September Columbia Crossing Meeting


The next meeting of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force will be September 27 from 4-8pm at the WSDOT offices in Vancouver.

Key agenda items will include:

  • Preliminary Design Concepts – Part Two
  • Report on Existing Interstate Bridge
  • Report on US Coast Guard Hearing

Full details available on the meeting materials page of the project web site.


20 responses to “September Columbia Crossing Meeting”

  1. Number of Light Rail Lines Needed to Equal One Freeway Lane

    Passenger Miles per Mile/Passenger Kilometers per Kilometer

    2004
    Light Rail- Freeway Lane- LR Lines needed

    Baltimore 1,525 20,014 13.1
    Buffalo 2,002 12,443 6.2
    Dallas-Fort Worth 2,492 19,403 7.8
    Denver 2,692 17,506 6.5
    Houston 1,376 21,422 15.6
    Los Angeles 4,152 27,760 6.7
    Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,002 20,101 20.1
    New York 801 19,318 24.1
    Portland 3,909 20,383 5.2
    Sacramento 1,819 22,784 12.5
    Salt Lake City 3,514 15,754 4.5
    San Diego 3,513 23,510 6.7
    San Jose 675 21,358 31.6
    St. Louis 3,141 15,219 4.8
    Average 2,329 19,784 8.5

    x1000
    Calculated from FTA and FHWA data

  2. I think we should be clear that based on daily averages, there is no need for any more highway or transit capacity in Portland. If more people would run all their errands at 3:00 am, the region would have no congestion problems at all.

    The daily average isn’t the problem. The problem is that at certain times of the day there is a shortage of transportation capacity in some parts of the region.

  3. I went to the Coast Guard Hearings on the agenda presented by the CRC Task Force at the hearing:

    Navigation interests did a great job presenting their side of the picture in the reasoning of replacing the Interstate Bridges and western alternatives that have many complexions around them.

    Some things learned from all of the presentations;

    The CRC Task Force want a lower height bridge as to not conflict with Pearson Air Park (The Vancouver Histroric Airport) and PDX requirements.

    Navigation interests want and need a higher span for better navigation opportunities.

    Any new bridge like a light rail bridge or a direct car/vehicle bridge to Hayden island to the west of the current Interstate Bridge and between the heavy rail bridge would more then likely create additional hazards for navigation on the Columbia River and that would be a deal breaker.

    Replacing the heavy rail bridge and making it a multi-mode double deck bridge makes more possible sense when it includes doubling the capacity of heavy rail, new commuter and high speed passenger rail, light rail into Vancouver, and a upper deck for passenger and freight specific capability with this new structure. The current navigation channel would get moved more to the center of the river and that would enhance navigation too.

    CRC Task Force in a almost bogus effort to present an image that the Interstate Bridges have seismic problems went over edge and lost their creditability with their presentation on possible fixes that would destroy/hurt navigation interests on the Columbia River.

    The CRC Task Force proposes putting huge concrete wrapping around each of the footing. The cost and size of this effort would in my mind make keeping the current interstate Bridge impossible.

    This means that if they replace the Interstate Bridges with a new wide 90 foot high span slightly up river from the current Interstate Bridges we would not be able to build a needed light rail bridge into Vancouver because it would hurt navigation on the Columbia River and that is a NO – NO.

    This means that navigation would not be happy with this new 90 foot high CRC bridge because they need realistically 120 feet of river clearance. 120 feet of river clearance means it is to high for light rail and the needs of the airports. Positioning the new CRC Bridge up river any makes it harder to not impact the historic reserve properties.

    Building a new wide Interstate Bridge replacement would bring in more traffic into a very congested I-5 corridor and make congestion even worse, with negative impacts on all stakeholdders and create more vehicle emmissions which assults the people, air that breath and the water that we drink.

    The current Interstate Bridge are 3-lanes in capacity and the I-5 corridor is 2 and 3-lanes in capacity. If we have 5 or 6-lanes in each direction of a new replacement Interstate Bridge and it goes into a 2 and 3-lane I-5 we have exactly what a funnel looks like.

    We do not need to make the I-5 corridor even worse, that is my opinion and that is what a new wide CRC Bridge would do.

  4. Any information on the actual tonnage and value of cargo passing under the existing bridges? How many lifts, on average, per year vs. passages under the hump? How may bridge lifts are pleasure craft?
    As I recall, the existing rail bridge was not deemed enought of a hazard to warrent federal dollars for replacement of the swing span as was done on the Willamette.
    But maybe its time to take another look at a tunnel for thru traffic and conversation of the existing bridges for local traffic and lightrail.

