Chris, I’m wondering what claims are being made that don’t have some research and science to back them up? I know that people don’t want to believe that CO2 emissions can be lowered by getting traffic moving, but there are also people who don’t believe in evolution. Both are ignoring actual research and science that comes out with an answer that’s not always well received.
I don’t think the CRC is the most-needed project in the region, but it’s not as bad as some people are acting. Those who are misrepresenting every fact they can to make an emotional appeal aren’t doing anyone any favors though.
Dave, I see it as primarily a question of tactics. The CRC project and its friends (like the Oregonian Editorial Board) have a large amount of resources to promote what many of us perceive as mis-information (or at least very selective information) while we skeptics have very few resources.
So using hyperbolic messages in viral media is a tactic to make people stop and think. Of course the risk is that if it’s too hyperbolic, we’ll overshoot our target audience. We’re walking a line, but my initial take is that the satire/hyperbole is nicely tuned.
Dave H pinpoints precisely one of the claims of the CRC that is not backed up by competent research and science. There is a lack of empirical evidence that getting traffic moving reduces CO2 emission.
This claim is supported only by ad-hoc calculations based on vehicle emission characteristics, without any valid methodology to account for human behavior.
During one of the PSU public seminars on transportation, I asked the presenter, Dr. Lewison Lem, whether increasing capacity to reduce congestion would reduce CO2 emissions. His answer was that any reduction would be short-term only. In the long term, increasing capacity increases CO2 emissions.
Dr. Lem is an internationally recognized expert on transportation, energy, and climate change issues. He has worked for the EPA and the AAA of Northern California, Nevada, and Utah. He has also worked for major road-building consultants such as PB, so he is about as main-stream and knowledgeable as you can get.
If you can cite some published peer-reviewed research showing the contrary, I would be pleased to know about it. I am talking about real research, not something ginned up to support the CRC in particular.
If you can cite some published peer-reviewed research showing the contrary, I would be pleased to know about it. I am talking about real research, not something ginned up to support the CRC in particular.
I can’t name any peer-reviewed research, but I know that CalTrans and the EPA accept this to be fact. As well as the California Coastal Commission, and others.
Other factors are weighed in for approval, but cars that are moving, even if it’s more of them overall, emit less gasses per mile traveled.
Yes, maybe there could be a benefit to preventing travel, but the CRC offers train, bike, and pedestrian lanes, as well as maybe truck or HOV/HOT lanes.
I’d rather see surface arterials built first, then the CRC down the road if we still need it. But, if it’s the one we can do now, so be it. I’d like to have the MAX access Downtown Vancouver instead of needing to transfer again to get on a bus there.
I think that David H’s response to my point shows how difficult it is to counter the propaganda of the CRC. In the same way that Bernard Madoff was believed to be a “financial genius” so the State DOT’s are the accepted authority on questions of traffic engineering, even when they have no scientific basis for their claims.
If the anti-CRC video’s can break through this denial, that would be great, whether they use sarcasm, humor, or whatever.
Nearly two decades ago, Australian researchers Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy analyzed congestion levels and energy use in numerous cities around the world. They discovered that higher congestion was strongly correlated with less energy use per-capita, regardless of average income level.
Since then, the highway builders have failed to show that there is an opposite causal relationship, namely that reducing congeston saves energy. However, they have continued to spread the propaganda that such a relationship exists. Just like Bernard Madoff continued to sell shares in his funds.
It is time we started using an evidence-based approach to claims of energy saving or CO2 reduction for highway projects.
Even if one believes that moving traffic reduces emissions, it does not follow that the CRC solution must be the best way to get traffic moving. $4,000 million for a huge new bridge is a lot of resources when perhaps TDM and TSM measures could reduce congestion for a fraction of the cost.
Traffic is already moving better since 2006 due to higher fuel prices and the economic slowdown…see Metro’s TSM (Transportation System Management) committee report. During the ’97 bridge closure there was no slow down for bridge traffic on half as many lanes due to the wide ranging TDM (Transportation Demand Management) efforts. Remember there is plenty of capacity across the I-5 bridges…its in the passenger seat of almost every car.
I think one interesting factor in the whole discussion of the number of lanes on the bridge–is the distinction between “thru” vs “total” lanes.
Opponents of the bridge point out that 12 lanes of traffic, 6 in each direction–is far wider than any freeway currently found in Portland. I can think of a few places in town where a freeway is wide as five lanes in a given direction (I-5 NB right after the merge with 99W in Tigard, US26 both EB and WB after the interchange with OR217); but in all such cases at least one if not both lanes disappears or exits–both freeways provide 3 “through” lanes in each direction; with additional lanes provided for climbing or merging as needed.
