What do you mean "finally?"

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/06/planners_ignored_river_users_w.html

That was eight months ago. The bridge has been redesigned, and it's still too low.

This appeared in December:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/columbia_river_crossing_manage.html

Still pretty noncommittal. They save the really shrill stuff for now, when it's apparently too late.

The whole project has that air of urgency that is so vital to any waste of tax payer funds.

God, how many times to we have to go down the same path with the idiots in government.

This fustercluck is laying an egg large enough to hatch a white elephant...to nowhere....$4billion and where she stops nobody knows! What a sorry embarrassment.

Jack:
If it's not redundant to something you put out much earlier, please catch me up on your references to "the smell of Goldschmidt" and similar shots, whatever. I used to be a Neil supporter years ago,(late sixties-seventies) but after his shenanigans with the baby sitter I stopped.
Does he still wield that much political power? Just like Mayor Creepy and his faithful sidekick, I'd rather forget all of them and move on. Is that possible? It almost seems like you'e kicking a dead horse?, or, maybe not?

I know of two businesses east of the bridge that have lamented for over three years to the CRC Planners that the bridge was too low. Totally ignored.

Same goes for the downtown MLR Bridge for lightrail and bikes across the Willamette being built-it's too low, not meeting navigation regs.

Metro, CoPs, TriMet are like Gestapo around here. And now the Oregon Legislature has joined them. Someone should sue them.

So they approve and "make us all pay" for it later one way or another? Let us hope Washington won't come through with the money, no more fed. money and coast guard says no. Otherwise I am afraid we will be tolled unduly. Question? Will the bicyclists be required to pay a toll? Don't forget, they are starting to put a head tax on us too, with the art tax.
Speaking of state and federal dollars available - in my opinion, it is far more critical to spend what dollars we do have to what could be done to the Hanford tanks leaking into the river. A bridge can be built later, this radioactive material is needing attention NOW!

Goldschmidt just greased the skids for the real heavyweights. He was their henchman whom they had a lot of dirt on for insurance. Adams was just their local concierge and Leonard their poolboy.

Lee,
Something is so wrong in our community when those deciding are lock step either in moving forward with the agenda or remaining silent.
I wonder if some of those businesses that need the correct height for their needs could join efforts to file a lawsuit. I assume they are in communication with the coast guard.
It is totally disgusting that we citizens and/or businesses have to resort to costly lawsuits because our elected officials don't care about our interests.

Does he still wield that much political power?

Let's see, he still runs the Port, Tri-Met, the state pension investments, the gas company -- the places where the megamillions get spent. If you don't think that crew is behind this, you haven't been paying attention.

The new bridge's clearance will be LOT lower. Very sad story in today's paper re. a business that will not be able to move its cargo under the newly-planned bridge. And all because it has to be that low to accommodate light rail. I'm sure that this business is not the only river-user who will be impacted. And they have no other option except to remove their goods somewhere downriver and truck them to Oregon City, Hood River or wherever they are bound. And Washington State is now talking about tolling traffic over 205 because of an anticipated rise in traffic volume due to CRC construction.

When will it ever end. Who knows? But all we hear is that it has to be RIGHT AWAY and RIGHT NOW.

I'm also not clear on how Oregon can approve a project that Olympia has not yet completely committed to. They're suppose to provide half the money, apparently, and I haven't seen any proof that this will ever happen.

Multiply THIS image by a factor of ten and imagine it's ON the water and tens of thousands waiting to use the bridge:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/02/wal-mart_truck_driver_wedges_t.html#incart_river

Now that I think of it, it may be somebody's sneaky little master plan to block river traffic and force it to the new "desperately needed" Hayden Island port for redirection.

I'm waiting to hear "it's too late now, contracts have already been signed, you'll all get sued".

P.S. I also bet that they're acting this way because somebody, somewhere has already said "don't worry about it, it's all taken care of".

You just don't have the right industrial need.  If you have the Washington Post and its need for newsprint, then the drawbridge gets built with federal funds.

Its been at least a year, but I read somewhere "The O?" that 60 million has already been spent just on studies, lobbyists etc. Not a single teaspoon of river mud has been moved yet. Amazing

To be fair, one business located in 2010. So they basically knew the drill - located anyway - and is now looking for a payout. Plus port of Portland and port of vAncouver both have some surplus land downriver that they can locate folks at.

Cost of building something, sure. Payout to opportunistic businesses, sure. Solves anything, no.

This is a proxy for land use in Clark County. CLF should fight that battle rather than dinking around on the bridge. Even the failure of the bridge won't change that land use issue. Feel good do nothing. Go Portlandia!

It is not about the bridge, it is about spending the money.

your all missing the solution.

Just lower the river, problem solved.

Isn't it really about the "need" for light rail so the developers have another territory to build? Land use it is. . .

Nobody's a more fervent opponent of the CRoCk than I am, but come on . . . . that manufacturer featured in the O's big article needs 150 feet of clearance. No bridge without a draw span is going to do the trick for them, light rail or no.

