Updated: Staff Says Tear Them Down


Update: 11/22/06

DOT officials continue pushing the message in today’s O.

Original Post: 9/29/06

The recommendation from the project staff for the Columbia River Crossing is to remove the existing bridge spans because of seismic issues and challenges with river traffic.

But the older span is on the National Register of Historic Places. And a number of task force members have expressed reservations.

Read Jim Mayer’s report from yesterday’s Oregonian.

The article does not indicate when the task force may act on the recommendation.

,

92 responses to “Updated: Staff Says Tear Them Down”

  1. The CRC task force received a draft report that looked at whether it would be “feasible and prudent” to keep the existing bridges in use for any purpose: freeway, transit, arterial or bike/ped. This is part of a federal process relating to historic and other cultural resources. If the final conclusion is substantially similar to the draft, it will be difficult to argue for keeping the existing bridges (that’s assuming there will be the will and the resources to replace them)

    as for schedule: The task force is scheduled to decide on bridge alternatives to include in the EIS process in October and on transit options in November.

  2. The question of whether continued use of the bridge is “feasible and prudent” only applies in the context of expanding capacity. Then the questions of river operation, airports and historic preservation start to produce conflicting answers.

    This report, if accurate, should raise serious questions about whether the EIS process ought to continue at all. The proper use of transportation demand management tools (aka congestion pricing and improved transit) would solve the traffic congestion problems. The only reason for a new bridge is to spur continued housing construction in rural Clark County.

    The real problem is that there is no political leadership on the Portland side of the river to defend Portland’s neighborhoods and local street network form being drown in traffic. Instead, the debate has been dominated by people committed to new transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

    The idea is that these will somehow compensate for a 50% increase in the number of automobiles being dumped into Portland each day from Clark County. But, while extending bike, pedestrian and transit infrastructure will provide alternatives to people in Clark County, they will do nothing to mitigate the impacts on people who live in Portland from expanding the freeway.

    There is a reason Metro’s model shows housing values on the Portland side of the river dropping if new capacity is added. And why it shows values in rural Clark County sky-rocketing.

  3. If you make it harder for Clark Countyers to come down and spend money in Portland with their traffic, doesn’t that hurt Portland biz? Is that a price worth paying to keep Portland free of Clark County traffic? I’m asking seriously, I’m not sure myself. There’s a balance – not sure how to strike it. But the struggling restaurant or boutique that can’t get the customers it needs to break even that month because a Clark County person was discouraged from coming over here to shop won’t care much about traffic if they can’t afford to eat.

  4. We want Clark county neighors to come to Portland, we just don’t want them to bring their cars!
    I was describing the ’97 Interstate Bridge closure yesterday…the Big Dots (ODOT and WSDOT) pulled out the TMD stops and daily vehicle trips fell from 120K to 30K!
    It would seem prudent to give this a serious try sooner than later. Start by connecting C-Tran to MAX at Delta-Vanport, then get some federal money flowing through the RTC (SW WA’s MPO) for vanpools…I run 5 without one dime from the WA side. And put the HOV lane back in operation s-bound…losing it costs several of my vanpools 10 minutes a day.

  5. So long as we extend the MAX into Vancouver I don’t have a problem with replacing those bridges, they’re narrow and in my opinion ready for replacement. I don’t think anybody’s considering expanding to 10 lanes here, so it’s not as if we’re going to be adding loads of highway capacity.

    If we don’t add decent rapid transit options to Vancouver they’ll be clogging up our roads for years to come. I suspect the only way to send the MAX over there is to attach it to a new bridge.

  6. Actually, if people in Clark County didn’t come into Portland, perhaps they would frequent downtown Vancouver more, helping to better establish that city center as a viable city!

    Oh my god! Such heretical thoughts!

    Regardless, however, cities don’t function very well with lots of automobiles. Never did, never will. Cities by their very definition are a place for people.

  7. Jim Bob,

    I’m pretty sure that the Portland economy will do just fine without Clark Countyers driving down and adding their own expenditures to it. Most restaurants and boutiques on the Oregon side probably depend much more on local than on out-of-state business. I would think that it would behoove Clark County to develop some boutiques and restaurants on their side of the river, as well as to support more transit options for crossing the river, given that light rail stations tend to make excellent locations for restaurants and boutiques. ;-)

  8. Close both bridges tommorrow and Oregon has 65,000 more jobs for Oregonians. I don’t understand the reasoning of providing jobs and a traffic free commute to those choosing to live across a river and threw the woods away from jobs. If we build anything make it for freight mobility and freight mobility alone.

  9. I still prefer the option of commuter rail on existing tracks, Portland to Kelso or beyond with frequent service, could be done tomorrow or at least very soon….

  10. Start by connecting C-Tran to MAX at Delta-Vanport…
    That’s currently on the table – see my earlier post in this thread. Currently, two out of three possibilities include running none other than 4-Fourth Plain (C-TRANs most heavily used route) down to Delta Park/Vanport as well as Jantzen Beach.

    And put the HOV lane back in operation s-bound…losing it costs several of my vanpools 10 minutes a day.
    That’s the same amount of time it cost C-TRANs route 134, which runs express from Salmon Creek Park-n-Ride (on 134th St.) to downtown Portland. As I understand, the thought behind canning the carpool lane was because “it didn’t go anywhere,” since all lanes across the Interstate Bridge were open to all vehicles.

    I once put on a comment card during a Columbia River Crossing open house was to institute tolls on the Interstate, Glenn Jackson, and Lewis & Clark between Longview and Rainier, with a structure set up not only to pay for a new bridge itself (as well as a new bridge in Longview, which I hear they want/need; also I was under the impression that the point of the project was to build a thrid Columbia River bridge in the Portland/Vancouver area), but also to encourage decreasing the number of vehicles crossing the bridge, and to keep ‘I won’t pay’-minded folks from turning US 30 into the new freeway between Portland and Longview.

    It would be set up where you’d pay a base amount if you’re a single-occupancy vehicle, and get a credit for each bona-fide passenger in your vehicle with you. Public transit vehicles would continue to cross for free (since you’re paying for TriMet through payroll taxes and/or C-TRAN through sales tax anyway). If you didn’t like it, you could pick one side of the river and stay there, or hop on the bus.

    Bear in mind this would be an actual toll, not a scheme to set up domestic anti-terrorism checkpoints (a different subject entirely from the scope of this website), and I’m not suggesting the same idea for the Sellwood Bridge.

  11. I don’t think anybody’s considering expanding to 10 lanes here, so it’s not as if we’re going to be adding loads of highway capacity.

    I think this underestimates the impact. The current bridge is 6 lanes, but functions closer to 4 lanes for through traffic because SR14 and Jantzen Beach use one lane of the bridge as a merge lane for traffic.

    So you are talking about an increase of 50% in the traffic coming over the bridge if you add one lane in each direction to expand it to 8 lanes. If you expand to 10 lanes, you are talking about doubling the amount of traffic coming into Portland.

    I will be shocked if a new bridge is built that isn’t at least wide enough to accomodate 10 lanes. They may make one lane a “merge” lane, just as on the current bridge. They may make one an HOV lane. They may call another one a “breakdown” lane. But, as has been shown in the past, those designations will be changed whenever they need to “reduce congestion”.

    If you make it harder for Clark Countyers to come down and spend money in Portland with their traffic, doesn’t that hurt Portland biz? Is that a price worth paying to keep Portland free of Clark County traffic?

    My answer would be, yes and yes. The real question is whether the more affordable housing in Clark County allows businesses to attract employees that they otherwise couldn’t. I think it does, but to a very limited extent. And as others point out, we want people to come to Portland, but leave their cars behind.

    But the cost to Portland of Clark County’s sprawling auto-oriented development is enormous. In the future we are probably talking about 10 and 15 minute waits at ramp meters in North Portland just to access I5 southbound. That severely reduces the range of job opportunities for people who live there. That’s one of the reasons for the impact on housing values.

  12. n the future we are probably talking about 10 and 15 minute waits at ramp meters in North Portland just to access I5 southbound

    Just to be clear. This is if the bridge is replaced and expanded and the freeway continues to be managed to maintain traffic flow. I believe that was already agreed to during the last study.

    The 10 – 15 minute estimate is based on one minute intervals between cars. That may or may not be a realistic number since it assumes people will actually be willing to wait that long. If they aren’t, the actual waits will be shorter since there will be fewer cars in line.

  13. Metro has said they won’t expand any freeways in Oregon past 6 lanes anyway, so it doesn’t really matter how many lanes a bridge will have – you’ll get a bottleneck as soon as you hit land.

    Who is pushing for an 8/10 lane bridge anyway? This is the first I’ve heard of it.

    6 + light rail + commuter rail/freight/amtrak + bike/ped in addition to a 4 lane local/freight/rail bridge sounds about right to me.

  14. Who is pushing for an 8/10 lane bridge anyway? This is the first I’ve heard of it.

    Justin – I think you need to ask some question, because the current bridge is 6 lanes. How is replacing it with a six lane bridge going to ease congestion? They are going to build a 10 lane bridge, they will call one lane a breakdown lane and another a merge lane. Ten years later, they’ll take the breakdown lane for traffic, just as they have with the breakdown lanes that were there before. Then they will take the merge lane, just as they are the extra lane south of Delta Park.

    Metro has said they won’t expand any freeways in Oregon past 6 lanes anyway, so it doesn’t really matter how many lanes a bridge will have – you’ll get a bottleneck as soon as you hit land.

