"If we build a 10-lane bridge over the Columbia on I-5 we get both more commuters and more jobs in Portland. Don't build it and the jobs go to Vancouver."

To understand the full effect I think its important to look at the jobs/housing balance as a whole. If you don't increase the capacity across the river both people and businesses tend to stick to one side.

A good example is the comparison of United Parcel and Fedex. United Parcel keeps distribution facilities on both sides of the river. So while United Parcel is moving some jobs to Vancouver, its Vancouver employees don't have to use a bridge and neither do its local delivery trucks. Fedex has a single distribution facility and sends its delivery trucks and draws employees across the bridges.

What the model is showing is that without new bridge capacity, businesses act more like United Parcel, with the bridge capacity more of them act like Fedex. Without the capacity, the markets tend to be more distinct, with it they tend to merge.

For those of us who want to promote alternatives to the automobile it ought to be clear that we will build more livable communities if people to live close to where they work and for work to be close to where people live. The impact of adding capacity to the I-5 bridge is the opposite of that.

Worse, support for auto-oriented development on the Vancouver side of the river makes it likely that most of those increased commuters will be in their personal automobile.

The county commission in Vancouver is going through the process right now of opening more of rural Clark County for housing development and WASHDOT is busy expanding the capacity of all the major roads that feed the two bridges across the Columbia. The transit system, on the other hand, is in the process of complete meltdown and cutting service.

Under the current conditions, its seems to me it is irresponsible to be discussing adding any auto capacity to the I-5 or I-205 bridges in the near future. It is guaranteed to drown the Portland street network in traffic and reduce access to employment for people who live in North and Northeast Portland.

Ross, I need to post a quick comment on the Columbia River Crossing issue. Right now, truck traffic in the I5 Corridor is being affected by the lack of capacity across the Columbia. We have to face the fact that commerce in goods need adequate road systems. I5 through Portland hasn't seen any improvements in thirty years.

A new bridge is our gateway. If we continue to grow, we will be stuck with our main commerce route in gridlock.

A new bridge, designed for cars/trucks/people/MAX and high speed rail will give us all options for travel. I'm not advocating a 10 lane deck, 8 lanes would be my choice. But I am advocating for choice (including high speed rail).

The new bridge will be tolled I believe, based on the presentation I saw at the last Columbia River Crossing meeting. No decisions, they just did some study on tolls because paying for the bridge will be the issue.

The second half of the toll issue is the federal law against placing a toll on the I205 bridge.

Growth is coming. The secret is out about Portland. If we don't get Springwater in Gresham and Damascus/Boring going for industial land, the new industry's will go to Vancouver. Why Not!!! They would have better access to I5 North and can deal with Portland traffic as needed.

It's all about good jobs that create value added commodities (design, prototype, and then off shore it, with on-shore customer service).

We are way behind in our local infrastructure needs.

I have a letter into the Tribune that talks about the I5 bridge, The Loop, freight, and high speed rail. They are looking for a counter-point writer. Should be interesting and could be out soon.

Ray

Ray, how do we keep those 10 lanes from filling up wht SOVs? One of the reasons I like the arterial bridge strategy is that it provides some preference for freight. I think we have to become more sophisticated about giving priority to freight over SOVs.

The real issue is freight. It should take priority over the thousands of WA commuters coming to work in OR. You can build 20 lanes, but they will fill up very quickly with communters who buy cheap land farther out in Clark County because the new bridge gives them that option. A bridge dedicated to Freight & transit is all we really need. Why does the region need to worry about Clark County commuters. They have two options with plenty of lanes. If they choose to live where they live then with that choice comes traffic. Having freight be able to avoid the choices of commuters, solves the economic movement problem, limits sprawl and doesn't spend billions on something that won't solve anything.

Ray -

If you put tolls on the bridge today there would be no need to add capacity to it and by gradually increasing the tolls, you could delay the need for new capacity for a long time. Chris is right. There is very little reason to believe adding more lanes will provide any more capacity for freight and commerce.

I also think you are misreading the jobs shift data. The jobs that shift to Vancouver without a bridge are local services for the Vancouver market. I believe the regional employers that drive the economy - the so-called traded sector - are at least as likely to locate in Portland.

For many of the primary factors that deterimine location proximity to services, work force and similar businesses - Vancouver becomes less appealing without the bridge. Of course land will be cheaper there and for some purposes access to Seattle/Tacoma may be more important than access to Portland. But I don't think Oregon is likely to ever be competitive for those industries where those are major factors.

So the answer to Why NOT!!! is because they have worse access to South I5, worse access to services and employees and worse access to the region's largest market.

