Surprise! It's another drawbridge!


Here's another howler from the clowns who have blown nine figures planning the replacement bridge on I-5 over the Columbia River, with basically nothing to show for it. They just found out that it's going to have be a drawbridge, because it's too low for big ships that need to go through there. A classic 5:00 Friday info dump breaks the bad news here:

Planners in charge of the new, multibillion-dollar overhaul have recently been told by federal regulators they must include plans for “moveable span” on the bridge. Greg Johnson, who is leading the team of planners, said federal regulators made the order in late February.

The reason? The bridge as currently planned may be too short, Johnson said. The 116-foot-tall bridge needs to be blueprinted at least 62 feet taller if it were to accommodate ships on the Columbia River without a lift.

They should just make it taller, but apparently that's out of the question. Why? Because the almighty light rail choo choo can't go uphill very well. Nobody on the Washington side really wants the train, anyway. But the Earl the Pearl types controlling the Oregon side insist. So yes, the new bridge will continue to go up and down, bringing traffic on I-5 to a complete standstill well into the 22nd Century.

And this is the project that's going to open the floodgates to widespread tolling of the roads around here. Nice to know there are such smart people putting it together. 

Comments

  1. Too high for the airports nearby; too low for the ships below, too steep for the trains (and bikes and pedestrians), too expensive for the taxpayers. It’s perfect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This calls for a blue ribbon commission to study things that have been already thoroughly examined.

      Delete
  2. Take Light Rail out of the project and it's greatly simplified. The Light Rail infrastructure made many more things more complicated and costly than just the height problem. Weaving the tracks through the whole miles long thing while accomplishing stops on Hayden Island and Downtown Vancouver crew up everything else plus the height. It needs to be like the Glenn Jackson bridge with frontage accesses servicing the immediate locales. Forget Light Rail. It's insane to propose if worse to demand it. The need for transit to downtown Portland is in decline.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How about a cable car over the bridge?
    That’s real 19th century technology!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also considered having horses or mules tow the rail cars but as my partner pointed out we can’t have the horse sh*t dumping into the river…environmental hazard and all that!

      Delete
  4. Everyone except TriMet and City of Portland knew how to interpret the comments of the Coast Guard from eight or nine years ago as ruling out the short fixed bridge that TriMet wanted for light rail. A drawbridge is also much friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists than a fixed bridge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What about NO LIGHT RAIL do they not understand? And the blatant disregard for river shipping traffic is an embarrassment. Once again, millions of dollars studying and proposing a plan that makes no sense and serves not the critical needs of 24/7 traffic and commerce. It's an unacceptable outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Too many semiprofessional politicians have been involved in supporting the light rail concept

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rail is not the issue, electric streetcars go up and down steep climbs readily. The constraint is wealthy docs and lawyers and hedge funders at Pearson Airpark who scream bloody murder if you suggest shutting down their taxpayer supported little playfield next to Fort Vancouver, and those folks don’t do any of that “go along with the good of the community” stuff — that’s for the proles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Electric street cars do go up Vista. They were also a waste of money and were discontinued.

      Delete
  8. Shutting down Pearson is an overdue, easy decision. Divert their traffic to PDX, Troutdale, Aurora, Scapoose, wherever. The childish silliness (including unwanted light rail) corrupting this badly needed solution appears endless and will probably end in another failed effort and expensive stalemate. Suggest we appoint 2 intelligent adults, one on each side of the river, to develop a best case solution and get on with the project. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Port of Camas Washougal Airport is right there, too.

      Delete
    2. There is no “traffic” at Pearson; it’s just the playground for the general aviation set.

      Delete

Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at jackbogsblog@comcast.net, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.