The same environmentalist who opposed the LNG, Coal Terminal any form industry in Oregon are responsible for the process and cost debacle of the CRC.

Engineers have became wussies, as their professional practice has been hi-jacked by ignorant environmentalist. Today environmentalist and their tree hugging allies are illegally practising traffic engineering and determining the number of lanes of proposed freeways.

They’re also involved in bridge design,as they’ve introduced new design parameters and restrictions that affect bridge pier foundation and superstructure material. Their enablers in the biological science community are now issuing false papers in line with their climate change quackery to assert thatr boulders and rip-rap absorb heat to warm rivers and eventually kill fish, in Pacific Northwest where the shadowy sun appears reluctantly for barely 36 days!

The engineering profession in the US needs to fight back to preserve the integrity of their profession. The first line of action is to close the EPA, which has transformed into a job killing organization issuing impossible demands each day.

The CRC is also a victim of its location -Portland. If this bridge were to be anywhere outside Multnomah County, it would’ve been built. The outrageous demands, concerns and provisions from special interest groups all from the Oregon side of the stateline lay bare the small-mindedness of the politics of the Portland area. The other farcical aspect of this process is the insistence that Light Rail trackway becomes part of rising cost to stroke the ego of the witlessat Metro. Poor Vancouverites, they’ll have to shed $$ for a rail line 99% of them will never use. The gangs now have a free ride to establish bases in Vancouver, yipee!

If you want to some of the dumbest ideas stalling economic development in Oregon, just checkout the HOV lanes on I-5 at the Portland side through the Delta Park bottleneck portion of the freeway.

There’s absolutely no redeeming value in a project with such extensive public involvement process. It defeats the very purpose of public involvement. Lets leave engineers to do what they do best. Lets leave WSDOT and ODOT to build a basic bridge for at least $600 Million. The world will continue to turn, no salmon will be extinct and there’ll no toll.

Off to shoot the sea lions.

Can we take what has been done to date as ‘research into the forces – physical and political – that are affecting the solutions? Then engage a design team to take the overview afresh and re-start the design process with a few clear objectives that must include land use impacts, aesthetics, and economies and thereby empower the designers to do their best work. As an architect I understand that the definition of the problem at hand is key in enabling the design team to be creative and accurate in their work. I believe that this bridge project to date has suffered from a narrow definition of the design challenge.

The bridges of Norman Foster and Santiago Calatrava show how elegant and compelling an engineering solution can be. These beautiful structures gain broad-based support as points of regional pride. With several years of “research” done – clearances, environmental impacts, costs, traffic counts, tolling strategies, etc. – we can now more accurately define the design challenge we have. This CRC will be the image for Vancouver… for better or worse. The creative engineering talent is there to be commissioned if we can only see broadly enough to engage them.

Although nobody wants to invoke the Tram, I would argue that it is both beautiful and economical as well as facilitating dramatic leaps in urban development along the Willamette River. I believe the Tram is an example of bigger thinking and high expectations that we can learn from.

Empowering the bridge designer IS the right direction in my estimation. But it must be the right bridge designer who is capable of taking the broadest views and creating compelling alternatives to bring to the public and DOTs. The committees that were assembled to advise on these urban and aesthetic issues were ignored. The decision-making processes devolved into ear-plugging and eye-covering strategies sanctioned by the Governor in order to move the project along. We only need to look to similar size and scope bridge projects in Europe to see this comprehensive approach…headed by designers.

The saddest part of the CRC saga is how big an opportunity is being missed in this contentious process. This is a time to create a symbol for the re-centering of our urban pattern here in Vancouver/Portland with the Columbia at the center line. It is a time to transcend the boundaries artificially placed between the states. Utilizing federal dollars to commission and build this improved link could be both an economic boon and an underscoring of the progressive brand we have fought so hard to achieve in this region.

So I heartily agree with the thesis that the bridge designers need more authority and control. But the series of designers thus far has been a parade of engineers who limit rather than expand the vision and creativity brought to this spectacular opportunity.