Additional CRC Materials Online


The Columbia River Crossing project has put the materials from their recent round of open houses online:

Open House
Materials

 

General
Documents


25 responses to “Additional CRC Materials Online”

  1. Am I reading this right? The “supplemental bridge” “option” is a third freeway bridge for southbound traffic, with the old bridge spans being used for northbound traffic. They’ve designed the “supplemental bridge” to look as bad as possible.

    And no consideration whatsoever of an arterial bridge option, as far as I can see.

    The folks driving this process really, really, REALLY want to force the freeway-only superbridge on us, don’t they?

  2. Does anyone know if they’ve considered using a toll to fund the new bridge, and set it up to collect the money *before* they build the new one (so they’d toll the current bridge for a few years)?

    Also, if we “need” to build a bigger bridge so that truck traffic moves faster, maybe they could consider making on lane a truck-only lane, or make it a lane where trucks can use for free and cars have to pay a toll?

    I’m wondering if maybe tolling the current bridge for a while would reduce the predicted need, especially if the toll wasn’t cheap.

  3. Set up tolls now, put the $ into an account to pay for an arterial bridge with lightrail, and the problem is over.

  4. Seriously — what’s it going to take to get an arterial bridge into the study? If all they’re doing is working out ways to add lots more freeway lanes, they really aren’t considering alternatives.

  5. It’s going to take this project failing to get funded and a restart of the process.

    The arterial option battle was fought and lost twice: first on the Governor’s task force that established the CRC context, and again earlier this year when options were examined and discarded for the DEIS analysis stage that we are now in.

  6. It’s going to take this project failing to get funded and a restart of the process.

    Unfortunately, you are probably right. And the result will be a long delay before there is any real opportunity to explore alternatives to the freeway bridge.

    The problem with every study like this is that getting to no-build is usually considered a failure. The point is to agree on doing something.

    In this case, I think it would actually be a success if the decision was no-build. Until a new and wider freeway bridge is off the table, real consideration of alternatives will never be acceptable to those who want a new bridge. The region would be better served by a flat “no” than by a “yes, if we can afford it”.

    I think once this gets to the paying for it stage, the combined force of Portland opposition to more traffic, Clark County opposition to tolls and other jurisdiction’s seeing it as competition with other transportation projects, will prevent it from getting funded. But that “decision by indecision” will take a long time.

  7. I sfill question the need for another bridge at this time, the existing bridge is adequate to handle I-5 traffic with assist from I-205 bridge so a new bridge will only encourage more to live in Clark County and commute, let them stay home or develop more jobs in Clark County….

  8. The I-5 bridge is not equipped to handle the traffic, it takes forever to get from downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver

  9. The I-5 bridge is not equipped to handle the traffic, it takes forever to get from downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver

    Portland is “not equipped” to handle double the traffic from Clark County. I have had more problems getting through the Rose Quarter than getting across the river. Widening the bridge will just make that worse, especially southbound.

    There is no evidence that widening the bridge will result in fewer delays. It will support more housing development in Clark County’s auto-dependent suburbs. But that development is just going to force more people into the congestion on I-5 in order to find work and spread the congestion further onto other parts of the Portland street network.

  10. There is no evidence that widening the bridge will result in fewer delays.

    Absolutely right.

    Though, it will make the bridge safer, and offer more alternatives to travel with either BRT or LRT. It will allow more overall mobility. What’s Portland transportation planning about again? Let’s get creative for a moment.

    I’d even support the idea of paying a slightly higher toll to speed construction of a free to use arterial bridge. Pay the bridge off a little slower, make the tolls a little higher, and use the excess to build an arterial as well. Plan to remove the Hayden Island ramps from the new bridge upon completion of both.

    Bingo, we’ve got a more comprehensive plan, including light rail to Vancouver, an arterial bridge for the short hoppers, and additional safe bicycle and pedestrian routes connection the Metropolitan area. Get creative, how can we make the bridge a benefit?

    Rather than shooting it down, I’d rather embrace it and ask for more out of it for our money.