    There will be more than 6 lanes in the “bridge influence area” under the current plan. A lot of the traffic is headed onto local streets just across the bridge. But you are right, I5 south will be full – too full to allow North Portland residents easy access. Thus ramp metering will be used to “manage” the freeway to maintain the flow of traffic from Clark County.

    Until a limit is set on the number of trips from Clark County, there is no way to provide sufficient capacity. They will build houses in auto-dependent developments until the traffic to Portland overwhelms whatever new capacity is built.

  15. “Who is pushing for an 8/10 lane bridge anyway?”

    Growth in traffic capacity demands it.

    We are either going to accommodate growth or continue the long pattern of ignoring it.

    It’s amazing to witness the rhetoric focused on stopping all road capacity increases.

    Especially when the supposed alternative modes provide no viable alternative at all.

    Light rail on the crossing should be dropped all together yet it appears most here would advocate that ONLY light rail be added without any consideration of the horrific traffic at all.

    As if light rail, or the subsidized “development patterns” it triggers will ever accommodate the needs of growth.

    Six years ago the head of Metro had it right.

    “Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
    It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
    There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
    Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.”
    from Metro head, Mike Burton’s State of the Region Speech, 2000

  16. “It’s amazing to witness the rhetoric focused on stopping all road capacity increases.”

    Unless you’ve had your head in the sand for the past 30 years, this is exactly what Oregonians have been saying for exactly that long: no more freeways.

    There are many places in the nation with tons of freeways, if you prefer to live that kind of lifestyle. I take it there are plenty of people who have absolutely no problem paving every square inch of the Willamette Valley from Eugene to the Columbia River. As a native-born Oregonian, I – and many others – will have none of that.

    I – and many other normal people in this state – find it highly offensive for people to advocate promoting pollution and the destruction of the environment and our way of life here in Oregon.

    Just to be clear, we have roads. Lots of roads. Regular, normal people who grew up in Oregon don’t want to see anymore roads crisscrossing the state and obliterating our quality of life under thousands of tons of pavement.

  17. What a bunch of nonsense.
    Talk about having your head in the sand.

    “Oregonians” said no more light rail and your con men and schemers built more.

    Oregonians never said “no more freeways”.

    They have been taken out of the decision making.

    The “tons of freeways” and “paving over the Willamette Valley” is fanaticism rhetoric all the way and fails the reality test.

    “As a native-born Oregonian, I – and many others -will have none of that”

    Yes, I know. I have been watching your methods.

    Conspiring to stop all road projects.

    This Oregonian of 52 years finds your approach extremely offensive and obviously arrogant and condescending.

    Is former Metro exec Mike Burton “normal”?

    I see you avoid the fact that our planning is not accommodating growth.

    You should be offended by Metro’s advocating of pollution and the destruction of our way of life here in Oregon.
    The congestion, pollution, overcrowding, fiscal instability and molding our region into LA is disgusting.

    Just to be clear, we have not enough roads. Roads are outdated and unsafe.
    Regular, normal people who grew up in Oregon know that safe roads and adequate access and corridors provide safe travel and commuting.

    Your fairy tell of “roads crisscrossing the state and obliterating our quality of life” is the perfect example of head in the sand propaganda you rely upon.

    While reality is just as Mike Burton described it way back in 2000.

    I can only imagine you have rarely left the State to places like Dallas Fort-Worth or San Antonio where adequate thoroughfares, freeways and frontage roads provide not only excellent overall mobility but manage to do so while preserving and providing much green and VERY HIGH livability.

    Those regions aren’t “paved over” or “obliterating”.

    Again that is your story telling and you are sticking to it.
    That’s what fanatics do.

    I just spent 4 days in Dallas-FW and was very impressed with their region wide environment which you want people to wrongly believe is something to avoid.

    You couldn’t be more deliberately wrong.

    Perhaps you live in a small world of localized bike use and urban life but it appears to have distorted your impression of what a region needs are.

    The longer our planner/schemer officials ignore the needs of growth the worse things around here will get.
    Despite what you “will or will not have”

  18. Justin Says: (quoting Steve)”It’s amazing to witness the rhetoric focused on stopping all road capacity increases.”

    Unless you’ve had your head in the sand for the past 30 years, this is exactly what Oregonians have been saying for exactly that long: no more freeways.
    JK: So you want to turn Portland in to Los Angeles with is horrid traffic jams and high density?

    Justin Says: There are many places in the nation with tons of freeways, if you prefer to live that kind of lifestyle.
    JK: You mean places with low un-employment, good schools and little wasted money in traffic jams?

    Justin Says: I take it there are plenty of people who have absolutely no problem paving every square inch of the Willamette Valley from Eugene to the Columbia River. As a native-born Oregonian, I – and many others – will have none of that.
    JK: The only paving over is taking place in high density areas like, the Pearl, the Round and the new SoWhat. Low density areas (sprawl to some) have little pavement, sometimes only a dirt road, little need of city services such as sewer and water, no runoff from the land and sometimes even energy independence. Do you have a problem with this?

    Justin Says: I – and many other normal people in this state – find it highly offensive for people to advocate promoting pollution and the destruction of the environment and our way of life here in Oregon.
    JK: And I find it offensive that you advocate for traffic jams, more cars in our neighborhoods, loss of livability and loss of jobs as businesses leave the area for uncongested areas.

    Justin Says: Just to be clear, we have roads. Lots of roads. Regular, normal people who grew up in Oregon don’t want to see anymore roads crisscrossing the state and obliterating our quality of life under thousands of tons of pavement.
    JK: Wrong again, this “grew up in Oregon” guy wants road building to keep pace with population growth (+per capita driving increase)

    Thanks
    JK

  19. Dallas TX is aggressively building lightrail and the two cities are linked by commuter rail. So they get it.
    Now we need to follow their example and link Portland and Vancouver with MAX.

  20. Lenny Anderson Says: Dallas TX is aggressively building lightrail and the two cities are linked by commuter rail. So they get it.
    JK: Yeah, a new mayor got a lot of campaign cash from the light rail lobby. They are also building freeways.

    Lenny Anderson Says: Now we need to follow their example and link Portland and Vancouver with MAX.
    JK: Have you looked at the cost? It will cost $300,000 to accommodate each person that would not ride the alternative bus system. It would, literally, be cheaper to buy penthouse condos in the Pearl for each of those few people who would not ride a bus.

    No thanks
    JK

  21. Lenny,
    It’s the roads in Dallas-FW.

    Stop playing games

    The fact that they accomodated growth with a freeway network while planners here play fantasy games makes there transportation system far better than here.
    And they did it while preserving lifestyle and livability.

    Unlike here where it’s light rail and high density at all costs.

    I drove all over DFW last week and found their regional system far better because of the capacity increases and freeway improvements they have made over the last decade and more.

    Justin and others around here have been brainwashed to wrongly think that translates into paving everything over and destruction of lifesyle.
    Not true. The green and high livability are all over DFW. And it certainly wasn’t provided by
    anything Metro-like or light rail or TODs.

    The mess you advocate around here Lenny is staggering and you haven’t a clue about most of what you speak. Your comments about SoWa, biotech jobs and the Tram are stunning in their inaccuracy.

  22. So what organization is the largest employer in Portland? What is the largest research institution in the region? Help me out.
    Portland? a mess? its a pretty pleasant city if you ask me. Swan Island is growing, no traffic problems here…maybe Steve, you live and work in the wrong part of town
    But I trust you would support the freeway from Clackamas county to 217 via Lake Oswego…I invision an elevated structure with a big interchange with 43 in downtown. Ask the people of LO…I am sure they are anxious to get it built, ASAP.
    The fact is people have been stopping freeways through their neighborhoods since the 70’s; not just in Portland, but Memphis and probably Dallas, too. Portland lost some great close in neighborhoods in the 60’s; thankfully close-in SE and NW were spared the worst…and Portland has been better for it. Now I want the East Portland river bank back.

  23. The alleged need to retrofit the existing bridges seismically has not been established. If the “big one” hits, the I-5 bridges over the Columbia will be the least of our concerns. The freeway system, with its scores of overpasses, ramps, viaducts and other structures that are vulnerable to a large earthquake will become immediately dysfunctional.

    While the freeway system has the I-205 Bridge as an alternate route, the rail system doesn’t. The BNSF Railroad Bridge carries more freight tonnage than the freeway and is the only transcontinental north-south rail link west of the Cascades. A string of barges snaking through the “S” curve of the barge channel is far more likely than an earthquake to put the railroad bridge out of commission.

    A new supplemental bridge for local traffic and public transportation, built to modern seismic standards, would provide a more useful transportation link to the local road system, which would probably be the most functional system in the event of a large earthquake.

    The top priority for the Columbia River Crossing should be the replacement of the swing span on the railroad bridge, with a vertical lift span located closer to the center of the river as recommended by the Columbia River Towboat Association six years ago. The shift of the barge channel to align with this new lift span would eliminate the dangerous downstream “S” curve maneuver required by tugboats wishing to avoid bridge lifts. It would also allow more barge tows to avoid these lifts during high water conditions.

