This is the final question from the open house feedback piece. This weekend I will close comments on all these threads and bundle up the conversation to submit to the CRC staff
A new bridge should improve safety and travel conditions for marine traffic in the Columbia River.
Agree/Disagree. Discuss…
11 responses to “CRC Open House Question # 12 (Final Question)”
No, I don’t want barges running into the bridge piers :-)
But I think the relevant question is whether improvements to the downstream rail bridge could deliver these results for marine traffic more cost effectively.
A new bridge should improve safety and travel conditions for marine traffic in the Columbia River.
Well, yes, if we build a new bridge it certainly should do that. But it rather begs the question, doesn’t it?
The goal probably should be simply: Improve safety and travel conditions for marine traffic in the Columbia River. A “new bridge” is not the only way to do that. It might not even be the best way to do it.
This is a case where the tail is wagging the dog. By that I mean the real problem is the BNSF RR Bridge swing span and with it its location to the far north side of the Columbia River.
Anything that is done to improve navigation in the Columbia River at the area of the Interstate Bridges must link with that BNSF RR Bridge channel location which everyone agrees is not optimum for river safety.
Most reasonable professionals that have looked at the problem agree that the BNSF RR bridge channel should be moved to align with the main barge channel which is more in the middle of the Columbia River at the current high spot of the existing Interstate Bridges.
To change the BNSF RR Bridge is not easy but it must happen as it has also been identified as a critical choke point in west coast rail mobility. It has inadequate heavy and passenger rail capacity which result in dramatically hurting the competitiveness as it effects in negative ways all industry and businesses that are stakeholders.
Had this problem been part of the focus of the CRC Task Force they would have been looking at this in the first place.
Even if we do something sometime to where we improve or replace the Interstate Bridges now or in the future, the first place where the point of attack should have been is at this location and problem.
Why not get the river channel problem corrected to where it should be and should have been. In getting this done common sense tells me that our region would be better off replacing the BNSF RR Bridge with a new alternate Bi-State Multi-Mode double deck arterial bridge and associated corridor that has the opportunity to make freight mobility problem in the I-5 corridor go away.
A benefit analysis of this far outways anything the CRC Task Force is presenting and for less money.
kinda an idiot question, any bridge is a navigation hazard from the riverman’s point of view…
kinda an idiot question, any bridge is a navigation hazard from the riverman’s point of view…
what’s the current level of safety? how many boats have run into the I-5 bridge in the last ten years?
“A new bridge should improve safety and travel conditions for marine traffic in the Columbia River.”
This statement seemingly ties any improved crossing to the big new bridge proposal.
A modified statement could read: Any improvements to the Columbia Crossing should also improve safety and travel conditions for marine traffic in the Columbia River.
I can support the latter statement.
Given how this project has been handled, I’d worry their response would be “But we can’t improve the railroad bridge. That’s not the scope of this project. Besides, we’re highway people, we want to work on a highway bridge” (no offense intended)
Seriously, I agree that the side of the river is no place for a shipping channel. The center seems the logical place for it (farther from the sides) allows both ends of a bridge to be lower to the ground.
Also, I’ve heard that there are other rail system problems besides the bridge.
Jason, they won’t say that for very long, because it will just get them hauled into court:
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm#1502.14
(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Unfortunately, they will then fall back to the “Doesn’t meet the purpose and need” argument, which is valid from a legal standpoint, but missing the point.
The problem is, there are a bunch of little solutions that add up to meeting the purpose and need in total, but individually, each one fails by itself, because each one doesn’t have enough impact. For instance, they looked at TDM/TSM by itself, and it didn’t work, so they eliminated it. An artery doesn’t work by itself, so they eliminated it. Reconfiguring the interchanges is implicitly part of any new freeway bridge, but they refuse to look at that as a part of the solution without the new freeway bridge. The only alternative that removed the Hayden Island interchange involved a new freeway bridge too, and it failed for much the same reason that keeping the existing ones as arteries failed…
Has a barge ever run into the I-5 bridges?
What is the economic value of the stuff hauled by barges? What happens if we remove the Snake River dams and barges run only to Tri-Cities?
Hardly enough reason to spend several billion $.
“The center seems the logical place for it (farther from the sides) allows both ends of a bridge to be lower to the ground.”
It’s hard enough to convince the Corps of Engineers, and citizen stakeholder groups, that the Columbia navigation channel should be dredged an extra three feet deep. Moving it anywhere from its present location is nigh impossible.
The railroad bridge (aka the Western Arterial) is aging and will need to be replaced sometime soon. The Western Arterial (or New Interstate Bridge) can be the remedy. I think it’s better to coordinate a replacement that solves all the problems—river traffic navigation, congestion and overuse of the I-5 corridor, possible commuter rail connection to Vancouver, bike and ped crossing, industrial access and Hayden Island connection. If cooperation with the Railroad interests is feasible, this coordinated effort would provide an entirely new connection between Clark County and Portland. To have only two bridges (not counting the RR crossing) in such a rapidly growing metropolitan region is woefully inadequate.
Do this and the congestion on the I-5 will return to a tolerable level. It will also open up a new area for business and residential development in Vancouver; throwing more businesses into the I-5 corridor will simply agrravate the congestion problem–even after a replacement of the existing bridges. Save the billions–it’s taxpayers’ money.