By Taxpayer Association of Oregon
Economist Joe Cortright wrote an Oregonian guest opinion on why replacing the over-crowded I-5 bridge is a grave unforgivable environmental sin.
He states, “This is a direct subsidy to pay people to drive more… future generations may have less to cover basic public services, because we’ve sent them the bill for this massive, climate polluting infrastructure.”
A bridge is now relabeled as a massive pollution device. Here is a better description of a massive pollution device, “traffic jams” which cause vehicles to idle and waste exhaust stuck in traffic, simply because an extra lane was not built. Cars at higehr speeds burn a fraction of energy compared to cars going 5 mph in a traffic jam.
His solution, “The state instead should be investing in bike, walking and transit projects that are both less expensive and less environmentally harmful.”
The idea that people will bike/walk across the Columbia River to work, shop and go on vacation, is just a pipe-dream.
He says there is not enough money for schools and general fund, yet Oregon has been rated in the top 5 government spending states per-capita in the nation.
Although we have agreed with Cortright in the past (he has proven to be astute and knowledgeable), his current environmental case against fixing a bridge is a perfect illustration of modern environmental extremism where there is always a reason to say “no” to progress and a reason to say “no” to everyday things government should be doing.