CRC Week: Arterial Crossings, RC-19, RC-22 and RC-23

The non-Freeway crossings are described on pages 5-9 and 5-21 to 5-24 (PDF 847K) of the report (PDF 3.3M).

The staff analysis seems to amount to: well, that’s nice, but unless you do freeway improvements as well, you don’t meet the purpose and need of the project. Here’s the direct quote:

It does not significantly increase vehicular capacity or reduce travel demand along I-5. It results in out-of-direction travel within the Bridge Influence Area.

It seems to me that given that 24% of the traffic on I-5 in one direction (and 38% in the other) is local to the Bridge Influence Area, you could do a lot of good by taking that traffic off I-5 so that the capacity is available for longer through trips (particularly freight).

If freeway improvements are the basic ante, then I also find it odd that there is no component coupling the multi-modal bridge with freeway improvements – exclusion by project pairing?

And I suspect this is the road-based project component most likely to add real connectivity with the least impact on overall auto-reliance in the region.

I would personally like to see the staff recommendation on this overridden by the task force.
Read the Ground Rules for CRC Week.

ID NAME Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Overall
RC-19 Arterial Crossing without I-5 Improvements F P F F P F F
RC-22 Non-Freeway Multi-Modal Crossing F P F F P F F
RC-23 Arterial Crossing with I-5 Improvements P P P P P P P

crc_multimodal

Multi-modal non-Freeway Columbia River Crossing – click image for larger view

The non-Freeway crossings are described on pages 5-9 and 5-21 to 5-24 (PDF 847K) of the report (PDF 3.3M).

The staff analysis seems to amount to: well, that’s nice, but unless you do freeway improvements as well, you don’t meet the purpose and need of the project. Here’s the direct quote:

It does not significantly increase vehicular capacity or reduce travel demand along I-5. It results in out-of-direction travel within the Bridge Influence Area.

It seems to me that given that 24% of the traffic on I-5 in one direction (and 38% in the other) is local to the Bridge Influence Area, you could do a lot of good by taking that traffic off I-5 so that the capacity is available for longer through trips (particularly freight).

If freeway improvements are the basic ante, then I also find it odd that there is no component coupling the multi-modal bridge with freeway improvements – exclusion by project pairing?

And I suspect this is the road-based project component most likely to add real connectivity with the least impact on overall auto-reliance in the region.

I would personally like to see the staff recommendation on this overridden by the task force.

Comments have been closed and will be submitted to the project public record. If you have additional thoughts, please comment on the open thread for this purpose.

2 Responses to CRC Week: Arterial Crossings, RC-19, RC-22 and RC-23