used elsewhere in the city for other projects. Everybody is an expert and thinks they can use money anywhere in the city. But guess what, good or bad, the city designates money for DIFFERENT uses, and that means it can't be used for other projects. The money for this bridge, whether its the SI bridge or the new one planned in 6 years, its already designated for this bridge. And they gap in costs is covered by URA dollars that CAN'T be spent outside the district.

People should really understand the entire issue before spewing off.

""

(email verified)

Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I know that area. It's not the bridges & routes, it's the fast drivers due to close proximity to so many freeway onramps. Remember that place was virtually lifeless 20 years ago. You could crawl on your knees across the street and not get hit by anything. It's very similiar to intersections in San Francsisco's SoMa district bombarded by all the Bay Bridge arteries. Road improvements like wider sidwalks, crosswalks, traffic lights, etc are definitely needed near Flanders, but not a new bridge; that's overkill.

"nyawker"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:30 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Is it too early to start a bridge nameing contest?

"RedFlyer"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I would almost bet that the bride will be named after Adams, I wouldn't be surprised if they change the name of Flanders just to commemorate the horrible things that Adams is doing to our town.

"Happy Gilmore"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:45 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I'm confused as to how cyclists are even supposed to access such a bridge. 16th is a total logjam at Flanders during the afternoon rush -- there's no way a cyclist is getting across 16th to get to or from a bridge at that location. it would take another traffic signal to make the crossing safe, which would result in even more congestion. and don't suggest the bridge would result in more bikes and less cars, and thus less congestion -- it's just not going to happen.

anyone -- cyclist or no, nw resident or no -- approaching this issue rationally could only conclude it's a project that doesn't make sense, and that there are a lot more pressing priorities throughout the city that could use that money.

"NW Driver"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Thank you to Eric H, Sammy, and others for interesting and informative posts and the google earth information. I find I often learn more from the responses to articles than I usually learn from the articles themselves.

"Gues what, the money can't be used elsewhere in the city for other projects."

Perfect. So all the potholes that, gasp, might even be a hazzard to bicyclists, will go unfilled while an unnecessary bridge is built. Just dandy.

In another inner city matter, people who want public toilets to be available in Old Town are getting together and doing fundraisers so that they can be built. What a great idea! The project will be a go and it will be funded by people who enjoy some live music. No taxpayer money will be needed because some energetic people are creative enough to take the initiative in getting it done. I like it!

Here's another gem: before I moved to my current home, I lived on a narrow street with no sidewalks. The county came through and took easements from property owners so they could widen the road, add storm water collection, and sidewalks with a park strip. Somehow, I didn't believe the timeline they set and after the birth of my first child set about finding a home in a neighborhood that was better suited to raising children. (My neighbors with small children anxiously awaited the new sidewalks and several did hardscaping of their front yards with that project in mind.) I took off with my baby in the stroller and started walking neighborhoods on my days off. I found several I really liked that were near good schools that were established. One neighborhood especially struck my fancy and I walked it pretty regularly for a month or so. Several people thought I was already their new neighbor and came to the street to introduce themselves, which I thought was really cool. I decided these were the neighbors I wanted, and these were the streets and schools I wanted to navigate. So we found a home, made an acceptable offer and moved. That was 16 years ago. I still pass by our old house occasionally, and guess what? The street is as narrow as it ever was, and there are still no sidewalks or other imporvements. It is not hard to imagine that other important projects came up and that the project for my old street kept getting moved farther and farther down the list since it was not a huge priority and would only serve a few dozen homes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think it is up to us as individuals to take some responsibility to make the best choices we possibly can for our families and where we locate them rather than move to a neighborhood that does not serve our needs so well, and then bellyache about what is not there for us, demanding that what we want be built.

Whether it is a special interest bridge, subsidized child care facilities that are most convenient, or a school that is close enough to walk to without having to cross a busy street, or even sidewalks on every street- both sides, not all neighborhoods are going to have it all, and you need to choose accordingly. If you move there and decide you don't like it, you could organize some fundraisers to get what you want, or even move. I guess it is just easier to complain than research the area before moving there or actually DO something about it after the fact, besides complain, that is.

I used to work and live downtown (NW and SW) for many years, so I am familiar with some of the issues downtowners face. My new neighborhood is not perfect, either, but it serves the needs that are my priorities, and the rest I live with. When enough people have the same concerns, it is not hard to organize them to do grassroots activism and fundraising. I've done both. It takes time and energy, but if what you want is critical enough, it is worth the effort. I'd like to see a group that is interested in the bicycle bridge have summer block parties (or some other events) that would be fundraisers for this. That would be fun, would raise awareness of the issue, and would lend some credability. In the meantime, without that element, it just sounds like whiners who want to be coddled.

