Bege-101 Assignment Session 2012 Solve Essay Example

propose conducting an additional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that takes into account environmental and social justice concerns, as well as includes data on asthma rates in north and northeast Portland. My name is Donna Murphy, and I am a resident of Hayden Island; I relocated to the island in June.

We endure noise pollution from trains, planes, and automobiles, but our adoration for residing alongside the river remains strong. Mayor Adams, we humbly ask you to envision living in this environment. As senior citizens, we are determined to make our concerns heard. Our community urgently requires essential amenities such as a Safeway supermarket, a pharmacy, and a gas station.

Roger Staver, chair of Hayden Island Neighborhood Network (HINooN), informs that his group sent a letter to the project regarding the impacts of the refinement package on Hayden Island. Staver highlights that Hayden Island is the most affected area in the project, as it is an isolated island surrounded by the channel and the river. The recently approved Hayden Island Plan aimed to enable residents to remain on the island to fulfill their essential requirements.

The project refinements require us to leave the island and we are not allowed to relocate elsewhere in the neighborhood. Despite being actively engaged in CRC planning since 2005, as a resident of Hayden Island, I still support this project overall. However, the refinement package has made things worse than they originally were.

Please consider Hayden Island and sustainability when making refinements. It is important to make the most of the situation on Hayden Island. Our letter highlights specific points. Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor for district 5 and former member of the CRC

Task Force, urges the project to continue working on this and addresses further comments in his letter.

Kathryn Williams, the business and rail manager for the Port of Portland, expressed support for the bi-state effort to improve I-5 and its related interchanges. Williams specifically emphasized interest in the impact of refinements on the Marine Drive interchange. They encouraged moving forward with these refinements.

Ginger Metcalf, representing Identity Clark County, Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, and Columbia River Crossing Coalition, highlighted slower public investment in transportation compared to private sector investments in infrastructure for job creation. Metcalf emphasized the importance of investing in freight infrastructure to remain competitive in the global economy.

Recognizing the economic connection between jobs and state expenditure is crucial for establishing a sustainable culture of success. The support of the business community is essential in achieving this goal, as emphasized by John Mohlis from the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council. He highlights that appropriate downsizing has already been implemented for the project, with the aim being to proceed and make necessary adjustments as required.

It should be noted that currently, the construction industry is facing a depression rather than a recession. Further delaying the project will lead to more individuals losing their homes, health insurance, and resorting to cashing out their 401k accounts to fund their children's college education.

Please collaborate and continue making progress. Walter Valenta, a Portland resident, emphasizes his significant dedication to this project. While achieving this milestone is crucial, it is just one of many steps we have ahead of us as we navigate through this challenging phase. It is vital that we uphold the core values of our community.

It is essential to

integrate the land use and transportation system on Hayden Island. We should not ignore the importance of design in this process. Lowering the cost should not result in sacrificing aesthetics. The bridge has the opportunity to embody Portland's principles. Marion Haynes from the Oregon Business Association states that businesses across the state rely on this bridge and its necessity has been evident for ten years.

The staff's willingness to reduce the size of the project is highly regarded. Although there are still more specifics to be resolved, it is crucial for businesses across the state that you persist in advancing this initiative. Ed Lynch, a former member of the CRC Task Force, stresses the significance of tolls for bridge users, as well as any other sources of funding. He also emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that if we decide to construct the bridge, it must be done accurately.

Despite being constructed in the 1930s, iconic bridges such as the Sydney, Australia bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Transbay Bridge are still operational today thanks to their meticulous construction. Therefore, it is important to construct bridges with sufficient width from the beginning and ensure proper execution. Considering this viewpoint, I oppose any further expenditure on the CRC bridge and question why the initial $3 investment was not effectively utilized.

Why is a $6 billion cost being proposed when it can achieve the same result as the earlier proposal? You are not being transparent about the true cost to the public. If this is necessary for regional transportation, then tolling the current bridge should be considered as well. The most cost-effective options should be prioritized. On I-5, there is

an approximate ratio of 300 cars to every truck.

This is not a jobs program. We have several community needs that will generate lasting and sustainable employment opportunities. We should not borrow additional funds from Asia as it burdens me with debt and does not stimulate job growth.

Elson Strahan, president of Fort Vancouver National Trust, expressed his support for the final recommendation of the CRC Task Force, despite being aware of the potential impacts to their site that would necessitate mitigation. He emphasized that mitigation is a mandatory requirement under the National Highway Act and National Historic Preservation Act. Both Fort Vancouver National Trust and the City of Vancouver have given their approval for the design concept of the Community Connector, and they eagerly anticipate its integration into the project.

