Is that allowed? I thought that they can't toll unless they rebuild something?

If they could do it, it would be interesting to see how the traffic patterns change.

They probably couldn't just levy a congestion charge on the existing Interstate Bridge(s) and be done with it.

But apparently, tolling the existing bridges as part of a project to replace them is legal.

I recall a tolling study a few years ago where one presenter made the comment that if we tolled the existing bridges, traffic would drop to the point that we wouldn't need new bridges.

thanks
JK

JK: I recall a tolling study a few years ago where one presenter made the comment that if we tolled the existing bridges, traffic would drop to the point that we wouldn't need new bridges.

My point exactly.

JK: I recall a tolling study a few years ago where one presenter made the comment that if we tolled the existing bridges, traffic would drop to the point that we wouldn't need new bridges.

I believe that. In fact, it's likely that if we tolled many of our existing traffic bottlenecks (e.g., roads where demand is in excess of supply during a given period of time) it would not only improve level of service but would bring equilibrium to the existing network. Funds could then be used to maintain the existing network at a higher quality rather than try to endlessly expand or maintain it at a minimum allowed quality.

This is why I support a new freeway-only bridge while keeping the existing bridges in place for arterial traffic, bikes and transit. A new six-lane or eight-lane freeway bridge (WITHOUT light rail, super-wide bike lanes, or all the interchange improvements grafted onto the project) could be paid for entirely by tolls with no changes in the law. The old bridges, once no longer part of the interstate freeway system, could then be renovated and tolled as provided for by Oregon law. The entire project could be paid for at that point with fairly modest tolls, and congestion pricing could manage peak-hour demand.

The Columbia Bridges are WAY past their safe service life and are going to fall in the river in a seismic event , possibly with you on them. All the CRC Haters seem to forget that.

This is the point of rehabbing the bridges. According to the CRC panel assessment of seismic vulnerabilities of the current bridges conducted in 2006, it would cost from $125 million to $265 million to give both bridges a seismic retrofit designed to make them last for centuries. That's a tiny fraction of the $3.6 billion or more that the CRC will cost.

As for being "WAY past their safe service life," that's just nonsense.The older span was opened in 1917. It's newer than the Broadway, Steel or Hawthorne Bridges, none of which are in imminent danger of collapse.

The newer span was built in 1958. It's as old as the Morrison Bridge, and newer than all of the other Willamette River arterial bridges. If these bridges are "WAY past their safe service life", so is nearly every other bridge in the region.

billb,

The I-5 bridges are nowhere near the top of the list for spans at risk of seismic collapse. The Marquam Bridge is much higher on the list.

This project is happening because of the amount of single-occupancy vehicles from Vancouver to Portland. "Freight mobility", seismic standards, pedestrian facilities, and mass transit are all afterthoughts.

And if seismic issues were the primary concern, we could fix it right now for $200 million. No tolling required.

What Rep. John Mica said when he was out here on Feb. 21 was that he was tasked with writing new policy. A PROPOSED policy, to my understanding, (THIS IS FAR FROM FINAL) is that there would be no new tolling on existing interstates, but new interstates could be tolled. Undoubtedly there will be much in the six year re authorization bill from Congress that will be hashed out.

Or, rumor has it, they may just extend the previous authorization (SAFETEA-LU) for two more years and see what the next Congress has in store after that.

Are you sure it's legal Scotty? Pennsylvania tried to toll I-80 a few years back and was shot down by FHWA. A big chunk of the revenue was to fund transit, so maybe that's why it was rejected.

I have no opinion on the legality of pre-tolling. My assumption is that it is legal to toll to fund new construction--even if the tolls are erected on the old infrastructure, but that's just an assumption.

Good. Tolling is long overdue; motorists just plain don't pay their fare here.

If you need a highway project to justify tolling how about making said project the seismic retrofit? Maintaining a viable highway is as legitimate as building a replacement for it.