In the latest project newsletter emailed by CRC staff, they’ve posted a document which shows computer-generated 3D renderings of what various bridge options and alignments might look like:
- Supplemental bridge
- Replacement bridge with a separate structure for transit
- Replacement bridge with “transit in a box” in the southbound structure
Document: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/GraphicsandPhotos/DraftConcepts.pdf (PDF Format)
(They also are sure to point out an important disclaimer: “Regardless of the bridge choice, the final look of a new bridge has not been decided.”)
The next CRC meeting: The next Task Force meeting will be held Jan. 22, 2008, at 4 p.m. at the Vancouver Hilton, 301 W 6th Street. The Task Force will not take any formal action at this meeting.
CRC web site: http://www.ColumbiaRiverCrossing.org/
There’s also an interesting note about birds:
Oregon Department of Transportation bridge crews are using propane orchard cannons to scare European starlings from the I-5 Bridges through Friday, Feb. 29.
Each year, tens of thousands of starlings migrate to the Portland/Vancouver area. Many flocks roost on the Interstate bridges—particularly the lift spans—in the fall and winter. Bird droppings coat the bridges, the catwalks, the roadway, vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. The mess is unhealthy, unsafe and unsightly. The cannons will operate 36 days for about two hours each day in the late afternoon and early evening.
Propane powered orchard cannons were originally designed to disturb birds in fruit orchards with a loud noise. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the bridges will hear the blasts, which could occur as often as every 15 seconds.
ODOT crews will not use the cannons every day. The reaction of the birds will dictate use of the cannon. Employing this random schedule will prevent the birds from becoming accustomed to a regular pattern.
In addition to the cannons, workers will use the low-tech method of banging on the steel bridge beams with hammers.
47 responses to “Columbia River Crossing Project Update”
Even with so much resistance they’re still moving ahead this fast?
…hmmm, really makes me ponder whats going on these days. I’ll definitely read the links and check out the images though.
A word to the wise…keep your sunroof closed if you’re driving across the Interstate Bridge. Those birds have deadly aim!!! :(
Too bad the CRC will not do an analysis of the “6-2-2” option that the Governors’ I-5 TF barely failed to recommend on a 10-10 tie vote.
That option would provide for a two lane arterial bridge with exclusive transit ROW and 1st class bike/ped facilities in phase one. Phase two would have another two lane bridge between industrial areas combined with the eventual expansion of the heavy rail bridge for increased passenger rail service.
Other elements would include replacing the RR bridge swing span, seismic upgrades to the freeway bridges and removal of substandard on/off ramps from I-5.
All paid for with tolls on both I-5 and I-205.
Lower costs, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less construction impact.
I don’t know how Gov Gregoire will raise the funds, what with Seattle’s deteriorating SR520 and the Alaskan Way Viaduct mega-projects probably having priority.
Personally I can’t see how they can toll this bridge, much less both this and the 205 bridge. The backup during rush hour is already massive on the Interstate Bridge. Stopping people for tolls would make it worse, not better.
I’f you’re going to toll, I really think your going to have to look at combining / closing exits on I5 throughout the metro region, and then starting tolling further out, such as at Wilsonville.
Tolls will be collected largely via electronic means. Regular users of the bridge – who represent the majority of the traffic – will get a transponder for their car. The toll will be automatically deducted from an account every time they drive across the bridge.
This technology is in place across the US.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/goodtogo/
Lenny, you might know the answer to this:
I have often wondered if the idea of supplemental lanes on the existing bridges were considered. It could work like this: The existing gap between the two spans appears to be about 36′-wide. Each span could be expanded into this gap to provide one lane in each direction plus barrier wall and small shoulders. The bridges would each carry 4 lanes, including 3 thru lanes and 1 auxiliary lane. The left lane in each direction would split off in advance of the crossing, serving as an express lane (skipping the SR-14, Hayden I, and 99-E exits). This solves the merging/diverging problem, though adds little capacity. A supplemental bridge is still required for HCT, but this could work with the 6-2-2 option Lenny mentioned (I’ll call it the 8-2-2 option). Seismic retrofitting of the old bridges would of course be included.
All this while mass transit is scrambling for funding. So much money sunk into a dinosaur! Future generations will be ashamed of us if this project goes forward as depicted in these renderings.
