That's hideous! Congratulations!

It strikes me that there will be many people camping out (i.e. living) on that lower span.

uggh. I hope they separate the north / south bike lanes. idiots cannot be bothered to follow directional signage.

Hey let's walk along I-5 to Vancouver! Right.

Does anyone here know anyone who might concievably bike over the Columbia? Will anyone use this? Haven't people who have moved across the river already made a choice not to commute to Portland by bike?

that is so butt-fuckingly ugly that it hurts.

I've biked across the Columbia to Vancouver many times. The only thing that keeps me from doing it more is how miserable the bike/ped facilities are on the existing bridge.

Have you ever walked or ridden across the I-5 bridge? Maybe you ought to try it so you'll know what you're talking about before you dismiss the idea out of hand that improved facilities would make it tenable to commute by bike over the Columbia.

Pedestrian/bike facilities are legally mandated for these kinds of projects, so whether to do it at all is sort of off-the-table, barring a big federal push to change the rules.

However, the form, scale and scope of the pedestrian/bicycle facility is an issue that we can have some input on.

Of course, there are far better alternatives than what is proposed. Aside from the debate about putting the facilities under the roadway, a better alternative as proposed by many CRC critics would simply be to have a local arterial crossing for cars, peds, bikes, transit ... something separate from the freeway. This would get many of the local trips which are clogging access points to I-5 off of the freeway, and would be a far more pleasant environment for peds/bikes -- meaning that the facility would see greater use.

The local arterial crossing could be done by preserving one of the existing spans, or with new, modestly-scaled structures parallel to the new freeway crossing.

The whole CRC process has omitted alternatives from its process from the beginning, which has led to the incorrect conclusion that we need a massive new bridge, as opposed to a series of improvements (and yes, auto improvements, too) to the entire crossing area. The CRC started as a freeway-focused plan, and naturally arrived at a freeway-focused conclusion -- even if that isn't the best or least expensive approach.

Adding on to what Bob R said about the scale being incredibly over-sized, the drawings we're seeing now seem particularly designed to de-emphasize just how massive the bridges would be.

Take a look at this earlier drawing done by the CRC project (only the strip of concrete at very bottom right is light rail/bike/ped; the rest is freeway):

http://www.clfuture.org/projects/ShiftTheB…

Blabby - I occasionally bike from my downtown Vancouver house to the office in downtown PDX. The paths on the current bridge are the second worst part of that commute (the mile long stretch of MLK where I get to ride elbow-to-side-mirror with semis hauling ass at 50mph+ being the worst).

Actually, like Chutney mentioned above, the current one wouldn't be nearly as bad if it wasn't for the fucknuts who can't be bothered to ride on the correct side of the bridge for their direction.

And you're absolutely right: a covered, lower level path will be a Mecca for homeless that can't/won't go to Share House in Vancouver.

Is it me, or does that first picture look like the cover of Kraftwerk's Autobahn?
Ugly as hell. Looks like something someone made in Second Life. The plan's about as realistic, too.

Yep, I've done pdx-to-vancouver and back a couple of times. The path over the bridge is barely enough room to ride on-- you have to stop and dismount to pass pedestrians. And there's barely enough room for that.

Getting to Delta park sucks too. MLK is hairy, and so is taking the end of Vancouver Ave-- since the other fork of the road turns into an entrance ramp, drivers are in the haul-ass mindset pretty much immediately after turning off of Interstate.

maybe improved bike / ped facilities ON the bridge will inspire improvements to access...but right now it's one unpleasant little platform after a mostly-unpleasant trek out there.

I can't believe I almost took a job in Vancouver a few years ago before I knew what the commute entailed.

Can you imagine how noisy it would be if the bike/ped access was under the bridge? For an idea, go park under the Fremont bridge sometime. I don't know how the people that live in those condos can stand it.

Again, relishing the opportunity to humble one of the many Blogtown blowhards:

"Does anyone here know anyone who might concievably bike over the Columbia? Will anyone use this?"

I've biked over the bridge on multiple occasions, and so have several of my friends at one time or another.

@organic.brian - "multiple occassions" and 'one time or another" hardly seems like enough usage to justify putting the bike path on top of the bridge. How many people are really going to start commuting from Vancouver? What's the daily usage going to be, compared to the number of cars going over this thing? The bike folks are sure vocal about this bridge, but honestly, won't they all add up to something like .1% of all users?

Wow, that's uglier than a pie in the face.

chi flat iron, chi hair strighteners
chi hair straighteners, chi flat iron
chi nano ceramic flat iron, chi nano ceramic flat iron

chi flat iron, chi hair strighteners
chi hair straighteners, chi flat iron
chi nano ceramic flat iron, chi nano ceramic flat iron


[url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi hair straighteners[/url] chi hair straighteners
[url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi flat iron[/url] chi flat iron