But 12 lanes total is unheard of in town–and three lanes in a direction for “merging” is virtually unknown in this town–the closest I can think of is the C/D (collector/distributor) ramp between US26 WB and OR8 WB, just west of Sylvan.
Portland, after all, has not built any new freeways since the completion of I-205 in the eighties. We’ve upgraded a few–most recently, the aforementioned upgrades on US26 between the zoo and Cornell (with additional travel lanes planned now out to 185th)–but Portlanders aren’t used to modern freeway standards.
If, however, you go to a city like Phoenix (probably not a good example for urban planning overall, but an interesting point nonetheless)–where entire new freeways have been recently built–you will see that many new freeways have lots of C/D ramps. If you look at some of the proposed enhancements for OR217, a lot of it involves putting C/D ramps in place, to deal with the notoriously short merging distances between ramps on the highway. The recent updates to 26 have involved lots of C/D ramps; as did the rebuilding of I-5 through Vancouver a while back.
The bottom line: Most of Portland’s freeways (including the Interstate Bridge and its approaches on both sides) are, by many modern engineering standards, obsolete–this is especially true of those freeways designated as Interstates. This is not necessarily a BAD thing, mind you–our freeways have smaller “footprints” then newer freeways in other cities. When design standards are updated, existing infrastructure is grandfathered in, and maintenance projects (such as repaving) are able to maintain the old design standards, but new construction generally has to be designed to modern engineering standards. Given the number of interchanges to I-5 on both sides of the river in close proximity to the bridge–WA500, Fourth Plane, Mill Plain, WA14/Downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island, Marine/OR99E, Delta Park/Interstate, Columbia, and the current three travel lanes in each direction on both sides of the bridge–I kinda doubt that the number of lanes could be much reduced without requiring a waiver of design standards. I could be wrong, of course–not being an expert in this field–but modern civil engineering practice in the US practically demands the behemoth construction that is the current CRC proposal.
For another example, look at the design plans for the proposed Sunrise Corridor. Six through freeway lanes from the present I-205/OR224/OR213 interchange, out to Rock Creek Junction? To this layman, it seems to be excessive capacity, considering it would augment (not replace) the current four-lane alignment of OR212/224, and that the proposal assumes OR212/224 east of Rock Creek remain, more or less, the two-lane country roads they presently are.
So–a question for the transportation gurus out there: Ignoring the political angles (Washington planners wanting lotsa lanes, Oregon planners wanting lotsa trains) that produced the current proposal–could an 8- or ten-lane bridge (the current six-lane configuration is probably too small; as there are dangerously short merges approaching the bridge on both sides of the river) fly from an engineering point of view? Or do the number of interchanges in close proximity essentially require there be three C/D lanes in each direction?
(More generally: Can a jurisdiction choose to build a substandard freeway–one with fewer lanes or shorter ramps than “optimal”–if it decides it places a higher value on reducing neighborhood impact or design cost than it does on minimizing congestion or maximizing motorist safety?)
Lenny – I lived in Portland during the 97 bridge closure and the reason there was no backup was because the WADOT and ODOT public relations people made a huge effort to let people know about the upcoming construction and many Vancouver residents ended up taking the week off. All this did was shift demand so that people that would have taken vacation at a different time of year took it during the week of the bridge closure. I remember Mike Donahue of KOIN 6 looking very embarassed at a remote desk set up near the bridge to report on the anticipated massive gridlock when there was none at all.
Your argument that traffic is lighter due to higher fuel prices and economic slowdown seems correct to me for the morning commute, having driven that commute since 2003. The afternoon commute seems about the same; it’s always worse than morning. However, when the economy returns to a normal state and begins to grow again, traffic is going to get backed up again on the freeway going south.
Lastly, all the arguments about CO2 are ignoring a big factor – the bridge will last probably 100 years and who knows what sort of energy vehicles will use 30 – 100 years from now. If solar power is to the point that a panel on top of a car will provide all the energy it needs, then the CO2 argument flies out the window. None of us can predict if we’ll even be using fossil fuels at all in 2112, or if cars will get 300 mpg.
The current bridge is dangerous from traffic safety and from “earthquake” safety standpoints. It should be replaced on those factors alone.
How many through vehicle lanes do you think the CRC ought to have? Obviously, 12 is too many for you, and you seem to be happy with six. But if we do need a new bridge for safety reasons, and/or to add rail or transit to the crossing, how many vehicle lanes? 0? 2? 4? 6?
12 responses to “Second Anti-CRC Video Released”
I’ve heard better arguments constructed by 5th graders. The first video was a purely emotional rampage… this one is… what exactly?
