Limits offer 'no poetry' for I-5 bridge

[Chief]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120218551981670.xml&coll=7

Vertical constraints for a new Columbia span could mean a simple, flat design

Tuesday, February 05, 2008DYLAN RIVERA The Oregonian Staff

VANCOUVER -- Should a bridge reach up as well as over?

Some of the region's political leaders have said yes. They want a new Interstate 5 span not only to cross the Columbia River, connecting Portland and Vancouver, but also to be worthy of a postcard, showcasing a world-famous river at the border of two states bent on sustainability. Perhaps it could soar like Portland's Fremont Bridge or even San Francisco's Golden Gate.

But under the first round of plans, the new bridge will be a flat concrete slab.

*SNIP*

The $4.2 billion vision, the largest public works project in the Northwest, has bowed to the needs of Pearson Field, a landing strip in Vancouver that requires airspace just over the bridge's northern reaches. On average, about 70 planes a day -- most privately owned single-engine propeller craft -- take off from the airfield, just east of I-5, while more than 135,000 vehicles a day travel the highway below.

*SNIP*

"It does look like the dreaded box girder is one of the bridge types, and that makes it very challenging to make a bridge that is worthy of placement in this gateway to the Columbia," Adams told a regional transportation planning committee. "So we definitely have our work cut out for us."

*SNIP*

"Everybody keeps saying this isn't going to be another Glenn Jackson," Stuhr said. "I keep laughing, because every image that's shown to us is another Glenn Jackson bridge . . . there's no poetry there."

*SNIP*

Could anyone challenge the airspace constraint?

Pollard said relocation and realignment of Pearson have been studied and found to be too expensive. He favors protecting the airfield, which dates to 1905 and is part of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

"Pearson is not going to go away," Pollard said. "Pearson Air Field is a very significant piece of American aviation history, and it should stay."

**SCHNIPP**

I'm not sure what to make of this story today. The Oregonian is reporting like this issue just popped up, when in fact the Project Engineers have been talking about this height restriction on the new bridge since day one. Accommodating the flight path at Pearson Field has always been a major design limitation on the height of the bridge.

And I will stand firm with Mayor Pollard on protecting Pearson Field. He is exactly right when he talks about the historic significance of Pearson, and any discussion of closing it in order to accomodate the CRCP is simply off the table.

Pearson Field is far from being a mere "landing strip"...

It's odd that the Oregonian would bring this up now, considering that there are other more pressing issues on the table than this...

wub

[Waterbuffalo]

Since being in the process now myself for nearly two years, this subject of Pearson field was brought up early in the process. All of the Portland leadership new of the Portland Airport and Pearson airfield constraights along with the tug boat operator problem.

If you remember Chief, this discussion of a boxed bridge has been around a long time. The only people that are screaming about this problem are probably from Multnomah County, who had a new member (because of rojo-desteffi's quitting or lost an election.)

That new member has not been on the task force should have known or come to the Task Force meeting ready to understand what was coming down the pike.

Most of the Oregonian Editors and reporting staff should KNOW why this is set the way it is and for what reasons. If they don't then they really need an education course??

Alan Brettman has been doing some excellent pieces for the paper, just don't understand this one..

[Chief]

I don't understand it either.

This thing already costs a fortune as it is right now, and there are already enough problems pending with trying to raise the money as it is; now is certainly not the time to start trying to find ways to make it more expensive...

I also toyed with the possiblility that the Oregonian is looking for an excuse to walk away from the project so they don't get upstaged by Clark County voters when they shoot this monstrosity down in flames...

[Waterbuffalo]

I don't understand it either.

This thing already costs a fortune as it is right now, and there are already enough problems pending with trying to raise the money as it is; now is certainly not the time to start trying to find ways to make it more expensive...

I also toyed with the possibility that the Oregonian is looking for an excuse to walk away from the project so they don't get upstaged by Clark County voters when they shoot this monstrosity down in flames...

Well at this moment, its still up in the air as to whats, wheres and how much atm. So any thing is possible. If it does get built fine, if not fine by me. Only difference it seems between either state or political persuasion is if light rail with liter fluid comes across the bridge.

Seems to be the only political difference to me...

[Waterbuffalo]

Important points of the article: (according to me..)

"The $4.2 billion vision, the largest public works project in the Northwest, has bowed to the needs of Pearson Field, a landing strip in Vancouver that requires airspace just over the bridge's northern reaches. On average, about 70 planes a day -- most privately owned single-engine propeller craft -- take off from the airfield, just east of I-5, while more than 135,000 vehicles a day travel the highway below.

That prohibits anything taller than a lamppost on the bridge, said Ron Anderson, an engineer on contract for the Columbia River Crossing project.

"We absolutely don't think you can build with anything major above the deck that doesn't impact . . . Pearson air park," Anderson said. "

<snip middle part..>

"Pressures on the design rise from the river, too, as the bridge needs to be high enough for barges and sailboats to pass. Result: The new Columbia River bridge is caught in a water and sky traffic squeeze, leaving designers few options."

<snip..>

"Several options are in play. But the most popular calls for a new 12-lane bridge that extends light rail into Vancouver and rebuilds six highway interchanges, including the freight-heavy Marine Drive crossing in North Portland.

From downtown Vancouver, the bridge will rise 95 feet above the main navigation channel, high enough to allow nearly all barges and sailboats to pass. But it cannot reach higher than 170 feet above the river -- the low-point for Pearson's protected airspace.

That leaves a 75-foot window for the bridge itself: deck, lampposts and all, said Matt Deml, a bridge engineer with Parsons Brinckerhoff, a contractor on the Columbia River Crossing. "

[Chief]

All of that is true WB, and anyone who has attended any of the Open HOuse events sponsored by the CRCP would already know that. This article makes the Oregonian look late to the party...

[Waterbuffalo]

No, it looks like someone is late on the switch and ignorant of what's been proposed right from the start and what has been proposed for more than 20 years in this same area. Not sure if its the writer who might be knew to the story or an editor that fell asleep.