Paul Jeffery, a resident of Portland, moved to the city ten years ago due to its unique approach. He believes that his satisfaction with moving here was reinforced by the residents' successful opposition to the proposed Mt. Hood expressway. However, he is worried about the plans of the CRC to transform Portland into an unsuccessful city.

David Rowe, a Battle Ground, Washington resident and former member of the Clark County High Capacity Transit Task Force, expressed his opposition to the described event in his role as a private citizen. He argues that the project is unsuitable for the demands of the 21st century, as it relies on a problem-solving approach from the mid-20th century. In my letter to Governor.

Gregoire, I requested that she envision a relaxing morning journey to downtown Portland in a comfortable chair with coffee and a picturesque view of Mt. The destination is Portland Union

Station. This can become a reality by renovating the current Columbia River rail bridge, which would be significantly more cost-effective compared to the present plan.

This service already exists with the Westside Express Service commuter rail in Washington County. Chris Rall, a citizen of Portland, expresses concern about the resiliency of the transportation infrastructure. He believes that our current system is not prepared to handle increases in gas prices effectively. Rall opposes the freeway expansion project, as it is going against his vision for the future. He suggests exploring alternatives that are more cost-effective and implementing smaller projects in phases to address the transportation needs of the area.

Todd Coleman, deputy executive director of the Port of Vancouver, expressed his support for the refinements package. He highlighted the significance of trade-related jobs in Washington, stating that one in three jobs is connected to trade. While acknowledging a preference for a six-lane option, he recognized the need for compromise by accepting a five-lane option in the interim. He further mentioned the Port's membership in the 75-member Vancouver Freight Alliance, which also backs the refinements proposal. Ultimately, both sides of the river will have to find middle ground, and according to Coleman, this option offers 90 percent of the benefits at 75 percent of the cost. Therefore, he recommended proceeding with these refinements.

Jim Howell, a critic of the Mt. Hood Freeway, argues that the ongoing expense of one million dollars per month for the project must come to a halt. He dismisses the claim of a daily congestion lasting 15 hours, considering it a deceptive tactic employed by the highway departments of Oregon and Washington. This assertion, according to

Howell, relies on an absurd notion that no measures can be taken to alleviate traffic on the freeway. He further contends that alternative solutions not involving freeways were never given genuine consideration.

Chris Smith, a citizen transportation activist, believes it is necessary to revisit the Purpose and Need Statement in order to address congestion and include references to global warming and peak oil. While state and local governments have already implemented robust policies regarding these issues, Smith urges the amendment of the Purpose and Need Statement followed by the creation of a supplemental draft EIS. On a personal note, Joe Rowe, a resident of Portland, lives in close proximity to I-5 and Rosa Parks Way, just two blocks away.

During rush hour at Albina Street, I observe a long line of cars, bumper to bumper. This happens because drivers are aware that it is quicker to exit the freeway rather than staying on I-5. I am also aware of politicians who falsely claim to be environmentalists and justify the necessity of this project for employment opportunities. However, the projected cost of the bridge does not consider the additional expenses incurred from purchasing the bridge on credit through bonds. Consequently, the actual cost of this bridge will amount to $10 billion, just like the tram which experienced a doubling of its initial cost.

Richard Bullington, a Clark County resident, questions the justification of investing public money in a light rail system for Clark County. He argues that with only 12 trains per hour, the system would only be able to transport around 2,400 people per hour in the peak direction. Considering the cost of $750 million for serving

this number of people, Bullington believes it may be more driven by ideology than practicality. Despite his skepticism, Bullington reveals his affinity for trains as he arrived at this location via the MAX. On the other hand, Brian Gard, co-executive director of the Columbia River Crossing Coalition, advocates for the acceptance of the refined package and urges approval.

Please refer to my letter for additional information. Kindly take into account the wide support for this project as evidenced by our list of members. We request that you continue to advance this project. The progress achieved so far is commendable.

The construction of the crossing will provide good employment opportunities for 27,000 workers. Carl Larson, a resident of Portland, expresses his dissatisfaction with the current bridge. He personally experiences inconvenience as a cyclist and also highlights the impact on freight transportation due to traffic congestion caused by single-occupancy vehicles.

Although the current $4.2 billion plan to address the issue still favors single-occupancy vehicle travel, the alternative proposal being suggested is even less effective. It would be wise to start over and truly invest in our words. According to Chelsea Wright, the bridge should be rejected because there are superior alternatives that haven't been taken into account. She strongly supports public transportation.

