If you're still on board with the CRC, you're doing it wrong.
Carla Axtman
It's beyond me how ANYONE could still be on board with this project now:
In a 2004 survey of Columbia River users and again in a 2006 Coast Guard public hearing, the river users said a new I-5 span needed to be 100 to 125 feet tall for them to sail underneath.
The Columbia River Crossing planners ignored the input and opted instead for 95 feet. The fateful blunder has put the project at odds with a handful of marine shippers, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both of which need to sign off on the project.
The impasse may force the CRC to jettison the $3.1 billion current plan -- seven years in the making -- and design a higher bridge at a cost of $100 million-plus.
Shorter CRC: we've dumped 7 years and $140 million on this mess and it's going to have to be scrapped because the boats that sail under it will crash into it. And oh by the way, planners have known this since 2004.
Funding for the project seems to be in doubt as well. The feds just rejected the ask for a $1 billion loan, citing the lack of funding support from the Oregon & Washington state legislatures.
Many of the premises used to convince Oregonians that the bridge is vital and necessary have been outed as false.
And that barely scratches the surface. It's been a hot mess for many months.
I don't understand why we keep throwing good money after bad down this rat hole. And why the consultants who led us into this mess are still being paid.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:55 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
If only we had a mayoral candidate who recognized this early on, and made clear his opposition to it!! ;)
5:44 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
If only! Now, who would that be …
10:21 a.m.
Jun 9, '12
Jefferson Smith spoke years ago at rallies in opposition to the CRC.
3:00 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
The people that are making money off this boondoggle obviously want to keep it going.
It's called bureaucracy that self sustains.
It's an example of one of the reasons that are making Republicans look good which is then getting them into office.
3:46 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
I think its a mistake to blame the "consultants" for this. The problem is with the folks who hired them and are pulling the strings. This has been a WashDOT driven project from day one with a lot of folks on the Oregon side along for the ride.
ODOT wanted the federal dollars Senator Patty Murray's seniority was going to deliver. That meant going along with WashDOT's big new highway plan.
5:46 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
It's long past time to implement the "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" strategem. It's not starting to look as though the project is being supported to fill the agendas of people over an actual need; it already looks that way.
9:24 p.m.
Jun 7, '12
If I recall correctly, didn't they have to limit the bridge height because of the historic airfield in Clark County?. But folks were upset with that cause it meant another ugly "aircraft carrier" design like the Glen Jackson. So they came up with a more aesthetic design which means they had to lower said bridge to make up for increased height of the bridge which means it now blocks river traffic. Oh my....
7:01 a.m.
Jun 8, '12
I apologize if this comment is based on an uninformed perspective, but it seems to me that the project was ill adviced from the beginning, just on the basis of its location. I always wondered why the emphasis wasn't focused instead on extending HWY 217 across the river and linking it with I-5 in the Vancouver area. Wouldn't that have the benefit of taking pressure off US 26 in the Sylvin area and the I-5 bridge?
8:22 a.m.
Jun 8, '12
This is really bizarre! Why would the planners willfully ignore the requirements of river transportation?? Without knowing the answer I can only surmise they hoped to finesse this thing because the higher bridge would cost much more money. And do they really think the feds are going to cough up the billions to build this thing? It's all very strange to me.
10:12 a.m.
Jun 8, '12
So who exactly was responsible for this error? Is it a punishable? (I mean, any worker-bee in any private-sector office in the state would be fired for an error of that magnitude.)
10:50 a.m.
Jun 9, '12
Heh. Yeah, all those worker bees in the private financial sector who f'd us over were fired for their mult-million dollar errors.
Oh wait.
12:36 p.m.
Jun 12, '12
Well, I specified Oregon workers, not Wall Street leeches. Different species.
6:59 p.m.
Jun 10, '12
Is it possible to get our money back?
2:40 p.m.
Jun 14, '12
Let's list some very important Democrats who are still on board with this project -- Speaker-to-be Rep. Tina Kotek and Rep. Tobias Read, co-chair of the joint interim oversight committee on the CRC. Oh yeah, Governor John Kitzhaber. Oh yeah, Henry Hewitt and Bill Wyatt and Tom Immeson. Oh yeah, Sam Adams and Nick Fish and Dan Saltzman. Oh yeah, Metro Councilors Barbara Roberts (former Gov.) and Rex Burkholder and Carlotta Colette and Ms. Craddick. Oh yeah, Tom Chamberlin AFL-CIO Pres., and John Molles, Pres. of the Columbia-Pacific Building Trades Council. Oh yeah, a bunch of Oregon Congressional Reps and Senators (not Blumenauer). You wonder why this thing has legs? Look to our establishment Dems and then look to the people who got the $140 million of work, including notably Democrats Tom Markgraf and Patricia McCaig.
It's time all for these folks to come to their senses, but I don't really expect it to happen. The effort to get the state to put up the $450 million will continue into the 2013 session unless Kitz pulls the plug. He might try talking to Lynn Peterson or Cylvia Hayes. They know better.
7:41 p.m.
Jun 14, '12
Right on, Carla. Add to CRC negatives: it would incentivize urban sprawl in SW Washington. People should live near their workplace.