Columbia River Crossing … a tunnel, a “Burnside Bridge” with MAX, and a freight arterial with added passenger rail capacity … Let’s call it the “4-4-2.”
Deliberations have begun on different options for a Columbia River Crossing. A tunnel under the Columbia River (including Oregon Slough/Portland Harbor) may offer a simple – even elegant, data based and cost effective solution to this transportation challenge – separating through trips from local ones. Then the fun begins…
The I-5 Task Force recommended 10 total lanes – freeway/auxiliary/arterial – and a pair of lightrail tracks between Oregon and Washington; data shows that at least 1/3, if not more, of all trips across the existing Interstate Bridges are of local origin with local destinations. “4-4-2” addresses the growing demand for local access across the Columbia River by creating a variety of options for those trips:
- Four (4) through freeway lanes in a tunnel, going to six (6) lanes at Columbia Blvd. in Portland and Mill Plain Blvd. in Vancouver. (Columbia and Mill Plain are key E/W freight arterials)
- Four (4) arterial lanes for local traffic on existing twin Interstate Bridges with dedicated light rail alignment in what are now the inside lanes.
- Two (2) new arterial lanes designed for freight on upgraded railroad bridge – new lift and possible 3rd track for passenger rail.
- Boulevard type arterial with traffic signals and/or circles for traffic distribution replaces existing freeway between River and Mill Plain; redevelop old freeway right-of-way between downtown Vancouver and Historic Reserve.
- Boulevard type arterial with traffic signals and/or circles for traffic distribution replaces existing freeway from River to Denver Avenue/MLK and Marine Dr; redevelop vacated right-of-way and adjacent property between Columbia and bridgehead.
- Upgrade & widen sidewalks on Interstate Bridges; add bike bridge in space between bridges supported by existing structures.
The Tunnel option simplifies construction logistics, has fewer impacts on river traffic, water quality, fish or air traffic. The conversion of the existing Interstate Bridges, retains historic structures, re-using them in new ways to accommodate local vehicle and transit trips. Removal/conversion of existing freeway segments captures valuable land adjacent to transit, arterials and the River for re-development…commercial, industrial or residental/retail.
The original Interstate Bridge, built in 1917, had four traffic lanes with streetcar tracks – you could take the Union Avenue streetcar to downtown Vancouver! With the construction of I-5 through North Portland and across the River, a second bridge was built and together the twin bridges became I-5 – the arterial and transit connections were lost!
“4-4-2” restores the arterial/rail connectivity between Portland and Vancouver.
7 responses to “4-4-2 Columbia Crossing”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland already connected by a rail line with a river crossing located just to the west of the Interstate Bridge? By eliminating the rail component of the “4-4-2” plan, how much money is saved? How much of that money can be put toward improving rail service (freight and passenger) between Portland and Seattle, thereby improving rail service between Portland and Vancouver?
Adding High Speed Rail capacity to the design of the Columbia River Crossing is my passion right now. I spoke at the last meeting in Vancouver (end of May, I believe). Freight traffic needs it’s own corridor and bridges over the Columbia and Willamette. High Speed Rail needs dedicated right of way for true high speed service. In the future, this demand for HS Rail will increase and we will then have to spend $1 Billion on a separate bridge. Why not save the cash and design into the CRC the structual capacity to handle a future HS rail line?
Down the road we design a east side corridor along I5 and the lower east side (raised above the bridge ramps for the view would be an awesome sight).
We have to invest and plan now for a east side train station and corridor. It takes too long going over the two Willamette River bridges. All of our big tourist stops for big crowd are near the Rose Quarter and the convention center.
Air travel will not get cheaper, oil costs will only go up. We, citizen of metro Portland, need to stand up and say to the civic and business leaders that without High Speed Rail this city will become too isolated to compete.
High Speed Rail in CRC Design!
$1 billion for a separate rail crossing? Where did THAT number come from? That’s just awesome.
The bottom line here is both Salem and Olympia will need to agree on the design, cost, and funding for the bridge. Given Seattle’s on-going experience with rail, will Olympia be willing to help fund what is essentially a Portland transportation initiative? Clark County is cutting funding for public transit because of low demand. They’ve also voted down light rail in the past. What if anything has changed politically?
