This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 27, 2013 10:29 AM. The previous post in this blog was HP customer "service" never quite gets it right. The next post in this blog is Cr-apartment innovation: Don't let the tenants have cars. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

You didn't flush hard enough, Portland

It's amazing, but Nutsy Smith is now appearing in a radio ad opposing the CRoCk. Or at least, so says a reader who sent along a sound file to prove it. It sure sounds like him. No wonder the bridge bills are passing; the opponents have no judgment whatsoever.

Comments (9)

The flushing analogy made me think of Jefferson Smith as a human upper decker.

"upper-decker" that made me laugh out loud.

Being on the same side as Nutsy makes me reconsider my position--but I still dislike the CRC.


When you say, "I still dislke the CRC," are you saying this particular bridge plan, or do you mean any bridge plan?

I hear where you're going with that, G. Joubert. If people don't think it's time to replace the bridge, that's one thing. If you do, then there's still plenty to feel terrible about with the way every politician and consultant around seems to want to use this project to wet their beaks - as the Mafia would say. So which is it? Do we need a new bridge or not?

I happened to be in a building in Northwest Portland at around 2:45 on a Friday. There was a magnificent view of the Fremont Bridge and the traffic on both levels was barely moving. I mean a person could walk faster than this. I asked the receptionist how often it happens and she said a lot. This wasn't a rush hour thing either. This was 2:45 on Friday afternoon.

I read so much complaining about how anti-car Portland is, and how unwise our country has been to blow money on necessary wars instead of infrastructure.

So here's an infrastructure project - clearly mismanaged but still a major investment in interstate commerce - and many of the same people who complain about the anti-car climate, still hate this.

Not to harp on the earthquake angle either, but if we make this into something that will survive or be easier to repair if/when the Big One hits, that's a win.

After the Big One we will have quite a "To do" list." Why add, "Fish the rusting remains of a worn out bridge out of the Columbia and begin building a new one" to it? I could see the old bridge collapsing in a quake and shutting down the Columbia for months.

Look, I don't know why the traffic was so congested on the Fremont Bridge at that hour a couple of weeks back, but it looked like a system that needed work. Clearly the idea of raising a drawbridge on I-5 does not help. So once you get to the idea that this will help traffic, isn't that good?

I know we've been dinged before. Because of all the spending shenanigans, there is a tendency to say this has to be a horrible idea too. But if we need a new bridge, shouldn't we build one? I'd rather build a new bridge than invade Iran. I'm just sayin'.

And I don't get why Jefferson Smith is against it. This could give Jefferson Smith an exciting new challenge. Instead of just trying to outrun emergency vehicles or driving 90 mph someplace, he can get into running tolls.

Whoops. By "necessary wars" I meant "unnecessary wars."

I probably disagree with half of his reasons for opposing the CRC (and maybe he had nothing left to lose anyway) but at least he had the balls to stand up to the political machine that has been wrecking our state.

Over half the House Republicans (and nearly all the House Dem's) were too cowardly to do it.

I gotta score this one for Nutsy.

They say the present CRC is the biggest bottleneck on the entire length of I-5. If so, then a new bridge is needed, primarily to keep North-South traffic flowing.

But we knew it was going to be a complete clusterf*** when right from jump they began soliciting input from the bicycling crowd and the light rail contingency, ahead of all other affected stakeholders, including those most directly affected.

All I've heard about are bridge designs. I wonder, did they ever at any point consider other options, such as a tunnel? A tunnel obviates the need for a drawbridge, and can be made as big as they want to accomodate other kinds of vehicles. And, it wouldn't interfere with river traffic either.

I wouldn't build a tunnel under a river in 9.0 earthquake country.

I dunno. If I am reading this correctly, tunnels fare better than ground structures such as bridges in earthquakes, particularly if properly planned and engineered for specific types of seismic events in mind. And to do it right it increases the cost, which may be the deal breaker.

I just wonder if they looked at all options. Given the need to limit heighth on one hand so as to have northbound city center offramps in Vancouver, yet still have it high enough for river traffic underneath, it seems that a tunnel solves that whole debate. Don't remember any discussion.

Clicky Web Analytics