Metro Backs Replacement I-5 Bridge, Adds Significant Conditions


I testified early and then had to leave the hearing, but you can read the Oregonian coverage here.

It appears that the compromise constructed by President David Bragdon held. It would require significant independent analysis (yeah!) and change the governance structure to provide much more local control.


0 responses to “Metro Backs Replacement I-5 Bridge, Adds Significant Conditions”

  1. Sounds like a reasonable approach, as taking the power away from the DOTs is the most important step. I still doubt it is worth the cost but trust the project team a lot more once the highway-happy DOTs are out of the picture (at least sort of).

    The best part of the article is the obvious frustration of the DOT official. He is resigned to the fact that in Portland metro, they don’t always get their way.

  2. Many of the people who spoke at the hearing were representing businesses and/or for organizations with special interest agendas. Very few if any were working class people that use the crossing on a regular basis to get to their places of employment These are the people that need to have a say and will be impacted the most, especially those with low incomes and need their cars or trucks to travel to their jobs. Transit primarily serves downtown. It is price prohibitive to be expanded to serve everybody’s needs. Not only is Metro dictating to the people like an elitist ruler, the resolution as passed will further separate classes of people based on income. This can be viewed as discrimination. Families with modest means will have less discretionary income to spend in restaurants and for non-essentials. Therefore the resolution as passed is also a kill the local economy type move, especially for small businesses that rely on individuals as customers.

    Moreover, sustainability starts with financial sustainability. Therefore “if“ any tolling is done at all, it must be equitably collected from the users of ALL vehicular modes of transport, including transit passengers and freeloading bicyclists, not just motorists. Adding a surcharge to transit fares to pay for expanding transit service, and taxing or tolling the freeloading bicyclists so they pay their own way making bicycle infrastructure financially self-sustainable instead of poaching the funds for construction and maintenance from other sources is a matter of straightforward tax justice and equity.

    So far the CRC has hidden the costs from the public related to providing any proposed bicycle infrastructure and a proportionate share of the bridge superstructure. The numbers of projected bicyclist crossings have also not been readily available. In not providing this information up front, even if an estimate, the cost per bicyclist user mile can not yet be calculated. This is a cost figure that needs to be presented for the public to comment on and should be included on all cost comparison charts, graphs and in the DEIS executive summary. From my prospective, withholding this information is divisive tactic that is also often used by the bicycle community to keep the general public in the dark about the true costs of providing bicycle infrastructure.

    The bottom line is the bicyclists users need to be paying for bicycle infrastructure and transit fares need to better reflect the costs of providing the service, including the capital costs.

  3. Actually Terry, the people most impacted by this are the residents of N Portland who live next to the freeway. By your logic, they should get complete control of the project.

    Please don’t forget the full-sized Lionel trainset comment in your next repetitive post. Thanks.

  4. Unit wrote: Please don’t forget the full-sized Lionel trainset comment in your next repetitive post. Thanks.

    The rules state: Passion and robust debate about ideas are what Portland Transport is about. Passion directed at individuals is not, and will be deleted promptly. Please confine your remarks to policy, opinion and data. and While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home.

    It would be nice if someone actually took the time to actually respond to Mr. Parker’s comments; instead of a knee-jerk repetitive post co-mingled with a personal attack. Mr. Parker brought up a major point in his first paragraph that I think Metro has made absolutely zero effort in discussing, the plight of those who actually use the bridge because they cannot afford housing close to work and simply just want to earn a living to the best of their abilities.

    I do not see Metro making a huge effort to provide affordable housing in downtown Portland; ironically within blocks of its own Regional Center are numerous underdeveloped blocks that are close to (soon to be) four MAX lines and numerous bus lines, and would make an excellent location for high density, affordable housing – that if developed en masse would reduce the need for regional transportation solutions.

  5. Thank Erik, rule #1 also prohibits repetitive arguments, but that would render 99% of Terry’s posts unallowable.

    As for your point about the people the bridges serve, thanks for bringing that up….unless my my reading comprehension skills have failed me I’m pretty sure Metro advanced the replacement bridge option. So while the rest of Terry’s post was regurgitated, that part was flat out wrong.

  6. Hmm

    Everyone whom I know that lives in Vancouver owns a home worth at least $700,000. I really don’t have much pity for them when they choose to have a 30 mile commute…

  7. “Unit Says:

    Actually Terry, the people most impacted by this are the residents of N Portland who live next to the freeway. By your logic, they should get complete control of the project.”

    You are correct, at least in mentioning that the people living in this area will be impacted most by this decision. This area already has the heaviest pollution in the city and that will most likely increase since the bridge will encourage more people to drive and more thru trucks to use it. The total disregard for those living in that end of Portland is what Metro has shown. I have to wonder if the color of skin, or the lack of money to contribute to campaigns has anything to do with it. Then having the hearing at a time when it was difficult for working people to attend didn’t help. Maybe it was just a total disregard for their situation.

    MHW

  8. “I do not see Metro making a huge effort to provide affordable housing in downtown Portland”

    That’s because affordable housing is a casualty of Metro’s planning. We’ve witnessed this all over the region for decades. And every municipality is confounded on what to do about it.

    Leaving nothing but haphazard token attempts to have government and tax money build housing that’s “affordable”.

    Of course this will never come close to providing the affordable housing that’s needed to make any of the so called “smart growth” work as planned. Time after time the Metro model fails miserably and as we watch more and more of their planning methods devour millions upon millions we’ll not witness any of the outcomes as “envisioned”.

    And of course the call will for more of the same to make it all work some day. Add in the Global Warming pandamonium and conveniently none of the spending on failures matters.

  9. Everyone whom I know that lives in Vancouver owns a home worth at least $700,000. I really don’t have much pity for them when they choose to have a 30 mile commute…

    Many people I know who live in Vancouver do so because it appears cheaper. For example, one couple I know moved there because they both worked there. Then she was transferred to Beaverton.

    Now she has to drive across the river to the MAX, but he still works in the Couv. Should they deal with selling their house and moving to make his commute worse? Just to avoid her sitting in traffic, so he can instead?

  10. Dave said: “Now she has to drive across the river to the MAX, but he still works in the Couv. Should they deal with selling their house and moving to make his commute worse? Just to avoid her sitting in traffic, so he can instead?”

    They should most likely move to North Portland, that way she is closer to the MAX or a bus line that can move her, and the husband (who most likely works in the day) could travel North on I-5 in the morning and south on I-5 in the evenings (which normally moves good) basically removing traffic worries for the husband and getting the wife closer to the MAX.

    [Moderator: Italics added.]

  11. Unit said: “Please don’t forget the full-sized Lionel trainset comment in your next repetitive post.”

    Just for the record: I have only referred to the snail rail streetcar as a full-sized Lionel trainset, not light rail, and the majority of posts made carry a repetitive theme by their authors, even if when addressing a different topic. Additionally, as it relates to the CRC project, I can support light rail with following conditions:

    First and foremost, the majority of the electorate in Vancouver and Clark County must support light rail running through the communities on their side of the river. It is not for transit authoritarians, Oregonians or even Oregon politicians to decide for them or make that kind of mandate. The decision is for Washington residents alone, and whatever that decision is, it must not stop or block an upgraded Columbia River Crossing from being constructed for I-5 highway and local motor vehicle traffic.

    Second, Transit riders must be obligated to pay a share of the local costs for constructing exclusive transit infrastructure on the crossing, be it light rail or bus. This will require an increase in transit fares or a surcharge on transit fares. Any tolls charged motorists must be used for roadway bridge construction and highway purposes only, not for mass transit or bicycle infrastructure. Congestion pricing is just another way of picking the pockets of the low and modest income working class who most often can not pick their hours of employment. Therefore any congestion pricing concept needs to be rejected.

    Third, under NO circumstances should there be a separate bridge structure constructed for the chosen transit option, and/or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Such a requirement will reduce the amount of energy and materials used for construction, replacing it with the synergy of combining modes into the same structure(s). The stacked “transit in a box” concept under the highway deck is one way that can work.

    Fourth, any chosen transit option must NOT replace roadway capacity such as was done when Max was put in on Interstate Avenue and the motor vehicle travel lanes were reduced from four to two making Interstate Avenue a parking lot of idling cars during the evening rush hour.

    As for affordable housing downtown, with all respect to Erik, studies have demonstrated the majority of the commuters using the crossing are not going to downtown Portland. Many are going to places of employment that are poorly served by transit or not served at all. Hence my comments; “Transit primarily serves downtown. It is price prohibitive to be expanded to serve everybody’s needs.” One estimate of just the cost of providing light rail as part of the Columbia Crossing project was calculated to be $9.00 per passenger mile.

    I do however agree that Metro continues to miss the big picture when it comes to actively encouraging affordable housing and how their decisions impact working class incomes that also reflect on the economy. Metro also totally misses the boat through neglect when it comes to the area of protecting the sustainability of existing family wage jobs and fostering new long term family wage jobs.

  12. Here is a post from December regarding the transit in a box concept to which Terry is referring. Does anyone closely watching the project know if this option is still on the table?

    The concern about a separate structure for transit/peds/bikes could be greatly alleviated if those modes were integrated with a much-needed local arterial crossing which is sorely missing from the current CRC proposal.

  13. the plight of those who actually use the bridge because they cannot afford housing close to work and simply just want to earn a living to the best of their abilities.

    I don’t buy this argument. I grew up in North Portland, and there are plenty of affordable homes in the area. Not as many as their used to be, but still enough. What you won’t get in North Portland, is a big home on a cul-de-sac. But again, that’s up to the homeowner to choose. If they want the big home with no through traffic, then they can move to Vancouver and have a longer commute.

  14. Erik Halstead Says: . . . ironically within blocks of its own Regional Center are numerous underdeveloped blocks that are close to (soon to be) four MAX lines and numerous bus lines, and would make an excellent location for high density, affordable housing
    JK: Of course affordable and high density are mutually exclusive. Constructing high density always costs more than low density. It is only justified where land prices are high compared to the cost of construction. That is why you seldom see tall buildings in small towns where land is cheaper. See Portland Facts.com

    Erik Halstead Says: – that if developed en masse would reduce the need for regional transportation solutions.
    JK: So would giving cars to those that cannot afford them. That would allow the low income to increase their job choices and thus actually improve their standard of living, unlike merely warehousing them in little cubicles they try to call homes.

    Thanks
    JK

  15. First off JK: 99% of the Pearl, downtown, and the other locations that you keep bashing on as “warehousing the poor” in little rooms…

    First off. We aren’t poor. We’re upper middle class even if Metro, Portland, and all those politicians pretend we aren’t. We’re the ones who pay 93% of the income taxes into the federal tax bucket, we’re also, by mere percentage we end up paying WAY more in state income taxes too. We pay WAY more than the outer fringes of the metropolitan area. We downtowners, as I call us, pay more in taxes than almost the entire rest of the region, and almost the whole bloody state.

    If the poor took anywhere near a hit that the upper income brackets (top 50%) took they couldn’t survive. Imagine the “poor” paying their share at a solid 44% (I believe that is the current tax burden for us top producers).

    But I digress. Point is, we’ve CHOSEN to live in downtown in the little “boxes”. I personally know of a slight surge that has moved downtown recently.

    As for giving someone cars, maybe they can take ours off of our hands? Us upper middle class would almost to be happy to give ours away.

    Oh wait, the poor couldn’t afford it. hmmm. Should we subsidize them then? No, no that won’t work. How about if we just stop subsidizing EVERYONE. That would be a novel concept.

    …oh wait, not to be redundant, but I’ve already pointed out in the past that it isn’t a novel concept, the country used to run transportation without subsidy.

    Gasp!

    We keep striving for the choices of the past generation of un-subsidized transportation, but we keep subsidizing ourselves by vested special interests and wonder why we can’t get solid, reliable, economically feasible, financially reasonable, high standard of living transportation choices.

    Maybe we should smack ourselves and wake up from the kool-aid – and I direct that comment at the planners, the road whores, and both the “right” and “left” side of the argument. The middle road – the one with the most choice – is almost unachievable now thanks to you high subsidy, pick “my project, my project” types.

    Good luck to us keeping any time of standard of living at the rate things are going…

    Maybe we can get a Obama McCain double ticket – they could just join together into one all powerful force and build roads and rail everywhere!

    Yeah! There’s the spirit.

    Excuse my smart ass-ness, it seems to be sorely needed with the back and forth of the pro-road subsidizers and the pro-rail subsidizers going nowhere.

    Cheers :)

  16. They should most likely move to North Portland, that way she is closer to the MAX or a bus line that can move her, and the husband (who most likely works in the day) could travel North on I-5 in the morning and south on I-5 in the evenings (which normally moves good) basically removing traffic worries for the husband and getting the wife closer to the MAX.

    I mean, really? They should incur the costs of selling their house a moving to create that situation?

    Oh, and if you haven’t reverse-commuted I-5 lately, that sucks too. Not nearly as bad as the primary direction, but it still totally sucks one or two days a week.

  17. Transit in a box is definitely on the table! The DEIS shows it under the southbound lanes with a branch off at the north end to land in downtown. It takes off later, lands earlier, and eliminates a bridge and its pilings. Only trick will be making the whole bridge strong enough to support auto/truck and transit. IF only 5 lanes are needed each way instead of 6, that would help the weight issue.

    Bike/ped are under the eastern edge of the northbound lanes. Better than riding next to the traffic, but could anything weird happen down there? CC cameras and lighting can help that. Will be tough when the east wind blows, but good when the rain comes from the west (most of the time).

    The replacement bridge would have access to go to and from Hayden Island and Marine Drive/MLK without actually being on I-5. That should help resolve some of the local arterial debate.

  18. “The replacement bridge would have access to go to and from Hayden Island and Marine Drive/MLK without actually being on I-5. That should help resolve some of the local arterial debate.”

    Not really — the proposals thus far show a gargantuan interchange with several merges to accomplish this, far different in character and size than a simple local arterial. This interchange alone would cover more real-estate than the current freeway through the same stretch.

  19. Why should anyone have to get on the I-5 freeway to get a drink at Shenanigans or copy paper at Office Depot? Local traffic should be on a local bridge…an extension of Interstate Avenue with MAX, a travel lane in each direction and very generous bike/ped facilities. We need a “Broadway Bridge with MAX.”
    Tolls and HOV/Freight lanes will keep things moving on the freeway, especially if redundant, substandard on/off ramps are removed or retricted in the peak hours.

  20. Why should anyone have to get on the I-5 freeway to get a drink at Shenanigans or copy paper at Office Depot?

    Because the cost savings from buying copy paper at Office Depot outweighs the cost of driving there.

    If you forgot, there’s a sales tax in Washington. The mere lack of said sales tax on Hayden Island and the “transit-oriented development” of CascadeStation encourages vehicle trips to Portland.

    An instant solution would be to institute a 10% sales tax (that way it’s higher than Washington’s sales tax); with a quarterly refund of 5% of the tax paid back to Oregon legal residents (resulting in a 5% sales tax for Oregon residents). To be eligible one must present a “tax exemption” card issued only to legal Oregon residents so that your purchases are tallied up, OR you can choose to save your receipts and submit a paper return.

    Congratulations, a huge amount of Washington traffic would stop. So would most of the traffic from California, too.

  21. Why should anyone have to get on the I-5 freeway to get a drink at Shenanigans or copy paper at Office Depot?

    This is a good question. Regardless of the economic reasons involved, it seems strange that for decades the Portland area has built arterial and local connectors across the Willamette river, but lately we can only think of the Columbia in large-scale highway terms, rather than in distributed terms.

    It is a wider river with certain geographical and geological characteristics, but not on the sort of scale that demands we put all our eggs in just two baskets.

  22. “Because the cost savings from buying copy paper at Office Depot outweighs the cost of driving there.

    If you forgot, there’s a sales tax in Washington. The mere lack of said sales tax on Hayden Island and the “transit-oriented development” of CascadeStation encourages vehicle trips to Portland.

    An instant solution would be to institute a 10% sales tax”

    Wouldn’t it just be easier to toll the bridge? $1 or $2 would make people think twice about crossing the bridge to save 50 cents in sales tax…

  23. Lenny suggests that HOV lanes keep things moving on the on I-5.

    In actuality, the opposite is true. HOV lanes DO NOT work well in this corridor. They simply create more congestion and gum up the rest of the travel lanes with stop and go traffic. Vehicles crossing over the full service lanes from the HOV lane to use an exit ramp, and vehicles crossing over to the HOV lane from an entrance ramp create a significant negative impact on the other lanes of traffic. Large tractor trailer motor freight rigs take considerably longer that to get momentum again after stopping than do cars and light trucks. These big rigs would have to do it less often and would conserve more fuel if it were not for the crossing over of other vehicles to and from the HOV lanes. The crossover traffic to and from the HOV lanes also undoubtedly adds to the number of crashes in the corridor thereby making the existence of any restricted HOV lane a higher safety risk for all freeway users.

    The HOV lanes are far more of a political mindset statement and dictatorial restriction that cater to the special interests than they are a workable policy in this corridor. .

    Therefore, for all of the afore mention reasons, all existing HOV designated travel lanes need to be returned to full service usage status with NO new HOV lanes created.

  24. I’m for a 10% sales tax on fuel AND am 100% against the bridge (don’t really even care for the LRV part, but would accept it).

    When do I get to vote on it?

  25. Matthew: Wouldn’t it just be easier to toll the bridge? $1 or $2 would make people think twice about crossing the bridge to save 50 cents in sales tax…

    Most of those cars with Washington plates at Jantzen Beach or CascadeStation already made a conscious decision to cross the river BECAUSE they are saving 7.5 cents on every dollar they spend.

    If someone goes to OfficeMax and plops down $200 on office supplies, that’s $15 in tax that they SAVED by crossing the river.

    Throw in a $2 toll, and they’re still ahead crossing the river – they still saved $13 by paying the toll to cross the river.

    Institute a 10% sales tax (because many in Oregon are debating the tax structure here, so we might as well kill two birds with one stone) and know it costs that same Washington resident $5 more to shop in Oregon thanks to Oregon’s higher tax. (Doing so would also eliminate a large portion of the Oregon Department of Revenue creating additional savings in state government; plus would not require toll booths to be installed on the Interstate and Glenn Jackson bridges.)

    Now, the Oregon resident shopping at the same store, buying the same $200, will pay $20 in tax but will get $10 of it back. So an Oregon resident is still better off staying in Oregon instead of driving north. The Washington resident won’t, so that is $5 in Oregon’s pockets. They would be better off staying in Washington and saving money.

    Adron: I’m for a 10% sales tax on fuel

    Federal Tax Rate: 18.4 cents/gallon
    Oregon Tax Rate: 24 cents/gallon
    Multnomah County Tax Rate: 3 cents/gallon
    Total Tax Rate: 45.4 cents/gallon

    At $4/gallon, the effective tax rate is 11.35%.

    At $3/gallon, the effective tax rate is 15.14%.

    At $2/gallon, the effective tax rate is 22.7%.

    So, yes, I’m for a 10% fuel tax too – it’d save me money!!!!!! (until the gas price reaches $4.54/gallon).

  26. The comments here are symptomatic of Portland arrogance.

    Housing in Vancouver is demonstrably cheaper than in Portland. There are a lot more 700k houses in Portland (and Portland is where you’ll find these houses filled with childless couples).

    The family above may not choose to move to North Portland because the schools suck. Beaverton schools are better and Vancouver schools are excellent.

    Amazing what limited vision our supposedly liberal, progressive Portlanders have.

  27. HOV lanes are the cheapest incentive to commuters to put neighbors and/or co-workers in their passenger or back seats. Period. People who want to get out of GP lanes and into HOV lanes just need to find another rider.
    Designating HOV lanes for freight only in the non-peak simply make real the call for “keeping our economy moving.”
    The northbound HOV lane in Portland carries 50% more people than the GP lane next to it.

Leave a Reply to Erik Halstead Cancel reply

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