In his annual State of the County address, Clark County Chair Steve Stuart asks the $6B question: where’s the money going to come from?
In his annual State of the County address, Clark County Chair Steve Stuart asks the $6B question: where’s the money going to come from?
27 responses to “Fiscal Reality Rears its Head re CRC”
Very good point.
I still say the feds should get out of this silly business and just let the states deal with transit infrastructure. The feds run up the price tag and cause delays far too much anyway. The less influence they have the more options we taxpayers seem to get.
The Amtrak Cascades are a prime example. Two states finally got fed up with the blundering of Amtrak and the State so they put their hand in. Now one of the most used rail services in the country exists along that route. It also is one of the LEAST subsidized of all transit modes between Portland and Seattle. With one more train the state has even rumored it would turn a profit.
This bridge is the same situation, a private entity should be formed with a strict objective to fund the bridge, it should be accountable to creditors with the state as a promisor (spelling?), with that enable that entity to acquire a loan through both private and public institutions and have the bridge pay for itself via tolls & fees to Tri-met for the light rail section. In all seriousness, the $2.00 per direction(or $3) would easily cover the costs and the state wouldn’t have to increase taxes, raid urban renewal funds, or any of that continuing nonsense. In addition to that the $3.00 is well worth the trip into Portland, if people don’t want to pay it they should think about where they need be located, move accordingly, or deal with the costs they’ve chosen. The last thing that should be done is to shoulder this bridge ridiculousness on the shoulders of the taxpayers. That is by far the worse way to pay for transportation infrastructure. In the near future these things will need to become more representative of how much they truly cost, STreetcar to Light Rail to Busses to Autos.
I digress, that still makes far too much sense and uses rational business ideas and ethics instead of pull politics, which seem to be the preferred method.
Adron-
I agree it’s possible that the Feds should get out of the local transportation business. This concept, known as “return-to-source,” is actually a very hot topic in Washington right now. Basically, the concept is that the federal gas tax would just revert to the states, which would do with it as they saw fit. Or, something along those lines — there are probably as many proposals as there are opinions on the issue at this early stage.
One flaw I see is this: National High Speed Rail. Somebody needs to build such a system. Since it would necessarily span state lines and cost an extremely large amount in up-front capital, it would seem to be in the realm of Things The Federal Government Should Do. However, it’s possible that it could be built using some other federal funding mechanism that would still allow the Return To Source concept to evolve to fruition.
I don’t agree that private industry is the best choice for the Columbia River Crossing, however. I don’t see how the profit motive would help this situation. A Toll Authority would seem to be the best answer, if a new bridge is indeed needed. And I do agree that the amount of outside tax dollars used for the project should be next to nothing. It should pay for itself. And if this means that the Toll Authority “rebuilds” the I-205 bridge and tolls it, too, then so be it.
And go Royce Pollard — keep fighting for that light rail, it’s good to see somebody on the Vancouver side of things who “gets it”!
Since we’re supposedly $12 billion in the hole for road improvements, how much would the gas tax need to be raised to be able to pay for it all?
$12 billion more per year – what, $8/gallon gas tax increase?
Bill –
If I recall correctly (someone please point me to a table of data for total VMT on all roads, all trip types in Oregon), statewide annual Vehicle Miles Travelled is in the neighborhood of 35 billion (perhaps this is just highway VMT?).
Assuming an average fuel economy of about 23 mpg, that would indicate a consumption of 1.5 billion gallons.
Those above numbers are pretty shaky, I admit, but if in the correct ballpark, if you wanted to raise, say, $12 billion dollars over 30 years to clear through a backlog of unfunded projects with entirely local money (not counting for bonding costs and inflation), the additional gas tax would have to be 27 cents per gallon, which would more than double our current state gas tax.
– Bob R.
“And go Royce Pollard — keep fighting for that light rail, it’s good to see somebody on the Vancouver side of things who “gets it”!”
If Pollard is so confident, then let’s make sure he and Vancouver “get it”, the price tag that is.
The problem with expanding fixed rail transit such as Max and the streetcar is that once in place, unless fares are increased to better reflect the costs of providing the service, a permanent funding method must be found to subsidize the expanded operational costs. As an example, the price tag is 5.6 million dollars a year just to operate the proposed Eastside Streetcar. The figure to operate Max into Vancouver has yet to be fully disclosed, but will undoubtedly require new bi-state taxing authority to subsidize the operation.
