Lots of Columbia River Crossing stuff today:
- A front-page article in yesterday’s O asks whether the CRC is sustainable, or is just being painted that way.
- The independent critique of the greenhouse gas analysis (PDF, 196K) has been released. Fundamentally it supports the analysis in the DEIS. On the other hand, if you believe the DEIS gets it wrong on induced demand…
- A series of public meetings has been announced regard the number of auxiliary lanes:
Learn about the tradeoffs with an 8, 10 or 12 lane bridge at upcoming session
The public is invited to learn more about the tradeoffs associated with an eight, 10 or 12 lane Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River at two informational sessions. Project staff will provide a presentation, answer questions and accept public comment.
A replacement I-5 bridge will have three “through” lanes in each direction and up to three lanes in each direction to connect interchanges in the five-mile project area. These connector lanes are known as add/drop or auxiliary lanes. No add/drop lanes are proposed north or south of the project area. The upcoming question and answer sessions will focus on the number of add/drop lanes in the project area and will explain the choices and potential traffic and environmental effects of the eight, 10, and 12 lane scenarios. Information presented will include data on the purpose, safety and efficiency of add/drop lanes and the decision making process for determining the number to be included in the project.
Comments received will be provided to the CRC’s Project Sponsors Council. The Council will use the comments to aid in their recommendation for the project’s number of lanes, expected in early February.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Clark County Elections building
Room 226
1408 Franklin St., Vancouver, WA 98660Saturday, January 24, 2009
9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Kaiser Town Hall
Conference rooms A & B
3704 N. Interstate Ave., Portland, OR 97227
26 responses to “All CRC, All the Time”
Sustainable is debatable. In 20 years, what will the personal occupancy vehicle look like? How about 50 years from now?
The bridge itself doesn’t decide sustainability, the vehicles driving on it do. If we drive sustainable vehicles, who knows where we’re at. Maybe we build a green power grid with a lot of plug-in hybrids, or solar charging at work, or any number of technologies that are almost within reach today. Anyway, the bridge itself isn’t the sustainability problem, the cars, trucks and buses are.
As far as the number of lanes, over 4 lanes (through) or 5 lanes (counting aux lanes) has been shown to have under a 4% gain on traffic flow, so a 10 lane bridge is the clear winner for traffic flow reasons. If we built separate express (or bypass, meaning no-exits) lanes between Interstate and SR-500 we could do more than 10 total lanes, but that wasn’t even considered.
Adding two 2-lane through-traffic lanes between SR-500 and south of the Interstate exit would add enough flow and capacity to help move trucks, as well as being cheaper than the CRC, but we seem determined to go all or nothing on this one.
I’m also still bothered by the price. Nobody spends the kind of money being thrown around on any kind of bridge/freeway upgrade project. There’s very little ROW acquisition required, and the bridge itself isn’t that much different than many cheaper projects have been. Where does the extra $2-$4 billion come from?
“In 20 years, what will the personal occupancy vehicle look like?”
The CAFE standard for personal automobiles made in 2020 is 35 mpg. About half the cars made in 2020 will still be on the road in 2030. Also in 2030, some of the cars on the road will be more than 10 years old and get less than 35 mpg, and some will be less than 10 years old and [I’d hope] would get more than 35 mpg, but most likely the average car on the road in 2030 would get about 35 mpg.
However, even assuming every car made after 2020 emits no pollution at all, we will not be on track to meet the state’s CO2 emissions laws if the CRC’s traffic projections are right.
“How about 50 years from now?”
They might fly, and not need roads at all. But we can’t wait until 2060 to do something about Climate Change, so it doesn’t really matter.
Nobody spends the kind of money being thrown around on any kind of bridge/freeway upgrade project. There’s very little ROW acquisition required, and the bridge itself isn’t that much different than many cheaper projects have been. Where does the extra $2-$4 billion come from?
As I understand it, the money is being spent on a brand new light-rail bridge that parallels the planned 12-lane freeway bridge, as well as a number of separate ramp projects stretching north and south of the bridge for miles. The CRC proposal had bundled together a whole bunch of projects and seeks to fund all of them out of one $4 billion+ pot.
The DEIS on the CRC web site has the cost breakdowns when you drill down to the detail pages.
Or maybe in the technical appendixes.
5000 pages or so total.
Thanks
JK
Making this bridge “sustainable” is simply green-washing. Just build it right if it does get constructed.
