April 14, 2009
Two Cycling CRC Opinions
Yesterday's Oregonian (if we broaden the definition to include the OregonLive.com site) had two different opinion pieces on the Columbia River Crossing, both touching on bikes.
On the op-ed page, BTA Executive Director Scott Bricker explains his organization's recent shift to the opposition column.
Meanwhile, in the online opinion space, Editorial Board member Mary Pitman Kitch (on the advice of Miguel Rosales who is designing the new Light Rail bridge over the Willamette) argues strongly that bikes and pedestrians should NOT be put underneath the main CRC bridge span.
April 15, 2009 10:18 AM
In last week's Portland Tribune was a 'psuedo' map of the I-5 CRC bridge which should be considered inadequate and misleading. To understand the impact of this project, maps should be as close to a photographic image as possible.
The artist rendering of the proposed bridge that's been out for oh, maybe a year now, was likewise inadequate, in that its view centered on downtown Vancouver segment and neglected Jantzen Beach and North Portland. I suppose it was realistic enough to create public concern.
The map in last week's Tribune could be called an aerial view, but it does not show landmarks and important details of physical impacts. It's way too simplistic, more cartoonish than a realistic view. Presentation of impacts must not be kept from the public by the use of inadequate maps. In my opinion, such maps are a public disservice.
April 15, 2009 3:01 PM
Yeah, I saw that "map" it was a joke.
April 16, 2009 3:57 PM
Terry Parker Says:
In addition to being out of touch with reality, once again the BTA is demonstrating that bicyclists want to gorge themselves on cake paid for by somebody else and don’t want the providers to have any.
The I-5 Columbia River Crossing is part of an interstate and international commerce route, an artery that connects communities on both sides of the river together, and is strategic to the national defense of America.
When a crash occurs on one of the two existing I-5 bridges, it can obstruct two full lanes of traffic. Emergency response vehicles often times take up the third lane thereby shutting down the entire freeway in one direction at times creating a traffic jam miles long with motor vehicle engines idling.
Having a draw bridge on an Interstate highway can also temporarily shut down the freeway in addition to contributing to the number of actual crashes that occur.
A new 12-lame bridge will reduce this impact - the wider the bridge, the safer it will be. A 12-lane bridge is projected to have 20% less crashes than a 10-lane bridge, and have 50% less projected crashes than an 8-lane bridge.
Since the BTA is also opposing any real revenue producing bicycle taxes, state bicycle registration fees and/or bicycle tolls that would help pay for bicycle infrastructure, including on the Columbia River Crossing – the only narrowing that should occur is the size of the bicycle component on the crossing from an excessive 20-foot width to a more fiscally responsible 12 or 10 foot width. This will reduce the costs to the transportation taxpayers and motorists who will actually be paying for a new bridge.
If the existing historical bridges were to remain in place, they must only be used for transit including Max, local arterial traffic, bicycles and pedestrians, not I-5 through traffic. An interstate highway is no place for a drawbridge and therefore any new bridge would be for I-5 through traffic only.
April 18, 2009 4:01 PM
"A new 12-lame bridge"
i think we've got a handy new catch-phrase, right there.