On the other hand, the costs to get Max into Vancouver on a new river crossing has been estimated in the range of one to two billon dollars (per Robert Liberty’s presentation to the other councilors), or about one third of the total price tag for the big new bridge proposal (actually three bridges with a common deck). Unlike motor vehicle improvements to the Columbia Crossing that will benefit not only motorists, but freight carriers and the entire I-5 transport corridor, Clark County residents will be the primary beneficiary to having Max cross the river, and for the most part, only the few that want to go from Vancouver to downtown Portland or somewhere where within a few steps of the direct line in between.
Therefore, if Pollard wants light rail, he along with the rest of Vancouver and Clark County need be willing to pay for it – all of it including paying any operating subsidies directly or by charging fares that realistically would be in the range of $10.00 to $20.00 per ride if no subsidies exist.
the solution is easy, don’t build the damn thing… the existing bridge is adequate for interstate [I-5] purposes. Why encourage more to live in Clark and commute, make it difficult so they will stay home,,,
I agree it’s possible that the Feds should get out of the local transportation business.
Me too. States/local gov’ts see highway money from the Feds as “free” money-money that could be spent elsewhere. Yes the same goes for transit, but I’m pretty sure that transit projects have required a greater proportion of funding be local. The problem is that there are bureaucrats and politicians who want to feed their egos and keep their jobs.
I’d also argue that federal transit funding was in response to highway funding and the loss of ridership it caused.
And go Royce Pollard — keep fighting for that light rail
It should also be mentioned that Mr. Pollard has openly suggested he wants to pull Vancouver out of C-TRAN, and form its own transit agency:
The Columbian, 1.23.07
From the article: …Pollard said he made that comment because county commissioners appear ready to use their power to veto C-Tran decisions and block the transit agency from backing a bridge project should it include light rail transit.
In the past, C-TRAN officials stated they would never operate light rail. However, I believe that was soon after they lost half their funding when the state vehicle matching fund (I don’t know what it was called officially) went away.
Let’s fast forward to C-TRANland post 9.20.05; specifically 4.16.06, when C-TRAN adopted a “50 Year Vision Statement” (the following excerpt is from their Fall 2006 Annual Report; I added some emphasis for clarity):
…
– C-TRAN, in concert with other entities, provides safe core and specialized transportation services through its network and employs a variety of modes, each chosen to fit the particular route, its purpose, and ridership. C-TRAN is more than a bus system; options considered included bus rapid transit, trolley, streetcar, shuttles, connectors, light and heavy rail, and traditional fixed route.
– C-TRAN has remained flexible and accountable throughout growth and change.
…
So, they’re saying they want the opportunity to provide service on a new light rail line, but concerned they won’t get the opportunity. They’re probably also concerned that TriMet will be “selected” to operate it – no matter what they bring to the table – and they’ll have to pay TriMet to operate light rail outside of the TriMet boundary, thereby sucking their source of revenue to provide simple bus transit service to the rest of the county within the C-TRAN service area.
IMO, it was a major miracle the Service Preservation Ballot Measure on Sept. 20, 2005 passed. The major argument to vote against the measure was: light rail. One of my counter-arguments was supporting current services was a way to ensure light rail would still be an option in the future.
Finally, it should be mentioned that Mr. Stuart is also on the C-TRAN Board of Directors, as are the other two Clark Co. Commissioners.
“The problem with expanding fixed rail transit such as Max and the streetcar is that once in place, unless fares are increased to better reflect the costs of providing the service, a permanent funding method must be found to subsidize the expanded operational costs”
Terry,
Of course the same applies for fixed auto transit such as roads that once in place…right? You are not suggesting that autos pay their own way, are you? You are not suggesting that roads are any less fixed than rails, right?
Terry-
I don’t think that anybody is arguing that Oregon should pay for light rail capital costs or operations within Clark County. The deal last time was, Clark County would raise their own funding to cover capital and operations, and re-imburse Tri-Met for their operations costs on the other side of the state line. So far as I understand, that would still be the case.
Jason-
I don’t see any scenario in which C-Tran would physically operate the light rail. We would be still talking about Tri-Met trains, running across the river to Vancouver, with the portion of the operational costs (and capital costs) in Washington State being covered by taxpayers there.