"CN"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

As a Gay Man and a Gay cyclist, I support this bridge 100%. However, my partner thinks a mini tram would be way sexier than a bridge. His ideas are a little nutty, but I love him!

"Robert Reed"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:19 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

If the city designated the money for this project, why can't they re-designate it to where it's actually needed? Aren't there plenty of other instances of "redirecting" funds from one part of the budget to another? Seems to me, Erik Sten's done it a time or two.

It's not as though the mayor and city council feel compelled to follow any laws or policies; they pretty much do as they please, then in-fill with justification in the wake of whatever boondoggle. It's about time they used their power to do the right thing instead of for advancing their own personal agendas. Wait, they probably have no idea of what the right thing is. How silly of me.

"BC"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:26 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I support the bridge and enhancing all non auto infrastructure. To assume that increasing and enhancing auto infrastructure to "keep up" with growth is ignorant. Every other city in the US has done that and the numbers show as a population we spend more percentage of our income (19%) on transportation. Let break the cycle of car dependence and feature a bridge that allows people an equal footing. After all, humans walked the earth long before the driving/ obesity epidemic.

"Jake San"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I dont want to break the cycle of car dependence. I love my car.

"Give me 4 wheels, not 2"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 06:23 AM

"Jake San"

spoken like the brownshirt, goose-stepping, mypoic, misanthropic, neo -fascist moron Sam panders to.

Welcome to Sam Adamsgrad - ziegheil !

""

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Phil, I haven't had time to get upset about the Sauvie Island Bridge over I-405 yet because I'm still too stunned hearing about Sam's idea to give the Oregon Ballet Co. 1/2 mil. to perform at the Kennedy Center. Any one ever hear of a bake sale, car wash, silent auction? Is that idea still a go?

"Mag's"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 07:12 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Gas is approaching $4.00 a gallon.

AAA estimates that the average annual operating costs of a mid-size sedan at almost $10,000, and that estimate used 2006 fuel prices. (see AAA website)

Billions of dollars in oil sales are being siphoned off to fund the Iraq insurgency. (see NY Times, 3/16/08)

Benzene, a known carcinogen, is being spewed into our neighborhoods from vehicle emissions. (see Oregonian coverage)

Incidence of childhood asthma has been directly linked to proximity to freeways. (See USC study, 9/21/05)

42,642 people were killed in automobile accidents in 2006 (see National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stats)

And yet, anyone who advocates for infrastructure designed to make it safer not to drive is a Nazi? Right. Clearly the status quo is just fine, uh?

Only a Nazi would think otherwise. Clearly.

"Robert Olson"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46 AM

"Robert Olson"

baaad karaoke! do you do "global warming" too?

""

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:06 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Phil, now you'll have something to write about for years to come.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/04/23/sauvie-bridge-update-ordinance-filed-press-conference-announced/

Hooray for those who made this happen. In the long term this is a great investment for our city.

"Robert"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

COME ON, LETS GET BACK TO MORE IMPORTANT BUSINESS, WE STILL DONT HAVE A DECISION ON THE ROSE FESTIVAL DUCT TAPE, OR DID I MISS THAT DECISION..MAYBE YOU CAN KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. CALL IT THE CESAR CHAVEZ BRIDGE, I DONT THINK THE HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING UNDER IT WILL COMPLAIN...OH! I FORGOT THE HOMELESS ARE LIVING IN THE NEW TRENDY APARTMENTS NEXT TO PGE PARK, YOU KNOW, THE ONES FOR THE UNFORTUNATE COLLEGE GRADS WHO CHOOSE TO MAKE LESS THE 28K PER YEAR TO QUALIFY..WHAT A COUNTRY............

"DON FROM BATTLE GROUND"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

For everyone spouting off comments about how bad/horrible cars are, then I ask you this:

When the Pearl District was built, why was it built WITH STREETS?!!

When the South Waterfront was built, why was it built WITH STREETS?!!

If the pro-Pearl, pro-Bike, anti-Car folks are so adament about their views, then maybe Step 1 isn't to build this bridge - it should be to eliminate all motor vehicle traffic in the area bordered by I-405 to the west, Burnside to the south, Broadway to the east, and the BNSF Railway/Naito Parkway to the north?

When this is done, then the Pearl District will have not one - but THREE bicycle only bridges (Couch, Everett and Glisan) because cars won't be permitted to cross them when entering the Pearl. In addition there will be NINE streets underneath I-405 to the north that will have motor vehicles banned from them.