    Traffic disruption would be minimal because lifts would only be required for high vessels, which comprise only a small part of total river traffic. (See Vessel Height vs. Annual Frequency table, page 3, U.S. Coast Guard Fact Sheet, 9-21-06)

    If lifts can be kept to a minimum, no changes to the current freeway bridges are necessary. The bridges were recently painted and their lifts refurbished. If their approach ramps are removed (see my earlier proposal), and a 45 MPH speed limit is posted and enforced on the freeway in the bridge influence area to mitigate line of sight issues, the existing bridges will be able to accommodate the freeway’s six lane capacity safely.

    This brings into question the earlier decision of the Task Force to eliminate lifts on any new bridge. They should consider the tradeoff between a low profile supplemental bridge with a lift that would operate only occasionally, and a much more expensive high bridge with approaches flying over the railroad fill in downtown Vancouver.

    Conclusion: Building a low profile supplemental bridge with a lift span, in addition to retrofitting the opening of the railroad bridge, would:

    ? enhance navigational and railroad safety;
    ? accommodate freeway traffic;
    ? provide greater flexibility in the event of a major earthquake;
    ? not become a major eyesore in downtown Vancouver; and
    ? be far less expensive than any new high span bridge.

  24. The engineering report demonstrates the lack of common sense and how far off course transportation planning has gone in Portland. Instead of removing capacity, and then replacing it with an overpriced taxpayer subsidized project that is obsolete when completed (that seems to be the norm today), planners should be adding capacity , in particular, motor vehicle capacity. As I understand the standoff, Washington officials want a big new I-5 bridge while Oregon officials want to resolve all congestion issues with transit and bicycles. Neither will functionally resolve the majority of the issues. The “tear it down” engineering report is nothing more that a bias means to support the end swing of both sides of the pendulum, but fails to consider what is needed in the middle.

    The biggest problem with the Columbia Crossing is that all traffic is funneled onto the three I-5 lanes in each direction. The first resolve should be to address moving local traffic off the freeway by providing a local motor vehicle route that connects Vancouver to Columbia Boulevard in Oregon, and serves Hayden Island. If a new freeway bridge is built, the existing twin bridges could serve a portion of this purpose. Just getting local traffic off the freeway will have a significant impact on reducing congestion. One possible reason a local connector concept is not gaining momentum on the committee studying the options is that Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and the Washington delegation seem to think it is OK for Vancouverites to work in Oregon, but not cross the river and shop in Oregon to avoid paying sales taxes.

    Cost controls also must be a factor considered, For example, it does not make good dollars and sense to have a separated right-of-way river crossing for Max when a there is a train only every ten or fifteen minutes in each direction. Max can easily share a right-of-way with motor vehicles that has two lanes or more in each direction on a local connector crossing. Busses and freight should also share lanes with other motor vehicles, Any special treatment for transit or freight is cost prohibitive and would likely short change taxpaying motorists. If this type of special treatment is provided, then transit users and freight carriers should bear the burden of the costs. Furthermore, if any tolls are charged motorists, they must also be charged to all users including transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians and freight carriers. It should also be noted that there would be a cost with tearing either or both of the current bridges. A better and sustainable alternative is to use them in place.

  25. Lenny,
    OHSU is the largest employer in Portland.
    That’s why they need responsible leadership.
    OHSU is the largest research institution in the region. They are the only one now that they have taken over the OGI.
    So what’s your point?
    The better question is where does OHSU stand on the national and global biotech pie?
    The evidence and reality speaks for itself.
    OHSU is a crumb on the edge of the pie. A non contender, incappable of any significant grabbing of the bigger slice as lied about for SoWa.

    If you ever did any checking reading or pondering at all you would know this.

    “Help you out”?

    Fat chance of that. You bought everything Kohler, Katz and the PDC said about the Tram, SoWa, OHSU and biotech jobs.
    Here’s a hint. They were lying.
    Why do you so easily assume the Tram and SoWa will deliver OHSU research growth, biotech jobs and the salvation of Portland’s economy?
    In reality the venture was, and is proving to be, a reckless and risky crap shoot that will weaken OHSU’s core missions and undermine their ability to grow responsibly.
    Shackled with a yearly multimillion tab for decades with no additional revenue being generated is not progress.

    I could go on and on about how Kohler set the low standard,
    but State Senator Kurt Schrader (D) had him pegged long ago.

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266267.shtml
    ,,”Senator Schrader, ,,, expressed concerns about the way OHSU conducts itself generally. Referring to the president of OHSU, Senator Schrader said, “Peter Kohler is a liar… he is extremely disingenuous” and “a poor steward of the medical community”.

    Every hard working, dedicated OHSU employee (and taxpayer)should be furious over Kohler’s unethical management tenure. He has so weakened the institution’s fiscal stability that his replacement will be facing years of financial calamity and core mission degradation while Kohler easy-chairs his own retirement conglomerate.

    Lenny, why have you been providing the scoundrel cover?

    “””Portland? a mess?”””

    The regional transportation system is a mess and getting worse.

    “”””it’s a pretty pleasant city if you ask me”””

    I didn’t ask you that.
    But as usual you answer a question you asked yourself.
    “””Swan Island is growing, no traffic problems here””””

    Nice barometer. A locale who’s access is not shared with any through traffic.
    Wake up and get off the island.
    Besides what happens to Swan Island traffic when reaches I-5? Holy smokes! What’s going on?

    “”””maybe Steve, you live and work in the wrong part of town””””

    Who lives on Swan Island?
    Maybe you know nothing about any part of town besides Swan Island.

    And here you go making up straw man concepts to debunk.

    Wow a freeway through LO!

    That’s quite a debate stopper there.

    I’m speechless.

    “””Portland lost some great close in neighborhoods in the 60’s”””””

    Huh? So we should not have built any freeways?

    How is Portland better for failing to build adequate transportation infrastructure?

    The network of effective freeway infrastructure and supporting access roads in places like San Antonio and DFW make their cities better for it.

    Halting freeway, thoroughfare and expressway construction here has created chaos.

    “””Now I want the East Portland river bank back”””

    What for? So vehicles poor through your neighborhood streets instead?
    Nice preservation technique.
    More Homer towers or imaginary biotech expansion? Geeze?????

  26. It seems to me Jim has some points, but they seem to be addressing an entirely different issue. The political and economic reality driving demand is that the development of housing in rural Clark County is going to be slowly strangled by an inability to get those people to jobs on the other side of the Columbia. Since there is no practical way to provide high quality transit to sprawling rural development, expanding the freeways is the only solution.

    The suggestions for light rail and other transit solutions from the Oregon side of the river are essentially suggesting that Vancouver adopt Portland’s development pattern. Simply getting light rail across the river isn’t going to do much either for congestion on I5 or for making transit a more reasonable alternative for most of the new housing being built.

    That is not to say there are not a lot of improvements that can be made to Vancouver’s transit system and to Portland’s to better serve some of the trips taken on I5. But it is people living in Vancouver and the other older neighborhoods who are going to be best served by transit. The new semi-rural development in Clark County is entirely auto-dependent and likely to remain that way for the forseeable future unless Clark County changes its approach to land use.

  27. Jim Howell & Terry Parker hang in there, common sense and reason will win out.

    For those of you who have not gone to the WEB Site: http://www.newinterstatebridge.com, you should go there and take a read.

    What you will see is a little of both what Jim and Terry are calling for and that is developing a new set of bridges and a new corridor that to many is a freight specific corridor but it is a lot more.

    It means that we can take and build a new corridor that provides an alternative to putting more cars, freight, congestion and emissions into the I-5 corridor through Portland.

    It means that we can double our freight rail capacity north/south and east and west in the Portland/Vancouver region and that mean investment, jobs and making our region more competitive.

    It means that we can extend Light Rail into Vancouver on one bridge on the same deck with needed capacity improvements to heavy, commuter and passenger rail in the corridor.

    It means that we can develop an alternative to the I-5 corridor limited capacity for freight and people movement.

    It means an alternative can be built that should be built in any event FIRST before most any major disruption to trying to improve the I-5 corridor.

    It means that we take agressive steps to find a way, some place else to accomidate the 55,000 to 65,000 commuters that are caught in and part of the congestion found in the I-5 corridor.

    It means that we can engineer an alternative bridge into Vancouver that will eliminate or reduce initial cost of putting Light Rail into Vancouver. Let know one think that Light Rail is going to fix the congestion problems in the I-5 corridor but in the long haul with new planning considerations in Clark County it will help.

  28. This recent effor to overstate the seimic hazards and problems of the two Interstate Bridges is to me another example of an overzealous effort to present a case that there is only one option and that is to replace the Interstate Bridges on I-5.

    As recently as when the bridges were painted and repaired (approximately 10-years ago) a complete review was given (before and after) as a part of that process and the two Interstate Bridge spans were found to be in great shape.

    In fact, the I-5 Interstate Bridges are in better shape and on better footing, then a lot of the more significant bridges found with our Interstate Highway System in our region and America as a whole.

    What the CRC Task Force Staff is doing is reason to disband the group immediately because it is a embarrassment and diservice to our community as we try to find solutions that solve region wide transportation problems.

    If the CRC Task Force and Staff are successful and sell this bridge they will to all effect earmark/take approximately the next 20-years of federal highway dollars going to our region and put it into this one project.

    It has been fascinating to watch the staff of the CRC Task Force as they appear to be like snake oil salemen or someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. I feel sorry for the CRC Task Force members.

    This effort on the part of the CRC Staff is to make people think that these bridge footing need to be rebuilt and made so large in doing it that they would restrict navigation and therefore mean that the bridges must be replaced. Give them credit they are smart, just a little misguided.

