Updated: C-Tran Gang of Five Sells Out Voters….. Again.

by lewwaters

C-TranYes, some of the same five that screwed us last year in the rushed approval of the contract with Trimet voted for another rushed approval of Millions of our tax dollars to go for an unneeded Bus Rapid Transit System down Fourth Plain Blvd.  from Vancouver Mall to end somewhere in the vicinity of Clark College.

The original plan was to have BRT meet a light rail transit station at Clark College, but with light rail now dead, why do we need a multi-Billion dollar BRT System?

Tim Leavitt, Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Jack Burkman, Jim Irish, Steve Stuart (by phone) all voted to rush into yet another ill conceived plan that voters indicated they did not want just last year. You voted these crooks in, I didn’t.

‘Saint’ Steve Stuart, who previously announced his last C-Tran meeting would be the March meeting, made sure to attend this one by phone to ensure passage.

An unannounced Executive Session also occurred in the middle of last night’s meeting to discuss funding. It is not subject to public disclosure.

Particularly disappointing is Anne McEnerny Ogle who has long maintained, to get elected, that her votes on CRC light rail and such would be in accordance with voters wishes. Voters defeated a sales tax measure that would have funded BRT in part and resoundingly voted no on an advisory vote last election. She voted for it anyway, against voters obvious wishes.

Clark County, you have  a renegade, out of control public agency in C-Tran.

What are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: The Willamette Week supplies information giving some insight into why the push for BRT is still on, CRC is very much alive;

We’ve seen this one before: State officials declare the Columbia River Crossing project dead, then find a way to keep it alive. Gov. John Kitzhaber labeled the CRC a goner after the Legislature in February refused to go along with an Oregon-only plan to build the $2.8 billion Interstate Bridge and light-rail project. But lawyers for the feds and the state recently told a federal judge they still hope the project can get funded. They made that surprising claim in a federal lawsuit brought by the Coalition for a Livable Future, a Portland advocacy group seeking to block the CRC on environmental grounds. If the project truly were dead, the coalition’s lawsuit would be moot. But on March 18, project lawyers sought and received a stay that keeps the CRC alive for another year. Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Dave Thompson says ODOT will not seek CRC funding. Critics are skeptical. “I’m very concerned,” says Mara Gross, the coalition’s executive director. “The governor indicated this project was shutting down, but what’s happening in the litigation tells a different story.”

12 Comments to “Updated: C-Tran Gang of Five Sells Out Voters….. Again.”

  1. M-O = leftist scum. Reminder to voters in the Vancouver Soviet: leftists will say anything to get elected and, in fact, they don’t give a damn about what the voters want.

    Remember, Steve never spoke for himself: he only spoke for Steve.

    Like

  2. This is exactly what I and others expected out of Anne. I said it over and over during my campaign. She is nothing more than an Leavitt/Identity Clark County puppet. I hope the 8% of normally conservative voters that sided with her in our race are happy. Now they get to deal with the consequences of their choices.

    Like

  3. Lew, just to set the record straight…

    BRT was conjoined with LRT in the ballot measure which voters failed to accept back in 2012. If voters had the right to make the decision on BRT improvements by itself, then the conclusion could be drawn that voters did not accept BRT. It is all too obvious that the majority including myself refused to pay for a sales tax increase for LRT, even at the expense of improvements along our major bus routes. The advisory votes regarding BRT and decisions by the Clark County Commissioners in 2013 wasn’t exactly a denial of BRT…just that the voters felt there was a more balanced decision-making process with the Commissioners involved.

    Up until recently, I was a staunch supporter of C-Tran as a means of transportation for myself. I do however believe in improvement of our existing service although I never liked the idea of articulated buses since they failed in Portland, till I revisited the idea set forth by C-Tran’s planners. The Fourth Plain BRT was our locally-preferred option mostly supported by folks who attended the open houses. We were given several options which included continuing with the existing buses and improvements in the corridor to aid bus versus vehicular traffic. We had the chance to share openly with the designers/engineers in how to make what some refer to as the Ghetto of Vancouver…a better place to not only commute, but to visit and to improve. Out of curiosity…did you ever attend one of the open houses???

    Lew, I still support a Fourth Plain Corridor improvement as it is all too obvious something has to be done about the area (mainly near Grand Blvd)…and it doesn’t just end where LRT was to be set up across from Clark College. Although I may no longer utilize the buses as I once did (which was daily for three years and occasionally after that till very recently), I know there are many who still do. Just take a ride during rush hour or during peak hours at Clark College and you will see what I mean. At times, I had to wait for the next bus as the one reaching my stop was de-boarding only.