If you guys hate cars so much, then ban them from your streets. Of course, don't whine and complain when the 85% of Portland that doesn't ride a bike will refuse to shop in your stores or visit you. (And don't complain when an ambulance or fire truck can't get down your street, either.)

"Erik H."

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:49 PM

Happy to see the bridge get installed

If you understood exactly what the bridge does and why it's better than other options, it becomes quite a bargain.

Better cycling infrastructure benefits all Portlanders.

Think about it.

"Zaphod"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:02 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Phil - out of curiosity how many times have you ever walked or bikes over 405 on Glisan or Everett? I have traveled from NW to the Pearl on either foot or bike many many times and let me tell you your life is at risk no matter which route you choose.

As a parallel I'm wondering where are of you negative reviews of the Eastside Esplanade have gone? A favorite punching bag at one time has proven to be a tremendous asset to the community. I'm sure this path will soon be the same.

Finally, I have to say while at one time I enjoyed the humor of your columns frankly I'm getting pretty bored of your constant bickering. When you actually have a vision for what will make this city better, or can cantribute in a positive way as to what we SHOULD do to move the city forward I'll start reading again. Until then good riddance.

"JW"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

KISS - Your pseudonym fits you well, your answers seem to fit the KISS acronym. Maybe you could try to add to the conversation, you might learn something, and expand your mind.

"mark"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:33 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

CN - It is irresponsible to invent a project just to spend "available funds" - Hey, I have an idea, why don't we say no to the Flanders Street Bridge because we are responsible, demonstrating Character, and Good Citizenship? I know that's a lot to ask of Portlander's, but it's worth a shot.

"mark"

(email verified)

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:42 PM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Mark said, "CN - It is irresponsible to invent a project just to spend "available funds""

I agree. It is even more irresponsible to invent a project and take funds away from other more urgently needed projects.

I read the article Robert provided a link for. Here is where the funds will come from, according to that source:

"Sources for funding include: $2 million from Transportation System Development charges, $2 million from River District Urban Renewal Tax Increment Funds, $1 million in Transportation Enhancement funds from the Oregon Department of Transportation, $500,000 from the City’s general fund as part of the Safe, Sound & Green Streets program, and private donations."

The larger contributors are listed first, and the rest follow in descending order. Which source is dead last? Private donations.

"CN"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:41 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Sho Sam the Door!

""

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:48 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Kudos to Sam for having the courage and the foresight to see this project through. The existing bridges over 405 are dangerous and inadequate for the volume of foot and bike traffic in the area. All three crossings between Burnside and Johnson require bike/peds to cross freeway onramps fercryingoutloud! Name another spot in the city that has that charming "feature", especially considering the surrounding density.

I'm a resident of NW and I wholeheartedly support the bridge and Sam's efforts for it despite all the politicking going on.

And boo to Sho/Potter and this ignorant Phil character for the steaming loads of misleading and unhelpful us v. them, either/or rhetoric.

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:05 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

No one has justified the $5.5 million bridge vs. the $3 million bridge. I can hear the justification already.....it would be so hip, so cool, so.....PROGRESSIVE!!! Yes! There's the justification.... anything labeled "progressive" must be worth the added expense.

I, for one, am for FUNCTIONAL. If a bridge is needed, just build a functional bridge. Is it possible for Portland to build a plain, boring, functional bridge? In SE Portland the answer was "Yes." In NW Portland the answer, according to Sam Adams, is "No."

"r. james"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:25 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Who are you wimps? I walk over at Everett and under at Johnson almost every day. I NEVER feel unsafe. Just because you have to cross the street to get to the wide sidewalk does not make it worth millions for the old ugly SI bridge to be relocated. For that money we could probably cap Everett to Glisan.

""

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I say its time to recall/vote out all of the current city councilors and bring in new blood.

This project is another slap in the face to the people in the rest of the city of portland that will see little if any benefit from this, but will pay a great deal for this bridge vs. the more economical options that are available.

Sam Adams and the council need to remember that the rest of portland is against this type of project and many other "pet" projects like it in the NW/Pearl/Downtown areas and are fed up with the rest of portland getting the proverbial "shaft" from the cronies downtown and will vote them out to bring in new blood. that will represent the rest of us more fairly!

THERES MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF YOU!

"Sam"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:19 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

"Sam" -

Your rant proves my point perfectly. This whole "us v. them" conflict was manufactured by Sho & Potter using lies and false facts to undercut the truth -- that there are improvement projects going on all over the city right now. Sidewalks in East Portland (oh yes, look up the project on 102nd right now: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=diidj) and bike bridges on the Springwater corridor. Clinton street bike boulevard, anyone? I-205 Max? Bike boxes?

