Readers here know of my general disdain for the Columbian, for a variety of reasons. I've rarely had any difficulty in smacking them upside the head when i believe they've let us down. And, while it took the Willamette Week to emphasize the information release in the Oregon Supreme Court decision that has done so much to verify my long-held conclusion that this entire CRC project was about light rail and only about light rail, I cannot fault the newspaper for giving Tim Leavitt enough rope to hang himself repeatedly on his absurd position that we shouldn't be allowed to have a vote on this scam, not their coverage of the utter incompetence of the CRC's inability to figure out how high the bridge must be.
Of course, the height of the bridge is a tough problem, given the FAA restrictions resulting from Pearson Air Field, and while, hopefully, this problem will kill the whole deal, I would expect those with a light rail fetish to work to close the airfield in favor of their light rail plan.
Let me make it clear, as affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court, that we do not need, want or can afford this project... and now that we know the truth of it... from Willamette Week and even the Columbian, it's time for both the project, and those who so rabidly supported it, to go.
And the quicker, the better.
Meanwhile, this kind of story must be difficult for the Columbian, perhaps the most long-fighting public entity for light rail (They were rabid cheerleaders on the wrong side of the political massacres which have been our continuing votes against this since the mid-90's) to print. As a result, their support of this gets the splash of it on them.
That said, I appreciate it.
Kelly, if you ask around city hall or the pearson airfield manager, there was an agreement signed by the city to slowly transition the airport from being what it is NOW to an airport that only allows limited historic plane movements by 2030 and not much further, later the full closing of Pearson from what I remember.
ReplyDeleteI COULD be wrong.
But if your summation is correct. All the pro bridge people would be doing is just simply moving this date forward. That is all. The city by lease from the Parks Service - Fort Vancouver National Trust. (which they control through appointees or special connections....)
I can tell you that this issue concerning the height of the new bridge design was brought to the attention of the CRC years ago. The Towboat association supposedly signed off on the lower hieght restrictions and that was good enough for the CRC. This does not represent an oversight on the part of the CRC, it has to do with the gradient neccesary for light rail and the footprint of the proposed new bridge. As you may recall commerce is a large part of the CRC argument for a new bridge, apparently that doe's not include present and future upriver commerce considerations. We owe the new coast guard administrator a round of applause for setting the CRC straight on this matter. In addendum for those who are interested, the next phase of the project to the tune of 5 million of your dollars will be to begin pounding test piles on Hayden Island and boring test holes up to 10' diameter to a possible depth of 280', something the chosen contractor has never done. This the CRC claims may save upwards of 50 to 60 million in the long run. This will take place at the Port of entry permits parking lot, how this will adversly effect trucking/truckers and traffic on the island I do not Know. Test drilling has been taking place for a couple of years already and to my knowledge no drill ever touched base rock although they did find a large subteranean void underneath marine drive...Have a nice day
ReplyDeleteFascinating that they don't even know how far down bedrock is.
ReplyDelete