With the recent revelations by the Oregon and Washington state treasurers that yea verily, the funding for the Columbia River Crossing is not all there, and the amount of money available from tolls is not likely enough to pay the bridge’s ginormous price tag–it is good to see the editorial board of the Oregonian acknowledging the elephant in the room. The folks at the state’s paper of record do insist, of course, that a new bridge is still a necessity, but recognize that funding the current plan is a problem–depending on who you ask, there is a $500 million shortfall to be made up if the current design is to be built.
One possibility mentioned by the paper–one that hasn’t, too my knowledge, been considered by the CRC project committee–is a phased approach: Build part of the project now, with available funding, and part of it later, when more money falls off the proverbial tree.
The obvious phasing would be to do the bridge itself, and the intermediate interchanges, first; and then do the other interchange rebuilds–mainly in Washington–second. With the single-bridge design, mode phasing (highway first than LRT, or vice versa) is probably not a useful option, and there’s probably too much mistrust between the various political factions to arrange things in that fashion.
Some may protest that by doing that–doing the important part of the project first, and then the less-important part of the project second, that the less-important part of the project simply won’t ever get done. Which, of course, is precisely the point. It would be an interesting and useful analysis to determine if Just The Bridge, sans interchange work, still meets project goals and cost-effectiveness criteria (and whether it would be a serviceable MOS)–and then, if the interchange rebuilds north of SR14 pencil out as a separate project. If it turns out that the bridge-only project substantially still meets the project goals, but the interchanges are a deadweight feature, then there’s no real loss in not building them.
(The other advantage of a phased approach, at least for Oregon residents, is that phase 2 might become a Washington problem. Which makes sense; I don’t see the Olympia lining up to assist Oregon with any improvements to I-5 in the Rose Quarter area, improvements already being considered, which would doubtless become more pressing without the present bottleneck in place).
21 responses to “A phased approach for the CRC?”
Nancy Boyd, replacement CRC manager, gave an interesting presentation at PSU several months ago, intimating that the phased approach was gaining favor. Finances aside, it allows ODOT, et al, a good deal of (grossly undeserved) face-saving.
The blockbuster development, however, was her statement, in answer to a well posed question, that the existing bridge from Marine Drive to Hayden Island would be reused. Look at maps, satellite photos, visit the site. The island is too narrow to accommodate enough curvature of the freeway to build a new bridge anywhere but on the existing alignment.
This is basically the Sellwood problem written large. I suspect that CRC staff knows this. And it means that nearly all the planning–all $130 million–done so far is irrelevant. Perhaps it also means that 8 lanes is the maximum.
Probably it also is determinative of the bridge type–sorry about that, John and Christine.
This is getting good!
We don’t know, yet, what the availablity of money from the federal government will be. In a nutshell, I think federal money for the CRC would need to come through a completely new transportation bill. i.e. There is no provision in the present authorization that could fund the CRC (but I could be wrong; maybe they could still pull the funds out of the SAFETEA-LU).
The scenarios going forward are:
I. Rep. Mica’s proposed $230 billion 6 year funding is approved, but the CRC doesn’t make the list. But this bill does return money to individual states, so Oregon could have SOME money available, but no federal matching funds. Washington state has other projects needing money and most residents could care less about the CRC.
2. The Democrats and Republicans work out a somewhat higher level and the CRC gets some funding, but not the original amount anticipated.
The problem is here is that there are a host of other projects around the country that still have support, and the CRC is in competition with those.
3. An extension of SAFETEA-LU is approved, via compromise, and it doesn’t have much money for CRC.
4. A two year extension is approved and Kitzhaber and Gregoire brilliantly are able to get inclusion of the full amount they asked for. This could fund a phased project, since the states are still broke. It would necessitate tolls, so there would be a lot of contention.
Look at maps, satellite photos, visit the site. The island is too narrow to accommodate enough curvature of the freeway to build a new bridge anywhere but on the existing alignment.
I’m not convinced. If the Hayden Island interchange was removed (meaning a new arterial bridge to the island) it would require only a slight curve in the freeway to build a new bridge immediately to the east of the current bridge. The curve would be quite similar to the current approach to the bridge on the north.