The existing bridges can be retrofited to modern earthquake standards, but I don’t believe they can be expanded. But I’m no engineer.
As someone once said, there is plenty of excess capacity on I-5 bridge…its in the back seat of almost every vehicle crossing the river.
In light of what we know about global warming, the current CRC options are quite a legacy…a shameful one.
The really simplest, cheapest answer is to build parallel bridges for local traffic and transit, remove the ramps from the mainlines (express lanes), and make the current I-5 a through lane, with the outer lanes “Local” lanes.
Many areas have done things like this, and it opens LRT to new opportunities later as well as giving backup plans to the existing infrastructure, helps keep traffic moving, and can be done in a way to keep NoPo from having significant traffic problems.
Getting the states to work together for incidents and TDM would greatly improve the area’s mobility, but even though Buffalo and Fort Erie, Detroit and Windsor, and San Diego and Tijuana can make this happen, we have problems with The Couv.
Vancouver freaking USA. Wow. That’s not good.
Oh, and I forgot. There’s 3 times the Willamette bridge lanes (directionally) than the Columbia bridges. That seems like a misbalance, with Carruthers Crossing being considered.
I have often wondered if the idea of supplemental lanes on the existing bridges were considered. It could work like this…
Good ideas, but federal funding rules get weird with this topic. To modify a freeway, it has to be brought up to standards.
With 36 feet, that’s 3 12′ lanes. Also, you need 10 feet between roadbeds, and (I think) a 12′ shoulder for a modern interstate. That eats up to 70 of 36 feet, minus existing shoulders, to expand.
If we can modify the federal Interstate standards, we can make this happen at a lower cost. Unlikely, though.
The current shoulders look like 3-4 feet, so 6-8 each way, and that’s still a thin road by modern standards…
Thanks for the info Dave – you are right that it would take an exception to the fed’s standards. Probably not likely.
Your idea of adding outer lanes is interesting too – perhaps convert the existing bridges to two express lanes each direction, with full shoulders, and add 2-3 lanes in each direction as outer, local lanes (with identical bridge geometry). Don’t know whether the cost savings would justify it, but it’s worth having on the the table.
An issue that is continually brought up by the DOTs as justification for a mega-project is the need for emergency response to Hayden Island. Every time it is mentioned I want to kick myself in the head – wouldn’t the better solution to such a problem be a parallel local bridge between NoPo and the island?
I would like the computerized renditions better if they depicted bumper to bumper traffic congestion–which is realistically how this route will look twenty years from now. With only two routes to choose from, and with the predicted huge influx to this area, that will be inevitable.
This why we need a third route–at the BNSF corridor connecting to OR Hwy 30. I talked to the Clark Co. Transportation Committee and some of them would like to see even more. With increasing density and the prospect of high end waterfront development funneling most of that traffic onto I-5 it is a disaster waiting to happen.
I have observed that most commentators on this board agree that the plan(s) being advanced is wrong. CRC hearing is coming up Jan. 22–get there and voice your disapproval.
I heard from a good source that the US Coast Guard (Homeland Security) wants the old bridges removed. Then the discussion is how to configure a new one to have the least impact on global warming, etc. That means HOV lanes, LRT and first class bike/ped.
Oregonian Article:
Oregon, Washington governors get together to endorse new bridge
Excerpts:
Fox News (KPTV) Story:
Keep ‘Crime Train’ Out, Businesses Say
Excerpts:
Why on earth do they need a MAX in addition to the hardly used train already there? The bureaucrats just want to throw more money in the sewer (I mean river).
Greg –
The train “already there” isn’t a _transit_ service and doesn’t serve the same corridor. It’s not about just having a downtown-to-downtown connection. Interstate MAX serves N. Portland and has transfer points to a number of important bus lines.
If the issue was only downtown-to-downtown commuter service, I’d be more inclined to agree with your viewpoint, but we’re really talking about two very different services.
hardly used train already there?
How much would it cost to start a true commuter rail network in the Portland Metropolitan Area, like our friends in Seattle have, as well as Vancouver, BC, the city that Metro wants us to be more like?
Let’s see, a system that is hubbed at Union Station with lines to Vancouver (which split again with one line north potentially as far north as Kelso, one line east to Camas and Washougal, and potentially a “branchline” to Battle Ground), another potential line serving Scappoose and St. Helens, a line east to Troutdale, a line south to Salem, and another line southwest to Lake Oswego, Tualatin and Sherwood (potentially continuing all the way to McMinnville)?
