4th CRC Options Survives Task Force Review


The subcommittee’s proposal for using the existing bridges for Northbound traffic while putting transit and southbound traffic on a new bridge was approved by the full Columbia River Crossing task force last night (Oregonian coverage).

So this will be studied in the EIS along with the big bridge and no build options.

Does this provide enough fodder to force looking a real options?


34 responses to “4th CRC Options Survives Task Force Review”

  1. Well, it looks like a great way to kill this option by not being any cheaper and it allows for 4 lanes in each direction. The CRC task force is failing at every level to make a viable alternative to a behemoth, auto-centric option. All 3 build options will still make heavy gridlock and forced expansion (4 lanes from the bridge to downtown portland) on the Oregon side which will destroy neighborhoods and livability. We shouldn’t be forced to subsidize cheap land priced McMansions with no land use control with our money and neighborhoods. If freight is the real issue, address it! build freight only lanes down the center of I-205 where ROW already exists, and build new freight only roads and bridges to and from Portland and Vancouver’s major industrial and port areas (like down the rail corridor as was in the original alternatives).

  2. It doesn’t really look like much of an alternative. They really need a legitimate no-build option in addition to the do nothing option. But its not surprising that a bunch of engineers came up with a bunch of expensive, over-engineered solutions.

  3. The CRC remains a prisoner of the old mindset…we can build our way out of congestion. I am sure Robert Liberty is disappointed. Time for a LUTRAC type analysis by a very creditable, independent authority so we can be ready to go to court to kill this whole thing.
    More capacity, however configured, means more commuters and no help for freight.
    On the other hand, since we are now talking about $6 Billion, I still like the elegance of twin tunnels (2 or 3 lanes each) for thru traffic and conversion of the existing bridges for local traffic, bike/peds and transit. All the freeway crap between Columbia Blvd and Mill Plain can be torn down, replaced by boulevards with traffic lights for local traffic, etc. Think of the development possibilities as these approach the River!

  4. As long as there is no light rail the price should be reasonable. Also, if the bridge is tolled, then all passengers, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users should be tolled according to the cost of providing that facility.

    What ever option is chosen should include enough freeway lanes [or ability to widen] for 50-100 years of traffic growth. I-5 should be [at least] 4 lanes in each direction throughout the metro area.

    Dropping the UGB on the Portland side should equalize suburban growth around the metro area and require less I-5 expansion in the future.

  5. They know what they are doing and that is to kill any possibility of real 4th Alternative. I agree the No-Build is now the only real Alternative.

    The latest vehicle count information coming from the CRC Task shows in the 4-hour AM Peak:

    Southbound
    2005 Existing Conditions;
    20,000 total vehicles

    2030 NO-Build Forecasts;
    21,800 total vehicles

    2030 Build Forecasts;
    26,650 total vehicles

    Northbound

    2005 Existing Conditions;
    21,200 total vehicles

    2030 NO-Build Forecasts;
    21,825 total vehicles

    2030 Build Forecast
    33,200 total vehicles

    We only have a 2 and 3-lane I-5 corridor in Oregon. This level of induced traffic will kill the environment with the level of congestion that result from this level of increase in use. Freight mobility will drop to a level that will kill businesses.

  6. On the preceeding post the northbound is vehicle count numbers are for the 4-hour PM Peak Period Rush Hours. These are all from CRC Task Force.

  7. I would say that this is a step in the right direction, but concentrating more traffic in the I-5 corridor, is not the long term solution that we need. That solution–and I am not saying forget light rail or alternatives,–is an entirely new route. That route is via the AMTRAK/BNSF corridor and connecting to HWY 30.

    This was in the running in the old I-5 PArtnership, but was axed in the CRC process because it did not fit within the narrow definitions established by CRC. This route can meet all the demands that have been put forth by various advocate–but in a compromised way (sorry, purists!) It can accomodate: MAX, interstate rail service, bicycles, pedestrians, possible commuter rail, or streetcar. Connecting to the vicinity of the AMTRAK station in Vancouver should be a no-brainer for those advocating improved AMTRAK service. There’s also plenty of room in the vicinity fot park and ride sites, without tearing up historic properties in downtown Vancouver.

    If the adjacent bridge proposal succeeds, instead, I can only say that the light rail lobby has a stranglehold on transportation planning. That seems to be the gist of what has been in the front running so far, as an alternative to complete replacement. The BNSF corridor, multimodal interstate bridge can do all of that and more, AORTA members! Jump on the bandwagon–it makes a lot more sense.

    Professor Macht of PSU has advanced a plan for the western portion of Vancouver that would put it in a very competitive position as a major satellite city of Portland. Vancouver should be looking to enhance its AMTRAK facilities, not relegate them to forgotten status. The multimodal interstate bridge, connecting AMTRAK and MAX in one location is a strategic component of this vision.

  8. sadly for people wishing widening of 1-5, poor disenfranchised people no longer make up the bulk of north portland.

    there is about a 0% chance of I-5 getting wider thru inner north portland.

  9. “The CRC remains a prisoner of the old mindset…”

    The flaw with the 4th alternative committee was the prejudged baseline mindset that Metro Counselor Rex Burkholder maneuvered forward. The purpose of the subcommittee was to find a mid-ranged priced alternative that would seek a compromise to meet purpose and need while maximizing the use of the existing I-5 bridges.

    While the subcommittee easily found a less costly alternative for non-motorized crossings by widening one or both of the sidewalks on the existing bridges (similar to what has been done on the Hawthorne Bridge), the majority of committee discussion centered around how to manipulate motorized highway travel. The river crossing alternative for transit continued to be exactly the same as the big (expensive) bridge option, as defined in the flawed baseline adopted whereby transit must be on a new high level bridge.

    This mindset flaw is four-fold: 1. The 4th Alternative does not address a compromise mid-range alternative for “all” modes of transport. 2. It eliminates the opportunity to explore a full study through the DEIS process of an option whereby a transit alternative could use the existing low level bridges and have station stops that could be placed at grade on either end of the crossing. The mindset is as if Fred Hansen and TriMet are running scared that with rigorous study, a transit crossing using the existing bridges might actually work better than a transit crossing the Columbia on a high bridge. 3. From a cost savings standpoint, the Burkholder contrived mindset is also flawed. Currently the federal government pays a higher percentage in Federal dollars for interstate highway projects than for transit projects. Therefore to save overall local match funds, it makes added economic sense to move the transit component to the existing bridges rather than northbound I-5 travel. Furthermore, the 4th Alternative option adopted is more transit dependent and suggests a build out of feeder transit service in Clark County, but fails to address funding sources for the unrecognized capitol costs that would be needed, and is flawed in addressing the unrecognized annual costs and subsidies to operate more transit on both sides of the river. 4. The more transit dependent mindset is also flawed as it relates to the Oregon side, first because the majority of commuters traveling from Washington into Oregon are not going to downtown Portland (where transit goes), and second, because when the I-205 Max line is completed, the Steel Bridge crossing over the Willamette River will be at or near capacity.

    Furthermore, in addition to the flaws in the 4th Alternative mindset that stifles the opportunity to study and explore a more cost efficient transit alternative, the old and obsolete mindset of CRC also continues to be flawed in that it continues to attempt to funnel all the of the local project costs and operational subsides of the crossing project onto motorists and freight carriers. That places “no-build” much higher in the standings with the public, particularly if current local funding methods go to a public vote – which it absolutely should. For this project to move forward, the final outcome must require old and obsolete mindsets be changed whereby transit patrons fund the local match for transit projects, and bicyclists are required to directly pay for bicycle infrastructure.

  10. What about the option of leaving the freeway on the existing (but improved) bridges and building a new bridge for local traffic and transit? Aren’t the ramps/merges a big problem? Wouldn’t moving the ramps to a supplemental bridge help a lot?

    the majority of commuters traveling from Washington into Oregon are not going to downtown Portland (where transit goes)

    Didn’t we already discuss that transit can stop along the way, serving people going towards Rivergate, Swan Island and other parts of NoPo?

  11. The multimodal interstate bridge, connecting AMTRAK and MAX in one location is a strategic component of this vision.

    Doing so, as I’ve stated before, will serve fewer people in Oregon, require a much longer MAX route (read: more expensive), and provide little additional benefit.

    Frankly, re-using one of the Interstate Bridge spans as a high-capacity transit bridge (I would prefer BRT to start, since Vancouver has no plan to expand LRT throughout the city – LRT could always be built later) makes more sense and provides a very cheap transit option. The Delta Park or Expo Center MAX stations could be re-designed as transit centers where the #6 would terminate, a local bus could serve Hayden Island, another local bus serving the Riverton neighborhood and Delta Park, and another bus to serve Rivergate.

    The BRT would also serve as a true “express” from the Expo Center to downtown, providing relief to overcrowded MAX trains – particularly during major events; as well as a redundant service when MAX is out of service (happens more often than we want it to, so we might as well plan for it.) This bridge could also incorporate a wide bike path.

    The second span could be the local traffic span to connect Marine Drive, Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver.

    The end result is a freeway-only bridge – or even a tunnel – that would connect I-5 (north), SR 500, SR 14, Marine Drive, and I-5 (south).

    End result is a much cheaper, and more effective, solution, while providing local, bike and a transit solution with minimal additional construction.

  12. What about the option of leaving the freeway on the existing (but improved) bridges and building a new bridge for local traffic and transit?
    I’m looking at the “Draft Components Step A Screening Report,” which I’m sure is on their website.
    According to the report, that was eliminated, because it was assumed that there would be no I-5 improvements.

  13. Jason Asks: “ What about the option of leaving the freeway on the existing (but improved) bridges and building a new bridge for local traffic and transit? Aren’t the ramps/merges a big problem? Wouldn’t moving the ramps to a supplemental bridge help a lot?”

    First question: The existing bridges with three lanes of freeway travel do not have shoulders and the highway potion can not be widened. There is little room for improvements in leaving all freeway traffic on the existing bridges. The 4th alternative adopted splits northbound traffic between the two existing bridges striping them for 2 lanes each to create shoulders. There is still the problem with the site lines on the hump that in part has the effect of slowing heavy traffic to local traffic speeds. Keeping the freeway on the local bridges also does nothing to reduce rear end crashes due to the occasional bridge lifts.

    Second Question: Yes, especially those that lead directly on and of the directly at the end of each bridge with out an acceleration lane. In theory, that is what the proposed fourth and right hand lane in the in the proposed 4th Alternative is supposed to correct. It is expected it will work like a weave lane.

    Third Question: The Freeway would work better with less backups and less congestion if both directions were on a new high bridge structure that has no lifts. Such an option would allow SR14 and northbound I-5 interchange access to Hayden Island via local access on the existing bridges, Furthermore, moving the transit component from a new bridge, for which there would be enough deck space, makes the transit component far more cost effective while keeping about the same foot print on the land as the adopted 4th alternative option.

  14. See Jim Howell’s post here. Bridge lifts can be reduced and sight lines improved by modifying the bridge hump and moving the railroad lift span, sending more river traffic under the hump. Other unique areas (such as tunnels) also lack full shoulders. Removing local (Hayden Island and maybe Marine Drive, SR14 and Downtown Vancouver) traffic off of the I-5 bridges reduces demand for them and congestion/crashes caused by merging.

    A 3-lane I-5 through North Portland seems to work (relatively) fine and should be looked at for the river crossing. The real problem is that the river crossing is ONLY I-5–there are no alternative parallel streets. And that the Interstate Bridges function as 2 through lanes+a weave lane. Moving the weave lane to a local bridge should help, as well as provide a way when I-5 is blocked.

  15. I’m beginning to think that it would be much simpler to buy out Pearson Field, which would eliminate the “high bridge” restriction. Re-develop the field as a addition to Fort Vancouver.

    Who is going to pay to rebuild the BNSF bridge – the only federal source of funding for such a project cannot take the Interstate Bridge into consideration, so without an earmark which Congress has vowed to do away with, and BNSF is not going to pay for it themselves, that leaves local taxpayers to essentially subsidize a private company. (Which, I guess in Portland, happens all the time, but railroads aren’t sexy new-fangled developers, hotels, or tram/light-rail/streetcar contractors.)

    I don’t like the “split” because splits cause too many problems with motorists entering the wrong side of the split. Just drive to Salem to see a split in action, where eastbound Highway 22 crosses onto the Center Street Bridge – the two lanes split in order to accomodate the on-ramp from Highway 221 (West Salem) and becomes a four-lane bridge over the Willamette River into downtown (and watch how many cars make three-across lane changes to get back where they needed to be). Or the number of cars that can’t figure out what lane they need to be at the northbound I-5/I-405 junction. It replaces one traffic problem (lack of acceleration lanes) with another (more sudden lane changes).

    But the bridges themselves are fine for two lanes. Two lanes are all that’s necessary for a “local traffic” bridge, and the other span could easily accomodate two bus lanes (to be expanded later as LRT if necessary) and a bike path. The freeway would be moved onto a larger and safer structure, and the transit fans would still have their public transit that doesn’t require adding $2B to the overall cost.

  16. Jason Said: “A 3-lane I-5 through North Portland seems to work (relatively) fine and should be looked at for the river crossing. The real problem is that the river crossing is ONLY I-5–there are no alternative parallel streets. And that the Interstate Bridges function as 2 through lanes+a weave lane. Moving the weave lane to a local bridge should help, as well as provide a way when I-5 is blocked.”
    I agree with this assessment and why I continue to suggest and support a new six full service through lane only (three in each direction) high level highway bridge for I-5 only, and then use the existing bridges for combined transit alternatives, non-motorized crossings and for SR-14, connections, northbound I-5 connections and local access for Hayden Island. Southbound I-5 connections to Hayden Island could remain on the South side of the island, however there also should be a local access motor vehicle bridge constructed across the Portland Harbor to reduce local traffic on I-5.

    This is what I call the common sense approach which I also believe meets purpose and need, has approximately the same foot print on the landscape as the adopted 4th alternative, maximizes the most wise use of the existing bridges, and would probably pencil out as the most cost efficient. However, because of the prejudged baseline mindset Co-chair Metro Counselor Rex Burkholder of 4th Alternative CRC Subcommittee maneuvered forward, such an option was never considered, responded to or even discussed at the public sub-committee meetings. Furthermore, even though two out of three the sub-committee meetings ran considerably shorter than their allotted time frame, with one exception, all were closed to public testimony as per Co-chair Burkholder’s railroad agenda and recommendation.

    Just for the record, I was in the public viewing section at all three meetings and greatly appreciated the openness and the conversations I had with of some of the subcommittee and staff members.

  17. With any of the proposed build options coming from the CRC Task Force we end up with 14-hours per day of backups that have been estimated to be as lang as 6-miles in lenght. These backups will center around he section of the I-5 corridor between the Marquam and Freemont Bridges.

    That to me makes any investment that induces more vehicles into the I-5 corridor insane. We need new alternative corridors, bridges and transit options that take vehicles out of and away from the I-5 corridor.

    The only investments in the I-5 corridor should be tuning and removing of minor choke points.

    Good examples of limited investment improvements are;

    Widening of I-5 at Delta Park to 3-lanes.

    Eliminating all on and off ramps from I-5 to Hayden Island by making access come and go from Marine Drive.

    Eliminating of all SR-14 on and off ramps to and from the I-5 bridge. There are options that will work.

    Make the I-5 corridor into and out of Portland a limited access freeway corridor. That means the elimination of some of the on and off ramps.

    Extend MAX/LRT into a Vancouver Transit Center, no further. It becomes the hub to C-Tran Buses.

    Improve all Tri-Met bus routes and schedules to better connect to all Work Centers with commute considerations as the highest priority.

    Create a new BNSF/North Portland Street alternate bi-state multi-mode arterial corridor and 3rd bridge that moves vehicles away from the I-5 corridor.

    Double the capacity of the I-205 corridor and make it the primary north/south through freight corridor through the Portland/Vancouver region.

    Put TDM/Tolls on the I-5 corridor from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. NO tolls otherwise on the I-5 corridor or I-205 corridors.

    Build the new BNSF/N. Portland Street multi-mode alternate arterial corridor in a (Public/Private Partnership).

    This can be done at half the cost of replacing the Interstate Bridges.

  18. Extend MAX/LRT into a Vancouver Transit Center, no further.

    This will cost, what, $2B? And will have next to zero benefit towards the 130,000+ cars and trucks that use I-5.

    Again – history has shown (see 1986 Banfield MAX and 1997 Westside MAX/Sunset Highway) – traffic on the freeways paralleling a MAX line INCREASES, not decreases. So building MAX would, if history proves, not solve the problem. (I know some critics would even go so far as to say that building MAX would exaggerate the problem (traffic counts increased to a greater percentage in the years MAX opened to the prior year than in years before), and history actually supports their view, but I won’t go that far.)

    The only investments in the I-5 corridor should be tuning and removing of minor choke points.

    The Interstate Bridge IS a choke point.

    Eliminating of all SR-14 on and off ramps to and from the I-5 bridge.

    Where would that traffic go? While we’re at it, let’s ban Highway 217 traffic to/from I-5 too, and force it on Kruse Way and Highway 99W.

    Improve all Tri-Met bus routes and schedules to better connect to all Work Centers with commute considerations as the highest priority.

    I agree. But as long as Fred Hansen is running TriMet this is DEAD ON ARRIVAL. TriMet’s current management has no desire to expand or invest in bus services. Light Rail or bust.

    Double the capacity of the I-205 corridor and make it the primary north/south through freight corridor through the Portland/Vancouver region.

    So we change I-205 to I-5 and make I-5 I-205. Then we have to widen I-205 to four lanes from I-5 to Oregon City (requiring replacing the Abernethy Bridge and the Tualatin River Bridge, and doing something through West Linn) and near the north I-5 junction…from a cost perspective, that has to be as – if not more – expensive than fixing the one problem on I-5, that is the Interstate Bridge.

    Make the I-5 corridor into and out of Portland a limited access freeway corridor. That means the elimination of some of the on and off ramps.

    Between downtown Portland and Highway 99W this is already in place. So we’d eliminate, say, the Delta Park and Interstate Avenue exit, and probably Killingsworth and Columbia too – except that they’re all truck routes. Where would the truck traffic go?

  19. Improve all Tri-Met bus routes and schedules to better connect to all Work Centers with commute considerations as the highest priority.

    I agree. But as long as Fred Hansen is running TriMet this is DEAD ON ARRIVAL. TriMet’s current management has no desire to expand or invest in bus services. Light Rail or bust.

    The last time I heard Fred Hansen talk it was about improved bus service. I think the reality is bus service is more expensive per passenger to operate than Max, so when there is a financial crunch that is where most of the hit is going to be. Give them more operating revenue and you will see increases in bus servic.

  20. Erik H. says
    “This will cost, what, $2B? And will have next to zero benefit towards the 130,000+ cars and trucks that use I-5.”

    Where exactly do you get your figures, Erik? I hardly ever see comments as wild as yours, with the exception of pure dreamers who think the people’s purse is bottomless.

    If you would read Paul E.s’ posts , for example, you would see that he is a very informed person. We’re both saying that MAX can run on a multimodal bridge in the BNSF cxorridor. Is the present direction of it–right into present downtown Vancouver–somehow the 11th Commandment? Sending it a relatively short distance on land, and providing a connection into the Vancouver AMTRAK station is not that costly–even at Tri Mets current projections of approx $100 million/mi. Density in Vancouver is going to go in that direction since there is no way that it can go south or east and no great reason for it to go north. There are already some plans afloat for waterfront dvelopment west of present downtown Vancouver. There is also more room in the Vancouver AMTRAK station arrea for parking, and I can’t see why MAX could not double back into present downtown Van. @ billion? Sheesh.

  21. Eric H., at one time I was appointed to sit as an alternate on the South West Washington Regional Tranportation Council which is the JPAC of SW Washington. This is primarly elected officals and I am just a realitively informed citizen

    There are practical reasons and political realities that I learned and know well that are piece and part of what I recommend.

    You question if the I-5 Interstate Bridges are a choke point and the answer is a qualified yes, but they retain the exact balance to conditions that exist in the rest of the I-5 corridor.

    When Delta Park section of the I-5 corridor widened and improved from its current 2 and 3-lanes conditions and capacity limitations we will see a dramitic improvement in the flow of vehicles on the I-5 Bridges. It is not the bridges fault it is trublence created with merging lanes 3 to 2-lnaes that backs up right on to the flow lanes of the bridges.

