This morning’s O brings with it the news that the Columbia River Crossing Project has successfully competed for a “Corridor of the Future” designation by the Feds. This comes with $15M to help continue the planning for the project.
Apparently our future is more lanes and more cars.
44 responses to “Corridor of the Future?”
I don’t live in PDX but I travel through it often and while I can’t do it all the time I try to avoid I-5.
It occurs to me that any work on the Columbia River Crossing BETTER be coordinated with improvements through downtown PDX or there will be more congestion than ever.
I don’t see these improvements ever happening nor do I think they should. Improved mass transit is a major option that needs to be addressed immediately.
Hmm, I don’t read this as necessarily endorsing any one crossing option over another. It seems to me that Metro still wears the pants in this relationship, and if they’d like to do something different (like an arterial bridge with light rail, for instance), then this seems to actually help by providing the funding necessary to study it.
Maybe converting the existing bridges into arterial/pedestrian/bicycle crossings, and building a new parallel freeway bridge, might still be on the table?
If only it were so…
It seems to me that Metro still wears the pants in this relationship
Actually WashDOT is the biggest project driver, with ODOT in a secondary role. Metro may have a veto, but may find it difficult to exercise.
Maybe converting the existing bridges into arterial/pedestrian/bicycle crossings, and building a new parallel freeway bridge, might still be on the table?
The ‘fourth option’ that was added at the end somewhat resembles this. But in mind the biggest issue is how many additional Washington State commuters are we going to enable to use the crossing. It’s looking like 50K daily. That has enormous implications on energy use, emissions, land use and economic development.
I’m interested to see what the design will be, while keeping the closely placed Marine Dr, Jantzen Beach, and WA SR-14 interchanges operable. Even with high capacity automated toll collection, most keep at least some toll booths available for non-locals and infrequent users.
The photographing the license plate idea is possible, but for rental cars (as an example) it would be another thing the rental companies would need to bill for later. Plus, the cost of sending out and getting back the bills, as well as enforcement would probably be more than a slow lanes to have cash tolling at.
The problem is cash tolls are big. Like:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=irvine,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=33.604916,-117.794015&spn=0.006282,0.010042&t=k&z=17&om=0
Wow.. Imagine that.. More people = more cars
Maybe its time to give up on the futile dream that building over priced electric trains and trolleys and heavily subsidizing condo farms will make people give up their cars.
I would like to see this issue debated in the upcoming Portland City Council and Mayor races.
I think Sam Adams has the political strength to stop the freeway expansion, and force an artial bridge plus LRT alternative. Metro would certainly go along with him, as would the rest of the Portland City Council.
Leadership by Sam, or the lack thereof, will be the deciding factor.
Actually WashDOT is the biggest project driver, with ODOT in a secondary role. Metro may have a veto, but may find it difficult to exercise.
Washington can push for a 20 lane bridge, but of ODOT doesn’t expand capacity south of the state border what difference will it make? Oregon and Washington have to work together on this, don’t they?
Washington can push for a 20 lane bridge, but of ODOT doesn’t expand capacity south of the state border what difference will it make? Oregon and Washington have to work together on this, don’t they?
Given the widening project that is now happening around Columbia Blvd. on I-5, many of us suspect that the result will be an even bigger bottleneck at Rose Quarter. The CRC planners deny this will happen.
Chris,
Can you expand a bit on this.
The ‘fourth option’ that was added at the end somewhat resembles this. But in mind the biggest issue is how many additional Washington State commuters are we going to enable to use the crossing. It’s looking like 50K daily. That has enormous implications on energy use, emissions, land use and economic development.
Energy use and emissions, the impact is negative. But for land use and economic development, I think the impact is positive. Vancouver is clearly a “safety valve” that allows Portland metro to pursue it’s particular land use policies–those who don’t like the limits move to the ‘Couv but still work, shop, and pay taxes in Oregon.
Economic development, again, seems the impact of 50k more daily workers, commuters, shoppers would be good.
WashDOT is the biggest project driver
Which is why the I5 corridor is a problem. WashDOT built 7 freeway lanes (I5, SR14, SR500) dumping their traffic onto a 3 (or 2 1/2) lane bridge. Once Portland neighborhoods are clogged with that traffic, they will want another crossing to “relieve” the congestion they created.