Portland-Camas/Washougal and Portland-Kelso could be the first steps, and could be a project that would cost in the low hundreds-of-millions; especially since the Kelso route would use infrastructure that was already paid for and upgraded due to Amtrak Cascades; the only additions would be new rolling stock for commuter service, and station platforms/parking lots in Kalama, Woodland, Ridgefield, and in the Felida neighborhood; as well as some type of station (without parking) in or around St. Johns (with quality connecting bus service to Rivergate and surrounding areas).
Further, since Amtrak has a surplus of GE P40 locomotives they could be obtained at low cost, requiring only the purchase of new passenger cars. And Sound Transit, the last time I checked, still has a surplus of cars – this would reduce the cost of implementing such a program.
least impact on global warming, etc. That means HOV lanes, LRT and first class bike/ped
Why does LRT have some type of an “absolute” least impact on global warming?
I seem to recall that the Sierra Club is suing PGE over the Boardman Generating Plant. I also seem to recall that TriMet purchases its electricity that powers MAX from PGE. Since TriMet is not doing anything to purchase power exclusively from other modes (granted, at least Seattle’s Streetcar has an edge over Portland – Seattle has a publicly owned utility that gets 86.45% of its power from hydro, 5.28% from natural gas, 4.23% from nuclear, 3.06% from wind and .89% from coal) MAX can’t be automatically seen as “part of the solution”, because it is a consumer of coal power from one of America’s dirtiest coal generating plants built with few if any environmental protections.
I also seem to recall that construction is one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions – Portland could do wonders just by scaling back construction projects (at least that requires machinery).
If we really were concerned about global warming as the primary motivator, we’d forgo a bridge altogether and use an energy efficient passenger ferry operation. Or maybe even a tram (since it only requires two motors to operate the trolley cable) powered by a windfarm located nearby to take advantage of winds passing over the Columbia.
I think its a big disingenuous of TriMet to bill MAX and Streetcar as “green”. They consume power from hydroelectric and coal and often run empty or nearly empty trains during more hours than not. It would be interesting to see how many kWH is used by TriMet on a given day and then to figure out how much emision TriMet is responsible for with its “green” MAX and Streetcars. TriMet should put its money where its mouth is and switch to an all green portfolio and make its own windfarm out in Wasco County. Don’t even get me started on BioDiesel. They make it sound like BioDiesel is man’s salvation but its just driving up the price of food and BioDiesel crops are cross polinating and decreasing the yield of FOOD crops. Basically what I’m blathering is “how ‘GREEN’ is ‘GREEN’?”
The train “already there” isn’t a _transit_ service and doesn’t serve the same corridor. It’s not about just having a downtown-to-downtown connection. Interstate MAX serves N. Portland and has transfer points to a number of important bus lines.
OK, then people can get on the train that “already is there”, go from Vancouver to Portland and then from there get on Yellow and go northward. Why should someone from Vancouver have to ride a slow MAX making stops every couple of blocks to get downtown? It seems that they are trying to make MAX into a commuter rail when in fact MAX is more like a streetcar than a commuter rail service.
How much would it cost to start a true commuter rail network in the Portland Metropolitan Area, like our friends in Seattle have, as well as Vancouver, BC, the city that Metro wants us to be more like?
Let’s see, a system that is hubbed at Union Station with lines to Vancouver (which split again with one line north potentially as far north as Kelso, one line east to Camas and Washougal, and potentially a “branchline” to Battle Ground), another potential line serving Scappoose and St. Helens, a line east to Troutdale, a line south to Salem, and another line southwest to Lake Oswego, Tualatin and Sherwood (potentially continuing all the way to McMinnville)?