The last thing we need is to have a wedge driven between halves of this city, based on nothing more than lies. I think it's clear where they're coming from, and Phil -- you're just not helping much by spreading them.

We can have this bridge and those sidewalks. Sho/Potter want to make you believe that it's either this bridge or those sidewalks. Are you going to fall for it?

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:46 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

@Sam -

Your comment proves the point perfectly -- Sho/Potter's misleading rhetoric is not intended to do anything helpful. It only serves to divide the city into us v. them. Based on this comment thread, it's pretty obvious that Phil's ignorant column isn't helping much either.

It doesn't have to be bridge v. sidewalks -- in fact, sidewalks are being built right now on NE 102nd. See portlandonline: "The 102nd Avenue Streetscape project will improve 102nd Ave from NE Weidler to SE Washington St. The project will include new sidewalks, bike lanes and street trees and pedestrian scale lighting."

What about the Springwater bike bridges? Clinton Street bike boulevard? I-205 Max? Bike boxes? Why does Sho Dozono say that this bridge is preventing eastside improvements when it clearly is not?

It doesn't have to be this or that. It can be this and that, despite Sho/Potter's (and now Phil's) record of shameless and misleading statements.

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Jonno,

Ever walk down NE Alberta from 42nd ave to 60th ave? Probably not. And probably to scared to! Did 102nd already have a sidewalk? Yup. and you don't have to tear up the whole street to paint the lines for a bike lane.

I think the point that a lot of people are making is that there are other more pressing projects in this city that need to be addressed before more things are done for the Pearl/NW/Downtown areas. Other people pay taxes too and deserve to finally get some of the basic services such as sidewalks and proper stormwater drainage on their streets.

Imagine a lake 30ft long, 15ft wide and anywhere from 1in to 12in deep in front of your house because the city will not put in sidewalks or proper drainage. But we need a bridge over the 405 because some people are not happy with the current sidewalks and CONTROLLED crosswalks. And there are many other places all over this city and other cities throughout the nation where peds/bicyclists "cross freeway onramps fercryingoutloud!", how about you take a little better look around! And not be such a cry baby about having to cross with the signal and look both ways!

It seems there is a very selfish attitude from Pearl/NW/Downtown area, they need more of everything than anyother part of town.

Here's a great concept, put it to a vote of the people, the entire city!

And as for your remark "Sho/Potter's misleading rhetoric is not intended to do anything helpful. It only serves to divide the city into us v. them. Based on this comment thread, it's pretty obvious that Phil's ignorant column isn't helping much either." I for one am able to make my own observations, and am my own person. Your comments sound more like you are a sheep!

As a lifetime citizen of Portland that comes from an upbringing of small business owners in the downtown area that have been completely runnout because the city is now deciding the type of business that you should own and how you need to operate it and changing city codes to push you out if you don't agree, I think I have a few reasons to be upset with our current city government.

"Sam"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 06:54 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Sam -

Did you read my comment? Improvements are taking place all over the city, not just in Pearl/NW/Downtown. Go look for yourself at portlandonline (dot) com. Rhetoric like Phil/Sho/Potter's is unnecessarily divisive and foments voter rage instead of solutions. Apparently they like it that way. Must suit their purposes, and it looks like you fell for it.

Glisan and Everett suck, and it's not just the crossings. Ever try riding your bike up Glisan at rush hour? I'm a confident cyclist, and the whole corridor is inadequate. They're freeway-oriented, car-priority infrastructure smack dab in the middle of the densest area in the city of Portland. Do I use them? Sure, I look both ways and I'm not dead yet. But they suck and they are dangerous and they will always be substandard.

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:41 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Yes I did read your comment. But do you think that some of these projects are frivalous? Yeah some of them might be. Some are needed. Is there a sidewalk on NW Glisan or Everett? YES THERE IS! are the intersections controlled? YES THEY ARE. Before our money is put to improve more things like this, lets look at bringing everyone into the light of having sidewalks on their streets.

But did you read any of what I said on how parts of this town are treated? Or do you feel these people are below you and don't matter?

I have ridden my bike down these streets many times, and it may not be the safest , but it is manageable. Now have you walked down the streets that I mentioned? Better yet, have your kids walk down some streets like that to go to school and tell me what projects are more important!

"Sam"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

See? To you (and Sho/Potter/Phil) it's "this OR that". But it's not.

We can have "this AND that". We can have the bridge AND we can have sidewalks. I want sidewalks in east Portland. I lived for three years in NE Portland on a street that didn't have sidewalks. I think they're pretty important too.

