« the new urbanism's problem with transit (comments of the week) | Main | washington dc: new network maps, with frequency! »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454714d69e2017c31edf800970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference portland: a local alternative to the columbia river crossing:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

EngineerScotty

I wish I share your optimism, Jarrett, but the powers that be are determined to build the bridge just the way it is planned, and have no desire whatsoever to be bothered with any of the excellent alternate proposals out there.

If I have complaint about your article, is that you vastly understate what a massive clusterfuck (apologies for the profanity, but no other word will do) the CRC project has been.

Part of the problem is that the thing--as designed--has had its Final Environmental Impact Statement completed and signed off. Many politicians in Salem (the capital of the state of Oregon), Olympia (Washington State's capital), and Washington DC are eager to get this thing built--both for the transportation benefits (freight has a legitimate complaint), and as a way of goosing the local economy. While the public process was largely a sham--the purpose and need statement was jerry-rigged to essentially exclude any alternatives other than a Big New Freeway Bridge (with LRT and ped/bike elements thrown in for greenwashing purposes), the powers that be now tell us it's Too Late To Change Anything.

Except for the fact that--the bridge, as designed, only offers 90' river clearance at high water, which is insufficient for some downstream shippers, including the US Corps of Engineers. Right now, the US Coast Guard is declining to sign off on the bridge. The existence of river users needing a higher clearance is NOT a secret or something recently discovered; it has been known (or should have been known) to the project committee for years.

The utter incompetence on this project is astounding.

At the present time, the bridge is still unfunded--despite 9 figures already being spent on planning activities. To deal with the height issue, there's been talk about adding a drawspan--something which would require a fundamental re-design of the bridge, would give Portland two dual-deck drawbridges (we already have the Steel Bridge), and would make a mockery of the stated reason for doing the thing in the first place--getting a lift span off of an Interstate highway.

But despite all this, the project was recently "expedited" by the Obama Administration.

The CRC reminds me of two similar clusterfucks in the East Coast: One is the Tappan Zee bridge, which Cap'n Transit writes eloquently about, also still in the planning phases. The other is the now-completed Woodrow Wilson (I-95) Bridge across the Potomac River south of DC.

Nicholas Barnard

i wonder if they've investigated if this will put less stress on the local road infrastructure. If an area has to funnel traffic through one bridge it becomes a choke point, and the roads leading upto it need more capacity.

Its essentially the "downtown transfer" problem with cars. Not every car wants to go over I5 in that spot, they simply need to get from point A to point B, and A & B don't really necessitate the I5 bridge, except that its the only bridge over the river.

Lance Berelowitz

Jarrett,
The CSA is an interesting proposal. But since when did commonsense get in the way of a big transportation spending boondoggle? I am reminded of the Millennium SkyTrain Line here in Greater Vancouver (BC) that connects the earlier Expo Line to the, um, Expo Line via Burnaby, one of the then provincial government's labour union power bases. Guess where most of the jobs went for the new line and rolling stock...? Or more recently, it makes me think of the new Port Mann Bridge over the Fraser River, which is just about to open, but without the rapid transit service that was promised at the time the project was approved. Oops. Oh well, plus ça change, plus rien change.

Pacnwjay

Engineer Scotty has it absolutely correct. Politicians on both sides of the fence are bound and determined to build a massive bridge. Even sadder: most of this project ISN'T the bridge... it's 5 miles of interstate work and interchanges north of the bridge.
Other than one candidate for Portland mayor, I really can't think of any OR or WA politicians who have openly recognized the existence or the CSA.

Scott

This proposal seems great and I follow a lot of the arguments. The first thing that jumped out at me was these bridges didn't seem to have enough lanes (1 in each direction, no shoulder, etc.). I assume that is more of a not-to-scale, illustrative purposes only kind of thing. Second, the cost seemed really low. I know different estimates include different soft costs and whatnot. If this project can really be delivered for the cost presented then it seems it provides excellent redundancy. The phasing seems well thought out only it seems to me that the cable stayed bridge should be built before working on the existing rail bridge to minimize service impacts.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...