    This same trublence is reducing in half the total number of vehicles that get across the I-5 Bridges because when combined with the on and off ramps going to and from Hayden Island and SR-14, we have slow downs and lanes changes and accidents that are direct result of these on and off ramps.

    I also have the advantage of commuting to and from Vancouver Washington into Portland for 14-years. That provided me with a very good first hand view of the problems and as a computer analyst/consultant we look at problems with an eye to solutions.

    I can go on with detail to answer any of your questions and maybe sometime we will have that opportunity.

  22. Where exactly do you get your figures, Erik? I hardly ever see comments as wild as yours, with the exception of pure dreamers who think the people’s purse is bottomless.

    The $2B is a well stated number which is the difference in cost for the CRC project with and without the LRT.

    Are you suggesting that LRT, at $100M a mile, could be extended from the Expo Center to downtown Vancouver for $100M? I think not. The bridge over the Columbia River can’t be built for $100M.

    Can the existing BNSF bridge be used for LRT? Absolutely not. Where is LRT going to go – on the same rails used by 400,000 pound GE freight locomotives? So using the BNSF alignment is also going to require a new bridge. And I don’t think that a combined heavy rail/LRT bridge is going to cost only $100M. However, extending LRT a mile west to join the BNSF alignment, then back a mile east from the Amtrak station back downtown, adds two miles of trackage, two miles of right-of-way that must be acquired and structures demolished.

    Using the EXISTING Interstate Bridge, which originally functioned as a “light rail” bridge (it carried the Portland-Vancouver trolley) as a transit bridge and a local street, while providing a new structure for I-5, provides a safer solution and provides for local traffic and transit. What’s wrong with that? There’s no reason to destroy the two bridges, and the bridges are structurally sound. Reusing (recycling) those bridges will allow for a less expensive freeway bridge. And the transit corridor will remain where people are going – Jantzen Beach, the island residential communities, and downtown Vancouver — and not a auto auction lot and an asphalt plant.

    What’s wrong with that?

  23. Eric H., at one time I was appointed to sit as an alternate on the South West Washington Regional Tranportation Council which is the JPAC of SW Washington. This is primarly elected officals and I am just a realitively informed citizen

    I agree with you, Ron, the bridges are only a part of the problem. I’m not disputing that you are aware of the issue or have great ideas; however I believe that the “transit option” fails to resolve any issue, and if past history in the Portland area show the “freeway option” will still have to be implemented. So why should we dinker with a transit-only option that will simply cost a lot of money and not fix anything?

    Not that transit is not important, but ultimately the I-5 corridor from Lombard to SR 500 needs to be rebuilt, and MAX is just taking our eyes off the game ball. We know that C-Tran has little ability to extend light rail north, so are we going to sit with our butts on our hands while we wait for a MAX train – or are we going to proceed with a solution? I’d rather see us progressively improve the transportation network, rather than sit and wait because we are solely focused on MAX everywhere.

    Ross – yes, on a seat basis, MAX is cheaper – to operate. A two car MAX train can be operated by one operator; whereas the same capacity would require five, six…or more busses. But those busses can serve a larger geographical area, and can serve areas that LRT would never serve (because the transit demand is lesser, or the geography prevents a rail solution). Some TriMet bus routes, as I have been told, are actually “profitable” because they carry so many passengers. And MAX doesn’t cover its capital costs at the farebox; TriMet just comes back to the voters for more. If MAX riders had to pay for the capital costs of light rail, the price of a MAX ticket would have to double.

  24. Eric H. when people talk about the BNSF/North Portland Street corridor and include the replacement of the BNSF Bridge to where it can be used by Light Rail we are not talking about using the same Rail Road Tracks.

    All rail capacity in and through our region must be in effect doubled over what we have now. That means that Heavy Rail on the BNSF Bridge should double but it is only part of the big picture. If we are to get a greater percentage of containers and regular freight traffic with an orgination and destination in the Ports off our roads and freeways we have to make heavy very efficent and profitable. We cannot have artficial delays that are a result of inadequate rail capacity.

    If we do this smart we can acheive what the Port of Vancouver hopes for and that is 80% to 90% of all future freight activity coming and going via rail.

    Heavy Rail tracks do not get routed up hill well and when you look at the BNSF swing bridge that is very old the best thing is to just replace it. We need to make the new naviagation channel in relationship to where barges can pass under the Rail Bridge without any lifting. This will result in a comibination of suggested changes and enhancements that will combination make replacing the BNSF Bridge completely with a new bi-state multi-mode rail bridge as a practical choice.

    This BNSF Rail Bridge replacement give us the opportunity to fully explore all commuter rail opportunities into and through Vancouver. With all of the growth planned in Ridgefield they have a perfect place for a new commuter rail station and that starts getting people out of their cars where we want them too.

    With this replacement of the BNSF Rail Bridge we can also achieve an affordable small loop where MAX/LRT is routed across this new replacement rail bridge on the same deck or on a second/upper deck to where Light Rail does not have to stop with conditions that might require the lifting of a lower river channel span for barge traffic to go under. This would be much like the Steel Bridge in Portland.

    On the second/upper deck of this replacement BNSF Rail Bridge would be connecting bike and PED paths that connect to the path networks on the south side of the Columbia River and other water ways.

    One of the critical pieces of any effect plan that gets vehicles out of the I-5 corridor is creating alternatives and places where people and freight can go that is not part of using this highly congested I-5 corridor.

    That is where the CRC Task Force recommendation fail completely. They put to much reliance on transit. It is only a small yet important piece in the big picture. Light Rail into Vancouver may result in getting a reduction of 2% in the number of vehicles out of the I-5 corridor. It has dramatic long term implications that slow the increase of demand by the long term creation of new transit center housing opportunities, but this is new land use and high density housing considerations that take time to fill out and acheive. I agree SW Vancouver is perfect for these new Transit Center/High Density Housing opportunities.

    This second/upper deck of this replacement BNSF Rail Bridge would have freight specific or hot lanes for trucks. This is critical because we must create an effect alternative to the I-5 corridor to most commerce. This is jobs, this is our ecomony and we cannot expect that the I-5 corridor can handle the needs of the next 20 to 30-years. This new corridor along the BNSF/N.Portland Street ROW will direct traffic away from I-5 and to our designated work centers and ports, win – win.

  25. One of the critical pieces of any effect plan that gets vehicles out of the I-5 corridor is creating alternatives and places where people and freight can go that is not part of using this highly congested I-5 corridor.

    I’m not sure this is true. Or rather, it may be mixing cause and effect. Businesses locate in the I5 corridor because of its transportation connections. So creating alternative “places” will not work unless they connect the same places I 5 does.

    Any capacity you create for truck traffic that connects to those same places is going to be filled up with clark county residents who want to get to the city, the same way I5 is. I suspect if it isn’t useful for commuters, it probably isn’t useful for freight either. Both are trying to get to many of the same places.

  26. With this replacement of the BNSF Rail Bridge we can also achieve an affordable small loop where MAX/LRT is routed across this new replacement rail bridge on the same deck or on a second/upper deck to where Light Rail does not have to stop with conditions that might require the lifting of a lower river channel span for barge traffic to go under. This would be much like the Steel Bridge in Portland.

    On the second/upper deck of this replacement BNSF Rail Bridge would be connecting bike and PED paths that connect to the path networks on the south side of the Columbia River and other water ways.

    I don’t dispute the need to replace the BNSF bridge but who’s going to pay for it; and the Interstate Bridge will still ultimately need to be replaced (due to traffic/safety considerations).

    I don’t think MAX will be “inexpensive” to route west and back east. At $100M, we’re talking about $200M in addition to the cost of the bridges (North Portland Harbor, and then the BNSF Bridge).

    Nor do I think the BNSF bridge is a particularly good alignment for pedestrian purposes, because it’s off in far left field – downtown Vancouver, Jantzen Beach, the Expo Center – they’re all along I-5, not the BNSF. North Portland Road (which parallels the BNSF from North Portland Harbor to Colubmia Blvd.) isn’t exactly a destination.

    That’s why I suggest re-using one span of the Interstate Bridge for exactly what you’re suggesting – transit and bike/pedestrian; the other span as a local access street. The Interstate Bridge is better suited to those tasks and goes where people want/need to go. The BNSF bridge doesn’t. Reusing the Interstate Bridge would also be cost-effective and wouldn’t require unnecessary property acquisition for a LRT line just to line up with the BNSF bridge (why build a “U” line when you can build a “I” line?)

    Your suggestion is innovative and interesting; but I think there’s a simpler and more effective way to come to the same result – that is, make I-5 safer, improve transit and access, and improve freight mobility. I don’t agree that tearing down the existing bridges is a necessary step; the bridges are fine – just not well suited to having an interstate highway on them. That’s why one of the spans pre-dates the interstate highway system by 40 some odd years.

  27. First citizen noticing up to 100 homes and historic properties in Vancouver plus, 20-30 businesses and two dozen or more homes on Jantzen Beach would be demolished. Downtown Vancouver would have a 75’ height Mega freeway dividing downtown forever. It is 20 years before this starts, putting Vancouver and bonding in limbo. Then years of demolishing and construction perfectly good buildings………… we take its toll.

    A Third Bridge….. not a band-aid on I-5. The band-aid look was unveiled at CRC, neighborhoods, and the business community thought it sucked….. The only slight agreement was that a 4 option is a must.

    The 2-month, mini vacation is mostly likely to deal with all the Open Meetings Law violations. All the missing subcommittees, notes, information, etc. The changing of data that is conflicting with other studies is being looked at too.

    No lids, covers, or tunnels on the Interstate Freeway System. FHWA does allow hazardous material, oversize, overweight, over height to use tunnels………….. State highways 26 and others have warning signs on the “tunnels No Trucks carrying…….”

    The BNSF is inside the I-5 Corridor. A new bridge there will give local access to Jantzen Beach, between our cities, connect our major industrial areas, and help land use issues in both States.

    A balanced project, mostly bare and vacant land, in a neighborhood begging for a new freeway and freeway connection to I-5. It adds capacity for heavy rail, 8 lanes truck friendly, 3 lanes for transit, 4 lanes general purpose, 2 lanes bike and ped.

    Light rail into Vancouver brings Tri met, and Metro, into Clark County with land use laws and taxing abilities…………
    Ouch
    Sharon

  28. Eric H. in answering who would pay for a new replacement BNSF Bridge and bi-state multi-mode arterial corridor, the answer is a Public/Private Partnership. This entity would be the primary beneficaries of this new crossing and they would have the ability to design it to meeting their needs.

    Lets say that it cost an additional $50M to loop light Rail around on tho this new replacement BNSF Bridge, that is a heck of a lot less money then the taking of building, businesses and homes that would be taken by any other route getting Light Rail into Vancouver. In the big picture this $50M additional cost that could be added to any BNSF RR Bridge to accomodate Light Rail is so little money when we look at the $6-Billion of any of the CRC Recommendations.

  29. The actual distance (measured by my vehicle’s odometer) from the I-5 bridge to the BNSF bridge is .9 miles, along Marine Drive. Crossing the Columbia, over Hayden Island is about 1.5 miles. Back to Esther Short Park in Vancouver is .6 miles.

    My question: why build separate projects for each need? Mr. Howell’s suggestion that a bridge for MAX to cross to Vancouver will solve congestion woes is not founded in my experience, at least. Congestion woes will only be solved by an inclusive, balanced strategy that accepts all (conventional)modes of travel. If MAX would prevent further traffic congestion we would not see either the Banfield or Sunset Highway continue to increase in congestion, as they have, in fact, done.

    I suppose it was hoped that people who moved into the areas where MAX has been routed would choose, on the whole, to take MAX but so many of them don’t. True, it would be even worse if there were no MAX. So, in a sense the LRT strategy has done its job of focusing development in the corridor, but without other improvements in the transit system–such as easy transfers and frequent, rapid service–many people still will not use it. Enough wil prefer to use private autos, so the congestion will resume as the population increases.

    As much as I would hope that the Interstate MAX would be overwhelmingly popular with Clark Co. I fear that continued growth–it’s a great haven for Washington residents to escape sales tax–will still tend to spill out on to I-5, just as it has on I-84 and the Sunset. So there will still be a popular demand for widening of the I-5 route. It might be another decade or two, but it will still come. If we had the intensive, office or central-city-bound commuters that Boston or Chicago have–maybe then a greater percentage of commuters would take the MAX. Is Portland somehow going to transition into that type of city?

    So, Assuming that even with MAX to Vancouver on an adjacent or existing bridge, traffic continues to increase I think we would see a series of fixes stretching on for decades. Contractors and planning bureaucrats would love it.

    On the other hand, an entirely new route, along the BNSF and North Portland Road, that can handle all of these demands, plus help to improve AMTRAK and allow for possible commuter rail, would relieve enough pressure to preclude a reconstruction of I-5, which is really where the present plans are headed. So forget the $2-6 billion figure: more like $20 billion. The other route as we have suggested should be far, far less. And if you look at Vancouver, west of Franklin St., you will see vacant lots, tiny commercial buildings and large parking lots–in modern urban planning, “underutilized areas.”

  30. If MAX would prevent further traffic congestion we would not see either the Banfield or Sunset Highway continue to increase in congestion, as they have, in fact, done.

    I am not sure anyone has argued that MAX will prevent further congestion – it does allow a lot of trips that don’t add to congestion. But it can’t replace every trip. For instance, I think you will find a lot of Washington license plates on the Banfield. Obviously MAX is not an option for them.

    So there will still be a popular demand for widening of the I-5 route. It might be another decade or two, but it will still come.

    I think that is correct. And the more lanes of congestion there are the more “popular demand” there will be. Scratching that itch only makes it worse.

    On the other hand, an entirely new route, along the BNSF and North Portland Road, that can handle all of these demands

    I don’t see how people who need to get anywhere east of I5 use it or to Swan Island. I don’t think Highway 30 or the Northwest Portland street grid have extra capacity to handle traffic trying to get downtown.

    And, as conceived, it requires building a second bridge across the Willamette in addition to the Columbia I wonder how much support there would be for this idea if that Willamette bridge was “Phase II” and all that traffic needed to go over the St. Johns bridge.

  31. Ross W. in reply:

    The I-5 corridor should not be widened to greater then 3-lanes. We can within the ROW correct Choke Points, restrict it usage and create altenatives to it.

    The I-5 corridor is the ultimate domino effect investment area. We cannot afford to turn even the first major domino by following the proposals of the CRC Task Force recommendations.

    The distruction of any semblance of balance with what the replacement of the I-5 bridges would bring, with a very tall and wide bridge would induce to many vheicles into this highly congested corridor.

    No one in their right mind could possibly think that we should prioritize maybe this $20-billion dollar chase south on the I-5 corridor bringing it up to the 8 to 10 lanes of the CRC recommendations, it would be insane.

    As to extending Light Rail into Vancouver, yes it should occur. But as I have suggested in the past do not look at it as the magic bullet theat solves the problems of congestion in the I-5 corridor. Most people agree that it might (that is a very small might) remove 2% of the vehicles that currently use the I-5 corridor. It will probably reduce the growth in demand within the I-5 corridor to where it grows at only 4 to 5% annually until it reaches saturation.

    There is great opportunity in SW Vancouver to create new Transit Center Housing but that will be new people that accept this urban setting and will still have very little effect on more suburban Clark County houses getting built at a rate of 8 to 10% per year compounded. These people and households require, multiple cars and as a rule use transit very little.

    Approxmately one third to one half of the suburban homes are being bought are being bought by ex-Oregonians and most of these ex-Oregonians still have jobs in Oregon and become commuters.

    Exporting jobs and companies from Oregon to Washington is part of the long term picture and solution to transportaition problems. Families will continue to move across the Columbia River for a better quality of life. If you have kids you do not live in the Pearl District or South Water Front. If you have kids you want good schools, great teachers and adequate long term funding of education and that is not Portland. If do not want to pay a State Income Tax you find employment in Washington. If you live in Washington and do not want to pay a local and state Sales Tax you drive across the Columbian River and buy in Oregon and take it home.

    So businesses in Oregon have a choice let their employees who live in Washington get tranpled on, with congestion and tolls or move their work centers to Washington to where they can pick and choose the best staff and opporate for less money.

    If I was an Oregon Business/Employer, I would be trying to figure out how to solve this problem and one thing is for sure that the current CRC Task Force recommendation do not slove the problems they only make them worse.

  32. Exporting jobs and companies from Oregon to Washington is part of the long term picture and solution to transportaition problems.

    I doubt it. People move where there are jobs, not the other way around. The fact is Portland has created the positive business environment that drives the Clark County housing boom. The question is whether it will allow that business environment to be degraded or destroyed in order to serve those Clark County commuters.

  33. Ross Williams said:
    I don’t see how people who need to get anywhere east of I5 use it or to Swan Island. I don’t think Highway 30 or the Northwest Portland street grid have extra capacity to handle traffic trying to get downtown.

    Fact the a new BI-State Industrial Corridor alignment take traffic off of I-205, I-84, I-5, AND neighborhood streets adjacent to the I-5 Corridor, as well as adjacent to industrial areas. Findings of the I-5 Partnership 2001. Taking traffic out of these corridors saves fuel, time, less congestion, and helps Swan Island.
    75% of the truck traffic and a large amount of the current commuter traffic over the St. Johns Bridge are headed west. The number one destination is not downtown Portland.
    North Portland and Port of Vancouver both on the west side of I-5 will be producing a majority of jobs….. if we un land lock them.

    Ross Williams said:
    And, as conceived, it requires building a second bridge across the Willamette in addition to the Columbia I wonder how much support there would be for this idea if that Willamette bridge was “Phase II” and all that traffic needed to go over the St. Johns bridge

    Thanks for noticing that it has a second crossing over the Willamette River. It will include the second bridge from the beginning. The streets leading to the St. Johns Bridge already near or at capacity and cause congestion in St. Johns. The numbers would show that a second crossing must be in the mix from the beginning.

    Ross Williams said:
    I doubt it. People move where there are jobs, not the other way around. The fact is Portland has created the positive business environment that drives the Clark County housing boom. The question is whether it will allow that business environment to be degraded or destroyed in order to serve those Clark County commuters.

    The fact that they are moving to Clark County when the jobs are not there points to quality of life issues not being properly dealt with on the Oregon side. When enough trained people are over the river companies will continue to be attracted into Clark County.
    Portland has not had a positive business attitude in over a decade. We have lost entire companies, and continue to lose them every month in the newspaper.
    Do you think year after year winning the award of having the most congested highways and city make us appealing? I’m tired of hearing the USA Today, and other national newspapers dogging us. The land of the empire builder… identified what you need and come hell or high waters, reach it…. Not this well it’s not enough so well just have to make due….. Decide what you want and the process will get you there. You don’t have to know every step of the journey to get to where you want to be, you just have to decide not to stop until you have arrived. I have seen it happen to many times not to be a believer.
    Peace,
    Sharon

  34. The fact that they are moving to Clark County when the jobs are not there points to quality of life issues not being properly dealt with on the Oregon side. When enough trained people are over the river companies will continue to be attracted into Clark County.

    Perhaps. But for the forseeable future, Clark county will continue to attract more people than jobs.

    Fact the a new BI-State Industrial Corridor alignment take traffic off of I-205, I-84, I-5, AND neighborhood streets adjacent to the I-5 Corridor, as well as adjacent to industrial areas. Findings of the I-5 Partnership 2001. Taking traffic out of these corridors saves fuel, time, less congestion, and helps Swan Island.

    Fact – using those models any new capacity over the river anywhere will take traffic off those facilities temporarily. It will also spur new housing development that will fill them up again.

    North Portland and Port of Vancouver both on the west side of I-5 will be producing a majority of jobs….. if we un land lock them.

    I think that is the point. Is this a corridor where we want to spur major new development? And if it is, is this the best way to do it.

    The numbers would show that a second crossing must be in the mix from the beginning.

    I don’t know why. Very few of the existing trips on I5 are crossing the Willamette to Highway 30. Those that are, are probably already using the St. John’s bridge. Where is the immediate demand for a new Willamette bridge going to come from?

Leave a Reply to Terry Parker Cancel reply

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