  5. The article in the Oregonian on river freight is an eye opener. So much cargo comes into the Ports of Portland and Vancouver and goes each way.

    Containers come in from all over the world and putting as much as possible on barges to go lup river is affordable and environmentally the best way to do it.

    A lot of bulk freight comes down river on barges (like grains, raw minerals, wood products, etc.) These are very heavy and barges do a great job.

    Manufacturing, river maintenance and boat repair activities and needs create a lot of bridge openning.

    Many people believe that the RR Bridge was close to getting an OK in the last process. BNSF RR wanted to get the government to pickup the whole tab the last time around and that created a non-sale on a possible deal.

    The State of Washington is in the middle of a rail freight study and they have apparently identified this time around that this bridge is a must to be replaced. We must to all effect double rail freight capacity in and around and through Portland/Vancouver.

    Logic and common sense tells us that if we are going to need to replace the swing RR Bridge why not do it first and before anything that might happen on and with the I-5 corridor.

    Logic and common sense tells us that if we are going to replace the swing RR Bridge why not put light rail on the span. Much of the same requirements for slope and height are the same.

    Logic and common sense tells us that if we are going to replace the swing RR Bridge why not put a second deck with passenger and freight specific lanes for motor vehicles. Any and all efforts to get vehicles out of the I-5 corridor like large heavy trucks will reduce congestion adn improve safety in the I-5 corridor.

    This would then be the beginning of creating a new corridor along the BNSF RR Tracks and Portland Street that would bypass the historic St. Johns town Center and Bridge for most freight traffic coming out of Industrial River Gate and that is good.

    The number of trucks moving containers out of River Gate that could bypass this very congested section of the I-5 corridor between Vancouver Washington and the Marquam Bridge could be 90%+ and that would be good for everyone, every stakeholder, every environmentally conscience person who knows that congestion plays a role in the lack of good air quality.

    Lenny, I am sorry that a tunnel to me is not a fit in this location. To many of us it is just a way to confuse the issue.

    There is nothing nice about the I-5 corridor and the congestion that we face. We must take agressive steps to redirect as much traffic away from the corridor as possible.

    That means new light Rail capabilities into Vancouver (no magic wand and this will take time aided with agressive land use planning in Clark County Washington) and it might reduce the number of vehicles in the I-5 corridor by 2% to 4% over the first 10-years of operation. At the same time growth in Clark County has been and will be in double digits. This means that we are loosing the war on congestion in big-time now and it is only going to get worse.

    I-205 has great possiblities for relief of some of the congestion found in the I-5 corridor. The I-205 corridor must be enlarged out to 4-lanes minimum for it full circumfrance. It must become the primary through freight corridor bypassing downtwown Portland and that would help.

    Aggressive TDM efforts and methods to move all freight activities out of the I-5 corridor to a new west freight corridor and to I-205 would be needed as part of redirecting incendents of travel away from the I-5 corridor and that woulds be good. We just need a place for vehicles to go other then staying in the I-5 corridor and making everything worse.

  6. Just close the local on ramps and off ramps on Hayden Island and you’re done. You’ve fixed the entire problem! :o

    Seems like a mightmarish situation being there is no real “good” solution except to put someone at a disadvantage by either not allowing light rail, bridge expansion, river navigation, etc., etc…

    So who’s going to lose out is the real end point question.

    Being how many tons of cargo are delayed each year because the river traffic has navigation right of way I vote for river navigation to be the lowest priority. :o Let em’ ship it on the freights.

  7. Paul: your suggestion regarding a new rail bridge + local & freight traffic seems to me the best & most efficient use of resources. Thank you for spending the time thinking it out and posting it!

    However, Metro has already decided that the max # of lanes on any freeway in the region will be 3 (per direction), so they will have to be even more aggressive in implementing transit solutions, otherwise we will have to grower denser and live closer to work. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, either.

  8. The State of Washington is in the middle of a rail freight study and they have apparently identified this time around that this bridge is a must to be replaced.

    I believe this contradicts the conclusions of the last multi-state study that set priorities for freight improvements.

    Containers come in from all over the world and putting as much as possible on barges to go lup river is affordable and environmentally the best way to do it.

    How much international container traffic goes up river on barges? My impression was there was not much container traffic coming into Portland at all much less being barged further up the river.

    This would then be the beginning of creating a new corridor along the BNSF RR Tracks and Portland Street that would bypass the historic St. Johns town Center and Bridge for most freight traffic coming out of Industrial River Gate and that is good.