Unless somebody has other information, I think that’s pretty much how it stands.
Either which way the light rail does need built, along with a real solution found for this river crossing fiasco (not that it is a fiasco yet, but it’s sure heading that way).
If Vancouver (I’m just saying as an “example”) where actually part of Portland, this problem wouldn’t even come up. I still don’t see why the general tendancy to treat the city as if it is a zillion miles away exists. For all intents and purposes, Vancouver IS just merely part of Portland. The river crossing should thus be treated as if it where just another place to toss some bridges across and create several local thru streets. Ala Burnside, Morrison, Hawthorne, Steel Bridge, etc.
The root issue still remains with the proposed 2-6 Billion Dollar Bridge, the vast majority of congestion problems is “local traffic”. The bridge proposal does zero to fix that.
“Of course the same applies for fixed auto transit such as roads that once in place…right? You are not suggesting that autos pay their own way, are you?
In addition to subsidizing transit and bicycle infrastructure, motorists pay a far greater share of the infrastructure they use than do transit users or bicyclists. If motorists are tolled for an improved Columbia Crossing, none of that toll funding should apply to paying for light rail or bicycle infrastructure portions of the crossing.
“You are not suggesting that roads are any less fixed than rails, right?”
Transit options that use roads (most of which are already in place) rather than rails have a greater flexibility to change routes and thereby serve more people in the process without the additional and excessive capital costs of relocating the tracks.
“I don’t think that anybody is arguing that Oregon should pay for light rail capital costs or operations within Clark County.”
Since transit fares will probably not be raised to anywhere near enough to pay for any transit portion of an improved river crossing, then Clark County (not Oregonians or motorists) must also pay the capital costs to get Max across the river.
Build a new interstate bridge in the BNSF corridor! Keep the current bridges.
Many of the alternatives to total replacement express legitimate needs. I can see a need to connect Hayden Island to Vancouver. I can see a need for added lanes. I can see a need to take MAX to Vancouver (since we’ve already taken the silly thing most of the way there). There is a need for improved rail through Portland.
All of these can be rolled into one in the multimodal bridge option in the BNSF corridor. For all intents and purposes it does everything that people have been expressing a desire for, maybe not perfectly and exactly as they want, but within reasonable bounds. It is not part of any Western Bypass Freeway proposal. We are thinking of it now as an easy way to get to I-405 and US 26 and also Hwy 43 without going the typical route now of down I-5.
The railroad bridge is the structure that is getting old and deteriorating–as seen by all the rust on it–so it will probably need to be replaced anyway. And that also is where we can get rid of the awkward navigational route for barge traffic.
I am getting very anxious about unnecessary spending by Congress, and what I am hearing is that they are going to be taking a harder look at pork-barrel spending. This needs to happen. We have so many challenges facing our country and we don’t need to prolong the trend of deficit spending any longer (I know Bush started it). We need to get the federal budget as far into the black as possible, before the US dollar becomes undesirable to hold. We need to be very diligent and figure how we can get a transportation system that does everything that needs to happen, yet is not excessively wasteful (i.e. federally subsidized).
Build a new interstate bridge in the BNSF corridor! Keep the current bridges.
Many of the alternatives to total replacement express legitimate needs. I can see a need to connect Hayden Island to Vancouver. I can see a need for added lanes. I can see a need to take MAX to Vancouver (since we’ve already taken the silly thing most of the way there). There is a need for improved rail through Portland.
All of these can be rolled into one in the multimodal bridge option in the BNSF corridor. For all intents and purposes it does everything that people have been expressing a desire for, maybe not perfectly and exactly as they want, but within reasonable bounds. It is not part of any Western Bypass Freeway proposal. We are thinking of it now as an easy way to get to I-405 and US 26 and also Hwy 43 without going the typical route now of down I-5.
The railroad bridge is the structure that is getting old and deteriorating–as seen by all the rust on it–so it will probably need to be replaced anyway. And that also is where we can get rid of the awkward navigational route for barge traffic.
I am getting very anxious about unnecessary spending by Congress, and what I am hearing is that they are going to be taking a harder look at pork-barrel spending. This needs to happen. We have so many challenges facing our country and we don’t need to prolong the trend of deficit spending any longer (I know Bush started it). We need to get the federal budget as far into the black as possible, before the US dollar becomes undesirable to hold. We need to be very diligent and figure how we can get a transportation system that does everything that needs to happen, yet is not excessively wasteful (i.e. federally subsidized).