  29. I expect staff to note that the existing bridges are now unsafe due to their popularity with starlings.
    Some of you may recall the vote on my motion to include the “6-2-2” option in the recommended list at the Governors’ I-5 TF…it “lost” on a tie 10-10 vote.
    It will be interesting to see how the current variation of that option scores in the next round of staff analysis.

  30. Ross Williams Says: The political and economic reality driving demand is that the development of housing in rural Clark County is going to be slowly strangled by an inability to get those people to jobs on the other side of the Columbia.
    JK: That is slowly being corrected by jobs (businesses) moving out of Portland to Clarke county. Just give it a few decades and Portland will shrivel up and Vancouver will flourish, assuming that Vancouver does not repeat Portland’s mistakes.

    Ross Williams Says: Since there is no practical way to provide high quality transit to sprawling rural development, expanding the freeways is the only solution.
    JK: And a good thing too. Cars use less energy than transit and cost less to. See Table 2.10 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 25-2006.
    ( http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf )
    Cars=3549 BTU/passenger mile.
    Transit Bus=4,160 BTU/passenger-mile.
    (Rail is a non starter because it costs too much and does too little.)
    Note that the cars energy consumption is the current fleet of cars and can be cut in half (or more) with downscaling to smaller cars if oil ever becomes too costly. Transit bus has been trending upwards in energy consumption for years while cars been trending down. See table 2.11.

    Ross Williams Says: The suggestions for light rail and other transit solutions from the Oregon side of the river are essentially suggesting that Vancouver adopt Portland’s development pattern.
    JK: Hopefully they are not that stupid.

    Ross Williams Says: Simply getting light rail across the river isn’t going to do much either for congestion on I5 or for making transit a more reasonable alternative for most of the new housing being built.
    JK: Right on!

    Thanks
    JK

  31. It means that we take agressive steps to find a way, some place else to accomidate the 55,000 to 65,000 commuters that are caught in and part of the congestion found in the I-5 corridor.

    What is the advantage of taking people off I-5 through Vancouver neighborhoods across North Portland to Highway 30? And what makes you think the 55,000-65,000 number is static? Isn’t it more likely that the people using the new corridor will mostly be new commuters who move to Vancouver when the new corridor is built, rather than a significant number of the existing commuters?

  32. Ross,

    A combination of improvements with new capacity including Light Rail, making I-205 a minimm of 4-lanes for its full circumfrance, a westside alternatve with freight specific lanes and TDM methods that redirect as many as possible out of he I-5 corridor is smarter then replacing the Interstate Bridgesand making the prblems of congestion even worse.

  33. Paul –

    I understand why people in St. Johns think a new bridge will relieve the truck traffic over the St. John’s bridge. I think they are ignoring the impacts in Vancouver and underestimating the extra traffic that will end up on local streets in North Portland.

    I don’t see what good four lanes on most of I-205 does. The destinations for most of those trips are already congested. The reason more people don’t use I-205 now from Clark County is that they have to use the Banfield (or Sandy or Stark) to get to downtown or Lloyd Center.

    redirect as many as possible out of he I-5 corridor is smarter then replacing the Interstate Bridgesand making the problems of congestion even worse.

    While I think almost anything is better than a new 10-12 lane bridge on I5, I don’t think the alternative is to create more trips and put them somewhere else. That seems to be self-defeating.

    I like the idea of freight only lanes. Perhaps the solution is to put them along the railroad right-of-way all the way through Portland.

  34. What is the advantage of taking people off I-5 through Vancouver neighborhoods across North Portland to Highway 30? And what makes you think the 55,000-65,000 number is static? Isn’t it more likely that the people using the new corridor will mostly be new commuters who move to Vancouver when the new corridor is built, rather than a significant number of the existing commuters?

    Ross, is it possible there is an alternative crossing that would have positive land use impacts on both sides of the river (e.g., Will Macht’s proposal for Quayside on the Washington side)?

  35. Chris –

    Yes. I think Will’s idea has some merit. There is still the difficulty of figuring out how to prevent any streets connected to a river crossing from getting drowned with commuter traffic and killing development. Will raised some ideas for more local crossings during the last I5 discussion and they got very little consideration. I don’t think local connections are something the DOT’s, in particular WashDOT, think is their job.

  36. Ross Williams Says: The political and economic reality driving demand is that the development of housing in rural Clark County is going to be slowly strangled by an inability to get those people to jobs on the other side of the Columbia.
    JK: That is slowly being corrected by jobs (businesses) moving out of Portland to Clarke county. Just give it a few decades and Portland will shrivel up and Vancouver will flourish, assuming that Vancouver does not repeat Portland’s mistakes.

    Ross Williams Says: Since there is no practical way to provide high quality transit to sprawling rural development, expanding the freeways is the only solution.
    JK: And a good thing too. Cars use less energy than transit and cost less to. See Table 2.10 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 25-2006.
    ( http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf )
    Cars=3549 BTU/passenger mile.
    Transit Bus=4,160 BTU/passenger-mile.
    (Rail is a non starter because it costs too much and does too little.)
    Note that the cars energy consumption is the current fleet of cars and can be cut in half (or more) with downscaling to smaller cars if oil ever becomes too costly. Transit bus has been trending upwards in energy consumption for years while cars been trending down. See table 2.11.

    Thanks
    JK

  37. “The new semi-rural development in Clark County is entirely auto-dependent and likely to remain that way for the forseeable future unless Clark County changes its approach to land use.”

    I think the point by JK, Terry and Steve S is that it SHOULD remain auto-dependent, for that is why these people are choosing to live there.

    Unfortunately, no matter what someone may desire, reality can hit like a cold rain on a winter day: with no way to stop it. By the mere fact of tens of thousands of people purchasing houses in rural Clark County and choosing to work in Oregon, the collective (and indidivudal) choices of these people doom themselves to congestion. This is called ‘reality.’

    As an Oregonian, why the hell should I care about how long their commutes are? (considering they don’t even live in the same state as me) – and if they are so enamored with their living location, that is their privilege to spend more time in the car stuck in traffic. Life’s about tradeoffs, after all.

    If you want to talk about freight mobility… well, that’s a totally different topic. It seems that there are exactly two ways to free freight (truck) mobility from SOV congestion:

    1) build new freight-only lanes
    2) congestion-charge manage until SOV congestion is reduced

    circling the argument from freight mobility being a critical factor in Portland’s economy to SOV congestion being of paramount concern to justify not building congestion-free freight-only lanes is… not a very good argument.

    Interestingly, there are a few other ways to move people around that completely avoids auto congestion:

    trains
    bicycles
    ferries

    freight can also benefit from being moved around by barges and trains.

    Note that these should not share lanes with cars, for then they too get stuck in congestion (a simple premise, to be sure).

    Now, we have argued over these points so many times over the past year, that it is surely ridiculous to do so anymore. I will now let the redundant postings continue in vain…

  38. That is slowly being corrected by jobs (businesses) moving out of Portland to Clarke county

    Actually, far from being corrected, Clark County is producing housing far faster than it is jobs. So the problem is getting worse.

  39. This problem of Congestion in the I-5 corridor can not be minimized by what I hear in a lot of these posting, it has much greater consequences.

    Because the I-5 corridor is at a approximate LOS congestion level of “F” for 7-hours per day in the I-5 corridor, trucks coming and going to our industrial and employment area of River Gate most often travel through side streets and the St. Johns Town Center and acrossing the Historic St. Johns Bridge. This is not good and smart!

    This is a unseen consequence of I-5 congestion that makes safety worse for all people living in Portland. It is just not smart!

    Un-resolved congestion in the I-5 corridor helps make this north Portland section of the I-5 corridor have the 3rd worse air quality in the nation. This hurts the environment and people and it is just not smart!

    Getting Portland/Metro area businesses to move into SW Washington to tap this availability of workers and professionals who would rather live and work in Washington should be on everyone’s mind. It is part of the solution to Oregon’s transportation capacity problems that no one wants to address.

    Kalama, Woodland, Ridgefield, Camas, and Vancouver Washington Port authorities have land and incentitives available for most any Oregon business. They have great access to wide non-congested highways, in most cases excellent rail capacity and access to river freight. Special Tax considerations are also available.

    As long as Oregon does not want or care about these 65,000 workers who commute on I-5 and pay in a accumlative Oregon Income Tax what is said to be equal to or greater then all counties in the State of Oregon other then Multnomah and Washington Counties and consume little or NO benefit for it, let not worry about them!

    Lets not worry about the impact that they have to the economy and businesses, state treasury, and the products and services that we need and consume that they create or make available to us.

    We are more concerned in Oregon about giving rights and benefits to illegals from foreign countries then Americans that choose to live an American dream and buy a house that they can afford and get their children educated in good stable schools districts and hold legal jobs paying and all of their taxes due.

    These legal US and Washington State residents working in Oregon are not on welfare, not on the Oregon Health Plan and consume little from the dollar that they give into the State of Oregon, but they are bad people to many who thrive on social engineering and telling everyone else how these people should live their lives.

  40. Because the I-5 corridor is at a approximate LOS congestion level of “F” for 7-hours per day in the I-5 corridor, trucks coming and going to our industrial and employment area of River Gate most often travel through side streets and the St. Johns Town Center and acrossing the Historic St. Johns Bridg

    I don’t think that is true. Trucks do not use St. John’s as an alternative to I5 but because it is the most direct route. You are mixing up different issues.

