What Say Ye?
Posted by: EmilyApr 06 2007, 3:19 pm
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee for the Columbia River Crossing project has been convened! We are on board to provide input on the concerns of bikers and walkers about this project, and to advise on the design of the final product, and we need your two cents!
The Columbia River Crossing/I-5 Expansion/Uber-bridge project is one that has been in process for the last 5+ years, and subject to much controversy as of late. Proponents of a new bridge argue that a new bridge must be constructed in order make it safe and to accommodate current traffic flow, and projections of increased traffic flow in the upcoming decades. Opponents of a new bridge have questioned the decision-making process and raise concerns about environmental and economic impacts of the project, the priorities of the region in an era of decreased transportation funding, and our local commitment to multi-modal transportation options.
Depending on where you look, you’ll see 3 or 5 or 12 alternatives referenced. Basically, there are 3 main options, 2 of which have ‘a’ and ‘b’ alternatives.
Option 1: No build option
This is required by law, but has largely been dismissed as a viable option. Increases in traffic congestion, freight travel times, seismic inefficiencies, and current level of dangerous engineering all indicate that doing nothing is not a successful strategy for the corridor overall.
Option 2: Build a brand-new bridge for traffic in both directions
Estimates for this project range anywhere from $2 billion to $6 or $8 billion to build. An entirely new bridge opens the possibility for increased capacity for many of the auto related modes of transportation, as well as a high class bike/ped facility.
2a: New bridge with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
2b: New bridge with Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Option 3: Half a new bridge, half an old bridge
This is the “4th alternative†that was identified thru a sub-committee process lead by Metro Council Rex Burkholder. This option would keep the existing bridge, but make it one-way, northbound traffic. A new, one-way, southbound bridge would be built downstream from the current bridge. It would be tall enough to accommodate the passage of freight ships in the Columbia River. In this scenario, the current bridge would be retro-fitted to improve bike/ped access over the river.
3a: Half a new bridge with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
3b: Half a new bridge with Light Rail Transit (LRT)
As bicycle advocates, the Columbia River Crossing project raises many questions. Is a 3/4 mile, multi-billion dollar bridge a wise use of resources? How many bike/ped improvements could be had for a fraction of the cost of a new or partial bridge? Are there other tweaks that could mitigate the traffic congestion, such as staggered commute times, lowering of car-speed on the bridge, building of smaller, arterial bridges, etc? All of these would cost less, could increase safety, and would broaden the array of options for those commuting between Portland and Vancouver.
So far the committee has met once, and will continue to do so monthly through at least June 2007. Meetings are the 4th Wednesday of each month from 9:30am-11:30am at 700 Washington St. in Vancouver. Upcoming meetings are on April 25th, May 23rd & June 27th. Public comment can be taken during the meetings, or via email through the Columbia River Crossing website.
At the first meeting we heard updates on the current recommendations from the task force, and reviewed the current conditions on the ground for bikers and walkers using the bridge for commuting or leisure.
Some questions for y’all:
What do you think about the recommendations overall? Do you support a new bridge? Half bridge? No bridge?
Given that a new bridge of some kind seems imminent, what kind of bike and pedestrian access do you want to see getting built in the future?
Should there be more opportunities for public comment? Meetings different locations? Different times?
Contact Emily Gardner with comments or questions.
I believe this bridge project is short sighted as it fails to accept the premise of the peak oil crisis. American oil production peaked in 1970 and global oil production peaked very recently. With this in mind, oil will continue to go up in price and eventually run out altogether. This situation will create an environment with far fewer single-owner passenger cars and freight vehicles (as we know them today). We will see an increase in localized economies out of necessity, changing the face of our urban and suburban roadways.
A new bridge would therefore be a boon to peds, bikes and transit vehicles, but will be overkill for the new world created by peak oil. Of course, the premise of my argument is that the US will continue to feel an increasingly painful pinch created by peak oil-related pricing and availability. Of course, if this pinch doesn't happen as drastically as I presume, then the bridge will likely serve its auto and freight-centric purposes very well for several decades.
Apr 12 2007 at 10:42 am