With motorist tolls and/or congestion pricing, a new Columbia Crossing will further separate the two sides of the river and the economies on both sides rather than bringing them closer together.
Furthermore, as I have previously stated, the most cost effective fix would be to construct a new six lane I-5 motor vehicle bridge for through traffic only, and then use the existing bridges for local traffic and the chosen transit option where it could be at ground level. However with Rex Burkholder controlling (and in my opinion sabotaging) the middle ground option CRC subcommittee, even though proposed at that time, such a reasonable cost effective was never given any serious consideration.
My understanding of the project committees is that they reached a split vote on whether to proceed with the “big highway” approach vs. more creative solutions. I believe a project that provided a package of local bridges, I-5 and RR bridge improvements, congestion pricing, and transit connections would have had more acceptance.
Instead, we have a “big highway” project + a “big transit” project + a “big ped/bike” project. This seems intended to pacify the disparate interests. The result, unsurprisingly, = a BIG COST project.
My understanding is if we cut the “big transit” portion and scale down the bike/ped portion to a simple sidewalk, we can save almost 1/3rd of the cost. Since we coincidentally are short 1/3 of the cost and it is suggested that tolls be used to cover this cost, we could theoretically build this project with no tolls at all.
Portland is defined for its livability, at least transit wise compared to most medium cities. Building a super highway to cater to Washington and California’s I-5 thru traffic isn’t livable.
Believe it or not, most Oregonians drive and avoid mass transit/ bicycling too.
There is nothing “livable” about ignoring the wants and needs of the tax-paying majority while bending over backwards to cater to a very small minority of activists.
Portland is defined for its livability, at least transit wise compared to most medium cities. Building a super highway to cater to Washington and California’s I-5 thru traffic isn’t livable.
To some of us, being able to cross a river is a part of livability. It’s not about catering to the “others” who everyone has a problem with, it’s about improving our situation as well. I fail to see how livability is the same as being self-centered.
Another definition of livability is that if a person for what ever reason chooses to cross the Columbia by driving, they should not be socialistically forced to pay the infrastructure costs for those people who choose another mode of transport.
My understanding is if we cut the “big transit” portion and scale down the bike/ped portion to a simple sidewalk, we can save almost 1/3rd of the cost.
Where do you get this? The plan is to build a completely new bridge with five or six lanes of traffic each way. This will require (ultimately) removal of the existing bridges, building an entire new bridge from scratch, and new approaches at each end. The marginal cost of transit will involve adding two extra lanes, with rail and overhead wire. The pedestrian and bicycle portion will require the equivalent of one additional lane. How do you figure that widening the bridge from ten lanes to thirteen will increase the cost of the entire project by 50%?
The marginal cost of transit will involve adding two extra lanes, with rail and overhead wire
Because there’s no point in building MAX simply from the old Red Lion Inn at the Quay to the Red Line Hayden Island Hotel (essentially – north bank to south bank). That MAX line will have to not only connect with the current Yellow Line at the Expo Center, but also go somewhere in Vancouver, too.
The bridge itself, as it stands now, is roughly 3,600 feet in length, or roughly 2/3rds of a mile. In order to make MAX usable, you need to:
1. Extend Yellow Line from the Expo Center, over or under Marine Drive, and across the North Portland Harbor,
2. Land on Hayden Island and build a MAX station there,
3. Cross the Columbia River,
4. Land on the Vancouver side, and get underneath or over the BNSF mainline,
5. Find a routing into downtown Vancouver,
6. Build at least one station, and likely multiple stations,
7. Likely build a Park & Ride Garage,
8. Figure out if Vancouver/C-Tran wants to extend MAX beyond downtown Vancouver.
The distance from the end of the Yellow Line to downtown Vancouver is roughly 1.75 miles; the plans I’ve seen push it further beyond downtown to about 2.5 miles minimum.
Since it makes no sense to build just the crossing over the Columbia River, the entire cost of the MAX extension is going to appear at once. Whereas, the freeway portion of the bridge could be built in stages with the SR 500 interchange improvements to be done at a later time and separate from the bridge itself.
Further, the CRC project, AFAIK, doesn’t involve any changes to the North Portland Harbor bridge (between Marine Drive and Hayden Island).
Erik,
While you’re right that the MAX extension is more than just the bridge, so is the freeway. The “bridge” project includes 6 completely rebuilt interchanges (including the N Portland Harbor Bridge) and a project length of 3-4 miles.
