Interstate bridge proposal put forth
A task force will recommend replacing the Interstate Bridge between Vancouver and Portland, according to The Columbian.
I've been following the deliberations of the Columbia River Crossing task force as I can, both on-line, in print and on the local government channel. I don't envy the 39 members their rask. As The Columbian article notes, the design challenges are severe. You have two airports (PDX and Pearson Field,) a national historic reserve, two cities, two states, a major navigable river, rail lines, interstate and state highways and businesses and neighborhoods to consider. And I probably left something off of that list.
Once the public becomes more focused on this issue, we're likely to get more discussion about transit. For reasons I don't understand, many Clark County residents are almost pathologically opposed to light rail. While it's not perfect, and improvements in Tri-Met trip times would make it a lot better, I can't resist noting that the failed 1995 proposal to connect Vancouver to Portland's light rail system would have cost something like $250 million, which would have been a fantastic bargain.
It's understandable that people don't want to pay for things they don't see as an immediate benefit to themselves, but as we go forward more people need to put forth the argument that transit is a long-term investment. I could be mistaken, but I think it took New York City a century to build their subway system. Just because an initial Clark County light rail line would only go as far as downtown Vancouver is no reason not to think ahead 50 years or more.
Of course, we all have our preconceptions and bias. Another transit option that is often brought up is "bus rapid transit," which to me is an oxymoron. So you build a 500 foot bus lane and call it something else, it's still a bus. An ugly, diesel spewing bus that has none of the grace and elegance of electric trains, merrily sparking along (I told you I was biased.)
Another grumble that comes out of Clark County is talk about a "third bridge," which is the mother of all non-starters. For that to happen, you'd need highways to connect it to, and Oregon simply will not allow that to happen. Period.
Doubtless one or more politicians will grand-stand about it, but it's not a very practical discussion at this point.
If you wish, you may visit the Columbia River Crossing task force on-line. They welcome public comment.
The iconic twin spans of Interstate 5, melded into Vancouver's skyline, will make way for a single modern bridge across the Columbia River, under the latest plan for the new Columbia River bridge.Obviously Seattle is facing a massive decision with the viaduct, but as that gets hashed out in the Legislature this session, folks might want to keep in mind that early guesses about the cost of replacing the Interstate Bridge are in the $2 billion range. Obviously federal funding would be sought, and it involves Oregon, but still, the costs to Washington are likely to be substantial.
The two spans -- the first built in 1917 and the second in 1958 -- won't be needed under the proposal prepared by the staff of the Columbia River Crossing project. The proposed draft environmental impact statement will recommend replacing the bridges with one new bridge carrying traffic, bikes, pedestrians and mass transit.
Bridge construction could begin as early as 2009, according to documents. The replacement bridge would be built upstream or downstream from the current spans, those documents say.
"All the highway transit, bike and pedestrian traffic would be on one new structure," said Doug Ficco, the Washington director of the Columbia River Crossing.
I've been following the deliberations of the Columbia River Crossing task force as I can, both on-line, in print and on the local government channel. I don't envy the 39 members their rask. As The Columbian article notes, the design challenges are severe. You have two airports (PDX and Pearson Field,) a national historic reserve, two cities, two states, a major navigable river, rail lines, interstate and state highways and businesses and neighborhoods to consider. And I probably left something off of that list.
Once the public becomes more focused on this issue, we're likely to get more discussion about transit. For reasons I don't understand, many Clark County residents are almost pathologically opposed to light rail. While it's not perfect, and improvements in Tri-Met trip times would make it a lot better, I can't resist noting that the failed 1995 proposal to connect Vancouver to Portland's light rail system would have cost something like $250 million, which would have been a fantastic bargain.
It's understandable that people don't want to pay for things they don't see as an immediate benefit to themselves, but as we go forward more people need to put forth the argument that transit is a long-term investment. I could be mistaken, but I think it took New York City a century to build their subway system. Just because an initial Clark County light rail line would only go as far as downtown Vancouver is no reason not to think ahead 50 years or more.
Of course, we all have our preconceptions and bias. Another transit option that is often brought up is "bus rapid transit," which to me is an oxymoron. So you build a 500 foot bus lane and call it something else, it's still a bus. An ugly, diesel spewing bus that has none of the grace and elegance of electric trains, merrily sparking along (I told you I was biased.)
Another grumble that comes out of Clark County is talk about a "third bridge," which is the mother of all non-starters. For that to happen, you'd need highways to connect it to, and Oregon simply will not allow that to happen. Period.
Doubtless one or more politicians will grand-stand about it, but it's not a very practical discussion at this point.
If you wish, you may visit the Columbia River Crossing task force on-line. They welcome public comment.
