Sunday’s Oregonian includes a front page article on the question of whether widening the Columbia River Crossing to twelve lanes will trigger land use changes that will in turn help congest the bridge again (and negatively impact air qualify).
The Oregonian has learned that traffic forecasters involved in planning a new bridge, projected to cost $4.2 billion, were told to assume a new 12-lane bridge would not trigger any more growth than if the current bridge were simply left in place. Yet a 12-lane bridge would handle 40 percent more cars during afternoon rush hour, according to the forecasters’ calculations.
Ignored is a finding by regional planners, in 2001, that eliminating the bridge’s bottleneck threatened to push job and housing growth away from other parts of the metropolitan area and concentrate them in North Portland and across the river, in a rapidly expanding Clark County.
We discussed this issue here (and some of the same documents involved) 16 months ago.
In making their designs, bridge planners had assistance from specialists with the Metro regional government. Though Metro is nationally known for using sophisticated computer tools to study sprawl and the role of highways in it, Metro’s modeling staff heeded requests by Columbia River Crossing staff to assume that all bridge solutions would have no influence on development patterns in North Portland and southwest Washington.
They did so, according to Metro’s chief traffic forecaster, to be free of the complex forces driving growth as they designed the five bridge scenarios.
“Essentially that was a simplifying assumption to assess what the difference might be between the infrastructure changes,” said Richard Walker, travel forecasting manager for Metro.
Maybe (and it’s definitely arguable) you could reasonably ignore land use changes between say 10 lanes and 12 lanes, but to not look at land use impacts between the full project and the no-build is neither realistic nor responsible!
0 responses to “Oregonian Delves into CRC Induced Demand Issue”
As I recall the Metro study the Oregonian reporter cites when presented to the I-5 TF in 2001, included a slide that showed property values in North Portland stagnant or in decline while those in Clark county rose as a result of more motor vehicle capacity across the River. Should be of no surprise…isnt this the story of all post WWII American cities?
I would think that close to a freeway would, most likely, be a highly desirable place for developers to want to situate new projects. What better place for your office tower to be seen, with all of the commercial tenants located therein, than right alongside an interstate freeway? There isn’t that much land in central Vancouver that could be used for high density commercial property anyway, so –barring a program to encourage such development in the farther reaches of the suburbs such as in scattered business parks–I think it is likely that we will see such infill occurring close to I-5.
I think we’ve got something like Bellevue, Washington brewing here–perhaps on a downsized scale, since Vancouver isn’t exactly yuppieville. Where would the present building fever in Bellevue be were it not for its exposure near to I-405? No, there will probably not be 50 story towers as in Bellevue, but something on the order of the Lincoln towers at Washington Square would be foreseeable. And maybe plenty of them.
Do you think travelers from business to business during the day are going to use the MAX? Where have the larger capacity office parks with mid level buildings been built in SW Portland? Isn’t it close to the freeway interchanges— such as I-5 with 217 and I-205? The developers know what makes a profit.
Other corridors that have had light rail added to mitigate traffic congestion have seen a return to previous traffic levels, or higher yet. Happened on US 26. Happened on I-84. That’s mainly due to general increased density in the travel shed for those corridors.
I get the sense this may delay the project. What do others think?
MHW
The underlying problem with the CRC project is that it is being governed by politically motivated so-called science with socialistic controls that involves planning for a surge in population growth while dismissing the reality check needs of transport infrastructure. Practical science says the world is already overpopulated by humans. Therefore any regional planning efforts should be adopting ways to reduce population growth instead of constraining roadways, the economy and interstate commerce.
Restricting growth? We’re not China, we need their taxes. I think the CRC is a good way to add a lot of value to downtown Vancouver. Better access between the cities both on the roads and on MAX isn’t a bad deal for either side.
The Boise-Cascade site is ripe for development, as well as several downtown blocks that are currently vacant or parking. At the same time, they have the new Columbian building, the Hilton, and a nicely growing downtown.
I’m not moving there yet, but it could become a great place to live, and attract a lot of new jobs to discourage even needing the bridge.
It kind of sucks to work there now, knowing if you have to drive to Portland you should leave by 2 if you want to get anything done afterwards. If the CRC happens, I have a feeling that downtown Couv could end up something like the Pearl.