Another definition of livability is that if a person for what ever reason chooses to cross the Columbia by driving, they should not be socialistically forced to pay the infrastructure costs for those people who choose another mode of transport.
This is an unusual definition of the word, one which I bet only one person out of 6 billion would use.
To some of us, being able to cross a river is a part of livability.
That’s the problem: everyone is focusing on what THEY individually need, whether it be an expansion of lanes, transit, or ped/bike path. That’s why we have an overdesigned and overly expensive project with limited value. It is designed to satisfy each need individually, but fails the sniff test when its collective worth is evaluated. A better approach is a big-picture look at what the region’s goals are and how to best meet them.
I noticed that the DJC rendering of the proposed new bridge is the version that includes a separate MAX bridge. Excellent! Build the MAX bridge first (with pedestrian/bicyle path) and put off the crazy expensive I-5.
I can see now from the drawing why 5 or 6 lanes is preferred: the two exits and entrances at Vancouver are too close together to manage the merging. The single exit and entrance ramps at Hayden Island should allow the narrowing of I-5 there to 4 or 5 lanes and finally to the existing 3 lanes in North Portland.
I don’t favor the 6th lane version, especially if meant as an HOV lane. Seen the new ABC show “Carpoolers”? One often repeated scene is of the main characters in a sedan speeding down an HOV lane, inches away from the rest of the freeway traffic which is stalled bumper-to-bumper. It’s odd that the show’s director never works this bizarre and dangerous situation into social commentary humor. ABC sucks!
A “frontage road” with a bridge would allow the removal of the too frequent on/off ramps. Local traffic could use the frontage road which would include light rail tracks and a big wide bike/ped facility. Pay for this with tolls and then see what more needs doing. Its almost pay as you go.
re HOV lanes, they sure work great on I-5 northbound, so you all the Swan Island vanpoolers say. Time to extend them from SR 500 to Going St. in both direction.
Save $3 Billion or so with Tolls, Transit and HOV!
HOV lanes would be a good idea if they were a 4th or 5th lane of new capacity. The way the NB lane works now only serves to make incredibly bad traffic worse when the extra capacity is needed most.
to make incredibly bad traffic worse when the extra capacity is needed most
Actually it only does this for single-occupant drivers who have made the questionable decision to hit the road by themself during the most congested hours of the day. Finding one single passenger to share a ride with isn’t difficult.
I would agree with the correct definition of “pay as you go” – that being the transit passengers directly paying as they go for any transit crossing and infrastructure, and the bicyclists directly paying as they go for any bicycle infrastructure and crossing.
As for the HOV lanes – they are a safety hazard that create more crashes and overall congestion due to vehicles crisscrossing over the other two lanes of traffic going to and from the freeway exits and entrances. The HOV lanes also increase overall fuel consumption for highway users, especially for the motor freight carriers as demonstrated by the visible smoke from the stacks of the tractor trailer rigs repeatedly stopping and starting do to the crisscrossing. Furthermore, the current HOV lanes were converted from full service lanes which thereby was nothing less than highway robbery taking away vehicle capacity from the motorists who are paying the fuel tax user fees for a full service freeway. The HOV lanes need to be removed permanently.
Here’s a first: I agree with Parker that HOV lanes are a safety hazard. The wider the freeway, the more maniacal drivers will cause the worst accidental fatalities. Building MAX light rail to Vancouver is the most productive investment. Do that first, then tinker with I-5.
It’s odd that the show’s director never works this bizarre and dangerous situation…
A few studies I had seen showed that while a paint-only HOV lane isn’t as safe as a barrier-separated HOV lane, it’s not all that dangerous. Safer than an urban surface street, anyway.
Having driven in them quite frequently while working around LA, I know they slowed me down when I drove in them, and when I was merging in I was careful to signal, have good visibility, and wait for someone exiting before trying to exit.
People slow down as they exit, so jumping in front of an exiting vehicle is the easy way on. It also seemed to be an unspoken rule that you created space for cars exiting the carpool lanes to allow this maneuver to work well.
Plus most of the freeways with them stay moving fast enough it’s not 0 mph traffic next to you, but more like 5-10 mph, slowly crawling live volcanic discharge.