    The number of trucks moving containers out of River Gate that could bypass this very congested section of the I-5 corridor between Vancouver Washington and the Marquam Bridge could be 90%+ and that would be good for everyone, every stakeholder, every environmentally conscience person who knows that congestion plays a role in the lack of good air quality.

    Maybe. But isn’t it also likely to make North Portland an attractive location for warehousing, big box retail and other businesses that locate along freeways? Will that reduce traffic through St. John’s or just change its character?

    The problem with another freeway bridge is that it will quickly fill up with commuter traffic. You are essentially extending SR500 across the Columbia and Willamette. That makes it an attractive alternative for people from Clark County going to downtown Portland, or up over the hill to Washington County.

    By contrast, a local arterial from downtown Vancouver to Haydn Island would provide access across the Columbia, but not a new freeway that would attract new commuter traffic.

  9. I have yet to see the piece in Sunday’s O, but the volumes of container traffic through the Port of Portland, now and into the future, is an insignificant portion of west coast trade, and has little bearing on the traded sector economy of our region.
    We export a lot of wheat…some of which moves by barge, and import a lot of cars, most of which move by rail, but containers are not our future.
    Some of the best work done by consultants for the Governors’ I-5 TF was the rail congestion analysis. They concluded that the problem was not the bridge, but the approaches, and recommended a basket of $100M + fixes to take care of things for the next 20 years.
    Ironically, its the approaches, not the I-5 bridges that are the problem. Disconnect Hayden Island, provide access via an arterial bridge with lightrail, and let the freeway be a freeway.
    If WSDOT wants to put 7 plus lanes into a three lane bridge, that’s there problem. A big bridge will not fix it, just move it to the Oregon shore.

  10. the volumes of container traffic through the Port of Portland, now and into the future, is an insignificant portion of west coast trade, and has little bearing on the traded sector economy of our region

    It may be a small percentage of west coast trade, but it DOES impact our traded sector. I only need to look at the material flow for my employer, Xerox, to see that it can be critical.

    I agree that building capacity that will be mostly used by autos to deal with freight congestion is a losing game, but we CAN’T just write off the economic impacts of congestion.

  11. it DOES impact our traded sector. I only need to look at the material flow for my employer, Xerox, to see that it can be critical.

    How critical? My impression has been its economic impact locally is pretty limited. Is there real evidence that the port is critical to businesses that are located here? That the real economic impact is upriver for wheat farmers.

    we CAN’T just write off the economic impacts of congestion.

    Why not? I know this claim is repeated over and over so it must be true. But I don’t think anyone thinks they can entirely eliminate the costs of congestion, so you really have no choice but to “write off” some of the economic impacts. The question is how much.

    And it also isn’t clear that new capacity will substantially reduce the economic impacts of congestion. Depending on the investments, it might make them worse.

    The real question is what are the benefits of new capacity and what are the costs and, of course, who pays and who benefits. Because the truth is there are some very powerful players involved in this process who are not weighing everyone’s costs and benefits, just their own.

    No one seems to be too concerned about writing off the health impacts of generating more traffic in the region.

  12. The real question is what are the benefits of new capacity and what are the costs and, of course, who pays and who benefits.

    You’re making the leap from dealing with congestion to adding capacity.

    That assumes that every trip has the same priority. Surely getting Intel’s chips to the airport, or a container of parts to the Xerox assembly line has more importance to the economy than my trip to Target. But the transportation system does not distinguish between those trips today.

  13. You’re making the leap from dealing with congestion to adding capacity.

    We are talking about the Columbia River Crossing, so it isn’t much of a leap. Of course I completely agree – there are other ways to deal with congestion but the same questions apply. What are the benefits? What are the costs? Who benefits, who pays?

    Surely getting Intel’s chips to the airport, or a container of parts to the Xerox assembly line has more importance to the economy than my trip to Target.

    It seems like it ought to be true, but I am not so sure it is in the actual economy. My understanding from the Intel rep at the E-Freight? conference was that they weren’t really very concerned about transportation times. They were much more interested in making sure they were manufacturing the chips their customers were actually selling.

    It seems like capacity gets used up by commuters. So which has more economic value – the ability of a company to hire people from all over the region, the ability of people to build houses for a regional job market or getting a container of parts to Wilsonville for Xerox?

    As a practical matter, chips don’t vote. So for political leaders the congestion problem is a people problem, not a freight problem. The polling shows that if you can tie congestion to freight people care more about it. So that is the current public relations front. But are there any serious proposals to give freight priority? Allowing trucks in the HOV lanes for instance?

  14. Ross says: “If more people would run all their errands at 3:00 am, the region would have no congestion problems at all.” Woulda, shoulda, yada, yada. People commute during certain hours. That’s how it is. That’s how it was when light rail folks said light rail would cure congestion. Of all ways to relieve peaks, fixed rail is the worst!!!!