If you have the resources and financial means, why wouldn't you explore alternative options? It is clear that a car-centric society is detrimental. Please take into account the impact on future generations. Mara Gross, policy director at the Coalition for a Livable Future, emphasizes the need for a solution to I-5 that promotes dependable public transportation, encourages efficient land use planning, and addresses the issue of global

warming. Your proposal is inadequate and fails to address the capacity of 12 lanes or provide a strategy for managing demand.

Thank you to Mayor Adams and Council President Bragdon for their remarks, and to Mayorelect Leavitt for acknowledging the concerns of low-income communities and communities of color. The refinement plan, which involves a substantial amount of public funds, deliberately avoids undergoing an environmental review. In order to prioritize the values of our community, we require a fresh plan. I am Pam Naugle, residing on Hayden Island in the mobile home park for the past 16 years.

Sixty percent of the population consists of disabled individuals and seniors, who heavily rely on our Safeway store for access to fresh food and pharmaceuticals. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly consider the consequences before demolishing a store that plays such a vital role in our daily lives. It is important to note that a significant portion of this population does not own vehicles and cannot afford lift services, further emphasizing the criticality of this matter.

Michelle Poyourow, advocate for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, expresses two primary concerns regarding the project. Firstly, they want it to include a great walking and biking route. Secondly, they hope that it promotes healthy, bikable neighborhoods on both sides of the river. Michelle believes that the previous CRC plan failed to meet these objectives. The BTA only became opposed to the project after two years of consideration. Michelle asserts that simply refining a flawed plan with uncertain results is not enough. Instead, they call for a new vision that prioritizes success and supports a truly green project. Jonathan Irwin reminds elected officials that they will

ultimately be held accountable for their decisions.

Please reconsider and revise this plan to include genuine public involvement and local control. It is important to prioritize factors such as climate, equity, public transit, walking, and biking options, rather than focusing solely on the Department of Transportation's role as road builders. It is crucial to recognize that for every individual present today opposing the current form of the bridge, there are likely 100 others who are either unable to attend due to work obligations or do not even know about the project. Ed Barnes, a Vancouver resident and former member of both the Washington State Transportation Commission and the co-chair of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership: Over the past 15 years, I have engaged in conversations with numerous individuals from both sides of the river regarding this project.

Despite some flaws, the project encompasses all aspects of transportation, including bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, transit, and commuters. Taking action is necessary as any effort is better than none. Additionally, this initiative will generate employment opportunities for the unemployed. Marcela Alcantar: I am a small businesswoman.

I have concerns about the lack of diversity in this room, both currently and historically. It is disheartening to see a lack of representation and leadership in this aspect. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic about the potential of this project to generate employment and promote sustainability. However, I have consistently been requesting opportunities for firms like mine, but unfortunately, those requests have not been fulfilled.

Please consider my professional services on this project. Ron Swaren: The issue with the CRC proposal is its lack of realism. Our metro area is expected to grow, and having only one

or two crossings would not suffice for this region. Our group has suggested a third bridge that would be affordable and include innovative solutions. Andrew Plambeck, a Portland resident, shares my concerns about our tax dollars funding this project. Mayor Adams and Councilor Bragdon have issued a well-thought-out statement regarding this matter.

Reconstructing this project entirely to minimize emissions and give priority to alternative transportation is crucial for our city and region. Tom Buchele from Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center at Lewis and Clark Law School, speaking on behalf of groups such as the Coalition for a Livable Future and other NEPA process stakeholders, emphasizes the major flaws found in the draft EIS.

According to Regulation 40cfr1502.9c, a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is required if there are significant changes or new information. Given that the cost has increased by $650 million, we believe this qualifies as a significant change. Moreover, the tolling study is expected to bring forth new information. It would be inappropriate to include all of this in the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as it would undermine the NEPA process. David Thompson, a retired physician and resident of Portland, urges individuals to prioritize their health by getting colonoscopies and cholesterol checked. The current design of the project will not allow us to achieve our environmental goals.

The Oregonian reported today that we are considering the next century with this project, but I am skeptical. As I was jogging to this location, I narrowly avoided being hit by a 16-year-old driving his new car while talking on his mobile phone. Our city, state, and world are inundated with too many vehicles. This presents an excellent

opportunity to explore alternatives. Erick Reddekopp, co-chair of the Hayden Island Livability project, a community-driven organization, has collected over 600 petition signatures opposing the refinement package due to its negative consequences on local businesses such as Safeway and restaurants located on the island.