  11. Ross Says:
    “Portland is “not equipped” to handle double the traffic from Clark County. I have had more problems getting through the Rose Quarter than getting across the river. Widening the bridge will just make that worse, especially southbound”

    I would say the I-5 corridor is not equipped. The westside— Hwy 30, Yeon Ave, I-405, Hwy 26—- does have some additional potential. Especially if rail transit supplements the capacity.

  12. “I would say the I-5 corridor is not equipped. The westside— Hwy 30, Yeon Ave, I-405, Hwy 26—- does have some additional potential.

    Uhmm, what? The 26/405 interchange, (in particular, the tunnel,) is the 3rd biggest bottleneck in the Metro area after the 84/5 interchange (Rose Quarter) and the I-5 bridge, (CRC.) In any case, 405 is only 2 lanes in each direction, the only reason it doesn’t jam up nearly as bad is because when it drops down to 20 mph, people get off it and drive on other streets. There isn’t an alternative to I-5, when it jams up, you can’t get off at an off ramp and take the nearest artery to Vancouver, cause there isn’t one.

  13. …is the 3rd biggest bottleneck in the Metro area after the 84/5 interchange…

    The I-5/I-84 interchange is fixable. Not cheap, but if we’re going to bury I-5, we can also improve I-84 in that area. A big problem there is the weave to get to the leftmost lane to go on I-5 south.

  14. “If we are going to bury I-5”

    Do “we” have an extra $20 Billion?

    Matthew, aren’t we hoping that mass transit will begin to relieve the overall traffic level between Clark County and Portland? I suppose 405 does get extremely congested; I was referring to more than just that one stretch. I don’t know that Hwy 30 and Yeon could not handles some additional traffic. Make no mistake, if CRC gets it way and embarks on the multibillion replacement of the Interstate Bridges it will be only the beginning of major construction woes, cost overruns and increased congestion on the I-5 route.

  15. Do “we” have an extra $20 Billion?

    Oh, come on. Burying the east bank freeway shouldn’t cost more than $4 or $5 billion. Pocket change.

  16. Do “we” have an extra $20 Billion?

    $20 billion? Over 30-40 years for a regionally comprehensive plan? With the opportunity for creative financing through toll lanes and transit charges?

    Yeah, it’s possible. Let’s start planning for long term, with financing goals. Find the money first. Some might wish the automobile goes away, and they might get that wish to a degree.

    But, the personal occupancy vehicle on the other hand will remain available. Maybe in a different form if some are right, but it can occupy the same roadways we have. We might even get more lanes!

  17. It will allow more overall mobility.

    For people in Clark County, but for it will reduce mobility for people who live in Portland by clogging the local street network with more traffic and creating congestion.

    offer more alternatives to travel with either BRT or LRT.

    For BRT or LRT to be an improvement over the current express bus service will require Clark County to both invest in transit and establish land use regulations that support development that can be served by transit. To the contrary, since the discussion of the new bridge started, Clark County has cut back its transit service and has opened more rural parts of the county for expanded auto-dependent development.

    The I-5/I-84 interchange is fixable. Not cheap, but if we’re going to bury I-5, we can also improve I-84 in that area.

    Perhaps we ought to make sure the Senator Murray in Washington is on-board to get Oregon the money to bury the freeway too. I think the claim that the the congestion the CRC proposal creates can be “fixed” pretty much describes the WashDOT approach to transportation planning. The transportation planners in Washington created seven freeway lanes that converge on a two lane bridge and now they want to move the resulting congestion over the river and make it Oregon’s problem to “fix”.

    It appears if Porland wants to protect its livability the “no-build” is the only option left.

  18. But, the personal occupancy vehicle on the other hand will remain available.

    And so will the highway and street network that currently supports them. The question is whether the livability that is the engine for Portland’s economic growth can be maintained with twice as many vehicles coming from Clark County. Its not just the freeways, the impact on local streets and parking requirements are the most important part of that equation.