Terry, you are quite the enigma. You decry “socialistic controls,” then 2 sentences later, you advocate for the most repressive form of social control ever devised by humans: restricing people’s ability to procreate. That’s not socialism, that’s Maoism, and it is about 1,000 times worse than anything the Swedes have come up with. I don’t even want to know how you would implement and enforce your ban on children.
What about it, moderators? Is repeatedly advocating a shift to Eastasian-style Communism on-topic and within the Rules?
Grant, the issue here is the suggestion of “induced demand” due to the capacity created by adding lanes to the crossing. That induced demand is described as increased development and sprawl due to projected population growth, and therefore goes to the bigger issue of population growth as a whole.
The arguments thrown at the big bridge alternatives by environmentalists continually refer to their brand of science that man is the primary cause of global warming. That same science and science in general also says the world is over populated by humans placing a strain on natural resources. This part of the science is chiefly ignored when just cherry picking specific data to oppose a twelve lane crossing. It can also logically be concluded it is man’s increasing population that is destructive to the environment, not necessarily the individual activities of man including lifestyle, housing and transport choices.
Therefore, like it or not, reducing population growth, at least locally, is germane to the issue the issue at hand.
“reducing population growth, at least locally”
How do you do that Terry? You can’t. It’s a free country and people can live wherever they choose. If, as appears to be the case, you are advocating a move to a system of internal migratory control implemented by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin, you will not find many supporters. This conversation isn’t “germane” to anything.
In fact, we are “inducing demand,” and creating a positive feedback loop in the process, by planning for and accomodating the inevitable influx of new residents. That includes people like me, who move here, pay a myriad of taxes, and supplement our travel options with a bicycle. Personally, I prefer our method to one you might have found in 1980s Mosul or, God forbid, Houston.
Grant, I do not have an answer to reducing population growth, but it is fast becoming obvious an open discussion needs to be ongoing to make people aware of the issue and find the answer. Your knee jerk reaction “It’s a free country and people can live wherever they choose” is simply no longer true. Nothing is free because like you proclaiming that you “supplement our travel options with a bicycle” only means that somebody else, specifically the motorists, are paying your way and subsidizing the infrastructure you use when riding your bike. Additionally, land use planning in Oregon has all but eliminated people living wherever they choose. Unlike the spotted owls that scientists say need old growth habitat, and the elephants at the Oregon Zoo that zoo keepers say need more than an acre and one half pen; humans are being forced by politics not addressing overpopulation along with that unsustainable myriad of taxes to tolerate high density and live in confined heat island people warehouse districts.
Actually the answer to curbing population growth is very simple.
Grant mentions that there is a “right” to live where one wants, which is partially true – it’s entirely true for a U.S citizen to live where they want within the United States.
Immigration, on the other hand, is entirely controllable.
First of all is a completely crackdown on illegal immigration. Doing this, along with passing laws which stop the encouragement of illegal immigration (i.e. illegally immigrating into the U.S. and having a child which then under current laws has a legal right to remain) will certainly have a positive effect in reducing population growth and demands.
Secondly, is to encourage the education and skills training of U.S citizens for jobs within the U.S. to reduce or eliminate the need to look for workers from other countries. This will result in less immigration, and those residents currently in the U.S. on employment related visas will slowly start to move back to their home countries.
This is backed up in that the average household size in the United States has shrunk, from an average of 3.76 persons per household in 1940 to 3.13 persons per household in 2006 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). The days of three, four, and five child households are going away, unless you live in Utah.
This is just the power of pork barrel politics finally winning out. Greedy contractors want it. Reckless labor unions want it. Blundering politicians cannot stop it. Globalists win—Oregonians lose.
Terry, I directly pay gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, property taxes, and income taxes, to name a few. Explain again how I am not paying my way.
Oregonians lose
Exactly how do Oregonians lose with an improved Columbia River Crossing?
Recent polls show overwhelming support from Oregonians for this bridge. I fail to see how I will “lose” if this bridge is built; yet I can name specific examples of how I have “lost” thanks to light rail expansions.
I would find the argument a little more valid, if someone could generate a list of ODOT highway projects that will lose funding (i.e. have already been programmed, but will be deprogrammed) because of the CRC.