A phased approach makes a whole lot of sense. Build the critical components now, build the rest if we need it.
Phase 1: New arterial/light rail bridge from Expo Center to Jantzen Beach. That means Oregon would need to come up with the money, but it wouldn’t be all that expensive — some money from Portland, some from ODOT, some from Tri-Met, and the rest from the feds. Probably would come in around $100 million or so if it isn’t saddled down by a lot of ridiculous ODOT requirements like the Sellwood Bridge was.
Phase 2: new freeway bridge built right next to the current bridge, with a new interchange ramp at the north end … and if the existing crossing from Hayden Island to Jantzen Beach is being reused, Jim Lee is right: the bridge should be four lanes each way. And that project could be easily paid for with tolls.
Phase 3 would deal with the old freeway bridges. Light rail crossing, new arterial approaches, seismic reinforcement. FAR cheaper to do that than to tear out the old bridges and build a brand new light rail bridge. And if opposition to light rail on the north side is really strong, it can wait until later.
Future phases would involve reconstruction of the other interchanges, as needed, as well as the addition of a lift span to the railroad bridge.
Douglas K:
Perhaps you are right, but I think that possibility would require a curved main span and a recurve back to align with the present north abutment. (Again, the Sellwood problem all over, before Jim Howell solved it with a diagonal alignment to Johns Landing.)
Gradients from the north end of Hayden Island to full clearance at center channel would be fairly steep. That would seem to rule out a double-deck bridge.
Yeah, a straight shot through the Island without interchanges surely would mean a new arterial bridge, Could put a transit center on the Island for CTran busses, but that would be round-about and clumsy.
Forget Max to Washington and build a nice TC at Expo center for CTran.
Whatever, it is a whole new ball game now!
Milwuakie Light Rail may be heading towards being phased as well.
It wouldn’t bother me too terribly were the MOS for MLR to be built. It only saves one stop though (the Park Avenue station would be eliminated, with the line ending in Milwaukie).
Though I worry far more about the goings-on in Washington than the goings-on in Clackamas County.
Look at maps, satellite photos, visit the site. The island is too narrow to accommodate enough curvature of the freeway to build a new bridge anywhere but on the existing alignment.
Douglas K. Says: If the Hayden Island interchange was removed (meaning a new arterial bridge to the island) it would require only a slight curve in the freeway to build a new bridge immediately to the east of the current bridge.
JK: I too am thinking the new bridge should be East of the current bridge pair.
Douglas K. Says: The curve would be quite similar to the current approach to the bridge on the north.
JK: Of course the curve on the North would be reduced. Sort of swapping one curve for another.
Douglas K. Says: A phased approach makes a whole lot of sense. Build the critical components now, build the rest if we need it.
JK: Very good idea.
But what are the critical components?
A highway for 81,000 current daily users or light rail for 1650 current daily riders?
Douglas K. Says: Phase 1: New arterial/light rail bridge from Expo Center to Jantzen Beach.
JK: No need – re-stripe for 10 lanes and put bikes/ped on outriggers or underneath. After all there are only 180 of them across the river daily.
Douglas K. Says: Probably would come in around $100 million or so if it isn’t saddled down by a lot of ridiculous ODOT requirements like the Sellwood Bridge was.
JK: But ridiculous requirements are a necessary part of governments pandering for votes.
Douglas K. Says: Phase 2: new freeway bridge built right next to the current bridge, with a new interchange ramp at the north end
JK: Might be able to keep the SR 14 interchange, or part of it. The key is to move the main river channel to mid river so that the bridge makes landfall at approximately ground level, like the current bridges.
Douglas K. Says: ….. And that project could be easily paid for with tolls.
JK: No need for tolls. If the Feds pick up ½ of the cost of this part of the Interstate highway system that leaves $150-200 million for each of Oregon and Washington. All Oregon has to do is reallocate the Milwaulkie LRT money to something useful – this bridge.