  41. There is still not much real freight data. We do know that in the peaks on I-5 its about 10%…most shippers know that they do not want to be on that stretch during peak hours.
    The worst impacts on freight will be self-imposed by ODOT when I-5 is widened across the Slough, eliminating the add-lane from Columbia Blvd southbound. That project will also likely shift traffic backup south into the heart of north Portland and compromise freeway access from Swan Island via Going and Greeley. If ODOT’s ramp meters are automated to adjust to traffic conditions and no truck bypass lanes are provided trucks off Columbia, Going and Greeley will be effectively locked out of using the freeway.
    All this to accommodate Clark county commuters, most of whom are driving alone in the their cars.
    But the biggest transportation issue we are hearing from businesses in N. Portland relates to the rail…in particular the UP and BNSF disinclination to handle small numbers of cars, assemble trains, etc. They want to shift to unit trains and forget the location that needs just a half dozen box cars or tank cars.
    And before we get too upset about moving freight, we need to look at how much of that is really “traded sector” and how much is local delivery. UPS, the beer distributers and others are not going to leave this market, they will adjust to what’s on the ground. UPS built a new hub in Vancouver; they did not wait for a new bridge. If they don’t adjust, others will take their place.
    The bulk of the traded sector jobs on Swan Island are not directly related to moving goods, though we have lots of truck traffic, but no congestion to speak of.

  42. Ross, I am sorry you are not up on how truck traffic flows in and out of Industrial north Portland, including the Port of Portland’s River Gate industrial area.

    The City of Portland was more then 50% off of what it thought was happening as they were about to rebuild the St. Johns Bridge.

    An expert on St. Johns is Sharon Nasset and she has probably the best and most accurate information as the head of transportation committee for the St. Johns Neighborhood association. All I can tell you is that this is what I remember her telling me.

    There is NO clean corridors for freight traffic coming and going in and out of River Gate for trucks or rail and this is a big issue/problem.

  43. Paul –

    I think you misunderstood Sharon. Her proposal would likely take some truck traffic off I5 and it would allow truck traffic to be redirected out of St. Johns. But I have never heard her claim its the same traffic.

  44. Hello,
    Trucks over the St. John Bridge. The Portland City Council hearing on the St. Johns’ Truck Strategy, PDOT Steve Gerber stated 75% of the freight trucks crossing the bridge had no destination or origination on the peninsula as spill over from congested I-5 in July 2001.
    The Corridor is full. I-5 is full. In 1980, we put in metered ramps in because it was near impossible to get on to I-5 everyone was stopped. The vehicles where dead stopped, the ramp lights where meant to paces us into a lane and keep I-5 moving. The Corridor can do 85,000-105,000 vehicles in a 24 hour, that is my thought. The Corridor is at about 135,000and with truck averaging 3 time the capacity need makes it at 185,000. In the I-5 Corridor each general purpose lane reach capacity at about 3500-3900 vehicles an hour peak, 3 general-purpose lanes. This would create a capacity flow of 51 mph, better for the air, better for the economy. To help the environment and business the speed on I-5 must stay above 45mph including in the peak times. The only was to do that to provide capacity some where else…. Ah.
    I-5 is does not belong to us. Using the I-5 Corridors as a local access freeway is inappropriate. We need to grow up and get a bridge/ bridges of our own… Aim for Speed for a good environment and healthy economy,. I-5 is Full.
    Peace,
    Sharon

  45. Here is the statement from the St. John’s freight study: “http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=87368#search=%22St.%20Johns%20bridge%20truck%20freight%20%22”

    “Directing trucks to use the I-5 Freeway and the Fremont or Marquam Bridges, as the only access to and from US 30 will create significant inefficiencies for the movement of both local and non-local truck-freight because of an increase in miles of vehicle travel and travel time.”

    There is no doubt some trucks use the St. Johns bridge an cross the peninsula to I5, but that has little to do with the congestion on I5. It is simply the most direct route between Highway 30 and I5.

  46. Unfortunately, no matter what someone may desire, reality can hit like a cold rain on a winter day

    I think both sides of this debate are in denial. Those that love city living, ignore the reality that there are a lot of people who would like a cheap house in the country 20 minutes from downtown Portland.

    The folks that think everyone wants to live in the country ignore the reality that there are fewer of those when it is 30 minutes to downtown Portland and fewer still at 40 minutes. So you try to knock 10 minutes off the commute by adding capacity and you just create a market for housing that is desireable to that many more people. Pretty quickly the road is back to the same level of congestion.

    If you want to reduce congestion, you have to figure out some way to do it other than adding capacity. Adding capacity just means room for more people to suffer from the same level of congestion.

  47. Strategically adding capacity, roads bridges, and arterials forms good land use pattern. A third corridor located between I-5 and the Ports of Vancouver and Portland will help add density. The infrastructures will attract business to the 1000+ acres in the north peninsula of underdeveloped build able lots. Currently under utilized land sit because our region lacks a good transportation system to support usage. When the system is not overloaded and with direct access to I-5 the area will have density with what’s there currently…. Jobs will be created it helps sprawl when the jobs stay together people often live close. Freight Oriented Development attracts manufacturing, ship and receiving, freight companies. These family wage jobs attract families. Creating the vital connections between our industrial area, as well as north/south and east/west corridor adding accessibility without having to access I-5 or go through our residential neighborhoods. Our industrial areas must be supported, with infrastructure and a trained workforce. The sake of the environment and the economy we must at the very minimum enough capacity.

  48. Ross Williams: The folks that think everyone wants to live in the country ignore the reality that there are fewer of those when it is 30 minutes to downtown Portland and fewer still at 40 minutes. So you try to knock 10 minutes off the commute by adding capacity and you just create a market for housing that is desireable to that many more people.
    JK: Of course that is the reason that the people created government: to provide essential services to allow us to live as we wish. Don’t you agree that the government should respond to people’s needs instead trying to force people into some planner’s scheme of where people should live like they did in Russia?

    Ross Williams: Pretty quickly the road is back to the same level of congestion.
    JK: Only if the government fails to add capacity at the rate population increases (plus increased driving per capita.)

    Ross Williams: If you want to reduce congestion, you have to figure out some way to do it other than adding capacity.
    JK: You could reformulate society for maximum efficiency in land use and energy use. We actually have a model in Salem at 2605 State Street that would appear to be the planner’s Mecca in efficient land use through high density living and minimal use of resources.

    Thanks
    JK

  49. Actually, if people in Clark County didn’t come into Portland, perhaps they would frequent downtown Vancouver more, helping to better establish that city center as a viable city!

    Possible and also somewhat unlikely. Vancouver though, I must admit is a very nice little downtown. If light rail was to go to the downtown, MANY people would move there from Portland, and many in downtown Vancouver would all of a sudden start working in downtown PDX. The city would also alter drastically from red to blue as more and more of the locals would then be pushed out by gentrification as condos and such popped up. Especially with how much easier

    “Regardless, however, cities don’t function very well with lots of automobiles. Never did, never will. Cities by their very definition are a place for people.”

    Very true! (Except for those big cities in Texas – they’re somewhat strange, and people unfriendly)

    “Close both bridges tommorrow and Oregon has 65,000 more jobs for Oregonians. I don’t understand the reasoning of providing jobs and a traffic free commute to those choosing to live across a river and threw the woods away from jobs. If we build anything make it for freight mobility and freight mobility alone.”

    This is patently untrue. The majority of places in Vancouver are there to escape the large tax burdens placed on them by Oregon and specifically Portland. You would see a marginal or nonexistent job increase if the bridges where “closed” Most of the businesses would up and relocate somewhere in Washington, most probably going somewhere close to Seattle but staying close to red state areas instead of meddling into the the city.

    Hell, almost all of Vancouver is built off of people escaping the UGB, high taxes, while enjoying taxless shopping.

    As for replacing the bridges though… I wouldn’t mind some nice new shiny 1 or 2 or 3 billion dollar tax burdens to look at when I “don’t drive” across to Vancouver

  50. Note that when Jim says a “six lane span,” he means six lanes in each direction, actually a 12 lane bridge. The I-5 Task Force agreed to a maximum of 10…three thru lanes and 2 auxiliary. Now the DOT’s have upped the ante. Actually going from 6 to 3 at Delta Park will reproduce the same metering effect we have today.
    re transit, the only transit option that makes sense is LRT…why make riders transfer to MAX at Delta/Vanport from a BRT system. If Vancouver wants the latter, let the transfer occur on the WA side. I want to hop on MAX here in N. Portland to check out the farmers market in downtown Vancouver.

  51. Cars use less energy than transit and cost less to. See Table 2.10 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 25-2006.
    ( http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf )
    Cars=3549 BTU/passenger mile.
    Transit Bus=4,160 BTU/passenger-mile.
    (Rail is a non starter because it costs too much and does too little.)
    Note that the cars energy consumption is the current fleet of cars and can be cut in half (or more) with downscaling to smaller cars if oil ever becomes too costly.

    ————————————————
    I read this stuff and I gag. Not at the idea that it is true, because after looking closer (and being a car racing hobbiest) it really IS true. Cars can easily become MORE efficient also. The problem for me always lies in the fact that auto based living means EVERYTHING is far away and thus life becomes exponentially more expensive while one lives far away from everything. The store, the market, the Wal-Mart, the bakeries (if they exist), and other such things. Car based cities suck – period.

