The latest informational update from the CRC mentions that the governors of both of the affected states have officially committed to building a new bridge across the Columbia. Additionally, the DEIS will be released in March on a date yet to be determined and, at the bottom of this post, some information and links about the tolling plan under consideration.
Washington and Oregon governors make commitment to CRC project
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and Washington Governor Chris Gregoire announced a bi-state commitment to replacing the I-5 bridge that connects Vancouver and Portland during a January tour of the bridge.
“We only have two choices. Do nothing and watch our economy sink, or invest in a multi-modal solution that strengthens our economy and enhances this region’s quality of life,” said Kulongoski.
[snip]
Gregoire said neither state can afford to do nothing while the problem continues to grow.
“Delays are intolerable, as are potential dangers to public safety,” she said. “We need to find solutions, and find them soon.”
Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be released in March
The Columbia River Crossing project will reach a major milestone next month when it releases its analysis of the environmental and community effects associated with each of five alternatives.
[snip]
The following issues will be addressed in the Draft EIS:
- Public transit (route, stations, and park and ride locations)
- Freight improvements for connections and safety
- Traffic efficiencies (such as ramp meters, incident response, ridesharing and telecommuting)
- Pedestrian and bicycle improvements
- Effects to air, soil, water, wildlife and noise
- Cultural and historical resource protection
- Tolling
- Bridge type, appearance, and alignment
During the public comment period, the project will host two public hearings to allow people to give input. Comments also will be accepted by e-mail and mail. All comments received during this time are considered and responded to in the Final EIS.
The alternatives under consideration include:
- No build (included for comparison purposes)
- Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit
- Replacement bridge with light rail
- Supplemental bridge with bus rapid transit
- Supplemental bridge with light rail
The exact publication date for the Draft EIS and the schedule of public hearings will be identified in late February.
Bridge tolls part of finance plans
Finance plans for the Columbia River Crossing project currently assume that the I-5 bridge will be tolled using the latest electronic tolling technology. Additional funding will come from federal, state and regional sources.
The toll amount has yet to be decided. More information is needed on the total cost of the chosen alternative and available revenue. However, project staff analyzed the four Draft EIS build alternatives assuming a one-way toll ranging between $1 and $2.50 in 2006 dollars (or $1.31 – $3.28 in 2017, the year the bridge is expected to open).
CRC is assuming the use of an electronic toll collection system so that toll booths and traffic slow downs can be avoided. Such technology is currently being used at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington.
More information about the project’s tolling plans can be found in the project’s Tolling fact sheet.
34 responses to “CRC Project Update”
Columbian Article: Foes look to put brakes on light rail at meeting
[Moderator: Link titled and shortened for clarity and to restore formatting.]
Columbian Article: Foes look to put brakes on light rail at meeting
[Moderator: Link titled and shortened for clarity and to restore formatting.]
Columbian Article: Foes look to put brakes on light rail at meeting
[Moderator: Link titled and shortened for clarity and to restore formatting.]
Twenty Bad Reasons to build a $4 Billion Columbia Crossing:
1. Jobs for construction – A given amount of Federal Pork will generate the same amount of jobs whether it goes for highway, light rail, or intercity high speed rail, or whatever, and probably cost the same amount of “political capital.”
2. Congestion relief – the tolling and transit components of the CRC provide the real relief and a 12-lane bridge is not needed to achieve this. Over time, tolling plus lack of more highway capacity plus better transit creates secondary effects – changes in land use, home ownership patterns, etc. that decrease amount and length of trips, eliminating the projected growth in travel. These secondary effects may well be much larger than the immediate effects of tolls, and have more wide-spread benefits.
3. Get us a light rail line – light rail can use the new bridge – there are alternatives to getting LRT across the river and the CRC project does not improve the transit system overall. LRT to Vancouver can provide congestion relief to Vancouver commuters, but it is a significant subsidy to them. There are other more potentially productive LRT corridors and alignments in the Portland region, so we should not be quick to push LRT down the throats of Clark County residents if they are unwilling to support it with effective C-Tran feeder service. A separate LRT bridge can be built more cheaply as a separate project than it can as part of a new highway bridge.