The “I5 Slog” is largely WashDOT’s creation. They think it is a model of success.
Leadership by Sam, or the lack thereof, will be the deciding factor.
Or at least it could be. I don’t think you can put the entire burden on the next Mayor, but there needs to be a Portland mayor willing to take the political heat for killing the project rather than agreeing to have 50K more vehicles from Clark County on Portland’s streets every day.
The CRC planners deny this will happen.
The CRC planners claimed that widening the freeway at Delta Park would result in reduced traffic counts at the Rose Quarter and over the Fremont Bridge. What is happening is that they are pumping huge projected increases in transit use and reductions in auto use from unspecified TDM measures into their traffic models.
Vancouver is clearly a “safety valve” that allows Portland metro to pursue it’s particular land use policies
No, it isn’t. To the contrary, it is clear that Vancouver’s land use policies are a threat to the economic vitality of the region that depends on Portland’s livability.
those who don’t like the limits move to the ‘Couv but still work, shop, and pay taxes in Oregon.
That is the myth. But I think if you look at the actual reality it is different. Vancouver generally supports Portland style land use limits. It is the sprawling development around Vancouver that is the problem.
the impact of 50k more daily workers, commuters, shoppers would be good.
Since the jobs are in Portland, the 50K people will be in Portland in any case. They will take one of two options without the bridge. One is to live closer to work on the Oregon side of the river. The other is to use transit to get to work.
It is not 50K more commuters, it is 50K more vehicles. And the impacts from that increase in vehicles are almost entirely negative for people who live in Oregon.
I would like to see this issue debated in the upcoming Portland City Council and Mayor races.
I think Sam Adams has the political strength to stop the freeway expansion, and force an artial bridge plus LRT alternative. Metro would certainly go along with him, as would the rest of the Portland City Council.
Leadership by Sam, or the lack thereof, will be the deciding factor.
Likely they’d lose out on a lot of the always important federal money. The feds usually won’t contribute to projects like that while I-5 still isn’t up to Interstate standards with under width lanes, insufficient merge lanes, etc.
In most cases recently, unless it would be extremely disruptive to private property ownership in the corridor, the Interstate highway has to be up to current standards before they’ll fund parallel options.
the solution is there, simply designate the existing I-205 with its high bridge as official I-5, use the existing bridges for rail and commute, start up services on the existing rail to say Castle Rock… Solved…crowding is a good thing, may keep some Washington residents home and not on the job in Oregon….
“Economic development, again, seems the impact of 50k more daily workers, commuters, shoppers would be good.”
I don’t see the city/state/etc, trying to chase down more employees for the area. I do see them trying to bring more employers (with tax breaks, etc,) but not employees.
How about we keep home those Oregonians who drive to Seattle to see a baseball game or a football game. What happens when people start with that nonsense?
MW
Freight represents only about 10% of vehicles in the peak hours…the problem is commuters and the almost total lack of options to driving alone.
Two steps that could be taken this afternoon, if things are so bad, are 1. close substandard on/off ramps and redirect traffic to other ramps and 2. change the I-205 names to I-5…moving all thru freight to that route where it should be.
We need a third route across the Columbia!
Build a massive twelve lane freeway with a tunnel through the West Hills popping out at Beaverton and connecting to 217. Do it now!
Just kidding……
Seriously, Seattle has three routes north and south, but most of the traffic is jammed on to I-5. If Portland has only two routes–and continues to densify in the I-5 corridor–that means more of our own trafic will be jammed on to I-5 here. So the improvement of the bridges will be inadequate, and there will be as other posters have said, more congestion elsewhere on the system. To correct these problems, then, will entail lengthy, costly, frustrating reconstruction of the entire I-5 through Portland.
Shifting thru freight truck traffic over to I-205 would help, also, as Lenny A. points out.
It would be better, I think, to just put in a new connection from Vancouver to Portland’s close-in West side. We already have the I-405 loop and Yeon Ave extending north from that, and then Hwy 30. I think a a new connection to Hwy. 30 will cost far less than I-5 reconstruction, take enough traffic off I-5 to return congestion to a tolerable level, produce a shorter–or at least an alternative– route for those going from Clark Co. to points west of downtown Portland.