Heck, just one project will suffice.
At least then I can say “I’d rather have Project X instead of Project Y”.
At least then I can say “I’d rather have Project X instead of Project Y”.
Think opportunity costs. Is the region better off with one $4.3 billion bridge or (for example) 430 $10 million road and/or transit improvement projects scattered around the four-county area?
Exactly how do Oregonians lose with an improved Columbia River Crossing?
That characterization is a bit broad… the question is do we need _this_ (the CRC proposal) “improved” Columbia River Crossing, or would a series of more modest, less costly improvements be a better fit for our region?
Oregonians (more specifically, North Portlanders) could quite conceivably “lose” with a 12-lane bridge (as proposed) with traffic and pollution impacts in their neighborhoods.
Getting back to your characterization, it is important to note that the SmarterBridge people (I helped with the setup of their web site) are not being obstructionist, and they are not against improvements to I-5 and other links across the Columbia. So it is quite fair to say that most people opposing the current CRC proposal are still for an “improved” crossing, just not this mega-project.
Reducing population growth is easy…as economies develop, birth rates go down. Also improved access to education for women reduces birth rates.
Immigration into this country is really an ace in the hole…new energy, new ideas, people willing to work hard. We should open up the borders; as Mexico develops, there will be less reason for its citizens to leave.
Portland is neither congested or dense by almost any standard, except compared to how things were in the eary 80’s when we enjoyed 12% unemployment and many were leaving.
The burden of proof is on proponent of a $4B investion…how is it good for Portland, especially resident and businesses in North Portland. And if there is a less expensive way to achieve the needed movement of goods and people, why not? The current proposed mega bridge raises property values in Clark county, lowers them in North Portland, saves a resident of Battle Ground 10 minutes on their commute to Portland and dumps 40K more motor vehicles on Portland’s arterial network. Why pay good money to do this?
Exactly how do Oregonians lose with an improved Columbia River Crossing
I think Lenny offers some good suggestions above. Another consideration is the debt which we will incur to build this, which is staggering. Lost opportunities are the other aspect.
generate a list of ODOT highway projects that will lose funding
Of course this is impossible, because it’s not yet been decided, and neither ODOT, WSDOT, nor the CRC project team wants to discuss this now. The only thing we know is that many projects will lose funding, or at least be delayed because of the prioritization of this project. That’s the way allocation of limited funding works.
The only thing we know is that many projects will lose funding, or at least be delayed because of the prioritization of this project.
I keep hearing this, but nobody ever suggests better ways to spend $4.2 bil. I’d love to see a wish list that would serve the auto, transit, and non-motorized communities in a similar balance to the CRC’s efforts.
A chunk of the fund will come from the SAFETEA-LU High Priority Corridors funding. This is money that won’t be used on anything but previously designated corridors, I-5 being the only one that serves us. If we don’t build, that money (as the laws stand) can not be used on any other regional projects, unless they directly improve I-5. It can be diverted to Seattle, Sacramento, Los Angeles, or San Diego for their sections of I-5 though.
Some more funding will likely come from bonds sold on future toll revenues. Again, this is not money that can be used elsewhere, since we don’t have it.
Maybe after this, it will leave $3 billion to invest elsewhere. Given that nearly everyone I’ve seen on here has at least conceded that an arterial bridge would be acceptable, (which may recover tolls, but would not qualify for the HPC program under current laws) I’d estimate we’d need to spend roughly $1.8 bil to make it happen.
Is $1.8 bil speculation? Yep, but if just the light rail portion of the CRC will be $1.4 bil, I’d have to guess that $400 mil would be a bargain for adding one or two lanes in each direction.
No matter what it’s going to be expensive to get another bridge across. I think other ones should be built, and maybe this should be put on hold until after, but this will get a helluva lot more federal contributions than a local access bridge would.
$4.2 billion is a ton of money, but even the Green Line MAX is now up over $70 million per mile at about $575 mil, and the ROW was already available. It’s just not cheap to build anything.
As an aside, while posting I got Googling around and found that the current war in Iraq at this moment shows Oregon has contributed just over $4.2 billion according to http://costofwar.com. Hmmm…