Well, they're here, and they rely on the drawbridge. It's amazing that with all the wildlife we're willing to kill in the name of Columbia River shipping, we would actually make the river less navigable.

Not to mention that the people in Clark County don't want the train, and will never, ever want it. The whole light rail scam is just another Earl Blumenauer little boy temper tantrum, egged on by the fat daddies in the rail mafia (Neil G.'s crew presiding).

Well the Portland D's may like Earl Blumenauer but here is what was said about him on a progressive national blog:

But thought I’d add some perspective on the man himself. Bottom line: I’ve had pieces of toilet paper dragging from my shoe that were more principled than Earl Blumenauer.

Read more as to why this comment:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/08/27/earl-blumenauer-leading-the-way-for-progressive-democrats-to-cut-social-security/

Some legislators have voted or will vote for it because they are little dictators and think the congestion priced tolling will reduce traffic by getting people out of their cars. The reality is congestion pricing is an income based rationing of highway use on I-5 to the point low and middle income drivers will consume more fuel by diverting to I-205 thereby adding more congestion on that route. Transit simply won't work for them. Meanwhile, elite and well-to-do drivers will continue to use the I-5 crossing. A yes vote for the bill as written is a separation of the classes, likely less revenue from tolling than if it was lowered, and a huge unfunded increase in unsustainable operating subsidies for transit, at least until TriMet goes broke.

Can't the Coast Guard nix the CRC?

On the Oregon Coast, the Coast Guard gets standing ovations during the fourth of July parades.

A part of me thinks that the Coast Guard could be our savior by veto-ing the bridge.

My heroes....saving boaters and maybe
everyone else ....

But the Coast Guard answers to the federal government, doesn't it? Their word wouldn't be the last.

Contrarian thinking:

1. Unless you consider the existing bridge is just fine, a new bridge is needed.

2. It's 2013. A new bridge will cost mountains of cash, Goldschmidt or not.

3. Do it right. The link above to the Woodrow Wilson bridge is an example, even if the Washington Post did benefit. Plenty big enough for the foreseeable future.

4. Include light rail (and separate, safe bike and pedestrian components). Light rail is impractical now. It won't become practical until after it's built and additional societal and cultural changes occur, as they surely will.

5. Pay for it, in part, with tolls on both bridges over the Columbia. (What is wrong with tolls? The users contribute to the cost and upkeep.)

6. Everybody pays in some fashion, everybody benefits. Especially the local economy during construction.

7. Thank the Lord and FDR that today's prevalent attitudes weren't controlling back then.

Does he still wield that much political power? Just like Mayor Creepy and his faithful sidekick, I'd rather forget all of them and move on. Is that possible?

Goldschmidt is "retired" in much the same way that Don Vito Corleone was just "in the olive oil business".

No other major bridge Project in the Country is reducing clearance from that of existing bridges. (See, Tappan Zee and Bayonne, as examples.) In fact, the opening on the new Panama Canal is going to dramatically shift the dynamics of American shipping, and while I don’t expect post-Panamax ships would ever be able to transit above the I-5 Bridge, the shifting markets might enhance the dynamics for dredging above I-5 to the full currently authorized depth of 25’, or even to match the existing depth downriver.

. . . .FDR that today's prevalent attitudes weren't controlling back then.

In my view, FDR projects money actually reached the people. This so far has appeared to be for special interests. As I stated before, we have billions? Let us put those dollars if at all possible to those leaking radioactive tanks at Hanford. A bridge can always be built later if needed.

6. Everybody pays in some fashion, everybody benefits.

My point here is that the public pays and pays and pays forever more here and it is not for everybody's benefit.

Include light rail (and separate, safe bike and pedestrian components). Light rail is impractical now. It won't become practical until after it's built and additional societal and cultural changes occur, as they surely will.

Rail is 19th century. It was practical then. By what logic or kabuki is it going to be repracticalized in the 21st century.?

when and if the Coast Guard approves this new design it will be interesting how it got through if the bridge is too low.
1 might suspect a little hanky panky of the US Coast Guard approves a lower bridge across a major River Highway. 1 might think that there is something really really wrong but then again hey that's progress who cares it's just Commerce on 1 of the largest rivers in United States. Nobody cares why should they care?

whoops, I forgot to add that even though the US Coast Guard has final say, if it's in the interests of light rail, somehow, no 1 seems to care. Federal laws are only to be obeyed and carried out by the DOJ if they are consistent with the local and federal rulers of the people. ignored Federal Regulations is nothing new the past 4 years, why worry about it move on nothing to see here

If I had to choose between river traffic flow or light rail and bicycles my vote goes for the correct height needed for the river traffic.

Now that the CroCk is pretty much a done deal in Salem...

What other done deals are happening in Salem? I mentioned awhile back, we need a daily blogger down there.

On another level, what is happening with that West Coast Exchange that Ted Wheeler and others were involved with?