What do they mean, “will the bridge be sustainable”?
What silly nonsense is that?
You build it, its there, end of story.
Sheesh, unbelievable.
There is an Exhibit of Artworks depicting a Green Park-Roofed Columbia River Crossing Bridge at the NW Lucky Lab Brewpub [activity rm]. The Park Roof will absorb Rain Water Pollution Runoff [saving a fortune in plumbing and treatment], and the Park plant life will absorb CO2 24/7/365. Now that is Green !
Those toy windmills [expensive custom fab] will run once in a while , that is until they break down like the toy toilet in PDX.
I was told by one of the powers-that-be , that it was too late in the ‘process’ to consider a Park Roof , and yet now we can toss in some Florida GreenWashing Windmills without any process or budget.
The Park Roof can be a World Class Gateway to the Nortwest !
Feel free to contact your Political Representatives and the Newspapers/Bloggers , and tell them that for the same money as an ugly bridge w/toy windmills , you might like a Park !
Wind turbines on the bridge only make sense if the cost savings or the sale of the electricity generated offset the costs of the bridge. In other words; CAP the bridge with wind turbines AND TRADE the revenue generated to replace any and all proposed tolls for motorists.
CRC is so deeply flawed, so removed from the realty that 50 years have taught us that giving this public relations campaign even the time of day is a waste of time…they are stuck in 1960.
these windmills are a joke. afterall nothing says green like tearing out 2 existing bridges and building a new 12 lane freeway bridge of twice the capacity of the existing. if you want a bridge thats truely green, you reuse/improve the existing bridges (which by the way are the color green).
Bicycles; 1900’s technology. Streetcars and light rail; 1920’s technology. The difference in 2009; rather than being sold and run by private enterprise for a profit, the public is being stuck, jabbed and bludgeoned to the point of bleeding with excessive taxes to pay for subsidies to bring this outdated technology back.
The automobile is 1800’s technology, which has enjoyed massive subsidies, including in the present day.
Electricity is pretty old, too, based on your arbitrary standards of century-of-discovery equaling “outdated”.
the public is being stuck, jabbed and bludgeoned
That would be three more examples of hyperbole of the sort I’ve pointed out to you before.
Then “stuck in the 1960’s” must be hyperbole too!
How on earth am I being stuck, jabbed, or bludgeoned if I would like to have at least the option of not driving a car?
If I would like to not pay a monthly car payment, or a monthly insurance payment, or fill my tank with gas every week or two, or not have to get oil changes and tune-ups? What if I don’t want my tax dollars going to oil defense, or massive highway projects?
What if I like to walk? Walking has been around for centuries, maybe longer. It is very outdated technology – but I might find it very personally rewarding.
When everything for over 50 years has been built to support cars, why is it so bad to ask for just a little bit to support giving people options so that they can CHOOSE if they want to drive a car or if they don’t?
I think it is nice to live in a place where you can at least have the option of not driving.
Options = Freedom.
I don’t think the CRC is really about options. I think the CRC is about “big highway”.
Options = Freedom.
Good point. Allow me the option to drive the car that I bought on roads that I as a taxpayer want the government to build.
Allow me the option to drive the car that I bought on roads that I as a taxpayer want the government to build.
You don’t have that right now?
Is there anywhere in this nation (other than Hawaii) that you can’t get to in your car? Anywhere that you aren’t allowed to take it? Where do you not have that option?
Where do you not have that option?
I take it you’re not one of those calling to tear out the East-side I-5, or shrinking the CRC past usable needs?
Boy, THAT was non-responsive. How does realigning Interstate 5 away from the river or not adding lanes prevent you from exercising your option to drive on any public road anywhere in America?
As for “shrinking the CRC past usable needs”, that only happens if the project goes down to two automobile lanes each way. As far as I know, NOBODY has called for that.
Show me one place where this has even been proposed. Show me one person who has suggested this.
You can’t. Because there have been none.
People, including myself, are opposed to the CRC “project” as it is currently on the table. It’s current designs or plans are terrible.
What most of the reasonable people I have read about and had discussions with DO want to improve the I5 Columbia River Crossing.
We just don’t want to do it in a single 5 mile project area, with 4 to 6 billion dollars, and 12 auto lanes.
