In last Friday’s Daily Journal of Commerce, Metro Councilor Robert Liberty shares his concerns about the Columbia River Crossing project.
In last Friday’s Daily Journal of Commerce, Metro Councilor Robert Liberty shares his concerns about the Columbia River Crossing project.
27 responses to “Liberty Has Reservations on CRC”
Liberty is right on. An arterial bridge (w/ high capacity transit), removing substandard I-5 on/off ramps, re-aligning the RR bridge and reducing incidents will get us 90% of what a $6 Billion megaproject gets at a fraction of the cost.
Put the CRC out to pasture.
DJC: The eastside streetcar loop was in City Council this week, and one of the criticisms has been that there hasn’t been a fleshing out in the race to apply for federal money. Has the project done its due diligence?
Liberty: Let me speak generally. I think it’s better to finish a study before we commit to money. TriMet’s service money has all been in light rail, and bus ridership is flat. As quickly as we can, we need to complete a regional transportation plan. We can’t keep doing the pieces and never get around to looking at the big picture. We already know we have more commitments than money, and the worst is to keep moving ahead without recognizing we have to make choices.
It’s about damn time that someone in Metro wakes up and smells that coffee. It’s a shame that the other Councilors feel otherwise and would rather look at the individual puzzle pieces instead of the entire puzzle that’s called the metro region transportation system.
Lenny says,
“Liberty is right on. An arterial bridge (w/ high capacity transit), removing substandard I-5 on/off ramps, re-aligning the RR bridge and reducing incidents will get us 90% of what a $6 Billion megaproject gets at a fraction of the cost.
Put the CRC out to pasture.”
I’m glad you’re opposing th CRC replacement.
Doesn’t the nultimodal bridge in the BNSF corridor accomplish the other purposes you mention? i.e.arterial bridge or local connector,and realigning the RR bridge.
We want that corridor to have everything that lifts all modes of tansportation up to modern requirements: Taking truck traffic off the I-5 as much as possible, connecting Vancouver and Hayden Island, improved thru rail including AMTRAK, bicycle path, eliminating the hazardous S-curve on the shipping channel, even a MAX connection to the AMTRAK station and the new waterfront area.
Doesn’t the nultimodal bridge in the BNSF corridor accomplish the other purposes you mention? i.e.arterial bridge or local connector,and realigning the RR bridge.
I don’t think it really does any of those things well. It seems to be another version of the CRC bridge, an overpriced mega-project that sort of serves a lot of purposes badly, where a series of smaller changes would serve those same purposes better.
Ross says.
“I don’t think it really does any of those things well. It seems to be another version of the CRC bridge, an overpriced mega-project that sort of serves a lot of purposes badly, where a series of smaller changes would serve those same purposes better.’
What do you want to do, then? Spawn a bunch of smaller projects? Even if you could do that, it still wouldn’t open up a west side route through Portland (linking to US 26, Hwy 30, Hwy 43, Barbur Bv. and I-5 south)
I agree it is a compromise. If you agree that the heavy rail through Portland Vancouver area needs to be improved (along with the usual list of transit demands) what project(s) would be more cost-effective? I do not doubt that I-5 has reached a choking point and adding more high density development to that corridor ( as usually happens) will only add more traffic, MAX or no MAX.
I know that small changes, if intelligently designed can accomplish virtually what a more elaborate project can. There have been some good examples around the area. My question would be: How would you relieve enough traffic from I-5 that replacing the bridges becomes unneeded–especially when you must factor in projected growth in the Metro area? I think it can only be done by a connection –i.e. the BNSF route to Hwy 30— that traffic to various W. Portland points would feel is easier than staying on I-5–and dealing with congestion. Our CRC contact maintains that the optimum reduction would be only 15%. But I don’t know the extent and/or details of the alternative he is refering to. The “Western Arterial” had long been an option on the table. I think everything should be done to make it easy to connect to Hwt 30, N. And S., but also to Swan Island and also expedited connections to I-405 (e.g. Yeon Ave).