Bridges cure cancer?
I have met people on crack who make more sense then this.
The point is the bridge proponents are making claims that are equally preposterous.
Chris, I’m wondering what claims are being made that don’t have some research and science to back them up? I know that people don’t want to believe that CO2 emissions can be lowered by getting traffic moving, but there are also people who don’t believe in evolution. Both are ignoring actual research and science that comes out with an answer that’s not always well received.
I don’t think the CRC is the most-needed project in the region, but it’s not as bad as some people are acting. Those who are misrepresenting every fact they can to make an emotional appeal aren’t doing anyone any favors though.
Dave, I see it as primarily a question of tactics. The CRC project and its friends (like the Oregonian Editorial Board) have a large amount of resources to promote what many of us perceive as mis-information (or at least very selective information) while we skeptics have very few resources.
So using hyperbolic messages in viral media is a tactic to make people stop and think. Of course the risk is that if it’s too hyperbolic, we’ll overshoot our target audience. We’re walking a line, but my initial take is that the satire/hyperbole is nicely tuned.
Dave H pinpoints precisely one of the claims of the CRC that is not backed up by competent research and science. There is a lack of empirical evidence that getting traffic moving reduces CO2 emission.
This claim is supported only by ad-hoc calculations based on vehicle emission characteristics, without any valid methodology to account for human behavior.
During one of the PSU public seminars on transportation, I asked the presenter, Dr. Lewison Lem, whether increasing capacity to reduce congestion would reduce CO2 emissions. His answer was that any reduction would be short-term only. In the long term, increasing capacity increases CO2 emissions.
Dr. Lem is an internationally recognized expert on transportation, energy, and climate change issues. He has worked for the EPA and the AAA of Northern California, Nevada, and Utah. He has also worked for major road-building consultants such as PB, so he is about as main-stream and knowledgeable as you can get.
If you can cite some published peer-reviewed research showing the contrary, I would be pleased to know about it. I am talking about real research, not something ginned up to support the CRC in particular.
If you can cite some published peer-reviewed research showing the contrary, I would be pleased to know about it. I am talking about real research, not something ginned up to support the CRC in particular.
I can’t name any peer-reviewed research, but I know that CalTrans and the EPA accept this to be fact. As well as the California Coastal Commission, and others.
Other factors are weighed in for approval, but cars that are moving, even if it’s more of them overall, emit less gasses per mile traveled.
Yes, maybe there could be a benefit to preventing travel, but the CRC offers train, bike, and pedestrian lanes, as well as maybe truck or HOV/HOT lanes.
I’d rather see surface arterials built first, then the CRC down the road if we still need it. But, if it’s the one we can do now, so be it. I’d like to have the MAX access Downtown Vancouver instead of needing to transfer again to get on a bus there.
I think that David H’s response to my point shows how difficult it is to counter the propaganda of the CRC. In the same way that Bernard Madoff was believed to be a “financial genius” so the State DOT’s are the accepted authority on questions of traffic engineering, even when they have no scientific basis for their claims.
If the anti-CRC video’s can break through this denial, that would be great, whether they use sarcasm, humor, or whatever.
Nearly two decades ago, Australian researchers Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy analyzed congestion levels and energy use in numerous cities around the world. They discovered that higher congestion was strongly correlated with less energy use per-capita, regardless of average income level.
Since then, the highway builders have failed to show that there is an opposite causal relationship, namely that reducing congeston saves energy. However, they have continued to spread the propaganda that such a relationship exists. Just like Bernard Madoff continued to sell shares in his funds.
It is time we started using an evidence-based approach to claims of energy saving or CO2 reduction for highway projects.
Even if one believes that moving traffic reduces emissions, it does not follow that the CRC solution must be the best way to get traffic moving. $4,000 million for a huge new bridge is a lot of resources when perhaps TDM and TSM measures could reduce congestion for a fraction of the cost.
Traffic is already moving better since 2006 due to higher fuel prices and the economic slowdown…see Metro’s TSM (Transportation System Management) committee report. During the ’97 bridge closure there was no slow down for bridge traffic on half as many lanes due to the wide ranging TDM (Transportation Demand Management) efforts. Remember there is plenty of capacity across the I-5 bridges…its in the passenger seat of almost every car.
I think one interesting factor in the whole discussion of the number of lanes on the bridge–is the distinction between “thru” vs “total” lanes.
Opponents of the bridge point out that 12 lanes of traffic, 6 in each direction–is far wider than any freeway currently found in Portland. I can think of a few places in town where a freeway is wide as five lanes in a given direction (I-5 NB right after the merge with 99W in Tigard, US26 both EB and WB after the interchange with OR217); but in all such cases at least one if not both lanes disappears or exits–both freeways provide 3 “through” lanes in each direction; with additional lanes provided for climbing or merging as needed.