    Then of course car based “countryside” rocks! :)

  52. You would think that with Patty Murray chairing the approps transportation subcommittee in the Senate, Peter Defazio chairing the highway transporation subcommittee in the House, Earl B. on transportation as well in the House, and Brian Baird also now in the majority, that federal funding for this project will be a HECK of a lot easier.

  53. Does anyone believe the “cost” will stay as projected? If so, there is a certain bridge in New York we could buy….

  54. I’m sure Vancouver residents don’t want bums and other trash from Portland coming into their city. Why are Portland max freaks trying so hard to foist their stupid toy trains on people that don’t even want them?

  55. It makes no sense to replace the current six motor vehicle lane Columbia Crossing with a new bridge that only has six motor vehicle lanes. This proposal is simply NOT forward thinking. Expanding the transit component only is not going to accommodate the capacity demand needed by future growth. Any expenditure to improve the crossing must also address a reality check that calls for a greater increase in motor vehicle capacity. At the very least, any new bridge should have two more lanes for local access to Hayden Island along with a new local access bridge across the slough so the interchange on the South end can be totally eliminated.

    Instead of finding a way to use one or both of the existing bridges for the local connection, it was almost as if those who are supporting taking them down hosted a witch hunt to find any and all reasons to do so, relevant or not. The tear them down proposal only demonstrates how the EIS process has been manipulated to support a preconceived conclusion. This is pork barrel politics at its best.

    Both of the current proposals now still on the table should be totally rejected as an extensive waste of taxpayer dollars. If built, the end result will provide nothing close to the needed demand for additional vehicle capacity. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on a project that will already be obsolete when it is completed and opened.

  56. The answer may be another bridge somewhere near the airport, 42nd ave or thereabouts to provide a trip to the airport and a corridor into Clark county so Oregon residents can commute to jobs out in the county, fo;rget max to Vancouver, the previous link to there went broke before the others started going under [about 1939]. you can see some of the piles of the line over the slough just east of I-5 bridge.. reading “Fares PLease” an excellent book on the past trolley lines in this area… leave the existing bridges alone, they are not pretty but are very sturdy…

  57. A “leave the existing bridges alone, they are not pretty but are very sturdy…”

    B I AGREE the existing bridges should remain and intended to state that in my previous post.

  58. Lenny Anderson says “Too easy, but I’ll live with it as long as it has lightrail, which I expect it will.”

    How about developing some hotels close to the AMTRAK station in Vancouver? People come from all over the Northwest for events at the Exposition Center so lodging there would be a hop, skip and a jump away, if the MAX or similar vehicle connected to that spot. This is not a great detour and would serve more people. Vancouver is already looking at proposals for that area, anyway. Again I will say it–riverfront property in the Portland-Vancouver area is going to soar to a premium. Let’s plan accordingly.

    If the prevailing CRC proposal goes through, I suppose a parallel local connector bridge will seeem obvious. A very bad choice, though, I think, in light of other possibilities in the BNSF/AMTRAK corridor.

  59. I guess I have missed somethings, called truth in packaging. In that I forgot that Jim Mayer works for the CRC Task Force as their print, Public Relations Person and the Oregonian lets him do this.

    No-One has gone back to the reports presented by ODOT and WSDOT a little over 10-years ago that said that these two Interstate Bridge spans were in excellent shape after their rehab and painting.

    It is funny how they have gone bad all of a sudden.

    The current Interstate Bridges meter traffic equal to the capacity of the I-5 corridor through Portland.

    If you make one large big bridge with double the current capacity (from 3 to 6-lanes in each direction) you create an out of balance condition in the I-5 corridor, with more congestion and greater emissions and projected gridlock of 6-miles in the 2030 time frame.

    Without any money to fix this problem of the rest of the I-5 corridor and 6-miles of backups look for 200,000 family wage jobs dispearing in the Portland area by 2030.

  60. Paul, I think that’s grossly unfair. I’ve been following Jim’s writing since he covered tax policy in Salem and I believe him to be a fair and unbiased journalist.

  61. Greg Tompkins Says: Why are Portland max freaks trying so hard to foist their stupid toy trains on people that don’t even want them?
    JK: Light rial is NOT ABOUT TRANSPORTATION. it is about an excuse to give away money to the “in crowd”. Charlie Hales, hawker of the Portland streetcar, now works for an engineering company that pushes this trash on unsuspecting cities. He even said that light rail is not about transportation, but about focusing development. Well that didn’t work in Portland, so they are giving out tax abatement to build uneconomical, oversized, apartments all along the toy train line.

    Thanks
    JK

  62. Not to say he doesn’t make a good effort, I haven’t read Jim’s material, but it is an idealogical myth to suggest that journalists are fair and unbiased. There is inherenty always a suggested point to a story, thus voiding journalistic aritcles from being fair or unbiased.

    If one wants fair and unbiased they should read stock quote statistics, engine manuals, or other such things.

  63. “JK: Have you looked at the cost? It will cost $300,000 to accommodate each person that would not ride the alternative bus system. It would, literally, be cheaper to buy penthouse condos in the Pearl for each of those few people who would not ride a bus.”

    Wow, I could get a condo in the Pearl instead of light rail to Vancouver?! I think we should start litigation immediately to force my private and personal idea that the city owes me a condo (cuz i’ve bought stuff there) in the Pearl thru. I want to be living there in the near future! My special interests trump the light rail to VAncouver, I want my condo!

    …ok, sarcasm off.

    Besides all the arguing back and forth, I think one statement was inherent of the differences in Portland vs. the Texas places. Steve S. writes “I drove all over DFW last week and found their regional system far better because of the capacity increases and freeway improvements they have made over the last decade and more.”

    I’m against subsidies 100%, but I live in Portland because of the transportation choices – all being heavily subsidized (roads too). I think Steve’s statement is inherent of the idea that Portlanders generally want that is different than Dallas or Ft. Worth or wherever…

    …to A: not rely on cars, B: reduce their dependance on oil, C: live in more urban landscapes.

    At least that is what all the leftists that have money want, and this spited Objectivist/Libertarian/Economist, and other such inviduals who control Portland. I want all three of those things, but I’d rather have it in a free market, without my taxes being spent on things that I don’t want them spent on. My choice to live here instead of ole’ Dallas (or elsewhere) is because if markets did still have say (i.e. citizens) this environment in Portland would be what I’d want to pay for. Thus I can look pass the outright socialistically manipulative planning and crap and live my life here.

    I could care less if the stupid interstate bridge is there or not. Personally I say cut off the two places. I’ll just take Amtrak like I usually do. As for all of you that like to “drive” everywhere than that’s great. Go to Dallas. Let the whacky socialists in Portland build their little dream transit. Eventually reality will hit and something will happen. Until then I have my urban lifestyle, with all my choices, without the requirement of a car, and without the headache of living on the east coast with the deluge of insanity that follows lifestyle there.

    …with that said, I have to agree with Ross Williams statement, “I think both sides of this debate are in denial.” Yup, pretty much.

    Fact is, Portand is a nice place, the mass transit is gonna make it better for urban lifers and probably not for burbites. The way it is financed is gonna make it more expensive for everybody – inherently the part I dislike.

  64. Instead of thinking along the lines of a new bridge for local traffic, why not use the existing bridges for local traffic – and maintain the second bridge as a future MAX span if/when Clark County should decide to expand light rail to the north?

    (After all, that’s what the original Interstate Bridge span was designed for, it pre-dated U.S. Highway 99, and it did carry trolleys.)

    Building a new bridge to “do everything” is only going to make the cost skyrocket, make the project more complex than necessary – and delay its construction. We know that I-5 is a bottleneck, let’s build an Interstate Highway bridge to get the through traffic off of Hayden Island – and then build an arterial using the existing route of I-5 for the local traffic…?

  65. I just want to clear up one thing that seems to have caused some confusion in my story. The staff recommendation as I understand it is three through lanes in both directions, plus an as-yet-undetermined number of auxilary lanes for getting to and from the freeway. The project staff modeled a total of 12 lanes including auxiliaries, for the purpose of comparing alternatives, but I don’t beleive anyone is talkign about more than six thru freeway lanes.

  66. Jim, If you were to ever write an article about the flip side of what the CRC Task Force has been doing and saying, we could give you and the Oregonian some slack. There is another side to the story and you know it!

    Jim, have you read the long DEQ report publicized in your own Oregonian, that reflects how bad the emissions problems are in the whole I-5 corridor that are killing people and businesses. It is more then just Benezine, that represents the toxins coming from vehicles at higher levels with this un-resolved, un-relenting congestion.

    Jim, with your knowledge you know that with the expendures in the CRC Project, that we will have limited funding opportunities to impliment higher priority solutions that could fix emission related congestion problems that will not go away without this FED money that is all going to the CRC Project.

    It has been projected that the next 20-years of all Federal Highway Funding Dollars coming to our region is to be spent on this singular CRC Project, is that smart, is that the best use of this money across our region?

    Jim, your Oregonian showed us today how bad the air and mercury problems are that are coming from China and India and we know that our own PGE Boardman Power Plant is not helping with these problems too.

    So when we add to these Bad Air Conditions in Portland Oregon that are a direct result of stiffling I-5 congestion that is a direct result of providing inadequate capacity to known conditions where vehicle demand has outstriped all planning considerations, who tells that story.

    Everyone needs to know that these problems are not going to get addressed by anything that will result from a CRC Project, other then making these conditions probably worse by inducing more traffic into this already congested I-5 corridor.