There have been a myriad of solutions suggested which would improve conditions drastically – and most of them were never even considered by the CRC planners. The ones that were considered were barely given lip service – let alone serious consideration or study.
The crossing does need improvement. And we can do a LOT of improvement with smaller more targeted projects which together as a whole will benefit the situation greatly.
If the only option is the current massive option – or none : I say choose none. At least it is cheap…
We shouldn’t have an “all or nothing” approach. That is just plane silly.
1. Variable tolls on both freeway bridges, starting NOW. Change the laws, and make this happen. Raise money and reduce congestion.
2. Build a local access bridge from Portland to Hayden Island, and close the Hayden Island ramps on I5 to all but emergency vehicles. Reduce congestion and accidents due to local Hayden Island traffic, and provide Hayden Island with 2 bridges in the event of an emergency or natural disaster.
3. Reconfigure the downstream railroad bridge and channel to align with the hump of the I5 bridge, to greatly reduce bridge lifts.
4. Increase fees for private or non-commercial vessels to request bridge lift on I5 and place restrictions on when pleasure craft can ask for bridge lifts. Change the laws to make this happen.
5. Put 24 hour high capacity lanes in across the bridges. Enforce them. With them add more frequent bus service to Vancouver.
6. Seismically retrofit the existing I5 bridge, and add cantilevered bike/ped facilities on the sides (like the Hawthorne).
7. Provide economic stimulus for housing and jobs, help people live in Portland closer to jobs, or help jobs locate in Clark County closer to people. Reduce the need for people to commute from Clark County because they can’t afford a house in Portland. Perhaps create incentives such as tax breaks for living closer to your work site. Change the laws to make this happen.
8. More aggressively fund and support transportation options, such as Carpooling and Van pools. More aggressively pursue telecommute benefits with employers.
How does realigning Interstate 5 away from the river or not adding lanes prevent you from exercising your option to drive on any public road anywhere in America?
I haven’t heard most calls being to realign I-5 on the east side, the vocal people are those saying to tear it out completely and not replace it. Let the cars use I-405 and congest the surface streets seems to be the answer.
As for “shrinking the CRC past usable needs”, that only happens if the project goes down to two automobile lanes each way. As far as I know, NOBODY has called for that.
You haven’t seen the posts in previous CRC threads suggesting we don’t build a new bridge, and change one lane to truck-only, or transit-only? Or on the comments on the Tribune or OregonLive.com?
I’m not a big fan of the CRC project at this time, but I’m seeing a lot of people (or maybe sock puppets) on various sites calling for just leaving the bridges alone, and removing a lane from each from auto use.
As far as tolling it and doing nothing there are a lot of impacts being ignored. Getting the laws changed to toll both I-5 and I-205 would probably require support from Washington, which is unlikely.
It would also likely face national opposition, since people in areas like San Diego would be worried that CalTrans would attempt to take I-5 in Camp Pendleton and I-15 and I-8 in the mountains, basically taxing you to enter/leave the city. Same for those in West Memphis who would worry they’d have to pay an admission fee to enter Tennessee.
DOT’s everywhere are short of money, and there are a lot of places where the Interstates are the only way in or out, and to many people it would just be a money grab. There’s no alternative option, so it’s a way to charge an admission fee for certain areas, without a very, very long route around.
I know, tolling exists all over, but I’ve never seen them added after the fact without an alternate route. The NY state Thruway has US 20 and Route 5 paralleling it from Pennsylvania to Albany as an example. You can pay the toll to go faster, but you’re not cut off from things by not paying the toll. The nearest option to get from Portland to Vancouver adds about 100 miles to the trip.
If it weren’t a main artery between Canada and Mexico (as well as Seattle and California) it wouldn’t be such a big deal, but this has a little too much national importance. It’s not like the Mt Hood situation.
Dave Says:
I know, tolling exists all over, but I’ve never seen them added after the fact without an alternate route. The NY state Thruway has US 20 and Route 5 paralleling it from Pennsylvania to Albany as an example. You can pay the toll to go faster, but you’re not cut off from things by not paying the toll. The nearest option to get from Portland to Vancouver adds about 100 miles to the trip.
The Interstate system actually includes nearly 3,000 miles of turnpikes (tolled roads). Up until recently, there was no barrier to tolls on Interstates except that Federal highway funds could not be used in the new construction.