But 12 lanes total is unheard of in town–and three lanes in a direction for “merging” is virtually unknown in this town–the closest I can think of is the C/D (collector/distributor) ramp between US26 WB and OR8 WB, just west of Sylvan.
Portland, after all, has not built any new freeways since the completion of I-205 in the eighties. We’ve upgraded a few–most recently, the aforementioned upgrades on US26 between the zoo and Cornell (with additional travel lanes planned now out to 185th)–but Portlanders aren’t used to modern freeway standards.
If, however, you go to a city like Phoenix (probably not a good example for urban planning overall, but an interesting point nonetheless)–where entire new freeways have been recently built–you will see that many new freeways have lots of C/D ramps. If you look at some of the proposed enhancements for OR217, a lot of it involves putting C/D ramps in place, to deal with the notoriously short merging distances between ramps on the highway. The recent updates to 26 have involved lots of C/D ramps; as did the rebuilding of I-5 through Vancouver a while back.
The bottom line: Most of Portland’s freeways (including the Interstate Bridge and its approaches on both sides) are, by many modern engineering standards, obsolete–this is especially true of those freeways designated as Interstates. This is not necessarily a BAD thing, mind you–our freeways have smaller “footprints” then newer freeways in other cities. When design standards are updated, existing infrastructure is grandfathered in, and maintenance projects (such as repaving) are able to maintain the old design standards, but new construction generally has to be designed to modern engineering standards. Given the number of interchanges to I-5 on both sides of the river in close proximity to the bridge–WA500, Fourth Plane, Mill Plain, WA14/Downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island, Marine/OR99E, Delta Park/Interstate, Columbia, and the current three travel lanes in each direction on both sides of the bridge–I kinda doubt that the number of lanes could be much reduced without requiring a waiver of design standards. I could be wrong, of course–not being an expert in this field–but modern civil engineering practice in the US practically demands the behemoth construction that is the current CRC proposal.
For another example, look at the design plans for the proposed Sunrise Corridor. Six through freeway lanes from the present I-205/OR224/OR213 interchange, out to Rock Creek Junction? To this layman, it seems to be excessive capacity, considering it would augment (not replace) the current four-lane alignment of OR212/224, and that the proposal assumes OR212/224 east of Rock Creek remain, more or less, the two-lane country roads they presently are.
So–a question for the transportation gurus out there: Ignoring the political angles (Washington planners wanting lotsa lanes, Oregon planners wanting lotsa trains) that produced the current proposal–could an 8- or ten-lane bridge (the current six-lane configuration is probably too small; as there are dangerously short merges approaching the bridge on both sides of the river) fly from an engineering point of view? Or do the number of interchanges in close proximity essentially require there be three C/D lanes in each direction?
(More generally: Can a jurisdiction choose to build a substandard freeway–one with fewer lanes or shorter ramps than “optimal”–if it decides it places a higher value on reducing neighborhood impact or design cost than it does on minimizing congestion or maximizing motorist safety?)
Lenny – I lived in Portland during the 97 bridge closure and the reason there was no backup was because the WADOT and ODOT public relations people made a huge effort to let people know about the upcoming construction and many Vancouver residents ended up taking the week off. All this did was shift demand so that people that would have taken vacation at a different time of year took it during the week of the bridge closure. I remember Mike Donahue of KOIN 6 looking very embarassed at a remote desk set up near the bridge to report on the anticipated massive gridlock when there was none at all.
Your argument that traffic is lighter due to higher fuel prices and economic slowdown seems correct to me for the morning commute, having driven that commute since 2003. The afternoon commute seems about the same; it’s always worse than morning. However, when the economy returns to a normal state and begins to grow again, traffic is going to get backed up again on the freeway going south.
Lastly, all the arguments about CO2 are ignoring a big factor – the bridge will last probably 100 years and who knows what sort of energy vehicles will use 30 – 100 years from now. If solar power is to the point that a panel on top of a car will provide all the energy it needs, then the CO2 argument flies out the window. None of us can predict if we’ll even be using fossil fuels at all in 2112, or if cars will get 300 mpg.
The current bridge is dangerous from traffic safety and from “earthquake” safety standpoints. It should be replaced on those factors alone.
Here’s a question for Lenny:
How many through vehicle lanes do you think the CRC ought to have? Obviously, 12 is too many for you, and you seem to be happy with six. But if we do need a new bridge for safety reasons, and/or to add rail or transit to the crossing, how many vehicle lanes? 0? 2? 4? 6?
Just curious.