The other important aspect is that high density development should be oriented to other corridors–both to I-205 and to the one I mentioned–as I think is already happening with the Pearl District, West End and even Linnton redevelopment. High density development, such as high rise condos, is most likely to continue in highly profitable (to developers) areas such as riverfront land. Continuing to place more development in the I-5 coridor can only increase travel demand in that corridor–and with it congestion.
What good will it do spending thousands of dollars to replace a bunch of I-5 and I-205 signs?
RIGHT NOW:
The signs on I-5 north at Wilsonville clearly state that traffic to Seattle and The Dalles should use I-205, that I-205 is the route to I-84 – Oregon City and PDX are only mentioned on a secondary sign, and I-5 is simply signed as “Tigard, Portland”.
The signs on I-5 south in Hazel Dell clearly state that traffic to Salem and East Portland should use I-205, as well as traffic destined to SR 14 and I-84. I-5 is signed as “Vancouver, Portland”.
The signs on I-84 west near NE 122nd Avenue clearl state that traffic to Seattle or Salem should use I-205; traffic in the left lanes will dump you onto I-205 (you must stay to the right to stay on I-5 into downtown). I-84 guide signs simply read “Portland”.
If a motorist can’t read a ten foot by thirty foot “big green sign” that has “SEATTLE” or “SALEM” in 18″ high letters, what makes you think they will read a smaller sign?
By the way, if anyone reads those informative ODOT traffic counts, you’ll find that I-5 isn’t even the “busiest highway” in Oregon, that both I-84 and I-205 have a higher peak volume:
I-5 peak (between I-405 and the Interstate Bridge): 147,000 (south of Going Street)
I-5 peak (between I-405 south and Oregon 217): 144,100 (Iowa Street)
I-5 peak (between Oregon 217 and I-205): 155,800 (south of 217)
I-84 peak (between I-5 and I-205): 171,400 (NE 33rd Avenue)
I-205 peak (between I-84 and the Glenn Jackson Bridge): 153,400 (north of I-84)
I-205 peak (between I-84 and Oregon 213): 170,800 (north of SE Divison)
U.S. 26 peak (between Oregon 217 and I-405): 152,000 (east of “Highlands” (Zoo) exit)
In other words, the busiest point on I-205 carries 23,000 more vehicles per day than I-5 in North Portland, in the same amount of space (three through lanes in each direction).
Erik –
I thought the same thing — most (or all) of the signs I’ve seen directing I-5 traffic to Seattle do indeed direct drivers toward I-205.
But rather than getting hung up on what the route is called, I think the point here is that where N-S long distance expansion is necessary, the most cost-effective place to do that is along I-205, where there is a lot of room for expansion.
Some bottlenecks would need to be significantly improved, such as the ramps from the I-84 northbound merge, Sandy and Columbia Blvds, and especially the on-ramp from Airport Way northbound, but these are far more achievable goals than adding capacity to I-5 in central eastside and N. Portland.
A big reason that I-205’s 3 lanes move so many cars every day is that several key interchanges feature a 4th add-lane, plus parallel access ways that keep merging traffic at least partially off the freeway.
I-5 doesn’t have much ROW for that kind of luxury (and paradoxically, the Delta Park widening project now underway will cause the loss of at least one add-lane).
I-5 has a huge bottleneck problem through the central eastside where at some points there are only 2 through lanes in a given direction, or lots of merging/crossing activity must take place in the 3rd. Unfortunately, removing these bottlenecks will require complete rebuilding of at least a dozen overpasses, viaducts, and interchanges and/or expensive double-decking.
I favor bottleneck removal along central I-5 (If we’re going to have X amount of lane capacity, it should be better balanced), but the cost and disruption involved are quite prohibitive, and that’s why people routinely suggest moving I-5, tunnelling, trenching, etc., because it may actually be simpler (but not necessarily cheaper) to build something completely new.
– Bob R.
I don’t know whether traffic counts are relevant to the question. My understanding was that the through-traffic never accounts for a significant portion of the traffic on I5 or I205 and most of it stays on I5, despite the current signs. I don’t know whether changing the numbering from I205 to I5 will change that, but it might. If you get directions from Google, it doesn’t tell you to get off I5 and use I205.