Let me get this straight:
Build a new freeway off of the I-405/U.S. 30 interchange (which was built for the proposed-but-never-built- I-505), north along U.S. 30, over a new Willamette River Bridge (which must also be sufficiently high enough to clear river traffic), through North Portland (the existing BNSF cut isn’t wide enough for a six-lane freeway, so that would result in the destruction of numerous homes), on top of the BNSF over the Columbia River on a Huey P. Long-style bridge, continuing north along Vancouver Lake to a point north of Vancouver where it connects back to I-5.
How is that any less expensive than replacing the Interstate Bridge? And how does that solution create a “more livable” environment than fixing the existing I-5 corridor?
(And, what would be required to rebuild I-405 to accomodate the increased traffic that would have otherwise used I-5?)
The railroad bridge is the structure that is getting old and deteriorating–as seen by all the rust on it–so it will probably need to be replaced anyway. And that also is where we can get rid of the awkward navigational route for barge traffic.
The rust is superficial; the proposed “fix” only replaces the swing-span with a lift span. The Willamette River Draw was rebuilt the same way some 15-20 years ago; the original 1910s era spans for the most part still exist; only the swing span from that bridge was removed and replaced with a lift span (which has the rust-red color).
Terry Parker:
“In addition to subsidizing transit and bicycle infrastructure, motorists pay a far greater share of the infrastructure they use than do transit users or bicyclists. If motorists are tolled for an improved Columbia Crossing, none of that toll funding should apply to paying for light rail or bicycle infrastructure portions of the crossing.”
Not true. When taking into account the MASSIVE externalities that automobiles pass on to the community at large, autos are the most subsidized methods of transportation, probably followed closely by air travel. Bicycle/transit infrastructure are a bargain.
I’m not an expert on these issues by any means so be gentle with my suggestion…
What about a smaller bridge near the current rail bridge for LRT connection to Vancouver and freight connection to Portland. Utilize if possible the Port of Vancouver as a “freight terminal” for 18 wheelers coming South to keep them from crossing the river, then use the new bridge for freight delivery within the Portland area. This might alleviate some of the southbound congestion and the freight companies might like keeping their trucks/drivers out of the gridlock. Seems to me that this ‘freight hub’ concept is almost profitable as a private venture somewhere in Great Britain (saw it on Worldchanging, though I don’t have a link). Maybe just make the Interstate bridge a toll bridge for large trucks and perhaps have the same system south of Portland (Tualitan?) to keep as many trucks as possible out of the Portland area. With local deliveries by Sprinter/medium trucks, main delivery arterials along NE Marin Dr, and NE Columbia Blvd with access via N Portland Road. In addition, maybe revive some barge/rail delivery to points in Portland and South…
In answer to Erik’s questions:
Did I say “freeway?” I did not. The exisitng streets are already there to service a growing community–Yeon Ave, and Front Ave–and traffic moves along pretty well on them now. They can accomodate more. Why should they? We’re growing. I’m thinking far ahead and two crossings of the Columbia to the METRO area simply will not be enough. Does this mean more traffic? Yes–it’s reality, but this route provides excellent potential for commuter rail of all sorts.
Did I say “six lanes through North Portland.” I did not. The bridge over the Columbia might require that, but I would expect a significant portion of traffic to go via Columbia Bv or elsewhere, so I would think four lanes through the cut to be enough. This is above rail lines.
Re: dumping more traffic on I-405. This is a very short link of that route and only crowded at rush hours, and certainly not like the current I-5 route. Besides I think a lot of traffic, hopefully by Streetcar, would be between growing waterfront districts–Pearl, SOWA, North River District and Vancouver. I see this as a sensible continuation of the densified Streetcar-serviced corridor, which I think is inevitable given the value of waterfront land.
This route could also improve AMTRAK service, so could provide the commuter rail via AMTRAK you have been suggesting. I agree that this could be a cost-effective alternative. Some people propose moving AMTRAK to the eastbank of the Willamette–this, to me, seems like a really outlandish proposal. Instead the North Portland Road corridor is kind of a compromise to addresss all issues raised–not exactly as each proponent would like, rather in a combined way. I don’t think the expense will be as high as you suggest–but it isn’t a rock borrom cheap alternative. I don’t think Howell’s arterial bridge proposal does near enough. You have to do things right–unless you want to do them over again.