Back to the CRC, the 4-5 lane bridge design would likely keep traffic moving more consistently even when equally congested due to better ramp design, and California’s freeways with HOV’s usually are of newer designs than our current I-5. Carpool lanes likely would work better on a new bridge even with a similar service level.
In addition to what ALM has said regarding congestion and the Portland area having the WORST transportation engineering anywhere:
Both Metro and PDOT give lip service to reducing congestion, but in reality they do just the opposite. Examples include the concept of wedging in streetcars on high traffic volume arterials, constructing curb extensions at transit stops so busses block and obstruct other traffic when boarding passengers, adding bike boxes that restrict motorists from making right turns on red lights, the removal of motor vehicle lanes to make room for bike lanes and light rail specifically on Interstate, and the proposal to remove bus pullouts on Powell Boulevard which is a state highway and was upgraded to the present configuration as a compromise for not building the Mt Hood Freeway – all this creates more congestion. .
In addition, Metro and PDOT both talk about accommodating population growth in the region. However, with more people comes more cars, like it or not, it is another reality. Somehow they think that by providing more expensive and cost prohibitive transit options and costly bicycle infrastructure free to the users will fill the gap in the need for more motor vehicle capacity. That is nothing more than a pipe dream that only demonstrates their foolhardiness. Furthermore, such a lack of common sense only contributes to the exodus of families from the inner city moving to the suburbs, and the anti-business climate that now exists in Portland. The futility and price tag of their actions is also helping to bring on the looming recession.
Jim Karlock:
If you think Bicycle Infrastructure is ‘costly’, get a grip on reality. Just because your white male privilege to consume wantonly isn’t as strong as during your childhood, that’s no reason to hate on everything else. Really, get some counseling.
I think Al M consistently makes a point, that most people in the world just wish they could complain about traffic; the pets in the worst parts of our country live better than half the people in the world.
0 responses to “Telling CRC Headline”
With motorist tolls and/or congestion pricing, a new Columbia Crossing will further separate the two sides of the river and the economies on both sides rather than bringing them closer together.
Furthermore, as I have previously stated, the most cost effective fix would be to construct a new six lane I-5 motor vehicle bridge for through traffic only, and then use the existing bridges for local traffic and the chosen transit option where it could be at ground level. However with Rex Burkholder controlling (and in my opinion sabotaging) the middle ground option CRC subcommittee, even though proposed at that time, such a reasonable cost effective was never given any serious consideration.
This contention seems inevitable.
My understanding of the project committees is that they reached a split vote on whether to proceed with the “big highway” approach vs. more creative solutions. I believe a project that provided a package of local bridges, I-5 and RR bridge improvements, congestion pricing, and transit connections would have had more acceptance.
Instead, we have a “big highway” project + a “big transit” project + a “big ped/bike” project. This seems intended to pacify the disparate interests. The result, unsurprisingly, = a BIG COST project.
My understanding is if we cut the “big transit” portion and scale down the bike/ped portion to a simple sidewalk, we can save almost 1/3rd of the cost. Since we coincidentally are short 1/3 of the cost and it is suggested that tolls be used to cover this cost, we could theoretically build this project with no tolls at all.
Portland is defined for its livability, at least transit wise compared to most medium cities. Building a super highway to cater to Washington and California’s I-5 thru traffic isn’t livable.
Chris:
Believe it or not, most Oregonians drive and avoid mass transit/ bicycling too.
There is nothing “livable” about ignoring the wants and needs of the tax-paying majority while bending over backwards to cater to a very small minority of activists.
Portland is defined for its livability, at least transit wise compared to most medium cities. Building a super highway to cater to Washington and California’s I-5 thru traffic isn’t livable.
To some of us, being able to cross a river is a part of livability. It’s not about catering to the “others” who everyone has a problem with, it’s about improving our situation as well. I fail to see how livability is the same as being self-centered.
Another definition of livability is that if a person for what ever reason chooses to cross the Columbia by driving, they should not be socialistically forced to pay the infrastructure costs for those people who choose another mode of transport.
My understanding is if we cut the “big transit” portion and scale down the bike/ped portion to a simple sidewalk, we can save almost 1/3rd of the cost.