Counts in the peak hours are more instructive as well as % of trucks (medium and heavy). I wonder how much long distance truck traffic from Puget Sound to California goes by 97 as opposed to I-5.
In any event the obstacle to moving freight…on I-5 or on Swan Island…is SOVs, many of which are making local trips because there are no alternatives.
If you get directions from Google, it doesn’t tell you to get off I5 and use I205.
That’s a big problem with the CRC discussion. There aren’t any alternate routes other than I-205. I’d happily avoid I-5 if I could, but using the “Avoid Highways” check box on Google’s directions, my 10 mile commute grows to 97 miles.
It’s not even peak direction at rush hour that there’s backups. They happen a few times a month against the peak hour directions. They happen at midday as well.
When the backups get bad enough that the non-peak direction is backed up a few band aids won’t fix the problem. If nothing else, the lifts need to be eliminated.
If nothing else, the lifts need to be eliminated.
I don’t think that is really true is it? My understanding was very few of the backups are caused by the lifts and many of those can be eliminated by changed in the railroad bridge so that barges can go under the hump instead of through the lift.
One problem is that there are no local connections as alternatives to the two freeways. But the CRC is not going to address that problem because WASHDot doesn’t consider building local bridge connections its concern. And this is their study.
50% of backups are incident related; there is a lot more that the DOTs could do there, especially funding stricter law enforcement. Freeways in Portland are virtually unpatrolled.
“If nothing else, the lifts need to be eliminated.”
The lifts are only at non-peak hours. Obviously, what tends to happen is that when they need a lift during peak hours the boat just waits until just after peak hours, so that it lifts more often at the end of peak hours when there is still plenty of traffic, so it isn’t ideal, but…
“My understanding was very few of the backups are caused by the lifts and many of those can be eliminated by changed in the railroad bridge so that barges can go under the hump instead of through the lift.”
They can reduce the lifts by fixing the railroad bridge, yes. In fact, the barge captains would like to see that happen anyway regardless of the CRC or anything else, the other spans in the railroad bridge are a lot wider than the opening in the swing span. They (unsuccessfully, obviously) tried to get federal funding to do it a few years ago, but the price would be really cheap, (compared to the CRC): $50M-ish, and it is a very simple procedure, they did it to the Willamette river bridge on that track. The other big advantage to that lift spans open and close a lot faster than swing spans, and causing congestion on the railroad isn’t good for them either, (and the railroad bridge opens a lot more often that the I-5 one.)
Another big source of bridge lifts is a barge mounted crane that gets moved around on the river to do various things, (for, I believe, the Port of Vancouver.) Liberty had a great suggestion for that: Buy another barge mounted crane, keep one above and one below the bridge. It would be a couple million tops, and would eliminate a lot of the lifts…
What is left after that is about 1 lift a month, hardly anything to get excited about.
Matthew –
Thanks for filling in the details.
Buy another barge mounted crane, keep one above and one below the bridge.
I suspect WashDOT doesn’t buy cranes either, so that solution is outside the purview of the CRC study.
“I suspect WashDOT doesn’t buy cranes either, so that solution is outside the purview of the CRC study.”
True, and I imagine that if Oregon spent gas tax money on it, that a lot of people would complain too. It is kind of like how a lot of people complain about the 1% of the PDOT budget that gets spent on bike lanes, even though it reduces traffic by more than 4.4%, (in 2006. Bridge counts for 2007 are up 21% over 2006, so it is still climbing.) But some people just don’t see the big picture…
I heard a CRC staff member once speculate that they might have to buy a sailboat or two that would not fit under the new bridge. Against that idea a crane doesn’t seem out of the range of discussion.
Ah, but Chris. They would be spending money on sailboats in order to build a new bridge, not as an alternative.
BTW – I take pokes at WashDOT because I think from day 1 they defined the problem as convincing the citizens and local leaders in Oregon to accept a new bridge. Part of that is professional arrogance, they already knew what “the right” solution was, the study was only needed to convince political leaders and citizens to accept that solution. The other, frankly, is the arrogance of folks in Washington who look at their quirky southern neighbor as a slightly demented younger sibling. That lack of respect for Oregon’s land use laws, its support of transportation alternatives and its commitment to citizen participation in the process, are part of the reason they are now on their third study. And if the CRC comes up with any other alternative, there will be a fourth study.
