Crossing project moves into DEIS phase
The CRC project moves on to its DEIS phase now. From The Columbian:
My non-engineer mind cannot fathom how to make a south-bound new bridge, which would presumably be immediately downstream of the existing spans, hook up to I-5 while not cutting into "C" Street properties.
As the engineers tend to say, give us enough money and we'll build it, but while I like the creativity of the "fourth alternative" and I'm glad that it made the cut for DEIS, it could get dicey on the Washington side.
If the new bridge was upstream of the existing spans, that would place it on the "northbound" side and that would impact the fort, as Pollard alludes to.
If you make the southbound new bridge at a "mid-level" height to avoid creating yet another lift-span, the cars have to get up to that height going southbound, which would seem to rule out a short tunnel or something. Ah well, that's why they have engineers. I don't begrudge them their task.
The Columbia River Crossing task force accepted Tuesday night an additional alternative for the draft environmental impact statement it authorized last month. The new idea will study retaining the existing spans of the Interstate 5 Bridge while adding a new bridge.Interesting bit down in the article about the stance of Vancouver, as expresed by the mayor:
Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, though, won an amendment that minimizes the impact on downtown Vancouver. He worried that the project would interfere with the proposed downtown RiverWest development, at Evergreen Boulevard and C Street, and the former hospital building near Fort Vancouver.Things do get pretty crunchy right in that segment. (For those familiar with the area, we're talking about the Bill Copps property on which Riverwest will be built. The new Fort Vancouver Library main branch is slated to be part of Riverwest.)
"You can't guarantee me this alternative won't expand, can you?" he asked. "There's great uncertainty for us."
The task force agreed and approved his amendment affirming that property losses will be minimal and not interfere with those projects.
My non-engineer mind cannot fathom how to make a south-bound new bridge, which would presumably be immediately downstream of the existing spans, hook up to I-5 while not cutting into "C" Street properties.
As the engineers tend to say, give us enough money and we'll build it, but while I like the creativity of the "fourth alternative" and I'm glad that it made the cut for DEIS, it could get dicey on the Washington side.
If the new bridge was upstream of the existing spans, that would place it on the "northbound" side and that would impact the fort, as Pollard alludes to.
If you make the southbound new bridge at a "mid-level" height to avoid creating yet another lift-span, the cars have to get up to that height going southbound, which would seem to rule out a short tunnel or something. Ah well, that's why they have engineers. I don't begrudge them their task.