Erik, I imagine they don’t want that type of service because they would rather everyone live in a shoebox in the Pearl and SoWat and ride the slow MAX. Encouraging a form of transit which would make it easier to live in further out suburbs is incongruent with their landuse ideas which favor ultradense compact development and limit people’s mobility. I think it would be fantastic if people could live in areas like McMinnville, Dayton, Newberg, Salem, Albany, etc. and make their daily commute to jobs in downtown Portland. The condo. developers/transit gestapo would never let that happen, though, because then people would move out to these more remote locales and it would present competition to the developers.
it just might have something to do with the fact that the rail lines are already owned by private freight companies and the existing tracks are already at capacity. its not as simple as just sticking a few locomotives and rail cars on the tracks and voila, commuter rail. look at the process trimet went through for the westside commuter rail line. believe me most “transit advocates” on here want to see a commuter rail system in portland centered on Union Station.
and the existing tracks are already at capacity
Horsefeathers! I don’t see freight trains going by on these “at capacity” tracks very often. I live by the UP mainline in Salem sometimes a freight train doesn’t go by for several hours. Doesn’t seem like its “at capacity” to me! I would buy that argument if there were freight trains going by say, every 5 minutes but there is plenty of idle time they could use.
Regardless of what may be built (or not built), variable tolls should be put into effect now…to relieve congestion, encourage car/van pools and begin to build up funds for whatever gets now.
If a new structure is built, it should be designed to reduce vehicle trips, not to accommodate more with variable tolling (congestion pricing), light rail, first class bike/ped promenade, and HOV/Freight lanes.
Regardless of what may be built (or not built), variable tolls should be put into effect now…
I had a crazy thought the other day… what if instead of tolling the individuals, we looked at where they are going, and charged the recipient? Although I’m not looking at data at the present moment, I think it’s true that most people seem to be using the bridge for mandatory commute to work trips that they are making for the sole reason of making a buck, not recreation.
At the same time, Clark Co. is trying to figure out how to get people that live there to work there.
So, why not say that the employer is the one that is receiving the benefit of the bridge, and is therefore required to pay the toll as a “cost of doing business” that would be made illegal for them to pass on to the employee in any manner (i.e., paycheck deduction, reduction of benefits, denial of raise, etc.)?
My guess is you would see more jobs created on each side of the Columbia.
Most Swan Island employers incent their employees to drive…free parking/paid transit. Just flipping this would increase demand for transportation options and free up valuable land in key employment districts.
I had a crazy thought the other day… what if instead of tolling the individuals, we looked at where they are going, and charged the recipient?
Why don’t we just figure out who the pesky employers are in Oregon that these Vancouverites work for and the businesses they are patronizing and make them relocate to Washington? There, problem solved! We don’t need that revenue base in our economy anyway, WE have the Pearl that’s all we need!
Most Swan Island employers incent their employees to drive…free parking/paid transit. Just flipping this would increase demand for transportation options and free up valuable land in key employment districts.
Petition the businesses to do so. It’s their land that these parking lots are on. Maybe some will realize they could better use their land for a revenue generating purpose rather than making it a perk, and instead subsidize transit to keep the employees happy.
Petition the businesses to do so. It’s their land that these parking lots are on. Maybe some will realize they could better use their land for a revenue generating purpose rather than making it a perk, and instead subsidize transit to keep the employees happy.
The same argument could be held for companies doing away with other employee perks like health insurance, breakrooms and restrooms, etc. The companies could use the money spent on those things and invest it in other, revenue generating purposes. Parking is a perk, whether you choose to use it or not. I find it unsettling that some want to dictate the choices of others based on their own personal beliefs (if I’m perfectly healthy, why should I help support health insurance? Let those who choose to get sick pay for health care out of their own pocket.)
Meanwhile, my employer provides all employees with a paid annual TriMet pass. The facility (located near PSU) has no owned parking; some parking is leased but the company does not pay the full cost of parking for those able to obtain it (the employee pays about $80/month if they can obtain a leased spot; if not they are on their own for parking). The majority of employees at my worksite do NOT use transit despite this.
“I find it unsettling that some want to dictate the choices of others based on their own personal beliefs”
Is this like your idea to get rid of Metro’s parking lot, or is that something else?
Is this like your idea to get rid of Metro’s parking lot, or is that something else?
Hey, if Metro sees it fit to dictate how to live my life, they can start by doing it themselves. If they are so gung-ho about raising my taxes to pay for a light rail system that I can’t even use, they should have no problem ripping up their parking lot (because, after all, it could be better used for other investment purposes, like mixed use housing for Metro employees so they can walk to work instead of commute from Gresham and Beaverton and Oregon City).
If they want their parking lot, maybe they ought to realize their own hypocrisy that people want to drive to work, and people want to use the highway system.
Erik,
The same argument could be held for companies doing away with other employee perks like health insurance, breakrooms and restrooms, etc.
