Talk:Columbia River Crossing

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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).

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as 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/

-Pete (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Collecting sources toward later revision

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/feb/13/ore-legislative-panel-backs-i-5-bridge-plan/