    We need to talk about these issues too.

    The public deserves balanced reporting from the Oregonian that tells the complete transportation story, that lets people know that there are alternatives to this CRC project, not getting advanced by the CRC Task Force.

    How about telling the story of what the net effect will be if we do not address this I-5/I-405 congestion and how our distribution oriented economy will run when freight mobility is taken to a dead stop and a project 200,000 family wage jobs are lost, in the 2020/2030 time frames.

    I think that is a priority right up there with our failure to protect the environment and the CRC Project does not help solve it.

  67. The project staff modeled a total of 12 lanes including auxiliaries, for the purpose of comparing alternatives, but I don’t beleive anyone is talkign about more than six thru freeway lanes.

    There is no difference between the impact of “thru lanes” and “auxiliary lanes” on the bridge. A 12 lane bridge is a 12 lane bridge. How those lanes get used is a decision that can be made as needed. I5 originally had “auxiliary lanes” that were later turned into through lanes. The extra lane south of Lombard is now being connected to one of those “auxiliary” lanes to provide 3 thru lanes to the Rose Quarter.

    A 12 lane bridge means there will be over twice as much traffic coming across the river. That traffic has to co somewhere. Either it stays on the freeway heading south or it gets off on to the local street grid. Presumably auxiliary lanes dump their traffic onto the local street grid. Thru lanes run their traffic to the Rose Quarter. But you have to ask how anyone in North or Northeast Portland gets on the freeway with 12 lanes of traffic crossing the river. The answer is they don’t, at least not without a very long wait at a ramp meter.

  68. Sorry – I didn’t finish that.

    North of the river the situation is entirely different. There are a total of 14 freeway lanes connecting to the bridge. The four or five “auxiliary lanes” will connect to the SR14 and SR500 freeways and through traffic will continue on I5 which is being widened to three lanes all the way to its junction with I205.

    And we haven’t even discussed the “breakdown” lanes on the bridge which will likely add an additional lane for future expansion – just as the breakdown lane on I5 was removed to add the HOV lane.

  69. The attitude of some people regarding freeway capacity and pollution is simple:

    Give me more freeway lanes or death! Anyone who raises obstacles to an increase of capacity because of environmental issues, health in people, or traffic in neighborhoods is a socialist pig who needs to die!

    Privatize everything!

    This gets really tiring.

  70. The following is the content of a memo AORTA is sending to the CRC Task Force next week. Do you think they will give it any thought?

    An alternative that retains the existing bridges, in addition to the mandatory No Build Alternative, must be studied in the Environmental Impact phase of this project.

    AORTA has shown how such an alternative can address all of the significant problems associated with the current infrastructure. Our first proposal made almost three years ago in February 2004 is still viable with some modifications.

    Our simple and practical proposal has been summarily rejected by this project team without even the courtesy of taking the time to understand it, as was evidenced by the inaccurate statements made by the consultant at the last Task Force meeting.

    Briefly, our proposal would:

    1. Build a Multi-modal Bridge with a lift span, immediately downstream from the existing bridges, that would carry an extended on-ramp from SR-14 and downtown Vancouver separated from two local traffic lanes, bikes and pedestrians by two light rail tracks.
    2. Remove five existing dysfunctional ramps in the bridge area and replace them with two long ones on Hayden Island.
    3. Build a Portland Harbor Bridge for light rail, local traffic, bikes and pedestrians.
    4. Provide a local road connection from the Portland Harbor Bridge to Expo Road, under Marine Drive and through the Expo Center parking lot next to the MAX Station.
    5. Provide a new unrestricted truck-only northbound I-5 access lane from Marine Drive and MLK Blvd.
    6. Replace the Railroad Bridge swing-span with a lift span closer to the center of the river.
    7. Build a light rail loop track in downtown Vancouver to provide a practical, effective interface with the C-Tran bus system.

    These improvements would:

    a. Increase bridge capacity to that of the rest of I-5 through Portland by allowing all six lanes to function as through lanes.
    b. Greatly improve safety and reduce congestion by removing closely spaced ramps that currently cause traffic turbulence and backups.
    c. Continue to provide Hayden Island, direct north and south freeway access.
    d. Provide Hayden Island non-freeway local access.
    e. Improve northbound truck access to I-5.
    f. Improve navigational safety.
    g. Reduce required bridge openings to an insignificant number.
    h. Extend the Yellow MAX Line to Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver.
    i. Require little additional right of way.
    j. Not change the historic Interstate Bridges.
    k. Spare downtown Vancouver from the impact of a huge bridge flying over the railroad embankment.
    l. Not provide excess freeway capacity, which would induce future demand that would cause severe downstream congestion in Oregon.
    m. Cost a fraction of that of a mega-bridge.
    n. Be able to be phased in, starting as soon as 2008.

    AORTA’s proposal is probably not unique in achieving these improvements, but since the Project Team, after two years and $20 million has not produced a better low-cost, low impact alternative, we request that this alternative be included as an alternative in the EIS Study.

  71. For safety reasons (no shoulders), the new bridge is needed in my mind. Thus the old bridge(s) become an issue because the marine traffic then has twice as many obstacles to avoid. Locals are not going to pay for their upkeep. They are toast. They are just bridges that did their jobs well.

    I just really, really hope for Two Billion Dollars they place the spans high enough and include the superstructure and grider design for a High Speed Rail corridor. Do it now or spend One Billion Dollars twenty years from now on a HSR only bridge.

    The CRC committees talk about the future but can not see outside their BIA. Now with Union Station and the Steel Bridge being questioned on capacity or needs for maintenance (The Portland Tribune today speaks of $40 million minimum for roof and seismic updates, but with electrical issues, lets say $80 million maximum), we have to, at some point, move our rail assets into the 21st Century and out of the 19th Century.

    Turn Union Station into a rail and maritime musemum to mirror OMSI on the Eastbank (gives us two points for water taxis). Develop the parking lots Get Amtrak and Greyhound into a Trails End Transit Station near I84/I5 and into a straight and fast Eastside alignment at some point . Design the corridor starting at CRC. Get the hard part of the work done first.

    Look at PDX/VAN in fifty/hundred years not ten CRC.

    Ray Whitford

  72. Thank you Jim Howell for again telling the story of how the CRC Task Force Staff has prevented reasonable alternatives from being explored.

    Jim has been one of many that has come before the CRC Task Force with reasonable and informed proposals and suggestion only to be rebuffed in a systematic way.

  73. I like the idea of improving the Amtrak system instead of wasting time and money on these pathetic light rail and street car “toy trains” that stop every couple of blocks. Have they even given thought to this more economical and quick travel option? They could use existing tracks in most places and don’t have to stop at every stop light. Why are they pushing ahead with their ridiculous plans to build light rail all over town instead of having REAL trains?

  74. Greg –

    How would you propose serving the areas that light rail and streetcar serve using heavy-rail Amtrak-style locomotives? What routes/stops/schedules would you propose?

    If you’re going to dismiss something as a “toy” and “pathetic”, it would be very helpful to state how your proposed alternative would function better.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  75. I could see a Clark/Cowlitz County regional commuter rail service, with routes that fan from Vancouver east to Camas and Washougal; north to Kelso, and another line that uses the existing “Portland-Vancouver Junction Railroad”/”Lewis & Clark Railroad”/”Chelatchie Prairie Railroad” line to Battle Ground.

    Two of the routes (north and east) would require little in the way of capital construction other than stations and parking lots. The Battle Ground route would require substantial rebuilding; however Clark County already owns the railroad.

    This wouldn’t be “Amtrak style” but rather “Commuter Rail”, just like what Seattle has (Sounder), San Francisco-San Jose (CalTrain), Los Angeles (Metrolink), San Diego (Coaster), and other cities throughout the U.S. have built or are in the process of building.

    I am still pushing for a line from Portland to Salem, and ultimately a route to St. Helens (along U.S. 30), and possibly a route from Troutdale which would function as a true “express” route into downtown – so that riders from Troutdale/Gresham have an alternative to MAX.

  76. Commuter Rail into Portland coming from as far east as The Dalles would help eliminate problems and create new opportunities in the I-84 corridor.

    The Mt. Hood RR is an excellent potential carrier coming out of Hood River with a back door link up to Mt. Hood servicing the Ski Area’s all the way into Government Camp.

    We do not have to wait to when a new Casino gets built in Cascade Locks to get this recommendation in front of people.

    Union Pacific closed down its Hood River station a long time ago and that was a big error.

    In the long haul it would be smart to look at a rail loop aound Mt. Hood going back into Portland.

    Why do we have to continue to totally rely on bubber tired vehicles to get tourist, skiers and those who choose to live on the mountain to get back and forth to this highly traveled location.

    Highway 26 designation as a safety corridor was made for a reason and it is because of the high number of accidents and deaths.

    Summer and winter the problems exist with I-84, Highway 26 and all of the feeders that do not address the volume of traffic.

    A rail loop of Mt. Hood would generate a Billion Dollar add to the ecomony of our region with NO down side.