Douglas K. Says: Future phases would involve reconstruction of the other interchanges, as needed, as well as the addition of a lift span to the railroad bridge.
JK: Do the railroad lift span immediatley to reduce the bridge lifts, and make way for the hump on the new bridge to be mid river. (Ever notice that the pictures of the new bridge never seem to have a hump?)
See: http://www.NoBridgeTolls.com
Thanks
JK
1650 current daily riders
only 180 of them across the river daily
You often repeat those numbers as though they represent the future.
Of course current ridership and pedestrian/bike activity is low … the transit service is spotty and the bike/ped infrastructure is quite subpar.
Refusal to make it better will ensure continued lousy outcomes.
“Don’t build it and they won’t come.”
(Caveat 1: Nonetheless, I don’t think the massive CRC proposal is the right way to improve bike/ped/transit infrastructure across the Columbia.)
(Caveat 2: I doubt there will be a huge uptick in pedestrians, after all, it is a long way to walk. But it’s not so far to ride a bike.)
Bob R: Of course current ridership and pedestrian/bike activity is low … the transit service is spotty and the bike/ped infrastructure is quite subpar.
Refusal to make it better will ensure continued lousy outcomes.
“Don’t build it and they won’t come.”
JK: Ok, so lets speculate that if we build it, ten times more people decide to use a slower mode, less convenient mode (transit) to cross the bridge:
Transit users increase from the current 1650 to 16,500 compared to the current 81,000 people in cars. Transit usage would be only 20% of cars, but costs about the same as the car bridge. A 5:1 difference in cost effectiveness. But that is better than the 50:1 based on current usage.
Thanks
JK
JK: Ok, so lets speculate that if we build it, ten times more people decide to use a slower mode, less convenient mode (transit) to cross the bridge:
Transit users increase from the current 1650 to 16,500 compared to the current 81,000 people in cars. Transit usage would be only 20% of cars, but costs about the same as the car bridge. A 5:1 difference in cost effectiveness. But that is better than the 50:1 based on current usage.
Jim, when you are a passenger, on a bus, train, or in a car, you have opportunities to do things that you can’t do when driving. Plus, you are not putting wear and tear on any car you may own. You don’t have the mental stress of fighting traffic—although some very individualistic types may not like being in a vehicle with other people. But, OTOH, some do. You can doze off if you need to. There would be less need for downtown parking lots, giving an incentive for the owners to develop into something else. I think there are a number of advantages that don’t figure into a neat costs-per-mile equation.
Also, focusing on a very specific, immediate need (in your case I-5 bridge congestion) and failing to address larger issues isn’t very good planning. It’s often referred to as “failing to see the forest for the trees.” Or “Failing to plan, is planning to fail.” Now, if we want to get into the issue of why “progressives” appear to want an ever-expanding Portland, Oregon, regardless of cost, until it becomes another Boston, Chicago or New York, that is an issue we could run with.
I’m not aware of any progressives that want to turn Portland into any of the massive metros you mention, particularly in terms of size. (Some may want to see Portland get higher-quality urban amenities–things like a swankier arts scene, NFL or MLB teams, etc–and more than a few would have us spend tax dollars to subsidize such goodies. Whether this is wise is another topic altogether, but I don’t know of anyone who thinks Portland would be far better only if it had 5 or ten or twenty million people in it).
There are predictions that the city will significantly grow in size over the next fifty years, but even a doubling of the area population still leaves us short of the current size of Boston, less than half of Chicago, and about a fifth of New York City.
1. Portland has always had a higher number of people relocating from those areas who influence our culture
2. I’m using some obvious exagerration
3. There are special interests pushing us in that direction, who ally with liberal, Democratic politicians and a number of Republican ones, too.
4. Boston is 620 thousand, and 4.5 million in metro. I’ve heard frequent statements that our region will, or should, double.
Douglas K. Says: Phase 1: New arterial/light rail bridge from Expo Center to Jantzen Beach.
JK: No need – re-stripe for 10 lanes and put bikes/ped on outriggers or underneath. After all there are only 180 of them across the river daily.
