Today’s Columbian features an article on how CRC engineers may place the transit component inside the bridge structure, reducing materials costs by not requiring wider spans or an additional span for transit.
If a Box Girder construction method is used, there could be sufficient room for transit lanes (and emergency evacuation for pedestrians) within the interior structure of the bridge itself, without creating clearance issues for ship traffic:
Excerpts:
Placing mass transit in one of the main spans would reduce the number of bridges to two and reduce the number of pillars to 17 from 21. That, in turn, might save 60 to 100 feet of riverfront for other uses.
No examples can be found in North America, but the design has been used in Asia and Europe, including the Reichsbrucke bridge in Vienna, the Nuselsky Bridge in Prague, and the approach to the Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong.
Its place under the roadbed would bring transit closer to the ground and allow a stop as close to the Columbia River as Fifth Street instead of Sixth or Seventh under other options.
One downside to the design would be the limited view for mass transit passengers. It would be essentially a tunnel. The design could be open at the sides, but the view for passengers looking east, generally a grand sweep of the river and Mount Hood, would be obscured at least partially by the adjacent northbound span.
The article indicates that this engineering work is very preliminary. It remains to be seen how much money this might save, and whether the pros and cons of the idea will be acceptable to the various stakeholder groups.
Read the full article: Bridge planners think inside the box.
A little Googling around found this site with a couple of good diagrams showing a cross-section of the Tsing Ma Bridge with transit inside. (Scroll to the bottom.) It illustrates how vehicle lanes and transit can fit together in one span without significantly increasing the size of a box girder bridge.
23 responses to “Columbia River Crossing: Transit in a Box”
As someone who frequently travels to Oregon by car, motorcycle or train, I hope that the CRC isn’t a soulless eyesore like the Nusle or Reichsbrucke (their excellent features aside).
I wonder if a 3 level bridge would be possible. That way each level would have an unobstructed view.
However, even if the view is fixed on the bridge, the rest of the view looks pretty bad: more sprawl and more congestion in Portland from more drivers.
At what point do we get to vote this thing down? Or do we?
You don’t.
Thi is a multi-state, even regional problem. The politics of a local group (read, the people in Portland who oppose this) are, honestly, insignificant when it comes to something which can affect such a huge swath of area. This is related to both production/state gdp and the ability of people to move freely between states. I know most people on this site are vociferously opposed to it, but, to be fair (and brutally honest) you’re only a minority in this affair.
Yes, it sucks, but this is the way things work.
Anyway, just thought I’d drop in my two cents.
> You don’t. I know most people on this site are vociferously opposed to it, but, to be fair (and brutally honest) you’re only a minority in this affair.
If we’re such a minority, then surely it wouldn’t hurt for a public vote to prove that, eh?
Put a toll on the two bridges today and the problem goes away.
We have a ton of capacity on both I-5 and I-205; its just poorly managed.
The arterial/light rail bridge will be a high bridge…funded by tolls…will have great views and should include pull outs so even drivers can enjoy the view.
insignificant when it comes to something which can affect such a huge swath of area.
I am not sure why negative impacts over a wide swath make this project more desirable. The truth is that the consequences of increased congestion in north and northeast Portland created by the wider bridge will have an impact on travel all the way from San Diego to Seattle.
I think it is important to realize that if you double the number of commuters across the bridge the congestion doesn’t go away. It just moves down the highway and spreads out. And more traffic across the bridge means more, not less congestion.
As Rex points out, congestion pricing could be a solution. It would allow the region to set an absolute limit on the amount of traffic across the bridge at nay one time that will still allow the rest of the system to function. Of course, those limits would likely not allow the same level of auto-dependent housing development in Clark County as a huge new bridge.
The entire set of travel lanes[car/rail] can be inside the structure , and under a roof[green park]. This extends bridge lifespan , reduces maintenance , and as we all know , in many a winter storm , vastly aids safety. Please see my design drawings on the site http://designrvision.blogspot.com/
[Moderator: Made link clickable. – B.R.]
The Reichsbrücke is uglier than the Marquam bridge. And the Nuselsky is even worse.
God help us if the CRC spends what they want to spend and it still looks like those terrible monstrosities.
Saving money should not be our primary objective. Why spend money on something you hate? Why spend money on something you don’t want? Find a design that makes you proud to have it in your city, find a design that inspires people and compliments our northwestern beauty. Then figure out how to save money within those constraints…
Two pictures of the Reichsbrücke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsbr%C3%BCcke01.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsbruecke_from_north.jpg
Picture of Nuselský bridge:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/4876874.jpg
In addition to eliminating one of the worst traffic bottlenecks on I-5, the West Coast’s primary artery, a new Columbia Crossing must also do a better job of connecting Clark County with the Portland area. If the costs of doing so are to be passed on to bridge users, then the users of all modes of transport must share in paying those costs.
