2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Vincent van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime. The Bureau of Reclamation tried to dam the Grand Canyon. Which is to say that concepts of beauty change. The bridge design that Jacob is commenting on is not the latest proposal which I think is rather striking when seen from below and afar (I know I don't pay much attention to bridge structure when traveling 55mph). It also includes covered, substantial bicycle and pedestrian ways with overlooks facing east, which would definitely make it a destination. As someone who crosses the bridge by bicycle about once a month, it is spectacular despite the narrow sidewalks and traffic noise.

There are severe vertical constraints--high enough to allow ocean-going ships to pass underneath and low enough not to get in the way of airplanes from the airfield in Vancouver--that make many bridge designs, like the St Johns, unusable. Again, I think that we should be considering how the bridge appears from Hayden Island, the River and the Vancouver riverside which does allow for pleasing form of pier and arch even with a flat top.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The Independent Review Panel has reiterated three critical points:

1) a new Columbia River Crossing is critical to the economy and sustainability of this region's future;

2) It is a hairy, big project that requires top level attention both technically and politically; and

3) current governance structures are inadequate and under-represent the interests of the communities directly affected. They call for a new bi-state authority to build and operate the bridge.

These are very similar to the conclusions reached by the 39 member CRC task force in its report of 2008. Since then we seem to have been rehashing concerns (will a wider bridge cause sprawl in Clark County: answer, again, no. Are the existing spans obsolete and dangerous: answer, again, yes.)

The question isn't about build or not to build, but how to do it in a sustainable, low-risk way.

Let's answer the challenges posed by the IRP and start work right away to put people back to work and meet our generation's responsibilities.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context