4. Get us improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities on a new bridge. We don’t sell our souls for a mess of pottage. This project has a major environmental cost, and it is irresponsible to accept minor improvements as a payoff. The existing bridge can be retrofitted, but better facilities can be provided on a new transit-only bridge.
5. Bring Federal Money to Oregon’s economy. This may not be guaranteed and may prevent other projects from being funded. This may actually be a trap, because the Feds will pay for only a portion, while this region will be on the hook for the the 2/3rd’s that the Feds won’t pay for. This could damage the economy, the way the WPPSS fiasco did.
6. Speed freight movement: Freight traffic is less than 10% of vehicles over the I-5 bridges, and half of the heavy duty trucks on I-5 are not local…they could be using I-205, but choose to use I-5 because even today it is faster. The greatest obstacle to moving freight are commuters in SOVs during the peak hours…though most logistics outfits know enough to avoid the peaks if possible. Remember the bridges are fine for 90% of the time. Tolls and transit can improve things during that 10% peak time.
7. Coast Guard will make us tear down the old bridges: Coast Guard has not made such a recommendation. They do not have this authority so long as the bridges are not a hazard to navigation. They set clearance standards for any new bridge, but otherwise do not decide what is done. This belief may stem from the fact that if we built a new bridge, and did not maintain the old ones or tear them down, then the Coast Guard would step in.
8. Old bridges are too old . Age is not the deciding factor for a well-built steel bridge. The Minneapolis bridge fell due to an identified design defect. The older of the two I-5 bridges was built to carry heavy interurban streetcars (not just horses and Model T’s as suggested by CRC propaganda), and is structurally sound, according to Oregon DOT bridge inspectors.
9. Lifts on old bridges disrupt traffic and cause congestion – There was a plan advanced in 2002 by the Columbia River Towboat Association, with full support from local governments, to modify the BN Railroad Bridge so that the river channel would move south to the “hump” in the existing I-5 bridges. This would reduce lifts to perhaps a dozen (limited to middle of the night) per year for specialized equipment. 2002 cost was about $40 million.
10. Storm water run-off from old bridges pollutes river – this may be true, but how big an issue is this? Can this be mitigated with a storm-drain retrofit? See the “supplemental bridge” option being advanced by the CRC, and use the same techniques.
11. Bridges are a hazard to navigation – see item 8. The Coast Guard determined that moving the channel was appropriate, but did not recommend “Truman Hobbs” funding because the major benefit went to the I-5 users.
12. Bridges will fall down in an earthquake: The CRC has developed a range of seismic strengthening from $125 to $250 million (to bring bridges up to current standards). Since the I-205 bridge was built to more modern (but not current) seismic design standards, the Willamette River bridges in Portland are actually much more critical for upgrading, and should be a higher regional priority for strengthening due to their potentially much greater economic impact if they were to fail in an earthquake.
13. Bridges are unsafe for traffic for travelers (“functionally obsolete”) A targeted range of highway improvements can improve traffic safety for much less cost. Slowing traffic to 45 mph while going past the tolling equipment will result in a large safety improvement, as can peak period closure or restriction of the northbound Hayden Island ramp onto I-5. Reducing peak volumes, via tolls and transit, will also improve safety greatly.
14. Saving the old bridges doesn’t save any money (only a few percent at most): This is true only if the I-5 crossing is massively expanded and an additional highway bridge is built. Total cost can be kept below $1 billion when the project purpose and need are met through alternatives that do not involve extensive highway construction. As stated above, an LRT bridge can be built next to the existing bridges, accommodating pedestrians and bicycles as well, for much less than one that is part of a new high highway bridge project.
15. Project will have an insignificant negative effect on the environment. $4 billion is too big a sum to spend, and not achieve a significant POSITIVE effect. Everything in creation is composed of small pieces. Achieving carbon reduction will fail if we do not apply our goals to each and every piece that we can. Nothing should be exempt without overwhelming reasons, and the effect, if properly measured is not insignificant.