The main reason for implementing the refinement package now seems to be money and funding, which is unsettling. As someone who is currently unemployed, I acknowledge the importance of job creation. However, this presents an opportunity for our city to regain its progressive nature. There are numerous issues associated with the refinement package. Sharon Nasset expresses gratitude towards not restricting public comments to 30 minutes and highlights the lack of representation from the community and neighborhoods within the PSC.

You must have an environmental justice representative present from both sides of the river. The NEPA process has not been followed properly, as it does not include a full range of alternatives. A supplemental draft EIS is necessary to include the proposed changes. If you wish to participate in a third bridge proposal or oppose the current process, please contact 5003 N.

Lombard has ample space, and we are pleased to welcome individuals to contribute to this endeavor. Herman Kachold, who is engaged with the Hayden Island Livability Project, a new community organization, advocates for the construction of additional crossings. These include a bridge to the west of the rail bridge and one at 33rd Avenue in order to distribute traffic more evenly. This proposed solution offers a more favorable approach.

Tom Dana, co-chair of the Hayden Island Livability Project and former steering committee member for the Hayden Island Plan, emphasizes that the majority of comments here

are strongly against this proposal. He points out that this bridge is meant to last for a century and urges against succumbing to short-term pressures just to complete it hastily. Instead, he proposes taking a step back and thoroughly examining what truly needs to be addressed. Kaitlin Hale, a resident of SE Portland and member of the StopTheCRC Coalition, pleads with the audience to reconsider the updated plan they are about to vote on.

We need transportation options for people, not an increase in the number of single occupancy vehicles. I strongly urge you to address the issues of traffic congestion, climate change, unemployment in our region, and social and environmental justice by reconsidering this plan and starting from scratch. It's important to approach transportation infrastructure with a broader perspective that takes into account our cities and region as a whole. Dan McFarling, a resident of Portland, points out a major flaw in the initial focus of this project, which was to accommodate more motor vehicles. Rather than that, we should prioritize meeting the needs of our community and transportation. If you take a look at the proposals in the Smarter Bridge brochure, you will see that it offers better options for an affordable, phased project that will strengthen our economy.

Pam Ferguson, a member of the Hayden Island Livability Project and resident of the Hayden Island manufactured home community, expresses gratitude for the opportunity to provide additional public comment. Representing a group of over 1,700 residents, with approximately 60 percent being seniors, Ferguson highlights the fact that these individuals do not leave the island frequently. Thus, she urges for special consideration to be given to Safeway

or another grocery retailer. On the other hand, Richard Brandman, co-director of the CRC project, acknowledges the constant efforts made over the past six months to refine the project design, reduce costs, and address concerns raised both previously and during the current public comments session.

The project aims to achieve similar benefits to the previous proposal while reducing costs and still meeting the project's goals. The refined design has been reviewed by various advisory groups and stakeholders, including the CRC's senior staff advisory group, the CRC Performance Measures Advisory Group, and the freight community. There is ample technical documentation available for review by the PSC if desired. Staff have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the five-mile project area, considering the purpose and need goals, such as transit, freight, and safety, as well as employing standard value engineering techniques. Additionally, they have considered deferring or reusing elements to further reduce costs. The revised cost estimate range is $2.6 to $3.

The proposed design refinements for the project, estimated to cost around $3.2 billion, were presented by Kris Strickler, the deputy project director. The overview started from the Marine Drive interchange located in the southern region and extended northwards. Marine Drive interchange is identified as the primary access point for freight transportation. Despite the refinements, the staff recommendation maintains a single-point urban interchange with a single traffic signal. As we move further north, the existing North Portland Harbor bridge will be repurposed and the highway's mainline profile will be lowered on Hayden Island.

According to Strickler, the cost savings for the river crossing were due to two factors. Firstly, more information about soil conditions and liquefaction characteristics allowed

for better planning. Secondly, instead of a 12-lane bridge, a 10-lane bridge with standard shoulders was proposed, resulting in a reduction of 16 feet in total size (eight feet per bridge). Specifically in Vancouver, there would be two modifications: the northbound lane from SR 14 to SR 500 would be reduced, and the SR 500 north ramps would be eliminated.

In the future, SR 500 will undergo several changes, including converting some intersections into full interchanges. There are certain elements that staff suggest should not be initially invested in and a discussion about this will take place in the future to prioritize them. Patricia McCaig, CRC communications, mentioned that staff have presented information about the design refinements to various audiences in recent weeks. One important concern expressed by many, particularly Hayden Island residents, was the need for a chance to directly provide comments to the PSC. This is why an extended public comment session was included in today's meeting. Furthermore, the proposals for Victory Blvd are of particular interest to the freight community.

