Oregon, Washington governors step up on Columbia River Crossing, but decision might be leaving problems for the future

Anna Griffin, Oregonian:

The leaders need to think big about design and size so that, like other public works projects, the next generation isn't paying even more to fix what doesn't work.

Read the full article here. Discuss below.

Posted on May 05, 2011
 comments

  • 12:34 p.m.
    May 5, '11
    (Show?)

    My comment on OLive:

    "We should, I suppose, be glad that Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire finally took a firm stand on the Columbia River Crossing last week"

    No, Anna, we should not. The biggest waste of money is to complete a project that does not do what we need done, and that is just what CRC would do. The development money already spent is a pittance compared to the debt we would pay back over several decades. CRC would increase SOV trips and increase the already cancerous sprawl in SW Washington, while Oregon seeks to conserve ag land through its lanaduse policies. The need for CRC is based on traffic projections that have proven wrong in the five years since thy were made. Bad data leads to bad decisions.

    "The governors' decision to go with the least-expensive and simplest design earned big applause from the companies that rely on Interstate 5 to move goods up and down the West Coast and labor unions whose members will build the span."

    The governors chose the least expensive deisgn of the hugely expensive, ill-conceived choices that were developed. Look here for a Columbia crossing design that offers many advantages and costs half as much: http://vimeo.com/22915646

    Check it out, Anna.

connect with blueoregon