USDOT approves CRC

The US Department of Transportation has just issued a record of decision for the CRC. This represents the final regulatory hurdle for the project, meaning that the state DsOT can go forward with acquisition of land for the ROW and of construction.

Of course, there’s still the matter of funding the thing…

14 responses to “USDOT approves CRC”

  1. It is good to see this project get the ROD so it can move forward. The old bridges are, well, OLD. If traffic were to naturally reduce itself, and population naturally go down by half, then, maybe, the existing bridges could stay for a bid longer (capacity wise only). But, reality is growth will continue, and the crossing needs to be replaced. I will be able to ride my bike, drive, or take the rail – not bad options for replacing the oldest and most deficient bridge on the entire I-5 Canada-Mexico system. Look how the East Coast has improved I-95 from south of Providence RI all the way down to WA DC. It’s high time we make similar improvements here on this side of the US.

  2. Yes, let’s tear down and replace all our old bridges. The St. Johns Bridge is 80 years old, tear it down. The Hawthorne Bridge is 100 years old, tear it down too.

    C’mon bridge supporters, stop bringing up the age of the bridge as a reason to destroy it. Where it is cost-effective, old things that should be preserved and rehabilitated, not dismantled.

  3. Tom,

    Define old? The railroad bridge paralleling the I-5 bridges is older. Many bridges in Portland are older. Are they falling down?

  4. Tom, we could rehab the bridges to bring them very nearly to modern structural standards for a fraction of the cost of the mega-bridge project. Age has nothing to do with it.

    As for capacity, the capacity of the bridges are just fine, and there are far cheaper solutions to the problems with them (like excessive bridge lift, the Hayden Island interchange) than tearing them out and building an oversized, overpriced new bridge.

  5. To paraphrase: It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it is built.

  6. To paraphrase: It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it is built.

    Ironically, I watched The Terminator just the other night. But last I heard from him, he was responsible for the boondoggles coming out of Sacramento, not out of Salem. :)

  7. Doug K et al , Age has a great deal to do with it. Yes , you can rehab these worn-out steel-fatigued , out-dated designs for a great deal of money. You get to keep all the issues they have , with no performance improvements. One would literally have to remove and replace every single rivet/bolt up there and replace significant amount of rusted or substandard metal. You and I , and everyone else have no idea about the structural soundness of the 100 year old wood pilings under the bridge , wanna bet on them being up to today’s standards?

  8. The singular, entire point of the CRC is to add bridge lane capacity. Period. What that will then do is apply pressure to add lanes to I-5 south of the bridge.

    The light rail line, the bike/ped facilities, the “safety” issue, the “age” issue, the “freight” issue, the “bridge lift” issue – all of them are just obfuscations of the real issue. The DOTs want to add lane miles to I-5 through Portland. The CRC is just the first domino.

  9. Bill,

    The estimates I have seen to retrofit the existing bridges is around $200 million. I believe the replacement bridge alone is $1 billion.

  10. Both the old bridges are considered ‘substandard’ because their design is 2-lane, but act as 3-lane without shoulders. They are dangerously dysfunctional. River traffic irregularity raisings is dysfunctional. Still the truth is, BOTH BRIDGES have 30-50 years left by most predictions, offering plenty of time to prepare an capable replacement.

    My contention is the current design CANNOT perform safely. Two, there’s a question whether “speed & thru-put” are being over-exaggerated. And three, How the plan for widening I-5 affects Lloyd District interchanges, entry/exits, sidewalk treatments, etc. As yet, I have not seen a supportable concept for Lloyd District. I suspect CRC problematic situations/circumstances are being repeated; lengthy, unrewarding process, etc.

    Look, I believe now there is a State’s Rights issue for the rightwing to address and spend their time to prove Oregon ISN’T being “Over-ruled” by Washington REPUBLICANS. Their great heres.
    Issues between States is a states-rights issue.

    I blame Wsdot and give the benefit of the doubt to most Oregon decisionmakers. Are WSDOT engineers calling shots on ODOT and OREGON territorial decisionmaking? Washington decisionmakers are unquestionably among the worst psuedo-expert engineering tools in the nation box. THE DBT IS DEADLY DANGEROUS DUMB. Support the most honorable great mayor Michael Mcginn for his totally undeserved BRUISING from inferior subordinates & peers who are skinnier and think they’re smarter. The peace & joy season -should- include mercy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *