Guest contributor Allan Rudwick is chair of the Eliot Neighborhood Association
Editor’s note: As a member of the Planning and Sustainability Commission I will be voting on this plan in the next few weeks. Publishing this guest post should not be construed as an indication of my views on the plan – but simply as part of Portland Transport’s ongoing mission to foster discussion – Chris
The I-5 Broadway interchange is the most congested one in the freeway loop and it was recommended for further study during the freeway loop study a few years ago. The idea was that this 2-lane section of I-5 is a bottleneck and being good highway engineers, ODOT staff need to try and relieve this bottleneck.
Existing:
Proposed:
The proposal calls for 2 major pieces:
- Widening I-5 between I-405 and I-84 to 3 lanes in each direction
- A substantial, minimally intrusive reconfiguration of the street grid around the intersection
The street grid in question is to an urban designer and a transportation planner non-optimal. The problems with the existing configuration are:
- Presently we have a 5-legged intersection at Vancouver, the I-5 southbound off-ramp and N Broadway
- A lot of congestion in the ‘box’ – Broadway, Weidler, Vancouver and Williams
- The most dangerous intersection in the city for bikes at Flint/Wheeler/Broadway
- All of the traffic exiting I-5 southbound heading eastbound (80% of the traffic) must go on Vancouver, and all of the traffic from NE Broadway to I-5 southbound must also use this stretch, causing unnecessary backups and additionally bringing a fire-hose of cars through the Rose quarter on NE Wheeler before it heads onto I-5 SB or I-84 eastbound.
- This section of I-5 has the highest crash rate in Oregon and we need to do something about it.
The proposed solution solves all but problem (a) and I’ll give it a maybe for problem (e) and does so without substantial property impacts – only 2 structures will be removed for this process and they aren’t the sort that the community has invested a lot of time or energy into. This project has gone through extensive public process and the outcomes have been blessed with a number of community leaders in the area. In addition to solving these problems, the proposal adds a bike/pedestrian crossing between N Winning way and NE Clackamas St further stitching the urban fabric back together across I-5.
Model project/process = all is good right?
There were a couple of assumptions that went into this process that I don’t agree with.
- We (ODOT) need to widen this section of I-5 no matter the cost (~$150-250 Million) to add another lane and shoulders.
- No improvements outside the I-405 to I-84 area would be considered.
Other Projects that might ease congestion at Broadway
Having constraints on the process is very helpful to a project. However, these assumptions that led us to our proposed solution may not be the best assumptions to make. Let’s zoom out for a second. Why is this section so congested? Is this intersection truly the only way that NE and parts of SE Portland should be accessed? There are some spots where ramps could be added to spread out some of the exiting traffic away from this intersection. Adding a pair of ramps on I-84 east of the split would reduce the load on the Broadway/Weidler interchange.
Adding a pair of ramps north of the interchange could also reduce the demand for the Broadway interchange:
Removing the ramps is a non-starter although it would significantly reduce the congestion (and move it elsewhere).
Removing and Rebuilding Bridges Not Technically Necessary
The other thing that was not studied in this process was the fact that adding lanes to I-5 is not technically required to create the local street improvements that are proposed. We would lose the lid over I-5, full-width lanes, and the Hancock/Dixon connection would be replaced with a Flint/Dixon connection, but building this project on the existing structures with substantially lower cost and construction delays is physically possible. Creating the 4-lane English-style onramps onto I-5 on N Williams might require removing the sidewalks from the bridge, but other than that, the structures are physically capable of being reconfigured with a bit of paint and concrete. My back-of-the-envelope calculation says that this would save $250-350 Million of the projected $400 Million project.
You get:
- Removal of the Flint/Wheeler/Broadway intersection
- Less traffic right next to the rose garden allowing for a more urban place with parking and amenities, the ability to cross the road more easily.
- Connectivity across I-5 between Clackamas/N Winning Way
- To do the project at substantially lower cost
- No streetcar disruption (or minimized)
- Significantly less construction impact
- Flint-Dixon connection instead of Hancock/Dixon connection (preferred by Eliot Neighborhood Association)
- You are not as locked into the configurations – because not as much money has been spent future improvements would not be precluded to the same extent as they would after spending $400 Million
You lose:
- The Lid- 1 full and several partial developable blocks of land on top of I-5
- Full width sidewalks in a few places
- The ability to leverage as much Federal Highway $ for urban amenities
- Urban place-making abilities around the interchange in several small locations
- The Hancock – Dixon connection- which has some potential for useful space on the overcrossing.
More Project Information: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/406037
18 responses to “The case against the I-5 Broadway Widening Project as Currently Proposed”
I forgot to mention the normal “seismic upgrades” that would be included
If ODOT would prioritize this project it could very well be the death knell for the CRC. The CRC is already scrambling for a scarce pot of money, and promises to be a chronically overbudget project anyway, thus placing both OR and WA on the hook for even more money, despite what it might get from the feds. I.e. cost overruns will come out of state pockets, not federal ones.
Relieving the I-5 chokepoint in the Rose Quarter is an important step to making sure that C-TRAN vehicles don’t fight congestion. This would induce more riders. Combined with another regional improvement—-a shortcut from Vancouver to Silicon Forest—- CTRAN could have a first class express service to Portland areas, not bogged down in slow traffic.
The Plazas are a nice feature and accomplish an awful lot for this project. However, perhaps they could be postponed or partially built so that the actual transportation problems for all modes are solved first, as a priority. There could be some creative ways to finance the remaining construction.
I don’t know what federal program helps pay for it, but leveraging sounds like a very good idea. Maybe there are even some financing programs we haven’t thought about yet, and who knows what will be in place when this moves forward.
Question: will your first two freeway ramps have adequate clearance over the RR line, that runs along I-84?
The second two sets of ramps could be very helpful.
Another issue that I see affecting the “Plan” above and beyond the transportation concerns is the belief that we need to analyze “Equity.” A redevelopment project, which a city selects for a number of reasons, is never going to be fair. Modern communication technology has changed most earlier concepts of social injustice. If someone ever raises the issue that the Interstate area may suffer some adverse impacts. let’s remember that they gained quite a lot, fiscallly. with the Interstate MAX project. The city should not be “running around” trying to ensure that everyone’s little piece of the American Dream is not being realized. There are plenty of other ways, nowadays, for individuals to do that via their own choice.
If they add a third lane, does that mean it will be HOV? Seems like having HOV in both directions from Marine Drive to the Morrison bridge would greatly improve express bus service.
My vote would still be for the eventual tear-down of I-5 between I-84 and I-405, including the Marquam bridge. Expand I-405 to 4 lanes each way, cap it, and rename it I-5. Once this is done, 2 lanes through the Rose Quarter is more than sufficient to feed I-84 traffic. Our city would have huge new areas to develop, substantially increased waterfront property values, and reduced pollution and blight.
They thought of that idea several years ago (about tearing down I-5 from Marquam to Fremont), but Rose Quarter is against it fearing it will lose business.
Even though there’s a bit of sticker shock with the $400 mil price tag, I hope ODOT gives this project priority over the CRC.
Unfortunately, ODOT seems to be ignoring what I’ve long believed to be a key source of much of the congestion in this area: the merge/weave ramp situation in the substandard section of I-5 between Broadway/Weidler and I-84. The neighborhood association’s alternate proposal indirectly addresses this issue to a point with the two new I-84 ramps, but much more could be done (albeit a pain to implement).
As for bikes and pedestrians, either proposal would be a vast improvement over the current setup.
Expand I-405 to 4 lanes each way, cap it, and rename it I-5.