16. This is a project requiring regional cooperation. This is a compromise between Oregon and Washington, necessary to obtain Federal funding. The Bi-State Commission, which preceded the CRC, had an agreement for 10-Lanes total, 6-lanes through, approved by the two States and the local jurisdictions. This deal was hijacked by the DOT’s because they wanted more highway. So much for compromise. Washington has just as much to benefit from reducing greenhouse gas emissions as Oregon, and there is where the cooperation should be.
17. The preferred build option actually has less traffic than the no-build. The CRC has made this projection for the case where the new bridge and I-205 are both tolled, and new transit is built, while their “no-build” has no tolls and has bad transit (including a decline in C-Tran service). If we were to instead apply tolls and add transit to a facility that does not significantly expand highway capacity beyond minor safety improvements, we will, of course, achieve significantly less traffic than the “preferred” option.
18. This project needs tolls to reduce traffic, and you can’t toll an Interstate if you don’t have a major construction project. The CRC project has already assumed tolling I-205, which will not be reconstructed. Whether the decision is administrative or legislative, it fits with a growing consensus that tolls are going to be necessary on some existing facilities as an alternative to new construction. CRC staff believe that the Federal Highway Administration already has the authority to allow this when conditions warrant.
19. This project is a done deal, with too much momentum, so we might as well make the best of it. The Mt. Hood Freeway was a “done deal” and we even had the money for that one. Naturally the lobbyists hired by the CRC have attempted to create this impression, but an impression is all that it is.
20. Reducing congestion will save fuel and reduce pollution. If we replace 6 congested lanes with 12 congested lanes, we will use more fuel and create more pollution on I-5, and the secondary impacts from more sprawl will compound the effect. It is doubtful that in the future there will be even short-term savings from reducing congestion, because hybrid vehicles actually get better fuel mileage in stop-and-go traffic than at boulevard or freeway speeds.
Thank you Jim.
I have two questions:
Where does Metro currently stand? This project seems to be so out of whack with their stated regional objectives that I find a ‘yes’ vote from them hard to imagine.
Is there any organized public opposition to this in the works? It will take a groundswell at this point to put the brakes on and re-direct our priorities, and I’d like to be involved.
Drew:
Coalition for a Livable Future: http://www.clfuture.org/
“[Moderator: Link titled and shortened for clarity and to restore formatting.]”
HEY BOB!
I think you told me how to do that one time but I forgot, can you tell me again, via e-mail.
thanks,
al (your pal)
Jim, out of 20 points, some of which were excellent, let me address one:
3. Get us a light rail line – light rail can use the new bridge – there are alternatives to getting LRT across the river and the CRC project does not improve the transit system overall.
Why should I, as a reverse direction commuter, still put up with the crap quality of the current bridges while financing this?
Really, it doesn’t in any way serve me. It provides a very slow paced connection for me. It won’t motivate me to sell my car. I’ll still pay a gas tax, registration fees, etc, to allow others to ride on my dime.
The current I-5 bridges are terrible. They’re an example of a failure of engineering, in my opinion. Otherwise free-flowing traffic ends up going about 25-35 mph (below optimal for most engines) because of the current merge areas.
Even off-peak, the bridge has some bad problems.
The point of good transit, in this case LRT, is not that everyone can ride it, but that some of those now driving can…making it easier on those who still need to drive.
Remove the substandard on/off ramps at either end of the I-5 bridges, and they can operate much more safely at close to their design speed, 45mph, which happens to be the speed with the highest through put…more vehicles per hour.
Fix the RR bridge to a lift span in line with the I-5 bridges hump and the barges are good to go.
Some work needs to be done on this connection, but most of the real needs can be taken care of with the modest income stream from tolls on the existing spans. No need to spend $4.5 Billion for the relative handful of peak hour commuters who choose to live in Clark and work in Oregon.
Lenny, I am curious how we remove the ramps to/from SR-14, Downtown Vancouver and Jantzen Beach (it’s only land access) with any community support from any of those areas.
SR-14 is a fairly major route, and cutting access to/from it off seems like a fairly bad idea, and on that WA would be very unlikely to support.
If the lift span wasn’t so close to the Vancouver side, I’d agree that with some work on the bridge safe exit and entrance lanes to/from SR-14 could be accomplished, and downtown access could be through Mill Plain only. With the lift span where it is, there’s no way (without replacing half the bridge) to add to it and achieve anything.