However, there is a pilot project:
This program authorizes up to three facilities on the Interstate System to toll for the purpose of financing the construction of new Interstate highways. A State or an interstate “compact of States” may submit a single candidate project under this program. Each applicant must demonstrate that financing the construction of the facility with the collection of tolls is the most efficient and economical way to advance the project. The State must agree not to enter into a noncompete agreement with a private party under which the State is prevented from improving or expanding the capacity of public roads in the vicinity of the toll facility to address conditions resulting from traffic diverted to nearby roads from the toll facility. There is no special funding authorized for this program. By law, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on a facility for which tolls are being collected under this program.
“Options = Freedom.”
Yes – options that give people the freedom of choice without being taxed to subsidize the infrastructure for the option somebody else selects.
In other words:
NO rationing of highways or bridges with variable tolls or congestion pricing.
Build roadways and bridges to accommodate demand.
Require bicycling and transit alternatives to be financially self-sustainable by paying their own way whereby bicyclists and transit passengers are directly assessed taxes and fees to fund the infrastructure they use.
As it applies to the CRC, if motorists are tolled, the funds collected must only apply to the highway components. Bicyclists must also be tolled to pay for the bicycle infrastructure, and transit passengers must either pay a tax surcharge on fares and/or higher fares to fund any transit infrastructure, transit components of the bridge and transit operations. All modes would then proportionately share the combined superstructure of the bridge.
Terry, your arguments assume that historically, motorists as users have paid the full cost of roadways/automobile transport, and this has been shown time and time again (including in numerous recent comments on this blog) to be untrue.
To argue that other modes must suddenly pay 100% of the costs and that funds cannot be shifted between modes is basically motorists saying “OK, now I’ve got mine, get lost.”
Terry Parker Says:
Require bicycling and transit alternatives to be financially self-sustainable by paying their own way whereby bicyclists and transit passengers are directly assessed taxes and fees to fund the infrastructure they use.
I know the question has been asked of you before, but don’t remember ever seeing an answer: Do you think we should be taxing pedestrians to fund their infrastructure? I mean, seriously, there are a heck of a lot more sidewalks and crosswalks than there are bike paths. And curb cuts? What about all those people in wheelchairs?
The same percentage required to be spent on bicycle infrastructure “siphoned” from the highway fund includes improvements for pedestrians. Why aren’t you outraged about that?
Terry Parker: “Yes – options that give people the freedom of choice without being taxed to subsidize the infrastructure for the option somebody else selects.”
WS: The entire interstate system was a huge subsidy/earmark financed by one of the largest public works project in the country! Cities grabbed at the free money flowing in to build car-topia. Local municipalities leveled many historic neighborhoods through eminent domain to build urban roads that connected to the free local infrastructure and services paid for by everyone and not just the ones moving to that area.
These actions (and ones that still continue today) have made the transportation market distorted. These were not actions that were paid for by the individuals, but by everyone.
The highways in America are as communist as the trains in East Berlin.
Are you blind to history?
“Tolls” for bicycles would be absurdly low. They have almost zero impact on the surfaces they ride on. All they require is a small lane with a bike symbol.
The side effects from automobiles on cities is largely a negative experience when too many are on the road:
-More cars in cities means more parking demand. People do not come downtown to look at junk parking lots cars. Portland already has enough surface parking lots. Cities such as Houston and Los Angeles have almost 3-4 parking spots per citizen. It’s no coincidence that these cities have abysmal downtowns. Biking alleviates this demand and is a positive for cities.
-Cars/trucks give off large amounts of air pollution. These side-effects (totaling almost 30 billion in Southern California) impact driving and non-driving citizens alike. Biking and walking does not do this.
-Too many cars dissuade alternative modes of transportation such as walking and biking. The mere perception of safety keeps people from actually using their automobile less.
-Biking reduces automobile congestion, especially in Portland. Would you like these people to be on the roads with you instead?
-Alternative modes of transportation makes people healthier (increasing health care costs for everyone).
Biking (and walking) offers many positives to cities and alleviates the pressures put on them by automobiles. Giving bikes a “free” service (although automobiles get PLENTY of free services) helps automobiles in return.
*This is not to say that all car driving is bad. I drive all the time in downtown even with other options on my plate such as MAX*
I honestly wish the biking community would come together to get private donations into biking infrastructure. 1) It’s the right thing to do 2) it will make automobile riders realize that their vehicle of choice is not exactly paid for by the individual.