Talk:Columbia River Crossing
 | Oregon Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | United States: Washington Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Sources for expansion
- This May 2012 blog post has a good recap of media coverage about the CRC: http://www.blueoregon.com/2012/05/bad-few-months-costly-risky-crc-mega-project/
2013 Expansions and NPOV
I am not seeing any need to put in a Template:POV at this time but if there is a desire to phrase this project in terms of pros and cons, I would argue that it makes more sense to create sections to explicitly place arguments for and against the project. I'd encourage editors with a strong view for or against to consult WP:NPOV to identify proper ways to address arguments for and against the project cleanly, perhaps with a section on criticisms or something similar. Rorybowman (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup, NPOV
I've just tagged the article for cleanup and npov.
This project has been a controversial one in metro-Portland for some years now. It would be good to have an objective analysis of various versions of the proposal and what they specifically entail, and also an organized presentation of the various reasons some are opposed to (some or all versions of) the plan, along with responses (if any) from proponents to those concerns.
It's my understanding that the opposition falls into a number of different categories - from fiscal conservatives who don't want to spend money on any big infrastructure project to environmentalists who don't want to spend money on a road project, to neighborhood activists concerned about local impacts, to concern over the funding and tolls, etc. I've even heard from opponents who were opposed to one version of the plan because it would not include any new traffic lanes.
If possible, it would also be good to note any changes to the discourse since the I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse.
This is something of a complex a nuanced issue, but one which has become highly polarized. This Wiki article could be a real asset if it were to discuss the specific details of the various proposals and the nature of arguments on various sides. -Helvetica (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PS - I've also marked as dubious the article's assertion that the CRC would cause a 30% increase in the area's GHG emissions. It was referenced to a dead link, but even if a replacement is found, such calculations include a large degree of subjectivity and guess work, so they need to be reported as someone's opinion/conclusion, not asserted by Wikipedia as fact. There are a number of confounding variables, such as they fact that the CRC proposals include an expansion of the MAX train to Vancouver, which could actually reduce vehicle traffic. -Helvetica (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Narrative Arc Now A Political One
Given the recent demise of the project, it probably makes sense to re-organize the article as a political one, touching on the physical aspects of the project but reframing more on the political ones, which are really what the "controversy" was about, mostly for politically partisan purposes within and around Clark County, Washington. Reframing the history of the project as a political narrative makes more sense and would neatly resolve its present (lack of clear) structure. The basic arc is now one of proposal, delay, opposition and defeat, with special attention due to David Madore of US Digital Corporation and his self-financed NoTolls.com political platform. Rorybowman (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Collecting sources toward later revision