The problem with this is that excavating the trench to make I-405 twice as wide as it is now would take out a TON of structures. I wouldn’t mind seeing I-405 in its present form capped, with I-5 underground between I-84 and the west bank of the Willamette.
Sorry, I meant to say 3 lanes in each direction. That could be done without expanding the footprint, provided they eliminate a few of the space-hogging onramps/flyovers.
If you bury I-5 on the east bank, would that involve a tunnel under the river? That seems like quite a climb up to the Marquam from a trench.
Sorry, I meant to say 3 lanes in each direction. That could be done without expanding the footprint, provided they eliminate a few of the space-hogging onramps/flyovers.
Thanks for clarifying. I-405 has its own merge/weave traffic flow issues that could probably be lessened without expanding its footprint.
If you bury I-5 on the east bank, would that involve a tunnel under the river? That seems like quite a climb up to the Marquam from a trench.
Yes. As I mentioned, I-5 can resurface somewhere on the west side of the Willamette.
Please oh please fix this before CRC. This is a no-brainer place to expand the freeway.
3 lanes into 2 lanes = traffic
The Interstate changes as drawn just couldn’t be build. The design standards don’t allow anything like the illustrations that are attached. The grades, the angles, they’d never be able to be built, or even upgraded if in the past we’d installed anything like that.
You can’t just merge extra traffic into an interstate that is already filled up. You also can’t just paint an arrow on a map and make it a viable onramp. Vehicles have to be able to drive that route.
The ramp up from Mississippi to i5 n is totally doable, the ramp down to interstate is a challenge but not impossible. The neighborhood association is generally worried about construction impacts of the proposal but sees the value in the project. Or preference would be less construction and local improvements but no freeway work. I think extra freeway ramps would do something but ultimately i wish we would spend more in bikes.
“The ramp up from Mississippi to i5 n is totally doable, the ramp down to interstate is a challenge but not impossible.”
Except you would have a high speed merge on to the ramp from the Fremont Bridge, and then another on to I-5. So kind of dangerous. However, I don’t see the necessity for any of your ramps, nice as they might be to have. OTOH, widening in the Rose Quarter seems to have easily demonstrable benefit, to all traffic moving on that route in that stretch. I think careful monitoring of the speed limit to 50 mph, though, should be done, as an extra lane would tempt people to drive faster.
Reconfiguring the interchange without replacing structures is probably what will get done in the end as their is no money for this project.
Adding on/off ramps (the red sqiggles) on either I-5 or I-84 would just make local arterial movement worse, so garbage those.
Lenny and others, I’m getting the impression that the freeway ramp options away from the intersection were a but of a distraction from my main point, which our exactly what you said. Lets do the local improvements and scrap the rest of this project. Save time, and money, which can be put to better uses than widening an urban freeway
I just thought of something. Why is it acceptable to have to displace businesses and homes (and cut down trees) for a train expansion but is considered blasphemy to do likewise for a much needed relief to a major congestion point as in this case or in Dundee?
[Moderator: That’s a perfectly legitimate question, Greg, too bad you couldn’t figure out how to participate in a civil manner like this earlier, prior to your being banned last night. Further comments from you will simply be removed without notice. – Bob R.]
Because trains reduce per capita energy consumption. Electric trains also emit no point emissions, unlike cars and buses. Cities that have more public transportation have lower per capita energy consumption. If your goal is to improve the environment, you shouldn’t be building new highways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
Because trains reduce per capita energy consumption. Electric trains also emit no point emissions, unlike cars and buses.
Tell that to Seattle, whose electric trolleybus fleet is powered by 90% renewable power and with zero tailpipe emissions – unlike TriMet’s MAX and Portland’s Streetcar, powered by 50% coal/natural gas, whose “tailpipe” is simply located 140 miles east in the small town of Boardman.
[…] NE Quadrant/Rose Quarter “safety” project. A $400M freeway widening in the name of safety. But one that unlocks a lot of good land use policy in the process, so the City of Portland might […]