5 responses to “CRC Open House Question # 5”

1. Obviously it would be better if the traffic across the river (including freight trains) was not blocked. I am not sure going under the river doesn’t make as much sense as trying to build up the approaches to go over it.

   I also have not seen any discussion of using the dams to manage the river level during high tides and peak flow to reduce the number of bridge openings. I have no idea whether that is at all realistic.

   In any case, the current situation where there are delays during high water is acceptable. Its not a reason to invest in a new bridge.

2. Obviously it would be better if the traffic across the river (including freight trains) was not blocked.

   ESPECIALLY for freight trains. The amount of money that BNSF & UP lose because of the stupid boat right of way (there should be a set time they can go through the bridge or something) preference by our President Lincoln was for a time long forgotten and cast to history.

   But a strong and loud agreement that bridge traffic sould not have to stop for river traffic. Whatever type of solution is possible for that to be acheived (if we go ripping up the existing bridges especially) is ideal.

   Along with this the states should find a way to work out better scheduling for boats going through the BNSF bridge too. It would vastly benifit BNSF and would also drastically increase (by at least 3-20%) the amount of on time arrivals Amtrak could get. The thousands and tens of thousands of people that have to sit on trains waiting for that bloody bridge cost them money, cost Amtrak customers, and create a ridiculous and unneeded annoyance.

3. “Traffic on I-5 should not stop for river traffic. A new bridge should be built high enough to eliminate the need to open for boats and barges.”

   This issue is not as simple as it sounds. In a utopian world, it might make perfect sense. But in the real world that is full of compromises, it becomes more complicated. In the real world that is full of expenditures and who pays for them it may not make sense.

   It is my understanding that by replacing the swing span on the down stream railroad bridge with a lift span in the center of the structure, such a change would eliminate the vast majority of lifts required on the current I-5 bridges. Therefore, does making modifications to the down stream railroad bridge make more economic sense that building a big new bridge, the height of which could very well highly impact land use at either end? This question alone screams for the need to find a middle ground comparison option for all modes of transport, price it out and carry it through to the end of the process.

4. The cost effective fix is the RR bridge; tows use the hump now for the most part. uring high water they don’t run as much, if at all, I am told. Bridge openings are for sail boats…this should be a policy fix, not a $2Billion fix. Another phony reason for this deal.

5. The Coast Guard who watches over river navigation tells us the main issue is river safety. I want to echo that fixing the BNSF RR bridge will do more for river safety and aid the flow of river commerce then anything that the CRC Project could bring to the table.

   Heavy (freight) rail cannot go up hill and down hill where-as commuter rail and Light Rail can have raised bridge spans with rail on them. This means to me that if we rebuild or replace the BNSF RR Bridge with a new alternate multi-mode Bi-State double deck arterial bridge we can address most everything but unless we raise the grade of heavy rail a lot we may end up with somethign like the Steel Bridge where the heavy section raises and the upper deck 98% of the time does not.

   On the CRC proposal it is in conflict with the needs of the historic Pearson Air Park and PDX on how high it can go before it is a problem. If it is not high enough it has a problem with navigation interests and the Coast Guard. The solution is keep the Interstate Bridges and replace the BNSF Bridge and not worry about the CRC project again.