    The other problem is that it is not just vehicles Clark County is exporting across a huge new bridge, its development pattern is going to follow them. The more customers and employees of a business live in auto-dependent communities the more auto-dependent the business itself becomes. They need to provide parking and easy access to highways gives an advantage to sprawling development over the transit oriented, compact communities Portland has built its livability on.

  19. djk Says:

    “Do “we” have an extra $20 Billion?

    Oh, come on. Burying the east bank freeway shouldn’t cost more than $4 or $5 billion. Pocket change.”

    It’s not just burying the east bank freeway…as far as I understand it what the planners in favor of this want to do is : 1.Remove the Marquam bridge 2. Come up with another way to get across the Willamette (such as a tunnel) 3. Dig under exisiting buildings, utility lines, sewer lines, basements and who knows what else and place a new freeway there 4. Do something similar with I-84 as it comes into Central Portland 5. Reconfigure other connections to these two freeways 6. Get rid of the existing stretch of I-5 along the Willamette.

    Considering that the reconstruction of the CRC is now estimated at $4 billion and these other phases are a ways off—$20 billion seems reasonable. In ten years–a realistic timeline since the CRC project is perhaps three years away–that cost may be higher yet. Normally, I have also included the CRC project within my estimates.

    As much as I favor expansion of mass transit options to Clark County, I don’t think this strategy–either–is going to solve Portland-Vancouver traffic woes. That leaves a new route on the Westside. Since the old “Western Bypass Freeway” is a very unpopular idea I have been suggesting the BNSF route and connections to Hwy 30 as an alternative. Seattle has three major north-south routes (plus its’ far western suburbs have another state highway on the Kitsap peninsula); if we are limited to two I think we can expect a lot of congestion.

  20. For people in Clark County…

    Oh, including the City of Vancouver. Maybe cross the Interstate Bridge once and see that they’re building up a downtown. Density is happening in the city. This bridge mainly will link the city.

    Maybe they’re not handing out the tax breaks Portland does up there, but it’s still a city growing like a city. It’s an economy that will sink or swim on things like connectivity. If you want more people working up there, businesses need to be given a way to connect to Portland better.

    Maybe a better solution is to demand if we build it, they build density closer to transit, and divert the maintenance costs that the tolls will pay to mass transit? Why not ask for something, rather than write it off?

    For people in Clark County, but for it will reduce mobility for people who live in Portland by clogging the local street network with more traffic and creating congestion.

    Some Portland residents try driving into Washington sometimes, and they deal with the traffic too. Or do we only support Oregonians who stay in Oregon here?

    The transportation planners in Washington created seven freeway lanes that converge on a two lane bridge and now they want to move the resulting congestion over the river and make it Oregon’s problem to “fix”.

    Wow, where to begin?

    Seven freeway lanes? I think you mean four. There’s one lane of SR-14 that merges with I-5 southbound. I-5 S is 3 lanes at that point, not 6.

    Or did you mean the two lanes of SR-14 meet the three of I-5? You’re still two short. I guess those two could be implied to be SR-500, but that’s an expressway. Freeways don’t have traffic signals.

    Now, talking expressways and freeways (both) on the Portland side, we have:

    I-5: two lanes
    I-84: three lanes
    I-405: two lanes
    Going Street (expressway): two lanes
    99E/MLK (expressway): two lanes

    I get eleven lanes using your math. Wow, we owe Vancouver money for dumping so much potential traffic on them.

    By my math though, Portland is dumping five lanes (MLK’s 1, Jantzen Beach’s 1, and I-5’s 3) to Vancouver’s five (Downtown’s 1, SR-14’s 1, I-5’s 3).

    Oddly enough, a five lane bridge is called optimal.

    It appears if Porland wants to protect its livability the “no-build” is the only option left.

    Hmmm, oddly it sounds like the worst option to me. It’s like sitting in neutral on a freeway and wondering why you keep getting hit by cars.

    The question is whether the livability that is the engine for Portland’s economic growth can be maintained with twice as many vehicles coming from Clark County.

    Really? Twice as many? How about twice as many transit users? Have you even read the studies?

    It’s not just about vehicles. If we want Vancouver to start connecting in ways other than the auto, we’ll have to placate them somewhat. In the name of livability, we have to find multiple ways to keep Portland moving.