Thanks, Matthew, for some perceptive comments. There just has to be a sensible approach to this issue–and finding some innovative and cost-effective solutions would, I hope, be received gratefully. But one never knows these days!
I spoke to the Clark Co. RTC a few weeks ago and stated that I thought CRC was phrasing the question wrongly. It is not how we solve problems in the I-5 corridor—-It is how we provide a cost effective way to have workable connections between two major regions separated by a water barrier.
Even though traffic now moves at a snail’s pace during afternoon rush hour on I-5 I don’t think the traffic has greatly increased in the last ten years. It has merely reached its tipping point where traffic rapidly escalates to a sluggish pace. Removing a significant portion of that traffic–onto I-205 and onto a third crossing downstream– would restore a much more favorable level of usage. Not to the point of a completely unclogged freeway–but at least to a level that is not frustrating.
Not to the point of a completely unclogged freeway–but at least to a level that is not frustrating.
I don’t think that is likely. Levels of congestion are determined by how much congestion the people creating it will tolerate. There are a lot of trips that are not being taken now because it is too “frustrating” to be worth it. If you add capacity those trips will be taken. Which means you will have more traffic and more congestion, not less.
It is how we provide a cost effective way to have workable connections between two major regions separated by a water barrier.
Ron – I think that is the correct question. But your solution of another freeway-style crossing doesn’t answer it. What is needed is a local arterial connection for the local trips now using the bridge. A new connection that also includes a new bridge across the Willamette to Highway 30 will create a whole host of new trips, rather than serving the existing ones. The result, again, will be more traffic and congestion and further encouragement of the auto-dependent development in Clark County that fuels the problem.
I think the 20-lane mega bridge is misguided. I think they need to put in four more smaller bridges – one connecting Cornelius Pass road to Vancouver, another one connecting Portland Road, another one for 33rd and finally another one for 82nd. Portland is the city of bridges, so have lots of bridges across the Columbia like there are across the Willamette. I would also have trolleys or LRT go across the 82nd to connect to the airport Red Line and move the Amtrak station close to the airport.
move the Amtrak station close to the airport.
That wouldn’t make much sense.
First of all, no trains go east of Portland (on this side of the river). Nor would Union Pacific be sympathetic to starting a new run. So no through trains would serve it.
Second, all trains (except the Empire Builder, which makes a ‘right’ at Vancouver and travels along the north bank of the Columbia, are north-south runs. By making them make a stub-run for PDX, it would drastically slow down transit times.
Third, Union Station is close to downtown and in a pretty decent location. If I were to relocate Union Station, I’d move it to the eastside, between the Hawthorne and Morrison Bridges, and keep Amtrak trains on the (ODOT funded) Albina Yard bypass track, through the North Portland tunnel to reach Vancouver. Not only would having a new Amtrak station make a great centerpiece for a revitalized eastside, but would eliminate the need to maintain Union Station (i.e. the City can sell it for redevelopment).
And fourth, Union Station is already linked via the MAX Red Line. The UP mainline follows the MAX line between the Lloyd District and Gateway TC, so relocating an Amtrak station out there would seem to diminish some value to the MAX Red Line.
Oh, and fifth – there’s no leg of the wye to connect the UP (ex-SP) line to Brooklyn with the Graham Line; but there’s a really big warehouse there. The alternative would be to put the Amtrak station on the Kenton Line – and in the middle of an industrial neighborhood. That is akin to moving the Amtrak station to the intersection of St. Helens Road and Kittridge – conveniently located for residents of Columbia County and St. Johns, but not many other people.
Actually, the Governors’ I-5 Task Force “defeated” on a 10-10 vote a call for study of the “6-2-2” option. It called for two arterial lanes across the river in the I-5 corridor with lightrail and later two additional arterial lanes in the heavy rail corridor when that bridge is upgraded for more passenger rail service.
Adding these arterial options would allow the removal of the substandard on/off ramps and reduce the number of local trips that now hamper traffic flow in the existing six lane freeway bridges.
By offering a excellent transit option, an arterial option and first class bike/ped facility and instituting tolls on new & existing spans, I-5 would operate just fine.
Even today for over 90% of its operational time…24/7…the freeway is fine.
50% of backups are incident related; there is a lot more that the DOTs could do there, especially funding stricter law enforcement.
Or we could improve the bridge so that it meets federal Interstate standards, and eliminate many incidents by using a 21st century design standard, instead of a pre-Interstate system standard.
Not to mention, a wider bridge would eliminate the poor acceleration lanes from Washington St/SR-14 and Jantzen Beach, which likely also cause incidents. Oh, and the off-ramp to SR-14 and Downtown Vancouver also requires braking, which can back up onto I-5.
While I’m at it, how about reducing accidents on SR-14 while traffic is stopped waiting to get onto I-5? There’s a nasty weave from the Columbia Way entrance to get on I-5 South.
Even today for over 90% of its operational time…24/7…the freeway is fine.
Over 90% of it’s operational time? Really? Only 17 hours of congestion a week?
Reality may disagree.
Yes, it would be nice to have some arterial bridges and balance out the 22 directional lanes over the Willamette to the 7 directional lanes that the Columbia now has, but I-5 also needs some new auxiliary lanes from Mill Plain to Marine Dr, in addition to the grade and lane width improvements that the CRC will allow.
“A new connection that also includes a new bridge across the Willamette to Highway 30 will create a whole host of new trips, rather than serving the existing ones. ”
I don’t get it Ross. Are you saying people will drive across a new bridge, just because it is there?!! With no purpose in mind? I suppose when it is new they might but the novelty would wear off quickly. I think most people rather carefully allocate their traveling to fit their economic and/or personal goals. Moreover, that argument may be now, or may soon become, an outdated one because bicycling for health is factoring in more and more into discretionary travel. And the multimodal bridge would not be 20 lanes (as per Greg T), but it would be sufficient for conventional travel–as well as facilitating the requisite alternatives. And it would, or should, enhance interstate rail travel and rail freight. And even with thru-lanes it can still provide the local connector to Hayden Island. It does all things in one project.
I suppose the “frustration factor” deters some. (Maybe I’m just not in the “discretionary travel” crowd–like not being in the discretionary income crowd, either.) As Lenny A. says, the I-5 works fine 90% of the time. Anyone (not you) who says that a multimodal bridge in the BNSF corridor would never enhance alternative transportation is just smearing the idea. I agree that less congestion might not motivate people to use mass transit–I guess TriMet will have to come up with other incentives. I believe MAX should cross to Vancouver—-and also that a streetcar line from Northwest Portland to Vancouver would be wise, when riverfront development in Vancouver and NW Portland resumes in the next cycle.
“What is needed is a local arterial connection for the local trips now using the bridge.”
This is a popular argument. While I admit that I have never positioned myself at the Hayden Island on and off ramps (with a “Will count cars for Federal money” sign) I don’t think this portion is all that great. I don’t ever remember seeing a huge lineup of cars at the signal lights. But if we can get that local traffic off I-5–along with Hwy 30 bound trucks, US 26 West bound traffic, and NW and SW Portland local traffic, plus add some serious mass transit, pedestrians and bikes—once again I-5 will be tolerable. I would also like to see a connection from BNSF to Swan Island–but don’t know if it can be done.
Pursuing the CRC option, though–what we will inevitably have is a massive reconstruction of nearly all of I-5 through Portland. Do we want this and the attendant years of hassles?
While I admit that I have never positioned myself at the Hayden Island on and off ramps (with a “Will count cars for Federal money” sign)
You don’t have to, ODOT already has (and has posted the traffic counts on their website):
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/tsm/docs/2006_Ramps.pdf
(scroll to page 17.)
Southbound traffic off the Interstate Bridge: 64,020 ADT
Traffic exiting at Jantzen Beach Exit 307: 10,060
Traffic entering at Jantzen Beach Exit 307: 11,630
Southbound traffic over North Portland Harbor: 65,590
Northbound traffic off the North Portland Harbor bridge: 65,050 ADT
Traffic exiting at Jantzen Beach: 11,710
Traffic entering at Jantzen Beach: 9,970
Northbound traffic onto the Interstate Bridge: 63,310
Roughly, one out of six vehicles on I-5 is exiting at Exit 307, and nearly an identical amount enters I-5 (although there is an increase in traffic going to points south rather than north, about 1500 vehicles daily).