  77. Let’s see how commuter rail works in Washington county; I believe lightrail in that corridor would be better. We just don’t have enough bodies to make the cost of commuter rail pencil out. At least not yet.
    Thanks to Jim Howell and AORTA for keeping the low cost option alive. We need to all insist that the CRC keep their proposal in the DEIS so it gets careful unbiased analysis.
    But, I think all the stars are lining up for a big bridge, and it may be now or never or at least seen that way.
    6 lanes will mess up both freeway operation and arterial traffic in Portland, no question, but if combine with tolls and good transit options…read MAX…it might be managable.
    PS the great thing about lightrail is that it can do 60 mph on its own ROW and 12 mph in traffic downtown at a fraction of the cost of heavy rail a la BART. Why the bad mouthing?

  78. If a trip between WA and OR is considerd a regional one, why should the 2 state DOT’s provide the equivalent (arterial bridge) version of a local connection? Why would the state DOT’s want to spend an huge amount of money to build a 2-lane arterial that won’t have any longterm effect of reducing travel demand along I-5?

    And:

    The narrow lanes (11 foot, instead of the standard 12 feet) and minimal shoulders of the existing I-5 bridge are a serious safety problem (more than 1 crash on average per day). I don’t see how the existing bridge can be improved to alleviate the safety problems without making the roadway wider or reducing the number of lanes to 2. With 11 foot lanes, the 3 lanes are not even able to handle the amount of traffic that 3 normal 12-foot lanes can. How will this be addressed if the current bridge is left as is?

  79. I don’t see how the existing bridge can be improved to alleviate the safety problems without making the roadway wider or reducing the number of lanes to 2.

    One way to improve safety is to decrease the speed. That would help with the reduced sight lines as well.

    If a trip between WA and OR is considerd a regional one, why should the 2 state DOT’s provide the equivalent (arterial bridge) version of a local connection?

    Since most of the trips across the bridge are local why not build a local bridge? But I think that question really gets to the heart of the problem with the entire I5 process. Why indeed would WashDOT and ODOT choose a solution that some other agency would implement? The best solutions may be local solutions, but they may not fit the mission of the agencies in charge of the study. And the money to build them may not go to those agencies either.

  80. The METRO area could fix its major transportation woes for about $3 billion:
    1. Build the West Arterial bridges in the BNSF corridor with improved AMTRAK grade, with access to Hayden Island, to Hwy 30, term. 6 and to St Johns.
    2. Run Streetcar across lower Marquam bridge, extend Eastside SC to Milwaukie, connect back to Westshore line. Build SC from Tigard, along Front Ave and over to West Vancouver.
    3. Improve cross town buses and bicycle paths
    4. Utilize existing rail routes for suburban connectors.
    5. Refurbish any deteriorated bridges and upgrade seismically.

    Leave the rest alone. Why should we go deeper into debt—such as for $15-20 billion?

  81. Looking at the current bridges from strictly a historical prospective, at least one should remain. Take for example the Old (original) Columbia River Highway. When the more modern water level roadway was widened from a two lane highway to an interstate with four lanes, ODOT blasted into non-existence the famous Mitchell’s Point Tunnel that had seven windows cut into the hillside. Mitchell’s Point is still there but remnants of the tunnel are completely gone. When it’s gone, it’s gone. The tunnel only survives in old photos and postcards.

    This must not happen to the interstate bridge. Sam Hill who was a believer in good roads was part of the outspoken muscle behind building the original Columbia River Highway. He also presided over the opening ceremonies of the Interstate Bridge in 1917. Not only is there a connection with Sam Hill to the Interstate Bridge and the Mitchell’s Point Tunnel, but if the bridge is taken down, when it’s gone, it’s gone. This bridge must be preserved at its present location and a use found for it in any Columbia Crossing project chosen. .

  82. One way to improve safety is to decrease the speed. That would help with the reduced sight lines as well.

    How do you propose doing this in a safe way? Most accidents happen in congested areas, and reducing speeds almost always increases congestion.

    A local bridge is a great idea, but I haven’t seen a serious effort put forth to make it happen. If it happens, then I’ll support narrowing the bridge to two lanes (plus a shoulder), otherwise it should be rebuilt/re-engineered to include space for a third proper lane, plus aux lanes hopefully.

  83. Another way to provide shoulders or wider lanes is to make the bridges 2 lanes. I am not sure if enough traffic could be removed to make taking a lane away feasible, but it has been said that due to the amount and design of entrance/exit ramps, the bridges do not operate at full capacity.

  84. Making the bridge 2 lanes is not an option – there is already too much travel demand for 3 lanes. Reducing the speed (and this is on an INTERSTATE FREEWAY, mind you) is also not an option since it will have no effect on making drivers drive slower, and will reduce the already overwhelmed capacity. Reworking the bridge to add a new lane, widening existing lanes or shoulders is not really a feasible (read cheap) option and still does nothing to plan for the increase in demand in the future. The bridge will still have to be seismically upgraded – this also costs $$$$. Most traffic on the bridge is not local – the average trip across it is something like 15 miles – the vast majority of users are not driving from downtown Vancouver to Hayden Island.

    As for keeping the bridges for historical reasons – these are not pretty structures in my opinion and I don’t see any reason for keeping them other than sentimental nostalgia – not a good reason – freeways are supposed to be about function.

    The interchange spacing standard in Oregon allows 1 intercahnge per mile. In the Bridge influence Area, there are 8 interchanges in 5 miles – what do you propose to do about that?

  85. Remove on and off ramps in the BIA, starting with Hayden Island. Put that traffic on a local bridge. Local traffic accounts for at least 1/3 of the trips across the Interstate Bridges.
    Regardless of what is built, it will be full and then some the day it opens, so real transit options have to be part of the mix…meaning MAX to at least downtown Vancouver; travel time will be 30 minutes downtown to downtown…not bad. So “no MAX, no bridge” should be clear to all.
    And I am sure the now familiar Delta Park bottle neck will return. Currently we have 4 lanes over the Oregon Slough with two exit only lanes, leaving two thru lanes over Columbia Slough…an excellent “metering device” IMO. Under the 6 lane new bridge scenario, we will have a exit only lane to Hayden Island, then 5 lanes over Oregon Slough, with two exit only lanes…narrowing to three thru lanes over Columbia Slough, again an excellent metering device. And we are $2 Billion poorer.
    AORTA’s arterial bridge with MAX must be taken seriously.

  86. “AORTA’s arterial bridge with MAX must be taken seriously.”

    Exactly. It can be part of the Western Arterial new interstate bridge route. Kills two birds with one stone. This can also accomodate MAX to Vancouver and link to the Vancouver AMTRAK station.

  87. The problem with the West Arterial idea is that without a new freeway thru N. Portland and over the Willamette it doesn’t go anywhere.
    Capacity needs to be where the trips are…Interstate Corridor to Lloyd, Downtown, Swan Island, Lower Albina, etc. and more of those trips need to be on high capacity transit..i.e. MAX which is already in place.

  88. Lenny,

    I don’t think you should characterize a route that links a new interstate bridge to Hwy 30 through North Portland as a “freeeway”. First of all, much of the southbound traffic would take off at Columbia Bv and go west. Some could go locally to Hayden Island (since we’re already talking about a local connecting bridge) or to Lombard St or other possible connections in St Johns. Some traffic, I think, could go to Swan Island and some more to St. Helens Rd and Yeon Ave. This is not in any way similar to I-5 but it does present a highly useable and functional alternative route that happens to connect a lot of dots. Someday it will probably be built—if it is done now it would save an enormous disruptive project on the I-5. I also think this is a good route for mass transit since high density is going to expand northward along the Willamette and to the shore of the Columbia in Vancouver.

    True, a highly trafficked route would be constructed through North Portland. But right now, St. Johns residents are complaining that Lombard takes more traffic than it should. I would like to see that neighborhood weigh in more since they are more directly impacted. Just a week ago the St. Johns association pres. told me that they thought a new bridge was needed.

    Your second major statement is to imply that such a new bridge could not also have a MAX connection to VAncouver. Jogging MAX half a mile westward also makes sense. 1. It could connect to the AMTRAK station for out-of-region rail travelers 2. Downtown, Vancouver, will naturally grow that way, w/high density, because it is bordared to the east by I-5 3. It can also go through more of downtown Vancouver. And I didn’t say anything about MAX not serving North Portland. Since this has already cost $350 million we should at least give it a try. And BTW when is Vancouver going to cough up some money for this?

    Of course “more” trips are in the corridor. Where else could they be, at this time, since there is no other route? Are you saying that traffic coming from SW Washington isn’t going to: Hwy. 30, Term 5 & 6, to Swan Island, to NW Portland, to Hwy 26 westbound, or just plain through southbound? If the I-5 Bridge, after alternatives are offered, is still crowded with trucks they are welcome to take I-205 around. It would cost practically nothing for a sign to advise truckers to use the 205.

  89. Some politicians and planners want to design US cities after European cities. In European cities, many structures have survived for a hundred years or more, pretty or not. Here in Portland having a structure just getting close to a hundred years old is a milestone. The 1917 Interstate Bridge is just such a structure and is on par with Union Station, the Pioneer Courthouse, City Hall, the Multnomah County Courthouse, the Central Library, and the Pittock Mansion. All deserve the same preservation efforts.

    It should also be noted the 1917 structure was not to be freeway bridge. However, it can work just fine as a local connection bridge.

  90. “Most accidents happen in congested areas, and reducing speeds almost always increases congestion.”

    Quite the contrary, reducing the speed will increase the capacity of the bridge and reduce congestion. As traffic slows vehicles are closer together. The optimum capacity of a road is at a speed somewhere between 25 and 40 mph.

Leave a Reply to Ross Williams Cancel reply

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