As far as Jantzen Beach, I’d say the only real option to solve the issues caused by removing the ramps would be if LRT is getting built across the river, add an arterial bridge to Marine Dr and remove the exits. It still isn’t a great solution though, with the number of businesses it could effect.
To have a sustainable transportation alternative to the automobile, the alternative itself must be financially self-sustainable and not subsidized by taxpayers or by tolling motor vehicles. Therefore to be even remotely cost effective, the costs for any transit/bike/ped infrastructure that crosses the river must have a direct revenue stream supporting the local costs that comes directly from the transit/bike/ped users. That means transit fares must be significantly increased and tolls must be charged on the overly wide super-sized bike/ped path. So far the CRC has totally failed to have this type of discussion with the people even keeping the costs and estimated number of bike/ped crossings hidden from public viewing and comment.
overly wide super-sized bike/ped path.
By your definition, how wide is sufficient for a bidirectional bike/ped path, rather than an overly wide super-sized one? How does your proposed sufficient size compare to common practice and existing codes?
I was told at a portland event (from a PDOT official) that it did not matter if vancouver wanted it…the residents do not get a vote and the officials have already said they would vote yes!
This would mean…Vancouvers will be hit with $5+ toll to get over the river and an added tax to pay for the unwanted lite rail.
I wish the news would be proactive and let the residents of Clark county know what is being pushed through with out a vote but will cost us all money!
WHERE IS THE OUTCRY????
I see a lot of political support for this project. Is there a lot of citizen support?
“WHERE IS THE OUTCRY????”
Nobody gives a sh** about anything anymore.
I think the price is too much. They should instead use the money to fund a freeway and bridge that completely bypasses the Portland/Vancouver area so drivers can avoid driving through the congestion morass in Portland.
>GTinSalem:
> They should instead use the money to fund a freeway and bridge that completely bypasses the Portland/Vancouver area so drivers can avoid driving through the congestion morass in Portland.
GT, could you elaborate? What you are describing sounds to me like what the I-205 bridge is supposed to be.
“They should instead use the money to fund a freeway and bridge that completely bypasses the Portland/Vancouver area so drivers”
I think they should build TWO freeways.
1-a freeway parallel to the sunset, this one with 4 lanes in each direction.
2- a freeway parallel to Interstate 5, this one with six lanes in each direction.
Furthermore;
What’s with that big chunk of land over there in NW Portland? What do they call it, shady woods park or something, oh, I think its called forest park.
Well, that needs to be privatized so they can build condo’s over there.
THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES! All those condo’s can bring in all that tax revenue and stop destroying downtown Portland.
Hell, there is highway access already there, what’s it called, Erik the Viking drive or something?
We can run a street car right to it!
Privatize forest park right now, end wasteful land policies!
GT, could you elaborate? What you are describing sounds to me like what the I-205 bridge is supposed to be
I-205 goes through Portland. What I would do is build a new freeway starting in Salem and going west bypassing the entire Portland area and connecting up north by Longview. This would allow freight traffic to get to Seattle and not get bogged down by the self imposed congestion in Portland. Portland is obsessed with trying to make congestion worse so as to get people out of their cars and ride TriMet.
Hey Gtin!!
What about my great ideas?
Don’t ya like em?
They are right in line with your philosophy!
This would definitely lessen congestion, don’t ya think?
Al,
I do agree with your ideas…. Here we have a state with downright oppressive land use policies so then that encourages people to live in Washington, and now people in Portland are whining about accomodating those people by building a bridge. I’m sorry but not everyone wants to live in a shoebox in the Pearl and ride the Streetcar and MAX. (It’s great but I just don’t think everyone should have to use it if they don’t want to).
I think it would make more sense to allow growth to happen on the I5 corridor south of Wilsonville all the way to Salem. They’re expecting the population to double by 2050. We should build systems to encourage growth, not discourage it.
