Posted on 01/08/2007 5:43:00 PM PST by Bean Counter
When it comes to planning a $2 billion, once-a-century bridge, armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. So don't be surprised by the gaggle of "experts" who are promoting bridge "solutions" that have been rejected by the legitimate experts at the Columbia River Crossing project. Grassroots gurus are plentiful, but let's respect the side that relies on expertise, hard work and due diligence.
On the third floor of the downtown Vancouvercenter, about 60 full-time engineers, planners and other specialists are creating a better river crossing. They're working with many other part-time consultants, even some of national stature, who regularly visit the offices.
These folks are not like the rest of us. Their idea of working on a project is not calling up a few buddies, making three trips to Home Depot and two beer runs to the corner grocery. They're obsessed with this silly thing called "planning."
Their great expertise must make it a little frustrating when they have to listen patiently to 39 local leaders on an advisory council, or when they conduct public hearings where non-experts tell them how to do their jobs. They know public input is crucial when you already hold 50 million public dollars and expect many more as you go about building a multi-billion-dollar public bridge. Still, it must be aggravating for them to hear some of the lingering myths, such as:
Myth No. 1 -- The best solution is to build a third bridge!
Reality -- Where? Non-experts don't have an answer, because there isn't one. Build a third bridge between Interstates 5 and 205? Most of that area is taken on the Portland side by the airport and four even more important facilities: the Colwood, Broadmoor, Riverside and Columbia Edgewater golf courses. Downstream from I-5, at the railroad bridge? Too much interference from both of the ports and, of course, the Heron Lakes golf course. A bridge at Ridgefield? No. The wildlife refuge is there, and it wouldn't ease the choke point on I-5. Camas? Again, you'd still have the I-5 woes, and on a decrepit bridge, no less.
Third-bridge disciples, even if you found a place to build it, how would you get to it? Blaze a new traffic corridor through west Vancouver or downtown or McLoughlin Heights? Likely not.
Myth No. 2 -- There will be only three lanes on the new bridge! Hey, that's no improvement over the old bridge!
Reality -- Although the new bridge might have three "through" lanes like the current bridge, it could have two or three auxiliary lanes in each direction -- facilitating exit and entry to the Vancouver, Hayden Island and Expo areas -- and perhaps emergency lanes. In all, it could end up being a 12-lane bridge.
Consider the recently completed improvements on I-5 over Salmon Creek. Technically, that bridge is still just three through lanes, but any motorist will tell you that, with auxiliary lanes in each direction all the way between 99th and 134th streets, it's actually the equivalent of four lanes each way, eight lanes total.
Myth No. 3 -- We need a bypass around Vancouver and Portland!
Reality -- We already have one. It's called I-205. Remember, much of the I-5 traffic consists of motorists and freight haulers destined for downtown Portland or Vancouver, or to the ports. They wouldn't use a bypass if they had one.
Myth No. 4-- There's no need to put light rail capacity on a new bridge! Yikes! They're still trying to force that light rail monster down our throats!
Reality -- Let's all calm down and try to think beyond just tomorrow. The key here is "capacity." If, at some time in the next century, light rail is deemed necessary, it would be wise to put that capacity on the new bridge now.
The armchair quarterbacks, myth spinners and sidewalk superintendents aren't about to go away. For many of them, screaming "No!" is like a hobby. But until they bring 60 experts, 39 local leaders, dozens of public meetings and $50 million in seed money to the debate, they really won't carry a lot of clout.
My late father, who passed on to me his fascination with civil-engineering projects, loved to tell a story about sidewalk superintendents. Seems there was this elaborate bridge dedication ceremony, and just as the ribbon was cut by a proud politician, the new bridge suddenly collapsed in a heap, whereupon one of the sidewalk superintendents ran up to the project engineer and shouted, "I told you not to move that decimal point!"
John Laird is The Columbian's editorial page editor. His column of personal opinion appears on the View page each Sunday. Reach him at john.laird@columbian.com.
The trouble arises because of the efforts by the City of Vancouver, aided by the Columbian, to use this important project as cover to force an expensive light rail project into Downtown Vancouver, despite voters rejecting that idea resoundingly 11 years ago.
The fist public hearing on the crossing project is scheduled for January 17th, and the final design is nowhere near to being final, but the only newspaper in town has just trashed public comment all together.
Please follow this link to learn a little more about the Project, and be sure to go let Mr. Laird know what Freepers think about pompous asses who call themselves "Editors"...
http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/
Boy! The tone of that article ought to get the author a punch in the nose. What a Jerk!
Laird is a transplanted Texan and I'll bet Texans are glad he's gone.
The aging spans of I-5, the only draw bridge I have ever seen on an interstate, needs replaced and a third bridge needs built.
Maybe Governess Fraudoire could pry a little of that 9.5 cents gax tax she saddled us with to help us down here, instead of all of it going to King County (which magically found lost votes to help her steal the election).
"A big piece of the 9.5-cent gas tax would go to the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, which engineers say would be disastrously unsafe in a major earthquake. Gregoire said the lesson of Hurricane Katrina is the failure "to invest in their infrastructure" the levees protecting New Orleans and that the same risk faces Washington. As to whether taxpayers here should be willing to foot the bill for work in Seattle, Gregoire responded, "Today it's Seattle and the viaduct; tomorrow it's Clark County and the bridges to Portland. Someday I'm going to ask the citizens in King County to invest in Clark County."
The Columbian, page A1, September 14, 2005
WA ping request
Most Americans have no idea how powerful is the American Society of Civil Engineers. Their lobbyists make the Association of Trial Lawyers of America look like ego-maniacal amateurs. Note, not one reference to them in the article. No one notices them. Yet, billions of dollars pour into their projects. Bet, they will lobby for a road to connect Mexico to Canada.
And a bridge over the Mississippi.
Lengthwise.
Spot on! IIRC, he was a sports columnist for the El Paso Times before moving to the editorial page. Wasn't all that great in either role.
I don't think he left because he was too liberal, though. I think the EP Times was seeking more diversity among their editorial staff, if you get my drift.
Maybe it's not these engineers' fault, but somebody has been asleep on the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.