Oregonian Articles Highlights How Little CRC Will Do for Congestion


Congestion, even with the CRC, will be worse in 2030 than it is today.

And the bottleneck at the Rose Quarter will get worse.

Of course, supporters will say that without the new bridge, congestion would be even worse in 2030.

But that misses the key points:

– We can’t build our way out of this problem
– We have to manage how we use the capacity we have
– It’s about the system, not any individual link
– Congestion is self-limiting. At some point people make other choices.


0 responses to “Oregonian Articles Highlights How Little CRC Will Do for Congestion”

  1. The bar graph in the print edition really showed how little this does for congestion.

    Southbound SR 500 to N. Columbia Boulevard at rush hour:

    2005: 16 minutes
    2030: 19 minutes (no action)
    2030: 21 minutes ($4.2 billion project)

    Northbound – Columbia Boulevard to SR 500 at rush hour
    2005: 12 minutes
    2030: 14 minutes (no action)
    2030: 6 minutes ($4.2 billion project)

    However, looking at the bigger segment, a different picture emerges:

    Southbound: NE 179th St. to I-84 at rush hour
    2005: 31 minutes
    2030: 46 minutes (no action)
    2030: 41 minutes ($4.2 billion project)

    Northbound: I-84 to NE 179th St. at rush hour
    2005: 38 minutes
    2030: 44 minutes (no action)
    2030: 26 minutes ($4.2 billion project)

    From these numbers, it looks like the bridge isn’t really the bottleneck here. As noted in the article, the southbound congestion is at Rose Quarter, and might be better resolved with a $150 fourth lane from Delta Park to I-405.

    It also looks like a simple supplemental bridge (either a new freeway bridge or a new arterial bridge) would solve any current bottleneck problems rather nicely.

    Since federal law and current politics suggests we would need a new freeway bridge to impose tolling, that’s probably the best way to go. Build a new freeway bridge (3 or 4 lanes each way) and toll it, renovate the existing two bridges for arterial traffic (two arterial lanes plus a transit lane plus bicycle facilities on each bridge) and toll them as well. The entire project might be self-funding.

    And for congestion relief, to the extent that market factors such as gas prices and congestion pricing aren’t sufficient, look at engineering fixes to individual bottlenecks north and south of the bridge on a project-by-project basis.

  2. If it’s “about the system, not any individual link” how do you fix the system without upgrading the individual links, one at a time?

    All hyperbole about ripping all the freeways out and going back to ox and cart systems of the 1700s aside, what could you do besides fix the points of most pain as they come up?

  3. Kudos to the Oregonian for giving the anti-CRC voice some legitimacy! It gets a lot harder for car-advocates to write us off when we get coverage like this.

  4. Just more evidence that we shouldn’t have neglected our freeways for the past 30 years; and that diverting money into transit and development projects doesn’t change the need for roadway capacity.

    I do have one question however: I always hear the phrase “we can’t build our way out of congestion,” but if that is the case, why the push to build light rail? Or is transit somehow exempt from that golden rule?

  5. While it is fun to chat about hypotheticals ,
    the only issue that is relevant is the dangerous
    condition of the antiques we have now. The bridge is 100 years old on rotten logs. The steel and
    bolts/rivets are of sub-standard strength , and have been subject to a century of weather with inadequate paint protection. The damage to the basic fabric of the structure is continuous and un-repairable. The only choice is to build a new bridge. Now , what kind do you want ?

  6. Question: Am I the only one who does not want any of my tax money spent on anything connecting into Vancouver?

    I don’t go to Vancouver, I don’t work in Vancouver, I don’t care about Vancouver. This equates to building a 12 lane I-84 into Gresham.

    If the people in Vancouver want to be able to be able to get into Portland faster tell them to build their own bridge without our money as well.

    I think that we should be focusing our money on our roads, like expanding I-84, helping 217 and 26 and trying to reduce the problems where 26 connects to the 405.

    Screw Vancouver.

  7. OH COME ON!

    SHEESH…..

    Build the damn bridge!

    Population is going up not down, for crying out loud.

    Not building the bridge is shortsighted and foolish.

    In this case side me with all the pro-business posters.

    This is just stupid to stand in the way of this project.

  8. “I don’t go to Vancouver, I don’t work in Vancouver, I don’t care about Vancouver. This equates to building a 12 lane I-84 into Gresham.”

    AND:

    This provincialism that keeps coming up is rather disgraceful!

    Do you live in Oregon?

    Do you live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    Or do you have your own little ‘portland’?

    You are member of this state and this country therefore all problems associated with this state and country are your problems.

    Vancouver provides a huge labor market coming into Portland. That means it’s a Portland problem more than a Washington problem.

    THEY ARE COMING HERE NOT GOING THERE!

  9. AND:

    This provincialism that keeps coming up is rather disgraceful!

    Do you live in Oregon?

    Do you live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    AL M Says: Or do you have your own little ‘portland’?

    You are member of this state and this country therefore all problems associated with this state and country are your problems.

    Vancouver provides a huge labor market coming into Portland. That means it’s a Portland problem more than a Washington problem.

    THEY ARE COMING HERE NOT GOING THERE!”

    While that makes sense they are not addressing it as a problem for the United States, it does not fix the problems with Oregon’s roads, all it does is divert money from Oregon projects into a project for Washington’s residents.

    People who live in Vancouver, WA need the jobs in Portland or else they would not be residents of Vancouver, it seems to me that the residents of Vancouver would move to Oregon instead of losing their jobs because without their jobs they would be unable to live.

    In other sense as well the bridge is not the huge problem, in fact when you make past the last exit northbound and hit the bridge traffic normally picks up! There are large problems that need to be addressed that would better solve this issue!

    The bridge is a horrible idea and a gigantic waste of money.

  10. As for what Rob said about traffic picking up once you’re on the bridge, it shows in the safety records too. The problem isn’t the bridge, it’s the Hayden Island interchange.

    Toll the bridge already. Then you fix that interchange, possibly improving the other interchanges as well. Those gains in safety would largely show that the need for a new bridge for safety reasons is gone. Then you seismically retrofit the bridge to make it safe in that respect and you’re good to go.

    After that, they can move the BNSF span’s drawbridge in line with the hump of the interstate bridge, and the need for drawbridge lifts would decrease even more so. While turning that bridge around, improve it so that it is even more attractive to ship goods by rail than by truck, and the congestion might even decrease further.

    At this point, there would be little need for additional vehicle lanes, and the idea of adding any more would be scrapped. A supplemental bridge could be built for just light rail with world class ped/bike facilities. You could even through in some arterial lanes for local traffic if you wanted.

    Please tell me if I’ve missed anything and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this would largely alleviate many of the problems this monster of a bridge is trying to solve.

  11. the only issue that is relevant is the dangerous condition of the antiques we have now. The bridge is 100 years old on rotten logs. The steel and bolts/rivets are of sub-standard strength , and have been subject to a century of weather with inadequate paint protection. The damage to the basic fabric of the structure is continuous and un-repairable. The only choice is to build a new bridge.

    Untrue. Alternatives 4 and 5 both contemplate repairing and upgrading the existing structures to support freeway traffic. The projected cost to repair and upgrade them was projected at $265 million in 2006. I doubt that’s much more than the cost of tearing them out completely.

  12. Al M wrote:
    “OH COME ON!

    SHEESH…..

    Build the damn bridge!

    Population is going up not down, for crying out loud.

    Not building the bridge is shortsighted and foolish.

    In this case side me with all the pro-business posters.

    This is just stupid to stand in the way of this project.”

    Al, your blue-collar directness still doesn’t get it for me (and I’m just as blue-collar as you)What is stupid is to not build a bridge in the rail corridor .8 miles downstream from I-5. If we did we would have a jump start on a crossing that would bring high speed rail–maybe even the MagLev train–to the Northwest. Or are liberals going to oppose that (the MagLev) just because George W. just approved $45 million for research?