Yes, there IS a need. If Hayden Island was served by an arterial connection to Marine Drive, the Hayden Island freeway ramps could be eliminated. That would go a long way to smoothing out traffic across the bridge.
It would also support eight lanes on the freeway, and four arterial lanes on the existing bridges. Twelve traffic lanes each way, PLUS a relatively inexpensive light rail crossing, at a fraction of the cost of the megabridge.
Here’s another scenario to consider regarding whether the CRC would have to be built in phases:
If ODOT gets a go-ahead on its N/NE Quadrant Project this would also present competition for funding for the CRC. I am not sure which might emerge as a priority. I think the N/NE quadrant is a lot less controversial, but where it ranks in the minds of state officials, or in the checkbook of the federal government, I don’t know.
Money is tight everywhere right now and if the Taxed Enough Already contingent exerts more influence it will continue to be.
“PLUS a relatively inexpensive light rail crossing”
There is no such thing. Especially when the citizens do not want it.
As for Milwaukie Light Rail, there is no justification for it proceeding. Let alone to Milwaukie.
JPACT recently discussed the vulnerability of the MLR fed share match.
It should be suspended immediately.
2nd option, proceed with the bridge only and hook up the streetcar already ran to it.
3rd option stop at Tacoma and stay out of Clackamas County.
There should be no rail transit to Clackamas County, Vancouver or Lake Oswego without voter approval.
Steve,
I feel like a broken record here, but…
Our chosen form of city government elects officials to office to make certain decisions for us. This is so we don’t have 400 items on the ballot every time we vote. As we have stated before, no one votes on transportation projects that are funded this way. I never got to vote on the 217 widening project, and I won’t get to vote on the CRC. Why should MLR have a vote, when similar projects do not?
Why should MLR have a vote, when similar projects do not?
You have chosen to ignore the obvious. There is overwhelming opposition to it and the county does not have any way to pay for it.
Borrowing their share without any levy or bond measure tax to pay the debt is not funding. It is financing without and freed up money for debt service. Plundering existing services with a UR scheme is not funding the line. It is a reckless ponzie scheme.
You are a broken record. That red herring of voting on all transportation projects was never valid the first time ya’ll beat that drum.
Of course there is no need to vote on every project.
Only the few with apparent contention, controversey and broad oppostion.
Now if you can stir up that kind of controversy and opposition to any road project then fine, have a vote. Good luck with that.
The fact that MLR raids coffers for funding is a huge part of the oppostion.
If proponent politicians were respoinsible they would either get a new bond messure approved like some previous lines or not build it.
Now if you can stir up that kind of controversy and opposition to any road project then fine, have a vote.
I’m glad you support the idea of a public vote on the CRC.
You have chosen to ignore the obvious … You are a broken record … ya’ll beat that drum.
I’ll leave it up to Scotty as to whether your personally-directed remarks are left to stand, but if you had directed them to any non-PT-affiliated commenter, you’d be gone.
Shape up. You have chosen (again) to ignore our rules. Your invective is like a broken record. You keep beating the drum of insulting people rather than simply making a point based on your assessment of the facts.
Opposition to the CRC is also widespread, and not just among liberal transit activists. Read any Oregonlive article about the project, and you will see pages of opposition.
Likewise, if ODOT were to move forward with an expansion of I-5 through Portland, you would see such opposition.
So, Steve, if “widespread” opposition is the precursor for a public vote, who decides when a vote is needed? What constitutes sufficient widespread opposition?
Personally, I’d love to see a public vote on the CRC. I don’t know of any mechanism by which to make that happen, though. I can’t see the drivers of the project actually giving the public a REAL voice in it.
if you had directed them to any non-PT-affiliated commenter, you’d be gone.
Chris I is PT-affiliated? I thought he was just a concerned citizen like the rest of us.
Douglas –
Oops, my mistake. I thought Steve was addressing Scotty, the author of the original post. It does appear he was attacking Chris I. (who is not PT-affiliated), and Steve’s comment should have been partially redacted or removed. Now that there’s been multiple comments on it, I’ll let it stay.