These counts make Exit 307 the busiest interchange north of I-405, save for Exit 306 (southbound exit of 14,290 ADT, northbound entrance of 13,800 ADT). In comparison, the northbound exit has only 5,740 ADT and the southbound entrance has only 4,500 ADT – likely because many Portlanders would likely reach Rivergate from Columbia/Lombard Boulevards, or would use MLK or Marine Drive (or Interstate Avenue) without using I-5.
Not to mention, a wider bridge would eliminate the poor acceleration lanes from Washington St/SR-14 and Jantzen Beach, which likely also cause incidents. Oh, and the off-ramp to SR-14 and Downtown Vancouver also requires braking, which can back up onto I-5.
It is not at all clear that the incident problem has anything to do with the bridge design. But I part of what an arterial bridge could do is eliminate some of the weave to get on and off Haydn Island.
I don’t get it Ross. Are you saying people will drive across a new bridge, just because it is there?!!
Of course they will. A new bridge provides new opportunities for new trips. That is generally a good thing. Unfortunately its not such a good thing when the new trips create congestion on Portland’s streets and highways and the opportunity it provides is to move to Vancouver and drive to Portland or Beaverton instead of working and shopping closer to home.
Only 17 hours of congestion a week?
That sounds about right if you are talking about one direction.
While I’m at it, how about reducing accidents on SR-14 while traffic is stopped waiting to get onto I-5?
How many accidents does that actually cause and what makes you think adding capacity will eliminate that? The fact is the CRC proposal will not eliminate congestion on I5, it will only increase the number of people who can use it before it gets congested. That may temporarily shorten the time it is congested, but it will do that by providing space for more people sit in congestion over a shorter period of time.
I don’t think this portion is all that great.
Every study has shown that over half the trips across the bridge end or begin in the bridge influence area – i.e they can be served by a local arterial. It is the central reality of the I5 bridge that it is congested with mostly local traffic.
The fact is the CRC proposal will not eliminate congestion on I5, it will only increase the number of people who can use it before it gets congested. That may temporarily shorten the time it is congested, but it will do that by providing space for more people sit in congestion over a shorter period of time.
Let’s do nothing, including transit then. People will stop moving to Portland, or they’ll move out and be replaced because they can’t get to a job. Alternatives are great, but you also have to solve other issues.
Yes, an alternative bridge should be studied also, but replacing the Interstate Bridge, which gets backed up even against the primary commute direction, should be somewhat of a priority.
As a major link in a regional transportation system, it’s a failure. As a major international trade link, it’s a failure. As a long term solution it’s a failure. Yes, widening it may allow latent traffic to flow, but it’s not a smart long-term investment to pass up the chance to replace it.
The funding sources for a new Interstate highway bridge are not going to contribute to a regional arterial. That’s not how the federal government works. Maybe if Portland and Vancouver want to work together to find matching funds it will happen, but Portland seems to have enough trouble maintaining it’s roads that funding a massive project that is mostly ineligible for federal funding is not the best idea.
Besides, if we want to make businesses want to exist in Vancouver we need to allow them access to downtown Portland. Adding both Max from Portland to the Couv as well as more predictable travel times in SOV’s is a great way to encourage jobs in Vancouver, taking some strain off the bridge. Figure that into your mantra of more capacity = more traffic.
The funding sources for a new Interstate highway bridge are not going to contribute to a regional arterial. That’s not how the federal government works. Maybe if Portland and Vancouver want to work together to find matching funds it will happen, but Portland seems to have enough trouble maintaining it’s roads that funding a massive project that is mostly ineligible for federal funding is not the best idea.
Getting money for the freeway will require Oregon and Washington put up matching funds, won’t it? An arterial bridge could be built as a light rail bridge with automobile and bike lanes. There probably would be little trouble securing matchng federal funds.
As a major link in a regional transportation system, it’s a failure. As a major international trade link, it’s a failure. As a long term solution it’s a failure.
The Interstate Bridge is scarcely a failure on the first two counts; if it was, it would be empty. The only real problem is peak hour demand, which can be handled in part by congestion pricing. If the political will exists to toll the I-5 and I-205 bridge, then tolls could pay for one or more arterial bridges as well, with or without light rail lines.
The only other problem I see with the I-5 bridge is excessive bridge lifts, and Matthew pointed out some easy and affordable fixes to all but eliminate those.