    We need that bridge because traffic from the west side of Portland metro area and headed north to Washington has only two choices—I-5 or go further east to I-205, and how many of them are going to want to do the latter? A lot of them would take an alternate route on the west side such as through the BNSF corridor if it were there to take. And maybe more if we put a modest. temporary two dollar toll on the I-5. And unlike the CRC,landing on present donwtown Vancouver like a giant, California condor the BNSF route goes mostly through uninhabited hinterlands.

    10 Reasons to not build the CRC proposed bridge:
    1. Too much expense (well we all knew that one)
    2. Puts eggs in one basket (i.e both CRC are in East Portland)
    3. Will rapidly get outmoded and chic Portland politicans will be whining for more I-5 improvements (As they already are via the Freeway Loop Advisory Group)
    4. Destroys very historic, redneck Vancouver buildings, like run down hotels and such
    5. Provides a big raceway for speeders
    6. Provides a big new route for I-5 narco-traffickers
    7. Is so high above the climate moderating effect of Columbia R. it will turn into a slippery ice rink in winter ice storms–and it will be banked out of level,as well. Wheeeeeeee…crash
    8. Big expensive public works projects (first $4 Billion CRC bridge…then $20 billion Loop replacement…then more billions for MAX and streetcar—-thenwhatever…will all attract more job seekers and new settlers and we will have even more gowth than we really need. Then we will have a new round of planning BS.
    9. Doesn’t address AMTRAK needs or rail freight needs
    10. Will cause high density concentration in I-5 corridor—not apread it around as it should
    11. Will cause more dependence on trucks and lead to more car-truck accidents (5200 fatalities per year, at present)

  13. The Oregonian got one thing right: “But population growth is the biggest challenge. Metro’s regional transportation plan forecasts spending $9 billion in the next 25 years across the Portland area – not counting a new I-5 bridge – all the while traffic congestion more than doubles.”

    Until the issue of population growth is addressed and the growth rate reduced and/or reversed, congestion will continue to grow. Moreover, the $9 billion Metro proposes to spend will do little to nothing because the majority of the money is being on transit and bicycle alternatives that account for less than 20 percent of all regional trips, and on street makeovers that reduce or restrict capacity thereby actually producing more congestion Curb extensions are a prime example of the latter.

  14. Terry Parker wrote:

    “Until the issue of population growth is addressed and the growth rate reduced and/or reversed, congestion will continue to grow”

    Got news for you. The Globalist Masters don’t care if our population growth subsides. It has been determined for you that the United States will continue to settle an ever increasing number of refugees, asylum seekers, next of kin, aged mothers and fathers, college students,illegal aliens—all of the population overflow from unfettered Third World reproduction and economic failure. No kidding. Their own countries are overflowing so they have been directed to come here where US taxpayers will pick up a lion’s share of the financial burden in an attempt to turn them into First World citizens. Then we shall sing the praises of Cardinal Mahony and Senator Obama. Forever and ever. Resistance is futile.

    Better seek out a career in urban planning. And get ready for decades of growth management discussions.

  15. The same argument could be given to Portland’s mass investment in MAX light rail and Streetcar lines – the share of trips taken by transit vs. other modes is declining; therefore should we immediately implement “no build” options, and cease discussion of any transit improvements – because after all by building them, there is a 20 year track record of having no meaningful improvement (transit usage increased at a slower rate than population growth)?

    The fact that the bottleneck is in Portland, and no bottleneck exists in Vancouver, actually points square at Portland’s failure to maintain its existing assets. While Vancouver (and the rest of Washington) has been building a TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM that includes freeway and expressway networks, Portland (and Oregon) have largely shunned building out highways. This results in antiquated 1950s-era freeway interchange designs with unsafe curves and lane arrangements, forcing vehicles from three lanes into a specific lane with little warning – among other concerns.

    Meanwhile up in Seattle – while congestion is a problem, Seattle has invested in a total transportation network that includes the largest vanpool fleet in the West (if not the nation), two commuter rail lines (with a third planned), Streetcar lines that long predated Portland’s Streetcar, Light Rail, and a very well designed and patronized bus network that employs modern hybrid-electric and trolleybusses, high capacity articulated busses, freeway express routes, and a variety of local neighborhood routes. Seattle’s suburbs often feature well designed transit centers that beat the socks out of any transit center located in TriMet’s district which are bare in comparison; the only real amentity often being an Oregonian newspaper rack. Seattle freeways feature express lanes and HOV lanes, and WSDOT managed to complete a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge with far less controversy than replacing the Interstate Bridge.