But right now we have the funding, opportunity and momentum to finish one of these projects -- the bridge. Sorry to burst your bubble, but stopping the bridge project will not build sidewalks on NE Alberta Street. It just means that the bridge won't be built, and maybe a small portion of the funding might, someday, maybe, trickle into building a sidewalk somewhere. More likely it'll go to the Columbia River Crossing project.

Do you see the difference here? The spirit of "this OR that" creates division and taps into rage, helping nobody now and nobody in the future. "This AND that" brings us together to complete projects that will eventually benefit the whole city. Today, it's my neighborhood. Tomorrow, it's yours.

See how that works?

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:04 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Jonno,

You don't seem to get what I am saying, but thats ok.

It hasn't just been one or two projects, it has been the many projects and years and decades of neglect to other parts of town, not just NE or the eastside.

And the FRIVALOUS spending by the current city hall. Why would we not want to save a couple of MILLION dollars and build a bridge from scratch? Or does money just grown on trees.

Part of being green and sustainable is also CONSERVING, and not just trees and oil and water, that means MONEY too.

Our current city hall and previous has blundered so much money that it is not even funny anymore. How much did the Tram project go over budget?

"sam"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:16 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

I see exactly what you're saying about the perception of neglect. I say perception because I mean exactly that -- projects are ongoing all over the city. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know? But stopping one worthy project from happening isn't going to solve all those other worthy problems. It just means that this project won't be done. Less than $2m of the bridge funding could be used elsewhere in the city and it would take a minimum of 2 years to reallocate it. $2m is enough to build storm drains, gutters and sidewalks for about two eastside blocks. So I say again -- this OR that doesn't get either of us much of anywhere.

Don't buy Potter's lies -- there's no guarantee that a built-from-scratch bridge would be any cheaper. The $3.5m figure for a new bridge was a "low-confidence" estimate. Given the skyrocketing cost of materials and the 3-5 year timeframe to plan and execute a new bridge, who can say what it will cost? Not only that, but a new bridge would be limited in width to as little as 12 feet (the fed hwy admin dictates this) and have no architectural value (see the brutalist Bryant/Failing street I-5 bike/ped bridges), while the Sauvie bridge is 30 feet wide and has actual character. Width matters for capacity -- ever biked on the Steel bridge lower deck on a sunny weekend? There's simply no way to build a bridge of equivalent capacity for the same cost as moving the Sauvie span.

I agree that the tram is a black eye, but pay attention to the particulars of this project. The funding is split into two portions -- $3.9m goes to moving, prepping and installing the bridge. The remaining $1.5m will be spent on building bridge footings and installing signals on either end. The $3.9m portion is capped -- that's the max that the city will spend on it regardless of contractor cost overruns. The $1.5m portion will be put out to competitive bid and a separate contracting process with cost controls in place. Ya think they might feel a wee skosh of pressure to make this happen right?

I see your concerns, but this project makes sense. At best, it's misleading (hi Sho! hi Tom! hi Phil!) to say so. At worst, it's deliberately intended to drive a wedge into our city. I am not cool with that.

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

er - that last paragraph should have read:

"I see your concerns, but this project makes sense. At best, it's misleading (hi Sho! hi Tom! hi Phil!) to say *otherwise*. At worst, it's deliberately intended to drive a wedge into our city. I am not cool with that."

"jonno"

(email verified)

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:52 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

Anyone notice that the entire issue goes away if they just add a sidewalk to either of the two existing bridges within a block?

What a crowningly stupid idea for Sam - the high point of his "career" as a professional taxer.

"Gnuut"

(email verified)

Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Re: Flanders bridge is just for starters

@Gnuut -

No one's noticed because that's not true. There are already sidewalks on Glisan and Everett, they just require you to walk directly across the path of high-speed freeway-bound traffic.

The 405 gulch is a major division between the two most densely populated neighborhoods in Portland (and spare me the elitist comments -- there are mixed-income developments all over the area). The existing crossings are all inadequate and discourage bicycle and pedestrian travel. And it's not just the bridges, it's the whole length of the streets. There really aren't any direct, safe, calm ways in or out of the area if you're not in a car. Other neighborhoods have had lots of work done to create bike infrastructure, leading to an explosion of cycling in the city -- why not NW? Oh, and in case you're thinking it, Johnson is a half mile out of the way if you're headed up Glisan, and it doesn't come near the river paths.

The existing car-prioritized, freeway-bound infrastructure is an insult to the walkable, bikeable, human-scale neighborhoods surrounding the 405 gulch. This bridge is a major step in the right direction for the area and the city.

Go Sam!

"jonno"

(email verified)

Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:40 AM