As a major link in a regional transportation system, it’s a failure. As a major international trade link, it’s a failure. As a long term solution it’s a failure.
I concede that these are 50/100 year-old structures, there is a real infrastructure issue. But putting that aside for the moment, the other two issues strike me as things that could be rapidly addressed with pricing. The ‘long term solution’ question seems to me to be one that HAS to incorporate global climate change and energy price uncertainty, which the current project charter ignores.
Lenny:
“50% of backups are incident related; there is a lot more that the DOTs could do there, especially funding stricter law enforcement.”
Dave:
“Or we could improve the bridge so that it meets federal Interstate standards, and eliminate many incidents by using a 21st century design standard, instead of a pre-Interstate system standard.”
Lets see, Lenny’s suggestion would run on the order of $80/hr per officer. If you got two all the time, and then added two more during rush hour, and while you were at it, had a tow truck standing by at rush hour too, that would be less than $2M/yr. Dave’s suggestion is running $6B right now, and the interest alone on that at 4.75% (which would be lower than we’d actually get on this project) is $285M/yr. Yes, some of that would be federal funding, but still, I don’t think 99% of it would be…
Let’s do nothing, including transit then. People will stop moving to Portland
Doing nothing is certainly better than spending a over a billion dollars and accomplishing nothing. Because, if congestion is your measure, that is what you accomplish, nothing.
Alternatives are great, but you also have to solve other issues.
If by that you mean alternatives to people driving alone in their auto, then in fact that addresses all the issues. The problem is too much traffic during certain times of the day, almost all of it people driving their own single-occupancy car. Provide them with attractive alternatives and some will choose to use them. And the less congestion you will have since people’s willingness to tolerate congestion goes down the more attractive the alternatives are.
The funding sources for a new Interstate highway bridge are not going to contribute to a regional arterial. That’s not how the federal government works.
That simply isn’t true. The question is entirely a political one that is determined by what the congressional delegations can deliver based on their political clout. This will be an earmark and there is no reason the earmark can’t be for any solution.
if we want to make businesses want to exist in Vancouver we need to allow them access to downtown Portland.
That is an interesting argument, but it does not seem to be supported by actual business decisions. It may be that adding capacity will add some jobs in Clark County, but it will add a whole lot more residential housing development for people who will end up commuting to Portland to work.
I concede that these are 50/100 year-old structures, there is a real infrastructure issue
I think that is correct. At some point the bridges will need to be replaced, but that may well be another 50+ years. The question what decisions need to be made now.
There are a number of solutions which could be implemented almost immediately. Lenny’s call for improvements in incident management is one. Implementing congestion pricing on the existing bridges is another. Dramatic improvements in the quality of the transit service in the Columbia Corridor with direct links to Clark County is another.
The question of replacing the bridges is one that ought to be addressed when the bridges need to be replaced. The costs will no doubt be higher in the future, but no higher in real dollars than today. But the information about what the actual needs are will be a lot clearer as well. If you go back 25 years, to 1982, anyone discussing how to deal with explosive growth in Portland would have been laughed at since the region was losing population. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be planing for 25 years from now, but the region ought to recognize that the longer implementation is delayed, the more likely it is to actually meet its real needs.
“The question of replacing the bridges is one that ought to be addressed when the bridges need to be replaced. The costs will no doubt be higher in the future, but no higher in real dollars than today”
If this entire country is going to embark on a massive infrastructure program maybe we ought to figure out how to get a supply of raw materials at an affordable price. There are supposed to be advantages in volume buying, right? Supposedly steel prices have risen dramatically in the last few years. Well what do you expect with a worldwide economic boom? That could turn around, maybe even soon (but I hope not too soon).
There will also be a materials revolution within the next decade or two. At first the highly improved materials would probably be more expensive; later the prices could very well fall. I’m all for waiting. If the cost of MAX can go from $9 milliom/mi to $100 million/mi in 28 years, we need to figure out what we are doing wrong. I thought we were supposed to be getting smarter!! If we were to look at what other cities are doing I bet we could find ways to accomplish our goals for a lot less. Maybe not so much in building a bridge; the labor is really high for that kind of work. That’s where we need intelligent strategy…. as argued above….