To achieve equity, local match dollars for any transit option chosen must come directly from transit users through fares and surcharges to pay not only for the transit component, but also a proportionate share of the bridge superstructure. As presented at the last CRC task force meeting, all the bridge costs were lumped together into one large figure. There needs to be a line item cost analysis for each mode of transport which includes a proportionate share of the bridge superstructure costs. From this breakdown of costs then divided by the projected number of crossings for each mode, the true cost per crossing for each mode could be determined. In addition to increasing transit fares to cover the costs for the transit component of the crossing, the cost per crossing figure could also be used to determine the costs and related superstructure costs for bicycle infrastructure, thereby determining what costs and/or tolls should be shouldered exclusively by the bicycling community.
As for the transit in the box concept, this seems like a brilliant proposal. Not only does it appear to take up less land mass at each end of the bridge structure, but it potentially could reduce the whopping price tag of the entire project thereby reducing the costs for all users.
Well, to be fair, a vote would be nice (though who would be included, and what kind of taxes would be raised?). The note about the people on this site being a minority is simply a result of annecdotal evidence (whenever I meet someone from the suburbs, they long for a nice car and not for a new MAX line–and the suburbs are the predominant area of residents in the Portland area).
As for the idea of negative economic effects being a bad idea, well, simply put: more congestion=slower economic growth or even recession. That means fewer jobs, and fewer people in the Portland area. It also means higher poverty more people living in poor conditions and the conditions themselves become worse. This does not mean that this is the absolute certainty if the bridge does not get built at six lanes in each direction. It’s just that things won’t get better .
And in addition to the create more congestion: that is a physical impossibility. It is a basic rule that you cannot create mass, the total quantity of mass in a pre-existing area does not grow quantitativly with the creation of a mover-thingy (I’m trying to sound scientific here). In other words, the traffic that is being moved onto the highway is not a result of the creation of more drivers, but rather the movement of drivers to a certain time and location. It’s sort of about facilitating movement in the body. The healthier the veins, the healthier the body. The more blood that can move through the veins, the more oxygen brought to cells, etc.
While I personally support the voluntary choice to use mass transit, I don’t think that creating congestion to punish a region which does not follow the norm here in Oregon (read: sprawl and large roads) is a good economic idea for the region. Too often I think that people get emotionally tied to their arguments and they subsume their reason to these emotions. I think that people can oppose the bridge for environmental concerns, one should leave room for understanding their idealogical opponents.
Sorry for the long rant. It’s finals, and I have only had six hours of sleep in the last three days.
Just a note: I really enjoy this site, and appreciate the arguments on both sides. Thanks for keeping a college kid informed!
Snowden,
Unless you have enough money and political capital to put the same number of lanes through the whole region on I5 as you put on the CRC – then congestion will not change at all with a new bridge. There are many choke points on I5, and all of them are no more than three lanes in each direction.
So without devolving into an argument about whether or not building more capacity does or does not induce more congestion… Lets just look at capacity.
The current crossing has three lanes in each direction. If we increase it to 4 or 5 lanes in each direction perhaps – where does that traffic go when it hits Delta Park, North Portland, The Rose Quarter, the Terwilliger Curves, 217 and 205? All current choke points.
There is no real way to decrease congestion on I5 in the region by fixing *one* choke point, and we do not have the money or time or political capital to fix ALL of the choke points.
What *is* needed is reconfiguration of Hayden Island. A small local access bridge between Hayden Island and mainland Portland – along with closing the Hayden Island I5 ramps to all but emergency vehicles – would go a long way towards helping the problem.
But the deal is that many people, myself included, are simply not convinced that we NEED a new CRC. I personally believe that some creative and much lower cost solutions, when grouped together, would have much more cost effective results.
The whole capacity inducing congestion argument not withstanding…
But, if we MUST build a new bridge – lets make it as good in form as we do in function… Lets make it a bridge we WANT to keep for another 100 years or more…
Snowden,
Unless you have enough money and political capital to put the same number of lanes through the whole region on I5 as you put on the CRC – then congestion will not change at all with a new bridge. There are many choke points on I5, and all of them are no more than three lanes in each direction.
So without devolving into an argument about whether or not building more capacity does or does not induce more congestion… Lets just look at capacity.
The current crossing has three lanes in each direction. If we increase it to 4 or 5 lanes in each direction perhaps – where does that traffic go when it hits Delta Park, North Portland, The Rose Quarter, the Terwilliger Curves, 217 and 205? All current choke points.
There is no real way to decrease congestion on I5 in the region by fixing *one* choke point, and we do not have the money or time or political capital to fix ALL of the choke points.
What *is* needed is reconfiguration of Hayden Island. A small local access bridge between Hayden Island and mainland Portland – along with closing the Hayden Island I5 ramps to all but emergency vehicles – would go a long way towards helping the problem.
But the deal is that many people, myself included, are simply not convinced that we NEED a new CRC. I personally believe that some creative and much lower cost solutions, when grouped together, would have much more cost effective results.
The whole capacity inducing congestion argument not withstanding…
But, if we MUST build a new bridge – lets make it as good in form as we do in function… Lets make it a bridge we WANT to keep for another 100 years or more…
more congestion=slower economic growth or even recession.
