CRC subcommittee to consider alternatives
Portland Transport smartly notices the meeting schedule and make-up of the subcommittee created to seek another alternative for the CRC project.
They don't have much time and I'm guessing the subcommittee didn't get $40 million and a staff, so if you like underdogs, this may be a classic. They do have (Oregon) Metro on their side, so that's a pretty major factor.
If they can come up with a truly sensible alternative, then it will have been well worth the effort. Basically the whole thing is so complicated that it's like squeezing a balloon. If you do one thing it impacts eighteen other things.
Still, despite my leanings toward the CRC staff recommendation, I'm truly curious to see what the subcommittee comes up with. The project is too important to dismiss earnest, good faith attempts to solve problems creatively. While there is always the risk of debating things to death, or worse, having people dig in and never compromise (can you say "Viaduct?") so far we haven't reached that point down here, best I can tell.
The Columbia River Crossing Task Force unanimously accepted the staff recommendation to advance three alternatives into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process and appointed a subcommittee to identify a possible fourth alternative.You can click through to see who's on the subcommittee.
The subcommittee will work to develop a viable fourth alternative that aspires to meet the goals and needs of the Columbia River Crossing project and maximizes the utility of the existing bridges. The Task Force will discuss the subcommittee findings at the March 27 Task Force meeting.
They don't have much time and I'm guessing the subcommittee didn't get $40 million and a staff, so if you like underdogs, this may be a classic. They do have (Oregon) Metro on their side, so that's a pretty major factor.
If they can come up with a truly sensible alternative, then it will have been well worth the effort. Basically the whole thing is so complicated that it's like squeezing a balloon. If you do one thing it impacts eighteen other things.
Still, despite my leanings toward the CRC staff recommendation, I'm truly curious to see what the subcommittee comes up with. The project is too important to dismiss earnest, good faith attempts to solve problems creatively. While there is always the risk of debating things to death, or worse, having people dig in and never compromise (can you say "Viaduct?") so far we haven't reached that point down here, best I can tell.
