BTA Walks Out On CRC Bridge Design Group

Comments

1
1-5≠I-5
2
And Jesus Fucking Christ On a Fucking Pogo Stick!

You've made the exact same typo before: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
3
They might be the same. Who knows? Who even cares?
4
Graham, you need psychological help.
5
@a.O, why do you say that?
6
If only Oregon taxpayers could quit the project, as well....

Our $65 mil got us a Facebook page and a bunch of PR consultants....
7
Wouldn't a covered bike lane be better for most of the year than a windy, cold, wet bike lane for 2/3 or the year and a sunny bike lane in the summer? Also, couldn't they put two bike lanes in, one on top and one on bottom, are they really that expensive? Aren't bike lanes 5' wide? I would bet that the cost isn't from the bike lane but from the permitting, engineering, and underwater construction...
8
Why is this so difficult? A bike lane is barely a blip in the total project cost and effort. It's ridiculous. But to play devil's advocate, just how many people cross and are expected to cross that bridge by bike?
9
Transportation wonks with any real world experience know that ped/bike facilities which are dark, covered and invisible from main roadways DON'T GET USED because they fail the fundamental personal sense-of-safety perceptions of most people. The less they are used, the unsafer they get. In this climate, out-of-the-way, out-of-view, little-used covered areas acquire permanent human residents pretty quickly.

Exceptional levels of maintenance, lighting and patrolling can somewhat overcome these effects, but only so much. Absent those, a spiral to the behavioral bottom becomes inevitable. Transportation design best practices say if you have a legacy path like that just remove it and rebuild something people will feel comfortable using, and FCOL don't build them like that in the first place.

I am all for the CRC and lots of extra lanes, but put a decent ped/bike path on the same level as the rest of the traffic. That is one thing the 205 bridge got right.
10
They should keep Ginsberg out of the process.
11
I work with the I-5 Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project and provide staff support to the project’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. I’d like to correct some recent misinformation about plans for the pedestrian and bicycle path. First, I want to provide an update and some good news.

On Sept. 4, the CRC Project Sponsors Council unanimously supported a plan that would substantially improve bike and pedestrian access across the Columbia River, based on the recent PBAC recommendation. (You can watch the meeting on www.cvtv.org).

The project is now moving forward with a two-structure bridge across the Columbia River that will improve travel for bicyclists, pedestrians, public transit riders, and all other users. Today, the CRC Urban Design Advisory Group adopted a
design concept for the main span across the Columbia River and two alternative design concepts for the North Portland Harbor bridge.

Below are a few facts about the proposed bike and pedestrian path. You can view an image of the proposed path design on pages 23 and 25 of this document: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileL…

PATH WIDTH
The covered path on the future I-5 bridge will be up to 24 feet wide, compared to the current 4-ft wide paths.

ACCESS POINTS
There will be ramps, stairs, and/or elevators connecting with existing and planned sidewalks and pathways in Vancouver, on Hayden Island, and near Marine Drive. The connections will be coordinated with ongoing planning in those areas. The entire pathway, connecting ramps and all other improvements in the five-mile corridor will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SCENIC OVERLOOK
The project’s Urban Design Advisory Group is examining options for at least one overlook on the replacement bridge.

SENSE OF OPENNESS
Only about a quarter of the new path will be covered, and this portion will be open on both sides, providing light, fresh air and views. The ceiling of the covered section will be 23 to 30 feet high. The two overhangs cantilevering from the sides of the bridge above the covered pathway will be approximately 20 feet each (not 200 feet).

DISTANCE
The proposed new path is a somewhat shorter route (2.20 miles instead of today’s 2.25 miles, measuring from Delta Park to Esther Short Park) and eliminates the current steep grade on the existing bridges. The proposed path requires fewer at-grade roadway crossings. The covered path option minimizes the distance traveled on the ramps approaching the bridge, compared to the other options, thereby reducing the amount of out-of-direction travel.

Peter Ovington
Columbia River Crossing project
ovingtonp@columbiarivercrossing.org