    Improvement on our transit infrastructure without going as far as accepting another state’s light rail folly is important in a densely-populated region of our county. They made one big mistake giving Oregon eminent domain rights, so it’s more important now than ever before to keep TriMet out of Washington State. And quite frankly…I’d much rather the funding for transit improvements goes to our transit service rather than TriMet’s. Wouldn’t you???

    Like

  4. At least with busses, they’re not limited to an expensive ($1 million per mile) system of tracks. All bus services suffer when sharing lanes with normal traffic unless there is adequate pull out and acceleration space for the coaches to clear the right lane. (I’ve noticed getting caught behind a bus and being unable to pass when it pulls to the curb at a bus stop. (Not good for either the auto drivers OR for the bus driver as the auto drivers will tend to block busses or make dangerous “cut in” maneuvers around them when there is insufficient space on the road. (I know this from having owned an RV of 43′ length that was built on an actual highway bus — and having observed the idiots driving near me. They had no idea what a 48,000 lb bus might do to their puny 6,600 lb Hummer.)

    It is truly a shame that the C-Tran board did not seek input from the voters — at least by holding several public hearings, if not putting a proposal on the ballot.

    I can’t say if dedicated lanes for “bus rapid transit” are justified … or if less costly fixes to the roads that carry the most bus traffic would suffice.

    The articulated busses worked fairly well in the San Francisco Bay Area, including in downtown San Francisco. So I’m surprised to hear that they were a failure in Portland. Articulated busses do need to be on routes with heavy volume of passengers, so that they can eliminate requiring extra “regular” busses to operate. If load factors (throughout the day) are not fairly heavy, then the larger coaches would not provide any advantage if they were empty most of the time and only fully utilized for 2 or 3 runs each day. Prior to the articulated busses, the San Francisco “muni” transit tended to end up with delays — then several busses running together (first one overloaded, and following ones nearly empty). The key (and this is a day-to-day management issue) is to keep busses running on schedule throughout their run.

    Like

  5. According to the statistics and to my hubby’s cousin who is the director of transportation for Phoenix vehicle maintenance department articulated buses are two to three times more money and do not have the sustained shelf life of normal buses. Requiring replacement every three and half years vs normal buses at 5 to seven years. The capital expense completely wipes out the savings in labor and maintenance of regular buses based on usable life span.

    Like

  6. Friend of John Galt, you have mentioned the number one subject I felt was the most necessary issue at stake regarding improvements when I attended the open house, referring to adequate pull out spaces for the buses. There aren’t enough of them.

    CarolynCrain, that is one reason why I am very hesitant on articulated buses and their effectiveness. C-Tran could learn from TriMet’s mistakes but it appears the majority on the board would rather learn those mistakes on their own at the expense of taxpayers and riders.

    Like

  7. Yes Goldenoldie you are right. They insist on feeding hard earned tax payers money to the wealthy friends who promise them something unknown to us like that $100k one month paycheck the C-tran attorney received after he got that contract signed which gave our rights away to Tri-Met for eminent domain.

    Like

  8. What really irks me Carolyn…is that people still keep voting these jokers into office…all name recognition rather than voting decisions based on merit and honor.

    Like

  9. I agree!

    Like

  10. “Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Dave Thompson says ODOT will not seek CRC funding.”, which only indicates that Tugsalot Timmy will be seeking financing with his Vancouver alone plan, which if truth be known is what all of the various financing options have been all along. The difference being that having a functioning majority of City Counselors they won’t have to worry about a little thing like the County or the State Legislature. All they’ll have to please is themselves.

    It is all merely a question of economics! If an attorney can be had for a mere $100,000.00, What is the going rate for a City Counselor? Let see if that missing 20 million might be an indication. What is the reward for such risk?

    Like

  11. I think the “Vancouver alone plan” – leaving C-TRAN to provide service to the urban centers of Battleground, Ridgefield, Yacolt, and Amboy – is an excellent idea. Let the City go its own way. And let the City taxpayers pay for it! Oh, they already do!! Maybe David Madore can leverage the toll-free bridge to provide “seed capital” for a “County alone” approach? But wait, then I would miss the entertaining C-TRAN meetings recorded on CVTV. And all of the entertaining commentary I read on blogs like this:( Tough decision, but I will go with “Vancouver alone.”.

    Like

  12. You need to talk to Liar Leavitt and his cronies for a “Vancouver Alone” plan.

    And, since I am not in the city limits of Vancouver, works for me.

    But, since they didn’t get to force their pet choo choo train off on everybody, they will object to anything else out of spite.

    They are as petty as the Lazy C.

    Someday people will wake up to see how they are being played by the downtown mafia 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: