In his letter to the editor (“Use reason in planning bridge,” Our Readers’ Views, June 1), Mr. Ken Breun says that accessibility should be an “afterthought” in our conversation about a new Interstate 5 Bridge.
To me, it is inconceivable that we would go through all the trouble of putting in a new bridge without keeping in mind that there are more modes of transportation than cars. The first two stated goals of the interstate system in Mr. Breun’s letter are “improving safety” and “relieving congestion.” Is there a better way to do that than having safe and accessible routes to get to Portland using alternatives to car travel?
By thinking about cyclists, pedestrians, and those in wheelchairs, we lower the possibility of accidents and truck travel efficiency improves since traffic time improves. Every person crossing the bridge in this way is a potential car off the interstate. Incentivizing the efficiency of transportation methods that aren’t cars in our area helps the interstate system in a much more meaningful way than the needless cruelty that Mr. Breun is proposing.
Our country has come a long way since Eisenhower’s time. There’s no need to build a bridge based around the social policies of the 1950s.