I do think we need new capacity across the river at some point. For one thing, we will need to get light rail across the river. Adding capacity for future high speed rail is a good idea as well. And we do need to improve freight access to the Ports. Moreover, Vancouver and Portland's economies are linked and we need to make them more integrated, not less.

But as we have seen from the discussion of the the arterial bridge, there is simply not the political will at this point to add new capacity in a way that protects it for freight by making it unavailable for commuters. Putting light rail across the river now is almost useless when there isn't a transit system for it to connect to that would make it a meaningful alternative for commuters. And adding capacity to the bridge makes the development of such a system in Vancouver less likely. It encourages a continued auto dependent suburban development pattern that is difficult to serve with transit even if the political will is there.

So timing is everything. We need to start by putting tolls on the existing bridges. Then we need to provide real alternatives for people so they can avoid paying those tolls. And finally we need to add capacity once we are using the existing capacity efficiently.

In any case, we ought to demand, at minimum, that the number of Single Occupancy Vehicles using the bridge not increase at all from the current level. If we are going to add more vehicles to the Portland street grid, they ought to at least be carrying more than one passenger. That isn't going to happen just by creating an HOV lane.

On this side of the river we tend to use Vancouver and Clark County interchangeably, but they really are different animals. Vancouver seems to have many of the same goals for development that the regional centers on the Oregon side have. It is the auto dependent new development in semi-rural Clark County and communities like Battleground that is the problem.

We also need to realize that it is not just "commuters" that use the I-5 and I-205 bridges. It is pretty obvious that a lot of trips are people shopping on the Oregon side. Jantzen beach is the most obvious, but I think if you go to any of the big box retail that have been built in the industrial areas along the Columbia, you will find most of the license plates in the parking lot are from Washington. Its not just the customers, but the employees who live across the river.

You essentially have a scarce commodity, industrial land, being used by national chains and people in Clark County as a sort of duty-free zone. To the extent we decrease the cost, whether in dollars or time, of crossing the river we increase the advantage of driving to Oregon to avoid the sales tax.

Ross,

My main issue is that High Speed Rail is not, at this point, part of Columbia River Crossing (CRC). The single point I'm trying to get buy off on is that adding the capacity for a HS Train Corridor into the new Bridge(s) is to our advantage as a region from Eugene to BC. For one reason, we will be saving at least $500 Million in construction cost in the future when we realize that our passenger rail system needs major upgrading and thus another bridge.

The second reason I'm always talking about including HS rail into the CRC is to move the Union Station to a new east side Train\Bus\MAX\Water Taxi\Streetcar location at the former I84/I5 Interchange. I call the transit center the "Trails End Station" in honor of Lewis & Clark, The Oregon Trail, and Native America History in Northwest Oregon.

I'm trying to get Portland and Vancouver to straight out our Amtrak service to shave off at least 20 minutes just to get through this town.
Right now, we have to slow down from Oregon City to the Lower East side. Then it slows down more near the river and has to basically stop to get across the Steel Bridge.

After the turn into the Union Station stop, the train slowly makes its way up North to again basically stop to turn right to line up with the second bridge crossing over the Willamette. Our current route is a zigzag with an extra zig. We should be demanding a straight arrow "Number One" alignment.

I want to start at CRC before its too late. Think of a service that costs $10.00 (if space is available on the city to city car) to get to downtown Portland from downtown Vancouver or Oregon City in five minutes or less.

As for the number of lanes needed at CRC, I would be glad to have a new bridge that is safer that the current lift span facility at six lanes (my personal choice would be to have eight lanes in total available but not necessarily finished). It is the last lift span in the Interstate System. The current I5 Bridge is emblematic of our lack of planning, designing, spending, and political will to take care of the lifeline of our commerce in the entire Portland I5 Corridor.

My personal choice is to remove interchanges and add toll stations on all of our freeways. This change would turn our freeways into more freight moving and through traffic facilities. This change also gives incentives to Mass Transit and Centers of Destiny because developers will see even more reason to help develop not only at the interchanges still in operation, but also at the centers spelled out in Metro 2040.

Out in East County, to help get Springwater and Damascus developed. I have asked that a corridor is selected close to Mt Hood CC and have only three interchanges when a toll road is built. One interchange at I-84 and at US 26 with the third at Mt Hood CC.

I have warned the City of Gresham (and they got the message from me and others or already understood the issue based on a recent conversation I had with one official) that the money they are talking about spending on all the surface streets (four lane local/regional facilities) needs to be in conjunction with a realization that without direct access to I84, no one is going to built their facilites in Springwater (manufacturing type). Which means the State, Metro, Multnomah County, and the four cities have to agree on a "toll road corridor" first.

If they spend thirty/sixty million on the corridor that in ten years is torn up to become the toll road, some folks will get angry including myself.

Ray Whitford