That’s exactly my point. Take it as you will. Employers have the right to determine who they employ, and why. That’s each employee’s decision. If I don’t like an employer, I look elsewhere.
But hey, that’s just me. Some of us must be tied to jobs we absolutely hate and never would do, I assume. That or I’m feigning ignorance.
Is this like your idea to get rid of Metro’s parking lot, or is that something else?
I used to live and work a few blocks away from Metro’s offices. If I recall correctly they have a fairly large parking garage adjoining their facilities. I don’t think I ever saw it that full so they must all live very close and take the streetcar or MAX to work.
Just so you folks know, the parking lot adjoining Metro is a public lot. Most of the cars parked in there are not those of Metro employees, but those of other employees in the Lloyd Dist.
In today’s Oregonian:
Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart said he still has questions about the light-rail alignment through Vancouver and wants assurances of no local construction cost. But for the most part, he said, he would support light rail as part of the project.
So, in other words, “I want my train but I don’t want to pay for it.” Who’s going to pay for it?
Since this light rail project will apparently go without a vote of the public, it’ll be on the back of TriMet district residents who will continue (again) to see their existing transit services (notably bus service) continue to decline, while Fred Hansen trots out his dog-and-pony show and makes a pitch for another MAX line within his own budget.
To this I say: If Clark County doesn’t want to pay for a MAX line, the MAX line will stop at the Expo Center. That will save $2-3B off the cost of the CRC project.
Most of the cars parked in there are not those of Metro employees
OK, does Metro subsidize parking costs for their employees? Or are Metro employees expected to pay the full cost to park should they choose that option?
BTW, this also includes Metro’s elected officials; there is no reason that they get a free parking space either.
If Clark County doesn’t want to pay for a MAX line, the MAX line will stop at the Expo Center. That will save $2-3B off the cost of the CRC project.
Where are you getting those numbers? They’re talking about a $4.2 billion bridge with ten traffic lanes and two transit lanes. How do you figure the marginal cost of adding the two transit lanes, plus rail and overhead wire, is 50-70% of the total cost?
OK, does Metro subsidize parking costs for their employees? Or are Metro employees expected to pay the full cost to park should they choose that option?
That question has been asked and answered on this blog before: Metro employees pay full cost for parking with no subsidy.
What happens if the stock market crashes?
End of all the projects right?
If the Great Depression is a guide, we will see more, not less, public investment. Bonneville Dam, Timberline Lodge and Harbor Drive were all projects from that era.
re CRC…LRT costs are expected to be between $.6 and $1.2 Billion with federal New Starts taking half or better of that. What is left for the local match is tolls and/or local & state funds.
Total project costs hover around $4 Billion with 1/3 from tolls, 1/3 from federal “ear-mark” and 1/3 from state/local funds. Does Metro have an extra $Billion laying around?
Great.. So now we need another Great Depression. Well, it just might happen.
A vote of support for Erik Halstead’s position, above, on funding a new MAX line as our latest free gift to Vancouver.
No bridge, no train, why are we paying Vancouverites to compete for our jobs? What’s the per capita transport subsidy for every Washingtonian working in Portland?
Since the CRC project will not happen without MAX (or comparable BRT), I’d bet Washington comes up with their local share one way or another.
“I’d bet Washington comes up with their local share one way or another.”
I’d put money on that!
Washington will definately put up their share of the money ‘eventually’.
(it’ll probably come from the feds anyway)
Washington will definately put up their share of the money ‘eventually’.
(it’ll probably come from the feds anyway)
The formula will likely come down to:
Federal = 4*((Van-WA) + (PDX-OR))
Whatever the Feds contribute should be about 80%, not including earmarks. If the state of Washington and their congresspersons are able to match the 10% they need to provide through state, local and federal funds they have all their funding available. They may even lobby for Oregon to get earmarks or federal grants to grease the rails.
Occasionally it has happened where one county or state will pay for improvements outside their jurisdiction because it serves their constituents effectively.
While Oregon will likely need to contribute something, it’s quite likely that Washington will pay enough to get this done, one way or another, that funding alone will not kill it.
I really don’t know if this bridge can or should be stopped, but I do have some concerns about the design. I think something more effective, while improving connectivity and adding LRT, could be designed with minimal ROW impact, and maybe less costs.