Mega-bridge will never be green

Readers’ Letters

, Jul 29, 2010 (3 Reader comments)

Courtesy rendering

Architect William Badrick says a park roof over the planned Columbia River Crossing would attract worldwide visitors. Readers weigh in on the idea.

ADVERTISEMENTS

It is good to think green, but actions to reduce our impact on nature must stand up to analysis. William Badrick’s idea for a green roof over the proposed Columbia Crossing Bridge does not (Creating our ‘green golden gate’ bridge, July 8). He suggests that the roof would require “no additional load cost” because “[b]ridges are engineered to be three times stronger than needed.”

There is a reason for bridge design loads — engineers are not out to waste our money. So the 23 pounds-per-square-foot load of the green roof will require three times that in additional design load. That would be expensive.

Also, treating runoff from the bridge, although important, is a small part of the carbon footprint of a project that will lead to many more fossil fuel-burning, vehicle miles driven and even more CO2-creating suburban sprawl in Southwest Washington.

Green features cannot make green an infrastructure project that will motivate decades of unsustainable behavior. If we want a green bridge, we need a design that reduces miles driven by fossil fuel-burning cars and freight carriers. Green transportation means buses, trains, bikes and walking to move people and water transportation for freight.

Green economy means more people working close to home and more products produced close to where they are used. Mega-bridges are not the way to sustainability.

Tom Civiletti

Oak Grove

Pedestrian area will solve runoff problem

I like the idea (Creating our ‘green golden gate’ bridge, July 8). Rather than add an additional bridge, why not cap the bridge with a nice pedestrian area that avoids runoff problems? Maybe the hopes for eco-tourism are a bit much, but it’s not a bad way to reduce future costs and impacts of the bridge.

Dave Hogan

Northwest Portland

Green bridge fits sustainability theme

Following the whole Interstate 5 bridge ordeal over the years has been fascinating, and I for one believe it’s been studied and debated long enough. After reading the “Creating our ‘green golden gate’ bridge” (July 8) article in the Sustainable Life section and the “Talk of compromise lifts I-5 bridge” (July 15) article that essentially says 10 lanes could also function adequately, I think maybe a partial re-look is appropriate.

William Badrick’s green bridge idea warrants further consideration and analysis and fits so well with the area’s sustainability theme. A new bridge is needed that will address the aging existing crossing and one that better addresses congestion and going green. This makes sense, and once again our area would be leading the way in going green.

Scott Moore

Northwest Portland

Why not just widen the freeway?

When will it become clear that this emperor has no clothes (Talk of compromise lifts I-5 bridge, July 15)?

I don’t travel I-5 to Vancouver very often at peak hours, but recently did for a fireworks excursion. And it was just as I’d remembered: slow, creeping congestion from the Rose Garden area all the way to the bridge.

But “to the bridge” is the key phrase.

The congestion was south of the bridge, as all the traffic from North Portland, Marine Drive and Columbia Boulevard had to merge into three lanes before the bridge.

But my experience then, as every other time, was that once at the bridge I was home free. Traffic moved smoothly over the bridge, which itself is not the bottleneck! Why don’t we spend a fraction of the billions a new bridge will cost, and widen and redesign the few miles of I-5 just south of the bridge? This is the real locus of the problem.

Jim Gardner

Southwest Portland

1 | 2 Next Page >>