We should also resurrect Robert Moses’ grand plan for a pleasant network of freeways criss-crossing the metro area. But why stop there? Moses was known for his inability to think big: we should quadruple his plans. Every other block in the city should be a freeway, leaving the single blocks in between for high-rise towers with direct freeway access, but no other access. Bikes and pedestrians would no longer be allowed, as the only transportation facilities would be freeways, and there would be no transit service. Everyone would be blessed with a car for all of their trips (except within their idyllic home tower). Naturally, commercial uses would be segregated in special towers from residential uses, requiring a freeway trip for every gallon of milk, dozen eggs, and loaf of bread. A brave new world indeed!
ah, you gotta love a terminal case of car envy.
Unit,
How much more cynical can you possibly get? People don’t WANT to live in L.A. or NYC density. I certainly don’t. I could only tolerate living in downtown Portland for 8 months – it was too crowded (and too smelly), and WAY too noisy….. I come up there on weekends but that’s as much as I can tolerate. Oh, and I don’t own a car. I walk everywhere I need to and take the bus only if its raining. I take Amtrak or Cherriots 1x/TriMet 96 to get to downtown Portland. If I go to Bend or the coast I drive.
Unit says
“We should also resurrect Robert Moses’ grand plan for a pleasant network of freeways criss-crossing the metro area. But why stop there? Moses was known for his inability to think big: we should quadruple his plans. Every other block in the city should be a freeway, leaving the single blocks in between for high-rise towers with direct freeway access, but no other access. Bikes and pedestrians would no longer be allowed, as the only transportation facilities would be freeways, and there would be no transit service. Everyone would be blessed with a car for all of their trips (except within their idyllic home tower). Naturally, commercial uses would be segregated in special towers from residential uses, requiring a freeway trip for every gallon of milk, dozen eggs, and loaf of bread. A brave new world indeed!”
Why do all of that when we can build a huge sucker of a freeway right in the present I-5 route? Then we can be just like Seattle: Funneling most of the north-south traffic right through the middle of the city! Starting with a ten lane bridge we can go on and complete the whole link to Wilsonville with ten lanes and even burrow a five mile long trench to put part of it underground! Wow, I’ll have to learn how to operate a bull-dozer!
How much more cynical can you possibly get?
I think that’s all I can muster for now. ;)
“What I would do is build a new freeway… bypassing the entire Portland area… This would allow freight traffic to get to Seattle and not get bogged down by the self imposed congestion in Portland”
Why build a new thru-freeway or bypass, why not just tear down all the city exits on the existing freeway? If you can’t get on or off the freeway anywhere in the Portland region, all freeway traffic will be through traffic. And without all the intra-urban commuters clogging it up, there will be no traffic jams! And no highway induced sprawl! It’s the perfect solution!
(Please forgive my sarcasm)
But seriously, both Delta Park and downtown Vancouver have three exits in just 1.5 miles. Altogether the study area has seven exits (incliding Delta Park) in five miles. That’s too many. For the sake of safety and efficiency, some of them need to go. Replacing the Janzen Beach interchange with an arterial I think would be a very good start, but does Delta Park really need its own exit, or could it somehow be consolidated with the Marine Drive interchange? In Vancouver, could 4th Plain and Mill Plain somehow be merged into a single interchange? This would reduce the number of interchanges from seven to four; that’s a lot less merging.
Indeed, many Portland area freeways have interchanges that are too close together, so why not study closing/consolidating interchanges throughout the region. By reducing the number of points where traffic must change lanes or merge, safety, efficiency, and traffic flow would be improved.
Indeed, many Portland area freeways have interchanges that are too close together
This is why I enjoy living in Southwest Portland.
We have a freeway that generally works (I-5) with few interchanges, a well constructed arterial route beside it (Barbur Blvd.) that is seldom congested, and local collector streets that work to channel neighborhood traffic without requiring to use either I-5 or Barbur to get anywhere.
(for instance: two miles from the Macadam on-ramp to the Terwilliger off-ramp southbound, there is no SB Terwilliger on-ramp, .7 miles to the Multnomah Blvd. off-ramp (no on-ramp), less than 1/2 mile to the Barbur Blvd. off-ramp (again, no on-ramp), 1.15 miles to Capitol Highway exit, one mile to Tigard exit.)
