Talk:Oregon Route 35

I'm surprised that pears are not mentioned in the "produce around Hood River" paragraph but apples and cherries are. As far as apples and cherries go, I don't know, but I do know I've never seen such a concentration of pear orchards as exist between Hood River and Parkdale!

This highway is currently out of service - should a mention of this be included in the article? --70.218.101.168 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, as hopefully the closure is temporary. Wikipedia articles supply basic information about a subject, and not necessarily up-to-the-minute news. If the road closure is notable, for instance if it continues for a long time, it might be included as history. That's what I think, anyway. Here's a link to a news story about the closure if anyone needs it: [1]. Here's the ODOT page that currently mentions the closure and several others: [2]. Katr67 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. It sounds like the road is going to be closed for a while and the washout is pretty serious. Anyway, they said so on this morning on OPB and that's good enough for me. Thanks for mentioning it! Katr67 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Split

I think the Washington State Route 35 section should be split into a new article because it has potiential of being a future Washington State Route. ComputerGuy890100^Talk_Polls 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the split. It is going to be a future Washington state highway, but from what I can tell, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Plus, even when it does happen, it will still only be a mile-long extension of the Oregon Route. In fact, an opposite comment was made on Talk:Washington State Route 41, saying that once we create and article on the Idaho state highway, then those two articles would be merged together. -- Kéiryn ^talk 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose too; the whole thing is just the bridge approach. --NE2 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I Oppose. The SR-35 designation would only be a formality just like how OR 433 is a formality from Longview/Kelso to Rainier as SR-433 to US 30. TEG (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does OR 433 actually exist? --NE2 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Only on paper, just like SR-35 will. OR-433 is completely maintained by WSDOT all the way to the bridge over US-30. From what I'm reading about the possible future crossing, the SR-35 designation is going to be on paper only, with the bridge signed as OR-35.TEG (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any reference on ODOT's site of OR 433 existing, and I kind of doubt that WSDOT would maintain a road in Oregon, although it's not unheard of. What I can find on WSDOT's site [3] indicates that for any maintenance project on the 433 bridge, ODOT is at least involved in funding, if not the actual work.

That's all tangential to the point at hand though, which is basically, no split. -- Kéiryn ^talk 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember that in Oregon, not everything maintained by the state has a route number. The connection to SR 433 is an unnumbered spur of the Lower Columbia River Highway. --NE2 01:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So OR 433 doesn't exist, but the road is a state highway? Is it maintained by ODOT? -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a state highway. On the Highway 2W (92) video log, it's the various connections between miles 48 and 49. TransGIS (generic mapping) confirms this. The main route is "92AU", and extends to the south end of the bridge; ramps are named 92AS, 92AT, 92AV, 92AW, and 92AX. Since the bridge itself is not maintained by ODOT, it is not part of 92AU. According to "I-5 Bridge work to slow night traffic", from the July 15, 2007 Columbian, "The Interstate 5 Bridge is actually two spans, one opened in 1917 and the other in 1958. It's owned jointly by Oregon and Washington, but under an agreement, Oregon is responsible for maintenance and operations. In exchange, the Lewis and Clark Bridge connecting Longview with Rainier, Ore., also jointly owned by the two states, is maintained and operated by Washington." --NE2 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)