Also,
1.Getting a truck off the road is like getting two cars off
2.The BNSF route could still have the MAX, and it should put it in what will become the center of Vancouver (not its present center)
3. This plan, I think, should also encourage interstate AMTRAK travel, assuming the station in Vancouver is improved.
4. There is a tipping point at which a freeway becomes too congested. But if rush hour traffic can move at 25 or 30 mph, that ain’t too bad. Not like 55, but not 3 mph, either. I would like to observe how many cars move past a point when the speeds are 50 as compared to when they are 5 mph. I bet a lot more in the former. There is a tipping point, so if we stay below that, goodbye congestion.
Yes, it is a big project—but if population density continues apace on the West Side it might make more sense as time goes on.
I agree it is a compromise.
I didn’t say it was a compromise. It appears to be simply a different version of the CRC.
Even if you could do that, it still wouldn’t open up a west side route through Portland (linking to US 26, Hwy 30, Hwy 43, Barbur Bv. and I-5 south)
There is no need for a west side route. The number of existing trips that could use that route doesn’t warrant it. It would no doubt fill up with new trips as people and businesses take advantage of the new opportunities it provides. But that just means more traffic on the new highway, not less traffic elsewhere.
I would like to observe how many cars move past a point when the speeds are 50 as compared to when they are 5 mph. I bet a lot more in the former.
Probably, but there is little evidence that the CRC, or your proposed alternative, would have the effect to transforming 5 mph traffic to 50 mph. And I believe the optimal speed for greatest capacity is less than 40 mph.
The advantage of an arterial bridge is that it serves the current trips across the river instead of inducing a flood of new trips and more traffic.
“There is no need for a west side route. The number of existing trips that could use that route doesn’t warrant it. It would no doubt fill up with new trips as people and businesses take advantage of the new opportunities it provides. But that just means more traffic on the new highway, not less traffic elsewhere.”
You are so wrong as you misrepresent and mislead. There is no doubt a west side route would relieve both 26 and I-5 and provide for growth like NONE of your rail nonsense ever does or will.
But then you never use any of them so no big deal heh?
There is no compromise present in any of the CRC process.
It’s light rail included or light rail only or nothing, period.
Pat –
I’ll skip past your usual factless invective against Ross and ask a follow-up to your last point: What CRC proposal is purely “light rail only” — that’s news to me. Got a source, preferably a link?
– Bob R.
Bob,
All of the Portland area projects that are on the back burner, in the hopper, on the drawing boards , waiting in the wings –or whatever metaphor one wishes–would be fantastic if they could just instantly appear— and—- if our federal government had not spent excessively promoting the ideal of democracy in the Middle East in the last five years.
But this vast array of transportation projects and freeway replacement and bridge projects will have a prolonged disruptive effect on travel in Portland. Depending on how it is handled that disruption could go on for a decade. And I think that when it is done you will find, in about twenty years, that the congestion has returned once again to the present level and there will be cries for a new round of projects and expensive solutions.
I know that America’s infrastructure needs maintenance and replacement in some cases. However, I do not place any trust in politicians who will boast about how many jobs they will create and how much it will benefit the economy and protect America—if we just surrender the purse strings to them. Yes, they will create jobs—but those jobs will go to foreign citizens just as much as to Americans. Yes they will put in brand new infrastructure—but that infrastructure will hardly be safer than what we have now. Yes they will solve our congestion problems—but with an artificially swelling population that congestion will return and the infrastructure will once again become obsolete.
But if one were to go only by statistics they will prove their point. In all of these infrastructure projects there will be deaths and diasbling injuries; for construction is an inherently dangerous industry especially with inexperienced workers. Among highway flaggers alone, there are about forty deaths per year.
Once again, I am for relieving the traffic burden with mass transit and alternative transit. I have been bicycling for almost fifty years. But I think we need to weigh the costs vs benefits of these projects, and I think Mr, Liberty is raising some good questions.