We’re growing. My quesion is: What’s the sensible way to deal with that? I think this proposal solves, in an approximate way, the valid concerns that others have raised. But, as an all-in-one solution, it’s bound to have critics.
Jennifer, in another thread, says we need 1.2 trillion to solve our problems. I suppose scores of other regions in the US could say the same thing. Does money grow on trees? Some economists say that we are already spending money we don’t have. Does she propose to continue this trend towards bankruptcy?
So, are you suggesting some sort of a limited access, non-freeway, four-lane arterial/expressway route that would connect the Port of Vancouver, Port of Portland, and NW Portland, connecting with U.S. 30/Yeon Avenue at the south and I’m assuming Fourth Plain at the north?
Frankly this isn’t a bad idea, but if we are going to plan for growth, is 1: four lanes enough (Columbia Blvd. is notoriously under-width; I can’t stand driving on that road beside a truck and it is a major truck route); 2: sufficient capacity for vehicles at either end of the route; and 3: I-405 does have congestion problems throughout the day, thanks to the poorly designed U.S. 26 interchange. Any time that one lane opens into two lanes (which causes speeds to increase), and then subsequently merges back into one lane (which causes speeds to decrease) equals congestion – and that’s exactly what happens on all three on-ramps onto U.S. 26 west. The result is a long line of traffic on I-405, even during off-peak hours; when there’s only two through lanes on I-405 that forces all the non-U.S. 26 bound traffic into one lane.
But back to my original point – where will this road go? How will we afford to build a new Willamette River bridge, a Columbia Slough bridge, a Portland Harbor bridge, and a Columbia River bridge? Simply building “on top of” the BNSF can’t use the existing bridges (do we build a new BNSF bridge using the Steel Bridge as a pattern?), and building a rail/road bridge will be more expensive. And what will be the positive (or negative) impact to I-5 as a result?
I will agree that Yeon does have excess capacity (since there’s really no where to build out in that corridor, except for more commuter traffic from Columbia County which is years if not decades away). But do we want to squander a freight corridor that works well? Maybe it is proof that we should simply widen I-5…?
“If we are going to plan for growth”
Right now, with interest rates very low, growth is explosive, but this could change. Working in construction, I can vouch that the early 1980’s were almost a wash for that sector and any RE development. So projections could change. Right now RE developpmet is still red hot in Oregon, but has cooled down in other areas of the US. However, because more and more people find the Pacific Northwest a relatively safe an attractive plave to live I think we can expect a long term trend of significant population increase. Where will they live in the Portland area?
Well, if they have money they will live in areas with nice views. I predict that Willamette and Columbia riverfront land will become highy valued and affordable for high density development. And the Growth Boundary will enhance this trend. I believe we are starting to see this now with the Pearl District. The Pacifica Tower and Marina is pushing the boundary further north along Front Ave. This project is something like four blocks north of the Fremont Bridge. Linnton has some waterfront plans, though not for high rise. But there is land available along Front Ave. and there are views.
So, Front Ave. could also be a major transportation route. It’s not just Yeon Ave. Even the old Hwy 30 along the hillside may return, eventually, to a significant role. Therefore I am saying that a Streetcar route may make sense along Front Ave. If the Vancouver waterfront also goes into the same type of high density development–that is with buildings ten to fifteen stories–we have, then, two high density areas. Now, it makes more sense to link them, and this is also the present route of AMTRAK. (See other posts)
So there is a base of rail transit. Not everyone will use the rail, though we would encourage it, so it does require vehicular lanes on the upper level. So what is the cost?
I would like to know where CRC comes up with the $2-6 billion figure for their proposal. Our Sellwood Bridge, very high above the water and half mile long, is predicted at$130-150 million. Maybe CRC costs rise because of demolition and property acquisition. I think the adjacent arterial bridge, apparently a popular idea, would disrupt a lot of established historic properties in Vancouver as would widening the I-5. The alternative proposal–in the BNSF corridor–right now has very little in the way, in either Vancouver or in Portland. You can check this website for more info:http://newinterstatebridge.com/
I am not saying that the BNSF corridor route is cheap. There needs to be an anlaysis of how much traffic now goes to Hwy 30 that could utilize this route, how much traffic there will be betwen Northwest Portland and Clark County, whether Swan Island could be connected to it, whether southbound traffic to US 26 would use it, etc. But understand that rebuilding the I-5 bridges wil provoke really bad congestion during the process, attract more traffic into it upon completion which will require rebuilding elsewhere in the I-5, and actually do nothing to the issue of connecting the potential high density between NW Portland and Vancouver. It also leaves improvemnt of AMTRAK service unaddressed. If the CRC project does rise up to the $6 billion level, it portends further astronomically expensive projects.