Concerns were raised about the braid and Marine Drive interchange as they were believed to hinder freight traffic. However, it was acknowledged that these concerns were addressed and the project was encouraged to proceed. Mayor Adams emphasized the significance of Marine Drive and Hayden Island. The aim of the Hayden Island Plan and CRC's participation is to enhance the island's livability, safety, and accessibility. The refinement was difficult for many individuals to accept due to their extensive efforts on the Hayden Island Plan.

However, there is an increasing recognition of the advantages of the refinement plan, but with legitimate worries about the potential loss of

the Safeway grocery store and the impact on access both to and from the island. Currently, connectivity on the island is extremely challenging. Our staff believes that the refinement proposal addresses this issue by incorporating a new east/west connection called Tomahawk Island Drive. While there is support for this road, there is concern that the refinement suggests building it below ground level, potentially hindering connectivity. Moreover, there are worries about the negative effects it may have on commercial and retail spaces on the island.

Hayden Island residents are also interested in improving bike and pedestrian connectivity. McCaig instructed members to review their packet of materials, which contains approximately 20 letters and emails expressing a range of opinions. Some individuals support the refinements, while others do not. Additionally, members of the freight community accept the refinements but believe that reducing the number of lanes from 12 to 10 is short-sighted. It was concluded that there is a general understanding of the need to reduce the project cost while still preserving its function and benefits. During the discussion, various topics were addressed, including the project schedule in relation to federal funding deadlines and each PSC member's opinion on the proposed design refinements. Furthermore, the discussion was informed by a guiding policy statement presented by Mayor Adams and Council President Bragdon on Dec. (see appendix).

Co-chair Hewitt proposed scheduling a meeting in January to further discuss the refinement, performance measures, effects on Hayden Island, and other related topics. He also emphasized the importance of having the appropriate partner agency staff co-located at the CRC project office and working closely with CRC staff to address any outstanding issues. Despite differing opinions

among PSC members, Hewitt commended the progress achieved thus far. Mayor Adams expressed his support for this valuable suggestion.

The PSC needs to have more frequent meetings to discuss the issues at hand. Mayor Pollard wants to remind everyone about the time constraints imposed by federal funding deadlines. Richard Brandman clarified that the project is currently on track to complete the final environmental impact statement in summer 2010, with a record of decision by the end of 2010. This would allow for final design in 2011, followed by transit funding and potential construction as early as 2012. Mayor Adams mentioned that the Obama administration has delayed the federal transportation funding reauthorization by 18 months. He pointed out that there is no specific deadline that would block the funding application, for the benefit of the public. He requested clarification on whether there are any agency deadlines involved.

The speaker acknowledged that there is a sense of urgency regarding these issues but stated that we have more time than just today or next month to deal with them. Director Garrett responded by emphasizing that the timeline is flexible and cannot be limited to 18 months. It is crucial for us to maintain communication with the federal delegation even though there isn't a specific schedule. He expressed apprehension about confidently stating that we have 18 months. The project must progress.

The federal government's timeline is uncertain, according to Mayor Adams and Director Garrett. While Mayor Adams believes an 18-month delay is unnecessary, he also doesn't think a decision regarding refinements is necessary in January. Director Garrett emphasizes the need to address any remaining unanswered questions and allows for more time to

discuss this matter.

There are jobs available not only in the laborers' field but also in design work, according to the mayor. Mayor Adams also highlighted the potential for more job opportunities in the short term through professional service firms. Metro Council President Bragdon emphasized the need for widespread support when the project moves forward. He suggested assessing the budget based on fiscal capacity rather than focusing solely on a specific price tag. Additionally, he raised the question of the funding prospects in the two state legislatures and suggested starting with an evaluation of foreseeable revenue.

Co-chair Hewitt mentioned that financial information will be included on the next agenda. Mayor Adams expressed that he had sent several questions via email to CRC staff regarding design refinements and still requires some follow-up. Mayor Adams shared with PSC members the project's initial written responses to these questions and also an internal memo from the city attorney's office (appendix). Mayor Pollard commented that sometimes the staff is unsure of what PSC members want and emphasized the need for clearer communication. In terms of decision making, Mayor Pollard stated that PSC expects staff to continue conducting analysis that progresses the project.

For the proposed design refinements, he is willing to approve those in Vancouver, but he would appreciate some adjustments for Hayden Island. He h