I don’t think that is true. In fact, it appears the opposite that as congestion grows so does the economy. The most congested cities are also the most prosperous. Of course, its not that the congestion causes the economic growth. But the dense, compact development that causes people to create and tolerate high levels of traffic congestion is also the most efficient, productive and attractive business environment.
. The healthier the veins, the healthier the body. The more blood that can move through the veins, the more oxygen brought to cells, etc.
Its more like saying the more you eat the healthier you are. Something a lot of Americans act like they believe, but it isn’t true.
I don’t think that creating congestion to punish a region which does not follow the norm here in Oregon (read: sprawl and large roads) is a good economic idea for the region.
Neither do I. Which is why I don’t think its a good idea to let rural Clark County commuters punish Oregonians, who choose live close to their work, by creating congestion in their community.
I am not sure how you claim that more traffic at the same place at the same time will not result in greater congestion. Or how you can double the number of vehicles simultaneously coming over the river without having more traffic in the same place at the same time.
Too often I think that people get emotionally tied to their arguments and they subsume their reason to these emotions.
Again I agree. I think the frustrations of some people in Clark County are driving the new bridge. A reasonable solution, that continues to provide Clark County residents access to the Portland job market, is to get more people to share the same vehicle. But that solution faces strong emotional opposition.
There is no real way to decrease congestion on I5 in the region by fixing *one* choke point,
I think it is important to not limit the discussion to congestion on the freeway. Traffic needs to get on and off using local streets. Freeways tend to create a lot of congestion on surrounding local streets. They do that by channeling traffic onto a few arterials that cross the freeway and by creating access points where large number of trips converge. Every new freeway trip means more strain on the local street grids where that trip starts and ends.
And a few miles North of CRC, Clark Co. permanently closes the Klineline bridge across Salmon Creek until a new bridge can open in a little over a year.
The direct detour – I-5 between NE 99th St. and NE 134th St.
This would be similar to the bridge on SE 82nd Ave. going over Johnson Creek being closed.
This would be similar to the bridge on SE 82nd Ave. going over Johnson Creek being closed.
Except there are alternatives to detouring onto the freeway. Which is part of the problem with the connections right now between Portland and Vancouver, regardless of the trip it has to get onto a freeway. If Clark County and Portland are really going to be one region, then they need to have other connections than freeways.
sweeden+dernmark+tunner+bridge.jpg
[Moderator: Link condensed to preserve page formatting. – B.R.]
***The current crossing has three lanes in each direction. If we increase it to 4 or 5 lanes in each direction perhaps – where does that traffic go when it hits Delta Park, North Portland, The Rose Quarter, the Terwilliger Curves, 217 and 205? All current choke points.***
I did a little digging on this and found that ODOT already has plans to widen I-5 and some arterial roads in the Delta Park area. Ground breaking is scheduled for Spring 2008 See:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/I-5DeltaPark/
This, of course, would just move the “choke point” to just north of the Rose Quarter. But it seems that there are Portlanders that are thinking about that too. See:
http://www.riverfrontforpeople.org/
There are several alternative projects for the re-alignment of I-5 at this site. It might be worth a separate thread…
John posted a link to an interesting viaduct/tunnel configuration. (Click the link above to see the photo.) A viaduct runs a bit out over the water, and then the roadway disappears under the water into a tunnel, rather than going up into a bridge as one might expect. Normally, tunnel approaches are located inland from the shoreline rather than out near a channel.
John – Do you think such a structure would fit in the Columbia? Would there be sufficient length for the roadway to slope low enough to safely clear the main channel, and still make it back up to ground level on the other side?
Can you provide a link to any articles about that tunnel? It would be interesting to read why it was constructed that way, what obstacles were faced, and what costs were incurred.
– Bob R.
I did a little digging on this and found that ODOT already has plans to widen I-5 and some arterial roads in the Delta Park area.
They are widening I5 to three lanes southbound where it is currently two. Originally the freeway was configured to add a third lane south of Lombard to provide capacity for traffic from North Portland. Now all traffic getting onto I5 southbound will have to merge with whatever traffic is coming from the north, mostly from Clark County.
This doesn’t change the issue for the bridge.
There are several alternative projects for the re-alignment of I-5 at this site.
Including a tunnel under the river. That is another project that will cost even more than the CRC bridge. In essence you are looking at the next 20 years worth of federal transportation funding for the region going into just those two projects. And you still have three lanes of congestion on I5 in North Portland.
And having fixed the freeways, there still isn’t a local street network that will support that much traffic.
“Would there be sufficient length for the roadway to slope low enough to safely clear the main channel, and still make it back up to ground level on the other side?”
The ship channel on the Columbia, (to the west of there, but it may be shallower upstream of the harbor) is 40 feet deep and they dredging it to 43 feet… The bridge has to be fairly high if it doesn’t have a lift span, (the I-205 bridge is 144 feet above the water,) so the tunnel approach ramps would therefore be quite a bit shorter than the bridge approach ramps, (assuming the same grades…)
However, the CRC group looked at a tunnel and determined that it was way too expensive. (Remember these are the same people that can’t afford to bury Alaskan Way.)