Is the BNSF bridge antiquated? I’m not an expert; it looks that way and is poorly positioned, so some upgrading probably is around the corner. There have been some creative ideas on how this can all be funded. My gut feeling on the CRC, OTOH, is that we are noving into a “Tax and Spend’ syndrome that will be an endless treadmill. Thanks for listening.
The idea of using the BNSF corridor is intriguing; however I simply do not understand how it fixes any problem nor how it is a more cost effective solution:
1. There is zero discussion on the ‘newinterstatebridge.com’ website as to how to connect a new bridge to existing routes – whether it be I-5 or LRT (MAX). So it is essentially an island development, that would require significantly more expense to make it a functional corridor.
2. At the north end, where do you connect the bridge to even local streets? You have a grain elevator complex on one side (that is a major contributor to Vancouver’s economy), a railyard directly in front of you, and downtown Vancouver and the light industrial area to the east. Building a new road will require millions of dollars just in land acquisition costs; and such would likely require a massive viaduct to carry the roadway over the railroad junction. Not to mention building the actual road, or an interchange with I-5.
3. At the south end is the Smith/Bybee Lakes natural area (don’t even try building a highway there), a very limited area to build an interchange with Marine Drive, and a very limited area to build an interchange with Columbia Blvd. Are you suggesting replacing North Portland Road with this new arterial? In which case, we are simply moving the point of entry for trucks from Exit 306 and Exit 307 to Exit 1C and forcing the truck traffic through downtown Vancouver. Nor does it solve the problem of trucks trying to access SR 14, or areas to the east of I-5 (i.e Columbia Blvd.)
4. It would require a new MAX extension just to reach the southern end of the corridor; and then to build north. Clark County/Washington is not going to pay for it, and it doesn’t really serve anything beneficial for the Portland side of the river to pay for it either. MAX already serves Marine Drive at the Expo Center, so what good is another MAX station located a mile and a half west (for Portland residents)? It would also require that much more MAX traffic on the Steel Bridge, so would the existing Yellow Line simply become some sort of a shuttle route?
What I do agree with is that the existing Interstate Bridge is structually sound; and that the I-5 corridor south of the bridge is also a bottleneck. Why couldn’t we streamline the corridor by removing some of the on/offramps to reduce traffic conflicts and allow for an additional lane in each direction between Marine Drive and I-405 — Metro/ODOT is seriously considering a similar “fix” for Highway 217 and frankly it’s both inexpensive and extremely practical. Unlike 217, there are multiple parallelling streets for I-5 for local traffic to use; of course MAX took out 50% of the capacity on Interstate Avenue, but even so there is plenty of room for more auto traffic.
Why couldn’t we streamline the corridor by removing some of the on/offramps to reduce traffic conflicts and allow for an additional lane in each direction between Marine Drive and I-405
Why would anyone want to reduce access for businesses and people in Portland to facilitate commutes from rural Clark County? I think this ignores the reality that the traffic has to get off the freeway somewhere and then get to its destination. The problem is not I-5, the problem is that Portland is not designed to support everyone coming to work in their own automobile. It doesn’t matter how much capacity you put on the bridge, the congestion will just get recreated somewhere else.
Ross, don’t closely spaced exits facilitate making short trips on the freeway that could be accomodated by surface streets, adding to congestion on the freeway?
oss, don’t closely spaced exits facilitate making short trips on the freeway that could be accomodated by surface streets, adding to congestion on the freeway?
Yes. And I didn’t mean to suggest that some entrances and exits shouldn’t be eliminated where appropriate. But I think it is a mistake to think this is as clearcut as the freeway management folks would like to make it.