Thanks for your input on this matter. The big expense with my “4-4-2” proposal is actually the roadway tunnel under the river for I-5 through traffic. Adding lightrail to the reconfigured Interstate Bridges would actually be relatively cheap…no new brige required!
Improvements to the heavy rail bridge would be in partnership with its owner..BNSF, and note that the State of Washington is very supportive of inter-city rail, and both states are likely to support an improved freight connection between the two Ports.
Last, every bridge across the Columbia except The Dalles bridge and I-82 bridge near Hermiston have been paid for with tolls, so we can assume that tolls would pay for some of the cost of whatever is built here. That plus some federal resources for a bi-state facility on I-5.
Lenny Anderson, Swan Island TMA, past member of I-5 TF
Chris wrote:
“1 billion for a separate rail crossing? Where did THAT number come from? That’s just awesome.
The bottom line here is both Salem and Olympia will need to agree on the design, cost, and funding for the bridge. Given Seattle’s on-going experience with rail, will Olympia be willing to help fund what is essentially a Portland transportation initiative? Clark County is cutting funding for public transit because of low demand. They’ve also voted down light rail in the past. What if anything has changed politically?”
First, the $1 billion comes from the documents that speak to a $1.2 billion bridge for the configuration of the bridge as it stands now (8 lanes, LRT, and pedestrian). A bridge for only high speed rail shouldn’t cost that much, but the main structural requirements for the crossing will be constant. A high speed rail bridge might cost alot less, but I doubt it. The bottom line is spending the money (for engineering and superstructure) now on the bridge with high speed rail (intra-city) will save that $500 million to $1 billion. If clearing the freight train routes through Portland and Vancouver from dealing with delays for High Speed Rail schedules helps our economy down the road, I would hope Burlington Northern, Oregon, and Washington would consider this cheap engineering step that could save us the cost of another bridge.
Please read the report from Cambridge Systems, prepared for ODOT, titled “Regional Economic Effects of the I-5 Corridor/Columbia River Crossing Transportation Choke Points”. I believe separating our freight and passenger rail services will help allow both modes of rail to expand and service our growing population (see 2005-07-08 Portland Tribune on the latest projections).
Secondly, high speed rail added to the Columbia River Crossing configuration (whatever that may be) is not a “Portland transportation initiative” only asset. Light Rail and High Speed Rail are two totally different services supporting totally different requirements.
Think of High Speed Rail in terms of the TGV system in France (intra-city, e.g., Paris to Lyon).
Yes, you are correct that Salem and Olympia will need to agree on the design, etc., of the Crossing. That is why I have gone to one of the CRC Meetings. The public is voicing their opinions there (pro LRT, anti-LRT, great design, etc.).
I am asking for the powers that be to look at the Northwest 30 years down the road. I’m having my doubts that they will follow this line of thought since it’s a vision well beyond alot of people.
Lenny,
Just a thought on the Tunnel Option: The I5 Partnership documentation says that a tunnel option shouldn’t be in the mix of the Columbia River Crossing. I think the logic here was one of cost. They felt that a bridge would do the job cheaper.
Also, I think the old bridge(s) are coming down for two reasons. First is maintanence costs and second is the safety issues for the barge traffic.
I hope the new crossing is suspension to allow for a wide channel for the barge traffic and for its value as a landmark.
But again, my biggest issue is getting people to see the big picture and include high speed rail in to the design. Check out my article in the Friday Portland Tribune (08-19-05). That issue of the Tribune is a good one for transportation articles. They really put some resources into the five articles and the short overview, I think. My hat is off to them for this work.
Ray Whitford
Lenny,
Just a thought on the Tunnel Option: The I5 Partnership documentation says that a tunnel option shouldn’t be in the mix of the Columbia River Crossing. I think the logic here was one of cost. They felt that a bridge would do the job cheaper.
Also, I think the old bridge(s) are coming down for two reasons. First is maintanence costs and second is the safety issues for the barge traffic.
I hope the new crossing is suspension to allow for a wide channel for the barge traffic and for its value as a landmark.
But again, my biggest issue is getting people to see the big picture and include high speed rail in to the design. Check out my article in the Friday Portland Tribune (08-19-05). That issue of the Tribune is a good one for transportation articles. They really put some resources into the five articles and the short overview, I think. My hat is off to them for this work.
Ray Whitford