Talk:Interstate Bridge

Oregon B‑class Top‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Interstate Bridge turns 100: ‘With Iron Bands,’ a century spanned (The Columbian, Feb. 12, 2017)

Name[edit]

Honestly, it doesn't matter if someone has never heard it used. Try searching first before implementing your world view on an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I removed the update tag from the replacement section and added a current event tag.

I also added some links to the current controversy over the bridge, and elaborated a bit about them. What i've added doesn't fully cover all of what's going on right now, so please feel free to add more to it. Jf00830 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition?[edit]

Following the Columbia River Crossing project in the press, I've always assumed that the current Interstate Bridge(s) would be demolished - but I've never seen anything one way or the other on that issue. I'd like to see mention of that in this article, but don't know where to go to get sourced information that's not OR. Or is it that this question hasn't even been considered in the project planning yet? Ipoellet (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to find out is to contact the project management. They should be able to answer whatever questions and/or point you to useful sources. I don't think that's OR. - Denimadept (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRC source[edit]

Here's an interesting interview about the CRC project. -Pete (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4184/is_20080125/ai_n21216938 -Pete (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dead link as of 2 December 2012. Sehome Bay (Leave a message) 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian Traffic[edit]

Since this bridge carries Interstate-5, I assume that there is no pedestrian or bicycle traffic allowed on the bridge, but I'm only just assuming. Can anyone confirm that and make it a part of the article? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are sidewalks outboard of the girders, one each direction. —EncMstr (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement section: biased source[edit]

The paragraph "In 2008, as fuel prices increased...." cites a biased source. The cited article is an opinion piece titled Bridge to Disaster and subtitled "A Proposed New 12-Lane Bridge over the Columbia River Will Cost $4.2 Billion, Increase Traffic, and Do Little to Alleviate Climate Change. What the Hell Are We Thinking?". This opinion piece clearly shows a bias against the options under consideration by the lead government agencies. It is also factually misleading when it states:

"In addition, many on the Portland side of the river fear that a 12-lane highway bridge to Vancouver, which has virtually no land use restrictions, will encourage suburban sprawl and development north of the river." (emphasis added)

The opinion piece's author ignores state laws and local ordinances that restrict land use on the north side of the Columbia River. Washington State has two important laws, the Growth Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which govern land use. Clark County and the City of Vancouver implement those laws with very detailed local ordinances. These ordinances impose significant land use restrictions. For these ordinances, see:

How should the Wikipedia article be revised to remove this factual inaccuracy?
How should a significant arguement against the proposed Columbia River Crossing be presented in this section?

Sehome Bay (Leave a message) 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think there is really too much of an issue. First, all sources are biased. Here, I believe that there are in fact many people who feel exactly as the author of that opinion piece, which is that a large bridge will allow sprawl in Vancouver/Clark County and that Vancouver/Clark County has less land use restrictions than on the Oregon side. I edited the sentence to reflect that (though honestly I did not read the opinion piece/source). I would hypothesize this was more of the intent of the editor adding it to the Wiki-article, that being there is some resistance on this side of the river due to idea that Vancouver/Clark County/WA has less land use restrictions that will cause further sprawl. I have not studied the land use restrictions up north enough to make an informed opinion as to whether or not there is much truth to the common perception about a lack of anti-sprawl laws in Vancouver/Clark County, but it is something often repeated in the media, with the sprawl created by I-205 often mentioned as an example (I guess they tend to overlook the same thing on the Oregon-side with places like Happy Valley, but I cannot control other's opinions and false logic). But I think most can agree that the opinion as such is held by many on the Portland side. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am for a larger than the existing one coupled with a West-Side Bypass that adds third bridge to the west, but I think I am in the minority on that.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317065550/http://www.i-5partnership.com/reports/RegionalEffects_r1.2.pdf to http://www.i-5partnership.com/reports/RegionalEffects_r1.2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating Sirens[edit]

There is set of at least 7 or 8 Air Sirens rigged in the area of this bridge for the purposes of warning Interstate Traffic of an impending bridge lift. Would anyone mind if I did a brief write-up with pics for this fascinating rare warning system for a modern bridge? I might hold off until I can get Audio of the sirens sounding, but that could be a far off dream... It's really neat to hear them wail :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanSafyre (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Interstate Bridge Replacement Program into Interstate Bridge[edit]

The content should be added to the Interstate Bridge#Replacement section to help flesh that out and avoid unneeded duplication. Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOLDly merged, as it is far too short for a standalone article. Once the bridge plans move further along, there should be enough for a separate article. Sounder Bruce 02:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source Cache 2023[edit]

WP:RS links with useful data for later

• https://projects.columbian.com/2023/02/19/interstate-bridge-second-span-revives-tolls/, The Columbian article of 19Feb23 has many details about construction and tolling of second (now southbound) span. Rorybowman (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"cost was later set"[edit]

@ChessEric: The project budget has not been finalized, so using "set" is misleading. We only have estimates, and they should be in ranges due to the various design alterations that are still on the table. I don't know where Willamette Week is pulling their numbers from, but it does not match the documents published on WSDOT's project page. Sounder Bruce 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove the set wording since its misleading. ChessEric 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. I wasn't thinking. My bad. I'm just getting into helping out this project more since I'm normally doing weather stuff. ChessEric 22:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of anything in that range is a $6.3 billion cap proposed by the Oregon legislature for their funding bill. It does not reflect the actual estimated cost nor the project budget. I strongly recommend using The Oregonian and The Columbian instead, as they tend to have better transportation reporting and are higher-quality. Sounder Bruce 22:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Ahhhhhhhh...my bad. I'm still learning this stuff. I'm sorry. :p ChessEric 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rush to revert and just wait a few minutes for a proper explanation to be posted. Alt-weeklies like the Willamette Week and Portland Mercury can be good sources for some issues, but they rarely get transportation reporting that is as in-depth or accurate as a traditional outlet. Sounder Bruce 22:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Sorry about that...I've had to deal with Andrew5 socks a lot in the weather project, so I'm quick to do reverts. I'll work on that in the future. ChessEric 22:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]