  21. This bridge mainly will link the city.

    No, it only link the freeways. There is no way for Vancouver residents to access the bridge without getting on the freeway either.

    but that’s an expressway. Freeways don’t have traffic signals.

    Mu understanding is that the plan for SR500 is that it won’t have traffic signals in the future.

    How about twice as many transit users?

    Where is the evidence of political will in Clark County to build transit? The expansion of I5 at Delta Park was supposed to be combined with expanded transit service. Instead, transit service from Clark County has been cut. There were also promises that Clark County was going to restrain the auto-dependent development in the rural parts of the county. Instead, the county commission recently approved more development.

    If we want Vancouver to start connecting in ways other than the auto, we’ll have to placate them somewhat.

    Why do you think that “placating” people by making it more attractive to drive their own car is going to get them to start using transit or carpool?

    To the contrary, Clark County political leaders are seeking to “placate” folks in Oregon by promising more transit and better land use planning. But there is no evidence they can deliver on those promises.

  22. Really? Twice as many?

    Five lanes is twice 2.5 lanes (which is how I have heard the current bridge operation described). And the impact of twice as many lanes is twice as much traffic at the same time. Which means twice as much traffic getting off the freeway somewhere.

  23. One reason the federal government started requiring a “financially constrained” transportation plan was that highway departments were loading up their plans with transit so that they would pass air-quality modeling. There was often no money to pay for the transit, but planning for it allowed them to project heavy transit usage in air quality modeling for their highway projects.

    You are seeing something similar with the CRC. WashDOT is loading up the project with projected transit usage and TDM in order to minimize the traffic impacts from doubling the capacity over the river. But it is highly unlikely they will ever actually deliver those levels of usage given the lack of political support for transit in Clark County.

  24. Dave says,
    “Maybe a better solution is to demand if we build it, they build density closer to transit, and divert the maintenance costs that the tolls will pay to mass transit? Why not ask for something, rather than write it off?”

    I respect the idea, but I still don’t like the bridge–at least the way that CRC is proposing it.

    Since the transit is projected to be in the same zone as the freeway, it probably won’t help much. The “transit” is great for regular commuters, but when you have a great number of businesses in the same corridor you also have a lot of intraday business-to-business travel and customer-to-business travel.

    We can hope for people to use mass transit, but as the population increases—and the number of businesses, along with it–I simply expect more auto traffic. I’m not denigrating public transit–but it is sort of like running ahead of an avalanche. Ultimately we need at least one more crossing of the Columbia River, and Clark County tranportation plannners would like to see more than that.

    Right now we have two main routes to cross the Columbia. If East Portland had only two routes to cross into downtown Portland there would be horrible traffic jams!! And these would negatively impact alternative means of transport as well.

    But packing commuters, business travelers and customers into two routes across the Columbia and at the same time dramatically increasing density will just increase the woes on those routes–mass transit or no.

  25. At the October 20th CRC Open House, I asked why all the other alternate locations were dismissed early on for ‘not meeting project criteria,’ including the third crossing concept near where the current railroad bridge is. I also mentioned that it seems like if they were to apply the same criteria to I-205 (as I hear back when they started wondering how much life the current Interstate Bridges have left), that the Glenn Jackson would’ve never been built.

    The answer that I got was that was a completely different situation because the land was available on the east side of the metro area to accommodate it, that was a different process, there isn’t a road network that another bridge could tie into, and all the traffic wants to go through the current corridor and wouldn’t use a new crossing option.

    Well, just the other day I visited the RTC’s website, and came across the “New Transportation Corridors Visioning Study,” which includes… 4 different new Columbia River Bridge possibilities! (Yes, that’s in addition to Interstate/CRC and Glenn Jackson.) That’s not all… exactly which side of the Columbia River is “Option 4A” on?

    There’s an open house tonight (Nov. 15th) in Downtown Vancouver, the info. is on their website.

    http://rtc.wa.gov/studies.htm

Leave a Reply to Peter W Cancel reply

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