After a heated meeting of the Columbia River Crossing’s Bike/Ped Advisory Committee, it’s official—the region’s largest bicycle advocacy group, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) has quit the big bridge project.
The BTA spent three years working with the CRC staff on the bike path components of the $4.2 billion bridge replacing the I-5 bridge to Vancouver. BTA advocacy manager Michelle Poyorouw, who sat on the CRC’s bike/ped committee until yesterday, was disappointed and frustrated that the CRC staff has still not committed to high maintenance and security standards for the bike path, which is planned to run under the bridge. In March, the BTA took some heat for speaking out against the chosen 12-lane option, which they feared would include a bike path resembling a dark, dank cave.
“The BTA was explicity clear six months ago, three months ago, one month ago that we would not recommend anything without a firm commitment to maintenance and security,” says Poyorouw. “We’ve poured three years of our time into this project. But what we really need are results and what we’re getting is a deaf ear.” She says it would be appropriate to remove the BTA’s name from the member groups supporting the CRC.
- BTA4BIKES.org
- Michelle Poyorouw
Poyorouw says it was galling that at yesterday’s meeting, the CRC staff only scheduled 15 minutes to discuss maintenance and security concerns along the bike path, an issue “every member of the committee has been saying for six months was important.” According to another meeting-goer, the meeting eventually “melted down” and leader of the bike/ped committee David Parisi told bike lawyer Mike Ginsberg to “shut up.”
Parisi is on vacation and did not return a call for comment but told BikePortland editor Jonathan Maus yesterday that the talks “are going very well” but that he is “disappointed that they decided to stop participating. They’ve provided some good insight and have helped the process.”
Poyorouw says that though the BTA quit the bike/ped committee, it will remain involved in trying to influence the design of the CRC. “We are just not going to burn hours going through the CRC’s public involvement process because it has yielded nothing… we know that the bike/ped element is really important to the federal delegation as well as the state legislators so there’s no question they’ll be hearing from us.”
UPDATE! CRC staffer Peter Ovington responds to the BTA’s concerns by noting that the other 11 members of the committee voted to approve the bridge design, leaving the project sponsor’s council (the bigwig design group including Vancouver and Portland’s mayors) to discuss the maintenance and security concerns. “There might have been some miscommunication about what [Poyorouw] was looking for but the majority of the group is comfortable with where the project is going,” says Ovington, adding that Parisi has a congenial banter with the committee and that the “shut up” comment was in the context of a joke.
1-5≠I-5
And Jesus Fucking Christ On a Fucking Pogo Stick!
You’ve made the exact same typo before: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
They might be the same. Who knows? Who even cares?
Graham, you need psychological help.
@a.O, why do you say that?
If only Oregon taxpayers could quit the project, as well….
Our $65 mil got us a Facebook page and a bunch of PR consultants….
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…
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?
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.
They should keep Ginsberg out of the process.
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 http://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