    If we are going to kill off the CRC, that’s fine – but that means no discussion of Light Rail north of the Expo Center either. Zero means zero.

  16. Can we keep this argument more specifically tied to the CRC, rather than expanding to the broader topic of world-wide conspiracies? Thanks.

  17. If we are going to kill off the CRC, that’s fine – but that means no discussion of Light Rail north of the Expo Center either. Zero means zero.

    That makes no sense at all. The projects don’t need to be linked.

    As for killing the CRC, that may need to happen if the folks driving the project keep on their “all or nothing” course. If we’ve got to kill this project and start over, fine, but it’s not the fault of the naysayers if that happens. Give us skeptics some serious discussion of reasonable, less costly alternatives instead of pretending 12 freeway lanes plus a billion-dollar light rail bridge is The Only Possible Option.

  18. “Al, your blue-collar directness still doesn’t get it for me”

    I resemble that remark!
    Yuk yuk yuk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ~~~Calling Dr. Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard,~~~~
    ~~~Dr. Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard,~~~

  19. Douglas K. wrote: That makes no sense at all. The projects don’t need to be linked.

    The point of the CRC is to improve transportation access to Vancouver. Transportation projects should be based upon merit, not mode.

    Therefore, if we are voting “no” to access, that should be it. No access.

    Besides, I do not support TriMet spending MY transit dollars outside of TriMet’s district; just the same as someone who is a Portland taxpayer (which incidently includes myself) would object to the City of Portland spending money to subsidize a City of Vancouver, or even City of Gresham project; or Multnomah County subsidizing a Washington County project. TriMet does not include Clark County and it never will.

    No CRC means no light rail, unless C-Tran is going to pay 100% of the costs.

  20. “No CRC means no light rail, unless C-Tran is going to pay 100% of the costs.”

    “No CRC” means taking a step back and re-evaluating more cost-effective options for all modes. It doesn’t require 100% opposition to anything to be skeptical about the CRC proposal.

  21. Bob R. wrote: re-evaluating more cost-effective options for all modes.

    I don’t buy this argument. The intent of the critics of CRC is to kill the project, allowing only (if anything) a light-rail, pedestrian and bike only project (nevermind the complete lack of any bicycle destinations on the south side of the bridge, unless one plans on filling in Smith & Bybee Lakes and developing an urban center there along with demolishing the Expo Center, Delta Park, Huron Lakes Golf Course, and PIR). Meanwhile they insist that everything be “carbon neutral” but offer ZERO plan to increase affordable housing close to Portland area employment centers (specifically downtown), so the end result is that Portland becomes San Francisco (where one cannot live in the city without a minimum annual income of at least $125,000) but with an inadequate transportation network.

    And S.F. has to import a lot of workers from outside the city – namely, Oakland.

    Is the future of Portland really going to be San Francisco (where the rich people live and poor people work) + Oakland (where the poor people live)?

  22. The intent of the critics of CRC is to kill the project, allowing only (if anything) a light-rail, pedestrian and bike only project

    I’ve met a few of the people who are critics of the CRC, and that is not the position of any of them I’ve met.

  23. “nevermind the complete lack of any bicycle destinations on the south side of the bridge, unless one plans on filling in Smith & Bybee Lakes and developing an urban center there along with demolishing the Expo Center, Delta Park, Huron Lakes Golf Course, and PIR”

    You just mentioned some of the biggest bicycle recreation destinations in the city. Maybe you should go down to PIR on a Monday or Tuesday night and notice why the racers are so quiet… And unless you’ve ridden around the Lakes and Golf course, you wouldn’t know if there was a bicycle trail there or not, because you can’t actually see a road from most of it…

    The Expo Center is going to lose two halls to the bridge, is demolishing it to put a freeway ramp in somehow better?

Leave a Reply to Terry Parker Cancel reply

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