Now if only TriMet would do its part and make sure that the 12 bus runs reliably, on time, and with modern, efficient, welcoming busses that have capacity to match transit demand and improved bus stops to encourage ridership. At least we do have a decent park-and-ride lot (that is at capacity every workday) that has plenty of shelter space for bus passengers; but of course it was built in 1974 (back when TriMet cared about bus service). However better bus service would reduce the dependence on having to drive to a bus, and allow people to use bus service as a “door to door” service with only short walking distances – thereby reducing vehicle trips and their assorted pitfalls.
“This is why I enjoy living in Southwest Portland. We have a freeway that generally works (I-5) with few interchanges, a well constructed arterial route beside it (Barbur Blvd.) that is seldom congested, and local collector streets that work to channel neighborhood traffic without requiring to use either I-5 or Barbur to get anywhere.”
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. SW Portland has the Terwilliger Curves, which is one of the most dangerous stretches of I-5. That artery works about as well as the CRC bridge, which is to say that 90% of the time it is free flowing, and the other 10% it is in desperate need of a light rail line. And most of the streets in SW Portland dead end, so a lot of times it is easier to leave SW and go to a different part of town, than go someplace else within SW. And don’t get me started on your lack of sidewalks…
“At least we do have a decent park-and-ride lot (that is at capacity every workday) that has plenty of shelter space for bus passengers;”
I thought this was your complaint about MAX: All it did was serve a bunch of Park&Rides. Now it turns out buses do that too? Shame of shame…
Getting back to the CRC – I am a daily commuter from the Hazel Dell area to downtown Portland. I originally rode CTRAN express bus service to downtown, but then started driving because the bus was too slow (esp. having to ait for it in Portland). I will probably start riding again due to increased gas prices and the new 99th st transit center is closer to my house than the salmon creek center.
I would never ride LRT to work because it is way too slow. It takes 29 minutes from the expo center to Pioneer Square. On this portion of my commute, the time on I-5, parking and walking to the office is about 15 minutes (I work next to the square). Riding LRT from Vancouver will take that 29 minutes plus whatever new time is required to get to the expo center.
I really hope that CTRAN will keep its I-5 express bus service with the bridge. LRT is just way to slow.
I originally rode CTRAN express bus service to downtown, but then started driving because the bus was too slow (esp. having to [wait] for it in Portland).
I might have mentioned this here before, but the rationale behind extending the Yellow line to Vancouver is their traffic projections say that riding light rail and stopping at all the stops will, in time, be faster than driving or taking an express bus!
I really hope that CTRAN will keep its I-5 express bus service with the bridge. LRT is just way to slow.
That’s the reason why both the light rail and BRT options include express buses – C-TRAN has no interest in discontinuing the express service (and to add to that, Stockford Village TC has 3 express routes to Portland – 105, 157, and 199). IMO, light rail would work if dedicated express tracks were built down I-5 between downtown Vancouver and the Rose Quarter – the project staff I’ve talked to at open houses told me that supposedly the timing of the trains wouldn’t work where they tie in. OK, if not… imagine how fast those express buses would be if there were dedicated bus-only express lanes on I-5 between downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland!
To those purporting that light rail across the bridge will reduce congestion please cease and desist?
Light rail does not reduce congestion.
To those purporting that light rail across the bridge will reduce congestion
There may be confusion about terminology here. I reviewed the comments and those referring to congestion have used the word “relief”, not “reduce”. (Except for Al’s comments regarding adding additional parallel freeway capacity.) I invite those commenters to define in more detail what they mean by “relief”.
Personally, I prefer to use the phrase “ease the pressure”, as in “effective transit eases the pressure on congestion”. The theory of induced demand posits that under normal conditions, congestion will increase to the point that road users are willing to accept, regardless of capacity. (Increased capacity _can_ allow for increased usage, but this can induce longer trips which eventually lead to more congestion.) By providing good alternatives where there are none, some users will shift to alternatives, reducing the pressure on congestion.
To be clear, I’m not saying that increased capacity and increased usage doesn’t have economic benefit (at least short-term), but I am saying that increased capacity does not necessarily reduce congestion in the long run. Given extra capacity, people will find a way to use it (one can argue that this is good) and this utilization leads to congestion.