Where do you get this? The plan is to build a completely new bridge with five or six lanes of traffic each way. This will require (ultimately) removal of the existing bridges, building an entire new bridge from scratch, and new approaches at each end. The marginal cost of transit will involve adding two extra lanes, with rail and overhead wire. The pedestrian and bicycle portion will require the equivalent of one additional lane. How do you figure that widening the bridge from ten lanes to thirteen will increase the cost of the entire project by 50%?
The marginal cost of transit will involve adding two extra lanes, with rail and overhead wire
Because there’s no point in building MAX simply from the old Red Lion Inn at the Quay to the Red Line Hayden Island Hotel (essentially – north bank to south bank). That MAX line will have to not only connect with the current Yellow Line at the Expo Center, but also go somewhere in Vancouver, too.
The bridge itself, as it stands now, is roughly 3,600 feet in length, or roughly 2/3rds of a mile. In order to make MAX usable, you need to:
1. Extend Yellow Line from the Expo Center, over or under Marine Drive, and across the North Portland Harbor,
2. Land on Hayden Island and build a MAX station there,
3. Cross the Columbia River,
4. Land on the Vancouver side, and get underneath or over the BNSF mainline,
5. Find a routing into downtown Vancouver,
6. Build at least one station, and likely multiple stations,
7. Likely build a Park & Ride Garage,
8. Figure out if Vancouver/C-Tran wants to extend MAX beyond downtown Vancouver.
The distance from the end of the Yellow Line to downtown Vancouver is roughly 1.75 miles; the plans I’ve seen push it further beyond downtown to about 2.5 miles minimum.
Since it makes no sense to build just the crossing over the Columbia River, the entire cost of the MAX extension is going to appear at once. Whereas, the freeway portion of the bridge could be built in stages with the SR 500 interchange improvements to be done at a later time and separate from the bridge itself.
Further, the CRC project, AFAIK, doesn’t involve any changes to the North Portland Harbor bridge (between Marine Drive and Hayden Island).
Erik,
While you’re right that the MAX extension is more than just the bridge, so is the freeway. The “bridge” project includes 6 completely rebuilt interchanges (including the N Portland Harbor Bridge) and a project length of 3-4 miles.
Another definition of livability is that if a person for what ever reason chooses to cross the Columbia by driving, they should not be socialistically forced to pay the infrastructure costs for those people who choose another mode of transport.
This is an unusual definition of the word, one which I bet only one person out of 6 billion would use.
To some of us, being able to cross a river is a part of livability.
That’s the problem: everyone is focusing on what THEY individually need, whether it be an expansion of lanes, transit, or ped/bike path. That’s why we have an overdesigned and overly expensive project with limited value. It is designed to satisfy each need individually, but fails the sniff test when its collective worth is evaluated. A better approach is a big-picture look at what the region’s goals are and how to best meet them.
I noticed that the DJC rendering of the proposed new bridge is the version that includes a separate MAX bridge. Excellent! Build the MAX bridge first (with pedestrian/bicyle path) and put off the crazy expensive I-5.
I can see now from the drawing why 5 or 6 lanes is preferred: the two exits and entrances at Vancouver are too close together to manage the merging. The single exit and entrance ramps at Hayden Island should allow the narrowing of I-5 there to 4 or 5 lanes and finally to the existing 3 lanes in North Portland.
I don’t favor the 6th lane version, especially if meant as an HOV lane. Seen the new ABC show “Carpoolers”? One often repeated scene is of the main characters in a sedan speeding down an HOV lane, inches away from the rest of the freeway traffic which is stalled bumper-to-bumper. It’s odd that the show’s director never works this bizarre and dangerous situation into social commentary humor. ABC sucks!
A “frontage road” with a bridge would allow the removal of the too frequent on/off ramps. Local traffic could use the frontage road which would include light rail tracks and a big wide bike/ped facility. Pay for this with tolls and then see what more needs doing. Its almost pay as you go.
re HOV lanes, they sure work great on I-5 northbound, so you all the Swan Island vanpoolers say. Time to extend them from SR 500 to Going St. in both direction.
Save $3 Billion or so with Tolls, Transit and HOV!
HOV lanes would be a good idea if they were a 4th or 5th lane of new capacity. The way the NB lane works now only serves to make incredibly bad traffic worse when the extra capacity is needed most.
to make incredibly bad traffic worse when the extra capacity is needed most
Actually it only does this for single-occupant drivers who have made the questionable decision to hit the road by themself during the most congested hours of the day. Finding one single passenger to share a ride with isn’t difficult.
