7:30 tonite? Hay, maybe I can make it after I leave the 39th Avenue renaming hearing....(oooops was that non-PC to say?)

It wasn't a huge turnout at Jantzen Beach. The latest CRC proposal is something to see, though. While the public discourse centers around "12 Lanes", it looks to me like issue of how the ramp system is more critical. The overall number of 'lanes' through Jantzen Beach appears to be 20. "20 lanes!" -- 8 thru-lanes and 12 lanes of ramp -- much wider than I expected.

It'll take an expert to explain the ramp system.

The Marine Drive ramp system looks feasible. But, it looks like the DOTs going to extra lengths to build the Jantzen Beach ramp system, I'm guessing because of a (contradictory?) need to achieve maximum speed and maintain safety.

I am going to hand out fliers about the tolls at the open house at Red Lion tonight, Anyone want to help? (Don't scatter like flies, now.)

My solution to the bike/ped facility question as posted on BikePortland:
The obvious solution is to build a new bridge for light rail, bikes & peds with a couple of lanes for local traffic. 1/3 of the traffic on I-5 is local, and lately I think downtown Vancouver needs more traffic.
Put tolls on all the Columbia River bridges, add HOV/Freight lanes, do a seismic retrofit of the I-5 spans, fix the RR bridge lift, etc.

Doesn't tolling the Glenn Jackson bridge, and/or adding tolls to an existing (or retrofitted) Interstate bridge, essentially require an act of Congress?

Why should there be pressure on the CRC?

The current bridge doesn't work and creates a large backup during rush hour. This causes a huge loss of productivity in our economy and increased pollution from idling cars. The current bridge structure also causes accidents due to its design.

The Portland area has continued to increase its population. Our infrastructure has to grow to support the increased population. In addition, the current bridges are way less "earthquake proof" in the event of the "big one" hitting us (we're due for it).

A new road bridge is the only solution that is a wise use of transportation funds. Clark County's low population density won't support light rail or increased bus use.

I just don't see why some people are so against building a new bridge. It's needed.

Vancouver Resident -

It's not that people are opposed to any bridge improvements... in fact, numerous lower-cost, lower-impact alternatives have been proposed which were deemed outside the scope of the CRC process, and therefore never studied.

The current CRC proposal is a massive project that goes far beyond seismic improvements and reasonable capacity improvements.

Imagine for a moment if the only bridges across the Willamette were the Marquam and Fremont bridges... you'd see terrible bottlenecks as all local traffic would be forced to merge into a regional highway.

If it were then proposed that the solution was to make far wider versions of the Marquam and Fremont, rather than to seriously analyse local traffic needs and built appropriate structures in a distributed system, tying up limited transportation resources for decades, you'd see an outcry as well.

That doesn't make opponents necessarily anti-auto or anti-Vancouver... it just means there are conflicting visions of how best to integrate transportation options in our region.

Thanks for the reply Bob and I appreciate the analogy of the Freemont and Marquam bridges.

The current layout of Vancouver and Portland justify replacing the I-5 bridge versus building a third bridge somewhere else. There is very little development in Portland near the Columbia river because PDX airport is in the way. There also is almost no development west of Jantzen Beach. People from Vancouver don't want to travel to Marine drive. I either travel to Jantzen Beach or somewhere else in the Portland area that requires freeway travel (downtown, Beaverton, NE Portland, Hillsboro, etc.). I don't know anyone from Portland that goes to Vancouver unless it's to visit relatives or buy fireworks. I'm sure that there's business reasons, like shipping, meetings, etc. however.

I don't know where a third bridge would go unless it was right next to the current I-5 bridges, which still doesn't solve the problem of the current bridge being unsafe in an earthquake and having a poor design that causes accidents.

I don't know about light rail, but C-Tran does have plans in place to build busways along Mill Plain, I-5, SR500, and I-205, to provide rapid transit in the Clark County area. Current plans don't call for any rail beyond a short MAX connection into downtown Vancouver, with a transit center where one can transfer onto the BRT... but planners in the Couv do see the need for increased rapid transit.

Whether or not a busway or light rail is better for Vancouver, I dunno. For rail to be a sensible option, you need to have sufficient trip density; if you can't at least half-fill a train every fifteen minutes during peak times, bus is probably more cost effective from an operating point of view. C-Tran does assume that most trips are within the Clark County area, not people living in the Couv and commuting across the river.

The problem with the current bridges is functional, not structural--it lacks decent facilities for non-vehicle modes, and short merges on both ends make safety an issue. In addition, the lift span is an issue on an Interstate. The structural issues could be addressed with a retrofit; the bridge is not structurally obsolete.

Ron Swaren frequently proposes a bridge connecting W. Vancouver with either the terminal district north of St. Johns, with a further connection to Washington County, presumably with a tunnel through the West Hills. That might help, but it would still leave quite a few functional issues at the current site. A connection between Union/Denver and downtown Vancouver might make some sense.

The logistical and political problems associated with the location are significant--but it is the opinion of many that the current CRC design suffered from a very narrow project scope--i.e. the requirements set forth were too tightly constrained by WSDOT and ODOT, and wouldn't permit consideration of many practical, useful, and less expensive alternatives.

"That might help, but it would still leave quite a few functional issues at the current site."

Yes, it does leave some functional issues. However, if those are properly resolved in a new crossing, then their lack of resolution in the I-5 would become less important.

If our "Third Crossing" is ever built I would like to see one other thing beside the bike/ped and commuter rail addition. I would also like to see access to the water level--and I have been thinking one large pier in the middle of the Col. River could have a stairway access or even an elevator. That would be another significant inducement for people to walk across it or use bikes. I also think a bike path along the Willamette would probably be more popular than one along the I-5 route.

Besides the connection of Vancouver to the Terminal area. to Hwy 30 and to West Union area, I believe the River District of NW Portland will see more high density development--it is just a matter of time. MW Portland has always been the higher density, premier neighborhood and--with the river frontage--will continue to be, I think, in our new high density expansion. The rub however, will be what will become of the present industry located along the Willamette. I bet that will become a big tug of war over the next twenty years.

I don't think a tunnel through the West Hills is necessary. It probably would cost too much. There is a potential route that is relatively easy--with some minimal widening. I don't think people want to see even a small freeway going through there.