The Burnside Blog
New Interstate I-5 Bridge Moving Forward. Sort of.
*A new 12 lane bridge or something modified? *Light rail, bike and pedestrian access and additional improvements to existing and related freeway interchanges? Or just some or none of the above? *Will it be a toll road, or should the jurisdictions in charge simply toll the existing Interstate Bridge until the new one is completed? *Will there be a public vote for light rail expansion into Clark County? *What will happen to the project if Portland City Council’s caveats aren’t met? *Is the region headed for more political and traffic gridlock?
These are just a few of the not-so-minor details that still need to be worked out in the Columbia River Crossing project.
In case you can’t keep up with the twists and turns of this particular political soap opera, Jeffrey Mize over at the Columbian, has a terrific bullet pointed recap here.
I have to tell you though, even though I’m pretty much a political geek, even have trouble following this one. It’s complex stuff with layers and layers of decision makers and decision points and stakeholders and governments, so any help from local media is welcome.
But a central question and issues remain for many; at a point in global warming and end of peak oil history when people are questioning the logic of any expansion of roads for petrol vehicles at all and there is a huge lack of funding for transportation, does this bridge really need to be planned for and built right now?
What do you think?
By Lizzy Caston on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 04:48PM PDT
The trade routes issue is a critical one. Thanks for pointing that out biilb. I don’t think a lot of people understand the importance of freight in the economy and in basic daily living and the problems with aging infrastructure in a rapidly growing region. I just hope that as this project moves through the chutes n’ ladders (and snakes nests) that are the political process, that amenities such as light rail, bike paths, etc aren’t cut out of it or watered down to the point of novelty. Do you think Clark County is finally ready to vote yes on light rail? Will people up there even use it?
By Rob on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 07:09AM PDT
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/06/06282008_Adams-urges-congressional-help-on-Pearson-bridge-constraints.cfm
By Jimmy Mak on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 07:38AM PDT
Since this project does nothing for Freight why all the kudos. Induced demand and cheap clark county land will bottle this bridge up in a few years leaving freight in the same place it is today. If freight movement was the underlining problem then we should be building a dedicated freight bridge or lane and fixing the freight rail bridge in the process. As built now this CRC is nothing more then a Clark County real Estate subsidy. Oh yeah and we get a very ugly bridge as well just so we can preserve an archaic rarely used air field. Well done.
By on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 at 08:48PM PDT
Freight being stuck in traffic is adding a lot of lost time and time = money. Therefore, if we added MAX and a freight only lanea onto an iconic and revolutionary bridge, I’d be a supporter.
By Sean Casey on Monday, July 07, 2008 at 08:39AM PDT
I’m partial to working with what’s already there, rather than starting over. An illustrated idea is at
http://csaesaeny.blogspot.com/2008/06/columbia-river-bridge-concept.html
By billb on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 12:49PM PDT
The bridge needs to be designed for 100 years. The issues of auto fuel will solve itself in the marketplace [electric,hydrogen etc], but settlement patterns and trade routes need service. The shoes you wear , the fruit you eat , the laptop you carry around ,come to you on a truck on I-5. There is an Exhibit of Artworks for a green Park-Roofed I-5 Bridge at the Lucky Lab Brewpub NW on Quimby st above nw 19th. [in the activity room] Drop in for a Beer and Pizza !