I would agree with the correct definition of “pay as you go” – that being the transit passengers directly paying as they go for any transit crossing and infrastructure, and the bicyclists directly paying as they go for any bicycle infrastructure and crossing.
As for the HOV lanes – they are a safety hazard that create more crashes and overall congestion due to vehicles crisscrossing over the other two lanes of traffic going to and from the freeway exits and entrances. The HOV lanes also increase overall fuel consumption for highway users, especially for the motor freight carriers as demonstrated by the visible smoke from the stacks of the tractor trailer rigs repeatedly stopping and starting do to the crisscrossing. Furthermore, the current HOV lanes were converted from full service lanes which thereby was nothing less than highway robbery taking away vehicle capacity from the motorists who are paying the fuel tax user fees for a full service freeway. The HOV lanes need to be removed permanently.
Here’s a first: I agree with Parker that HOV lanes are a safety hazard. The wider the freeway, the more maniacal drivers will cause the worst accidental fatalities. Building MAX light rail to Vancouver is the most productive investment. Do that first, then tinker with I-5.
Don’t Washingtoniate Oregon!!
It’s odd that the show’s director never works this bizarre and dangerous situation…
A few studies I had seen showed that while a paint-only HOV lane isn’t as safe as a barrier-separated HOV lane, it’s not all that dangerous. Safer than an urban surface street, anyway.
Having driven in them quite frequently while working around LA, I know they slowed me down when I drove in them, and when I was merging in I was careful to signal, have good visibility, and wait for someone exiting before trying to exit.
People slow down as they exit, so jumping in front of an exiting vehicle is the easy way on. It also seemed to be an unspoken rule that you created space for cars exiting the carpool lanes to allow this maneuver to work well.
Plus most of the freeways with them stay moving fast enough it’s not 0 mph traffic next to you, but more like 5-10 mph, slowly crawling live volcanic discharge.
Back to the CRC, the 4-5 lane bridge design would likely keep traffic moving more consistently even when equally congested due to better ramp design, and California’s freeways with HOV’s usually are of newer designs than our current I-5. Carpool lanes likely would work better on a new bridge even with a similar service level.
Don’t Washing-trailer-trash-icate Oregon!
Don’t Califor-Nissan-icate Oregon!
Don’t Ida-Hummer-ate Oregon!
Don’t Wyomi-subishi-ficate Oregon!
Oregon should take a lesson from Califonnnia;
Learn how to time red lights.
They talk about pollution control here and Portland being so friggen “green” yet they have the WORST traffic engineering I have seen ANYWHERE!
Hours and hours of idling cars sitting at poorly timed traffic signals.
What a joke, green my [depletive deleted] posterior.
In addition to what ALM has said regarding congestion and the Portland area having the WORST transportation engineering anywhere:
Both Metro and PDOT give lip service to reducing congestion, but in reality they do just the opposite. Examples include the concept of wedging in streetcars on high traffic volume arterials, constructing curb extensions at transit stops so busses block and obstruct other traffic when boarding passengers, adding bike boxes that restrict motorists from making right turns on red lights, the removal of motor vehicle lanes to make room for bike lanes and light rail specifically on Interstate, and the proposal to remove bus pullouts on Powell Boulevard which is a state highway and was upgraded to the present configuration as a compromise for not building the Mt Hood Freeway – all this creates more congestion. .
In addition, Metro and PDOT both talk about accommodating population growth in the region. However, with more people comes more cars, like it or not, it is another reality. Somehow they think that by providing more expensive and cost prohibitive transit options and costly bicycle infrastructure free to the users will fill the gap in the need for more motor vehicle capacity. That is nothing more than a pipe dream that only demonstrates their foolhardiness. Furthermore, such a lack of common sense only contributes to the exodus of families from the inner city moving to the suburbs, and the anti-business climate that now exists in Portland. The futility and price tag of their actions is also helping to bring on the looming recession.
Learn how to time red lights.
Downtown lights are exquisitely timed.
Jim Karlock:
If you think Bicycle Infrastructure is ‘costly’, get a grip on reality. Just because your white male privilege to consume wantonly isn’t as strong as during your childhood, that’s no reason to hate on everything else. Really, get some counseling.
I think Al M consistently makes a point, that most people in the world just wish they could complain about traffic; the pets in the worst parts of our country live better than half the people in the world.