Why will light rail not permanently reduce I-5 congestion to an acceptable level? Vancouver, WA, like an adolescent, is “feelin’ it’s oats” It will grow because of its beautiful setting plus its liveability. I would guess it will become like Seattle’s suburb –Bellevue. So to continue concentrating interstate traffic into two routes will soon be outmoded—opening up a third route, needed anyway, cancels the need for rebuilding I-5.
We’re going to try to get this into the Tribune, Maybe they will do a survey of local attitudes. That would be helpful. I hope that makes things clearer. It will certainly be an exciting time figuring out how to safely fit the newcomers into this lovely area.
Pat will be taking an enforced vacation from commenting due to repeated disrespect toward other participants.
Why will light rail not permanently reduce I-5 congestion to an acceptable level?
Because congestion is already at an acceptable level for the people who create it. What light rail, or any improved transit, can do is provide attractive alternatives that reduce the level at which congestion is acceptable.
Robert Liberty is asking the right questions. But a third freeway corridor is the wrong answer. As Lenny said above, the solution is a variety of approaches that manage traffic better and provide appropriate alternatives. There is a long list:
A local arterial bridge to handle the large number of local trips across the river. Better incident management to improve the reliability of the freeway. Focused improvements that will improve freight movement without attracting more commuters to clog them up again. Attractive transit alternatives, which can include both light rail and improved bus service in Clark County. Land use changes that concentrate new development in Clark County where it can be efficiently served by transit.
“Why will light rail not permanently reduce I-5 congestion to an acceptable level?”
>>>> Because it is not an attractive alternative for many commuters. The people I know that like LRT either live very close to a station, or a short drive away, and can get in the park-and-ride early enough. They also can walk to their destinations when they get off.
Now a BRT can aggregate more riders nearer to their houses, causing less transfers, and give a speedier ride than the all-stop MAX.
Mr, Liberty noted:
“TriMet’s service money has all been in light rail, and bus ridership is flat. As quickly as we can, we need to complete a regional transportation plan.”
>>>> And you try and tell me that there is no rail cabal in this town! We’ll never get a good plan as long as all these profiteering contractors, show-off politicians, Euro wanna-be planners and activist railfans are part of the process.
Nick –
The fact that Mr. Liberty, an elected official with Metro, is making arguments for more bus service and better bus planning seems to be evidence against the existence of a “rail cabal” – unless Mr. Liberty winds up being somehow ostracized for his remarks.
As for actual service spending, it seems I must point out again that during the recent service cuts, TriMet cut MORE service hours (as a percentage) from MAX than it did from buses.
– Bob R.
What CRC proposal is purely “light rail only” — that’s news to me. Got a source, preferably a link?
I believe it was the Mayor of Vancouver that stated that he refuses to support any project alternative unless it includes a MAX line to Vancouver.
it seems I must point out again that during the recent service cuts, TriMet cut MORE service hours (as a percentage) from MAX than it did from buses.
And despite the recent service cuts, TriMet (and Metro) continue to invest huge sums of capital dollars into MAX, while spending next to nothing on new busses. This has clearly resulted in decreasing schedule adherence and reliability of the bus fleet, an increase in missed trips (trips that the busses don’t even operate at all) – while MAX continues to be given “first-class” treatment in terms of operations. TriMet also continues to subsidize the Portland Streetcar which is a City of Portland owned/operated transit system distinct from TriMet, which has absolutely no legal obligation towards funding even one penny towards Streetcar operations, and has not cut Streetcar spending (in fact it is on track to increasing Streetcar spending).
If TriMet had truly recognized the financial status, it would have STOPPED expansions, until it can get a grasp on current operations, but it has not. So the amount of service hours cut between bus and MAX is insignificant compared to the capital spending, the future costs, and the attention given by TriMet (and Metro) towards present and future operations.
Erik wrote: “I believe it was the Mayor of Vancouver that stated that he refuses to support any project alternative unless it includes a MAX line to Vancouver.”
That qualifies as one person demanding “Light Rail Must be Included”, but my question was specific: What CRC proposal is “Light Rail Only”? So far I’ve found nothing.
– Bob R.
Both LRT and BRT are on the CRC table. I think LRT across the River with enhanced bus service on the WA side makes the most sense; we already have lots of Frequent Service connections to MAX on the OR side.
BRT across the River would require everyone to transfer to MAX to continue their trip…there will never be a bus only lane on I-5 south of Delta Park/Vanport.
Getting MAX into Vancouver allows for transfer free trips between downtowns and closer in neighborhoods, with the obvious need for transfers for riders coming from farther north, east and even west.
A N/S alignment for MAX combined with an E/W alignment for a Streetcar like service would put what Vancouver offers on the map for a lot of us on the OR side.
Sounds like we are getting there if the latest poll numbers are to be believed.
I really think the new CRC bridge is a major need, as well as the Delta Park project. What we really need to decide is long term, how can we better invest in the Portland/Vancouver region, to make both areas grow with each other, instead of against each other.
A new bridge from I-5 to US-30 between St Helen’s and Scappoose, combined with improvements to US-30 between the bridge and I-405 could be a long term freight management solution. Most of the busiest intersections along US-30 have space for a SPUI-based interchange. The whole thing doesn’t need to be a freeway either, but at some intersections reducing traffic delays from movement conflicts would not be a bad way to divert traffic, in the long-term, from I-5.
Interchanges at the busiest intersections, and a Scappoose bypass to a new bridge could be very good for traffic from California/Mexico to Seattle/Canada. Like it or not, a large part of Portland’s economic growth is being a way point between destinations.
Yes, I-405 would also need improvements to make this work, but why not start planning for them. Removing traffic from the East side could definitely help with development of the area.
In summary, the real thing we need to work on with the CRC project is what is our long-term solutions. A new bridge alone isn’t a silver bullet. With LRT into Vancouver, it’ll be more enticing for them to expand their public transit service, and as so many seem to want, for them to add density. It might even help make Downtown Vancouver a true urban center.
There’s already traffic delays rather regularly returning from Vancouver to Downtown Portland many weekdays in the evening. We should really start thinking of possible solutions when the reverse commute starts getting bad.
A lot of what Robert Liberty says makes sense, but he like other social engineering transit advocates still only see half the of the reality check picture. People not wanting to be packed and warehoused into living quarters like sardines move to the suburbs and Vancouver to have open space and yards Thinking that by just adding transit and bike options, and maintaining the infrastructure that already exists will solve all the transport problems simply can not and will not work. We can not just keep continue building transit systems that are downtown centric and not financially self-sustainable for their costs of operations. We can not continue to build both transit and bicycle infrastructure without passing on the costs directly to the users. And, we can not continue to ignore the growing need for more roadway capacity. Additionally, we can not continue to displace and compromise motor vehicle capacity and freight mobility by adding to other modes of transport.
That said, as this applies to the Columbia Crossing, I think the third option committee (that did not allow for direct public testimony) was more about political semantics as orchestrated by Chair Rex Burkholder to support the pre-conceived agenda of building a new light rail new bridge into Vancouver rather than finding a less costly option. That opinion is supported by the fact that in the recommendation, compromises were made for all other modes of transport except transit – a light railroad job that appears to support Burkholder’s personal views.
One common sense approach has not changed: to build a new six-lane I-5 freeway bridge and use the current twin bridges for local traffic, a Northern connection to I-5 for Hayden Island, the chosen transit option, and with widened sidewalks, for bike and pedestrians. The third bridge option should also be kept in the mix.
“A new bridge from I-5 to US-30 between St Helen’s and Scappoose, combined with improvements to US-30 between the bridge and I-405 could be a long term freight management solution”
Why? There already is a bridge from Longview to Rainier. This is from exit 36, no less, so you are only talking about 36 miles of freeway that doesn’t have a crossing. This pretty well takes care of any traffic originating north of there that needs to get to someplace like Clatsop and Columbia Cos. So this take scare of the high volume that might originate from the Seattle area.
But what about the relatively high volume that originates from Clark County and wants to get to Hwy 30? Going north to Longview could be a long detour. OTOH we don’t want to have to build too many bridges either. That’s why I suppport the BNSF route—it serves the most areas and where the largest volume of traffic would originate. It’s a happy medium–and scores well because it–when combined with mass and alternative transit–should negate the need to tear down and rebuild the I-5 bridges (Which would be the first step to a rebuilding of I-5 through Portland).
Dave –
You and WashDOT are on the same page. You think the way to integrate Vancouver and Portland is to expand the Vancouver freeway network across the river.
You are also proposing the same process of disinvestment that has hollowed out the core of many urban areas. You have two new bridges and a wide variety of other improvements, all of which end up promoting auto-dependent development in Clark County.
With that same investment you could build the Damascus greenway, put light rail down Barbur Boulevard and Powell-Foster, extend MAX to Cornelius and Forest Grove, extend commuter rail to Salem, extend light rail beyond downtown Vancouver, move I5 into a tunnel under the Willamette along with a light rail subway, just to name a few of the projects that could be on the future regional agenda. Not to mention more immediate projects such as Highway 217, Lake O streetcar and the extension of light rail to Milwaukie (an extension to Oregon City can be added to the longer range list above).
I’m sure I left some things off both lists. My point is that there are two problems with the CRC. One is that it will flood Portland with traffic that it cannot adequately handle. The second is that it will use up most of the available regional transportation dollars that are needed for a wide range of other projects.
Moreover, to truly integrate Portland and Vancouver requires that we connect the local streets, not just the freeways. Adding a local arterial that connects Vancouver to Haydn Island, Marine Drive and Columbia Boulevard will actually serve a large number of current trips forced onto the freeway. But it will also make downtown Vancouver and the near in neighborhoods much more attractive places to live with better access to jobs across the river.
I wonder if anyone has some answers on future economic plans in Vancouver. If they keep building waterfront condos it may pu a lot of money in condo developers pockets but would do little for the underlying economic issues.
Vancouver has a lot going for it that could attract significant business investment (Of course the opposite side of the coin is China might end up attracting most of our investors!!) Proximity to a major city is one of them. It seems to have a much gentler approach to taxation, and is close to an international airport. Could it be Portland’s Bellevue? A high scale suburb? Washington’s new Cinderella story?
How would one best capitalize on Vancouver’s liveability and features to attract some “real” employers? Perhaps Microsoft could look for some homegrown talent. Well, maybe not….
Vancouver Economic Strategic Plan
Vancouver Employment (pdf)
It seems that Vancouver has been growing jobs at a healthy rate for a community its size. It just continues to add people at a much faster rate because of its proximity to Portland employers.
How would one best capitalize on Vancouver’s liveability and features to attract some “real” employers?
Well, Hewlett Packard is certainly a “real” employer, it is the largest computing company in the world (it has surpassed IBM) and is the largest printing and imaging company in the world.
http://h10055.www1.hp.com/jobsathp/content/locations/site.asp?Lang=ENen&Region=AM&area=US
iRiver moved their US headquarters to Vancouver, and other companies have moved there from Portland and California as well. It’s not a bad thing that they’re attracting more jobs.
One problem, as Ross mentioned, is the lack of arterial connections. St Louis, on the border of two states, has 3 freeway and two arterials on it’s border. Cincinnati has 4 freeways and 3 arterials to cross their river.
Even the Willamette has 8 arterials, and 3 freeways to cross it. The Columbia has 2 freeways in the metro area. Where are the arterials? Why not improve the freeway too, with a safer bridge with no multiple-hour delays backing up both sides of I-5 from a ship crossing?
I like the arterial idea, but it should be part of a long-term plan including I-5 improvement and other improvements. I’d take a connector between Mill Plain and N Portland Rd to grab lunch quite happily. Maybe even to get home, if no other reason than I’m sick of I-5.