There is the obvious question of whether “surface streets” have excess capacity to accommodate those trips. When vehicles that are on the freeway get off and use surface streets to get to their destination, we call it “cut-through” traffic. But local traffic forced to drive further to the next freeway entrance or use local streets to get to its destinations has just as much impact on local streets.
I also don’t think the fact someone is already on the freeway means they have a longer trip than the people trying to get on. At Delta Park, I would bet most of the traffic from Clark County is not going any further than downtown Portland. I would also bet a lot of the folks getting on at Portland Boulevard are going beyond downtown or they would be using surface streets. So who is using the freeway for a short trip, the folks on the freeway at Delta Park going to downtown or the folks getting on at Portland Boulevard who are going to Kruse Way? It may be the person started their trip in rural Clark County, but why does that make the last three miles of their trip a priority over the first three for someone going to Kruse Way?
I think all the entrances and exits around the I5 bridge are a problem and should be fixed. But I think it is a mistake to think that we should “fix “congestion by shutting off access for people who live, work or have businesses in neighborhoods along the freeway. It is essentially transferring even more of the burden to those who are already assuming a disproportionate share of the social costs of the freeway.
Erik,
Wish I had time to answer all of your questions; however, you may find answers in pertinent posts on this subject elsewhere on PortlandTransport. Sorry if you tuned in late to the discussion.
What I have observed is that there are groups in Portland pushing major concepts, but they can only see it their way, not in any cooperative compromise. Some believe that a lot of I-5 congestion is due to local traffic and want a bridge for that. Some want improved AMTRAK service. Some want LRT to Vancouver. Some want added lane capacity over the Columbia. Some want improved rail freight capacity. Some want better bike and pedestrian routes.
It’s my opinion that the New Interstate Bridge idea covers all of those, just not exactly as the individual proponents want. But, as with any project, there are also those that would object because it would make a change in their neighborhood. (We’re battling that issue in South Portland regarding the Sellwood Bridge and what we see as a need for another route over the Willamette somewhere south of our neighborhood.) So does that mean that the federal budget becomes hostage to those who want nothing but “their” plan?
As far as land acquisition costs I have been told that much of the land is already owned publicly, not BNSF owned ROW. I don’t know the details. This is where I wish we had an authoritative voice from the Railroad concerns, both for this issue and for others that have been raised. The n.i.b.com folks need to make sure that all their info is correct. I’m not saying it is or isn’t.
The distance from I-5 to BNSF is not a mile and a half; it is more like .6 or .7 miles. Downtown Vancouver is slowly moving to the west and the AMTRAK station is there: don’t passenger rail advocates want to improve connections to that? I don’t think the necessary detour to the west is a big problem, only to those who are pushing their fixed idea of where MAX should or could go.
IMOH the replacement of the I-5 bridges is just the first step leading to rebuilding of the I-5 system through Portland which will make landowners along the East bank of the Willamette( in the CEID), and other central Portlanders, happy as their values rise. However, the expense to federal taxpayers will be enormous; multiply this by numerous projects in other localities. Is this what the country needs?
Ron, what I can understand is taking existing North Portland Road, widening it to four lanes, and then extending it on top of the BNSF line through the North Portland cut as far as Lombard.
But that doesn’t answer the question as to how to cross the Willamette River (the newinterstatebridge.com website suggests a new bridge further north, essentially connecting Terminal 4 to U.S. 30 just south of Sauvie Island – which is IMO too far north to be of any use; most traffic would still use the St. John’s Bridge), the North Portland Harbor or the Columbia River (either would require a brand new bridge). Nor does it answer how to build a new road connecting the north end of the Columbia River Bridge to I-5.
True – a straight line to I-5 is just over a half mile – if we destroy downtown Vancouver and force a 90 degree curve at the north end. I would imagine it would be more of a north-easterly angle – connecting with SR 500 maybe? In which case, those who argue that I-5 destroyed downtown Vancouver would be handed ammunition by having a new arterial directly on the other side of downtown, with downtown essentially an island between two major roads and a river.
Most of the roads already exist on the Oregon side, so the question still is of the bridges; however is the Port of Portland still planning on developing west Hayden Island into an oceangoing terminal? If so, wouldn’t the Port (along with the Port of Vancouver) have an vested interest in building a bridge that connects Marine Drive/Rivergate with what could be the new Terminal 7, along with the Port of Vancouver? However such a bridge would have little utility to LRT – which would immediately doom it from the folks at Metro.