    For example, calculate how many hours people would have to wait to empty the Rose Quarter by MAX, given MAX headways. You wouldn’t wait and you wouldn’t use the roads at 3:00 AM.

    Ross says: “The daily average isn’t the problem. The problem is that at certain times of the day there is a shortage of transportation capacity in some parts of the region.” That hasn’t changed since your predecessor rail-fans said light rail would cure the problem.

    In any event, use just the peak hour comparisons. ODOT provide objective automatic counters by hour. The census shows the number of journey-to-work riders. Multiply the number of cars shown by the counters by 1.3 to get the number of riders. For freeways, you get more than 2,600 riders in ONE lane of one freeway at one point (doesn’t count on/offs) in one hour . for light rail, you get 7,700 riders on all lines at all points, counting on/offs during the ENTIRE peak period.

    If you make a cordon count at Washington Park (where all riders to the CBD cross) for the west side light rail, you find a little more than 3,000 entering the CBD during the AM peak. The parallel Sunset Hwy, just feet away carries about 20,000 cars during the AM peak (that’s 26,000 people).

    If you keep muttering this type of gibberish, you will show you are as transportation intelligence deprived as Sam Adams and have a future on the Portland City Council or Metro.

    Mel (who has better sense than to show up for work at 3:00 AM when the place is closed)

  15. So which has more economic value – the ability of a company to hire people from all over the region, the ability of people to build houses for a regional job market or getting a container of parts to Wilsonville for Xerox?

    Until we can develop a fully sustainable local economy, traded sector commerce is the dog that wags the tail of the local service sector economy (like homebuilding).

  16. People commute during certain hours. That’s how it is.

    Yes Mel, they do. So what did your statistics have to do with peak capacities when people travel?

    For example, calculate how many hours people would have to wait to empty the Rose Quarter by MAX,

    You don’t want to try to load the entire Rose Quarter crowd onto Max trains. In fact, you don’t try to load them into cars either. I am sure both the Max trains and all the auto lanes are full after a full house event at the Rose Quarter. I suspect several bus lines are also crowded.

    That hasn’t changed since your predecessor rail-fans said light rail would cure the problem.

    I am sure someone, somewhere, made that claim. But I don’t think anyone is seriously claiming transit of any kind will “cure the problem”. It provides people with an option to avoid congestion. And many people use it.

    The parallel Sunset Hwy, just feet away carries about 20,000 cars during the AM peak (that’s 26,000 people).

    And where do they get off Mel? And where do they park? Because getting people on and off the freeway and providing a spot for them to store their car is part of getting them to and from work. Its the problem traffic engineers have, they stop worrying when they dump people out onto the local streets.

    Its WashDOT’s solution to the congestion at the I5 and I205 crossings – get people over the bridge and let Portland worry about what to with them.

  17. Until we can develop a fully sustainable local economy, traded sector commerce is the dog that wags the tail of the local service sector economy (like homebuilding).

    But that is a general argument. Are you arguing that any trip that serves the traded sector (which would include employees of companies like Xerox and Intel) is more important than any service sector trip?

    I fully agree the region ought to invest in things that build the traded sector. That distinction is made by economists but not in the market. So it is perfectly plausible that people are willing to pay more for a faster trip to work than Xerox is for a container of parts or Intel is to get its chips to the airport.

  18. It is important to review the conclusions taken from the report “The Cost of Congestion to the Economy of the Portland Region”, prepared for; Portland Business Alliance, Metro, Port of Portland and ODOT.

    A few key points are:

    The region’s economy is transportation-dependent.

    Portland is a “Trade Hub” and our “competitiveness is largely dependent on efficient transportation and congestion threatens the region’s economic vitality”.

    Common sense tells us that means a lot of family wage jobs dependent on how efficent our transportation system is in the Portland/Vancouver area.

    “Businesses are reporting that traffic congestion is already costing them money”.

    Common sense tells us that it is not just the businesses, congestion kills the air, water and the health of people.

    “Failure to invest adequately in transportation improvements will result in a potential loss value at of $844 million annually by 2025 – that’s $782 per household — and 6,500 jobs. It equates to 118,000 hours of vehcile travel per day – that’s 28 hours of travel time per household annually”;

    “Additional regional investment in transportation would generate a benefit of at least $2 for each dollar spent”.

    Everyone who cares about the health of our people, the environment, and know and accepts the need we have for a healthy economy that creates good family wage jobs, needs to read the whole report, not just the Executive Summary and its conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *