An article in Wednesday’s O shows concepts for three different design variations for the transit bridge proposed as part of the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
I’m not an architect, what do readers thinks?
An article in Wednesday’s O shows concepts for three different design variations for the transit bridge proposed as part of the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
I’m not an architect, what do readers thinks?
31 responses to “Oregonian Highlights Transit Bridge Designs”
Initially I thought I’d be partial to the Cable-Stayed design, because it’s a bridge type not yet represented in the area, but the renderings left me cold… the juxtaposition was too harsh… but maybe there’s a better way to represent the cable-stayed design.
The arch design seems to reminiscent of the Fremont bridge, although echoing the larger Fremont could be an affirming homage. This type of bridge is represented all over Oregon, including the iconic bridges at Waldport (recently replaced with a modern but similar design) and Newport. I grew up near such a design, over the Clackamas River on 99E between Gladstone and Oregon city.
But, each current downtown bridge is quite distinctive, so I think it best that we continue with a new bridge which is different than the ones we already have.
In the end, I’m most fond of the wave design… it is elegant, distinctive from the other bridge types, but doesn’t cry out for attention.
Bob R.: I had the exact same reaction as you. I’d love to see a Cable-Stayed design in Portland, but it just doesn’t look right when placed between the Ross Island and the Marquam. I also like the way the wave frame design looks, I think it fits in beautifully.
Bob R., as usual, has hit it on the head. I’d like to see something bold, but I think that may have to be reserved for a different location and project.
I too like the idea of a cable stayed bridge for this location but was not a fan of the one shown in the rendering. Less of an A-frame tower and more of a slender tower for the support towers.
I realize we are in an early stage in the design process but I was wondering what the current thinking is for a few things…
What would be the width of bridge such as would there be shared bus and LRT lanes or would they be separate? Would there be two multi-use paths, on both sides or just on one side of bridge?
Which bus routes would likely use the new bridge? And how will they likely connect into downtown? Via a busway or dedicated route?
As for the OMSI and South Waterfront stations, by their location on the map I assume they are elevated and somewhat on the bridge approaches?
What’s the plan for extending LRT to Oregon City? Is it still a plan even if long term? If so, what is the likely timeframe? Would O.C. likely be served via Milwaukie or I-205 route or both?
Jon Says:
What would be the width of bridge such as would there be shared bus and LRT lanes or would they be separate? Would there be two multi-use paths, on both sides or just on one side of bridge?
Lance Says:
I’m not sure about the current width, but there will be only one transit lane in each direction. Buses and trains will have to share the lane. The current push is to have one multi-use path on each side of the bridge so that people can enjoy unobstructed view of off of each side of the bridge.
Jon Says:
Which bus routes would likely use the new bridge? And how will they likely connect into downtown? Via a busway or dedicated route?
Lance Says:
The following bus lines will likely use the new bridge: 4, 9, 17, 19. The following bus lines will no longer travel into downtown due to connections to light rail: 31, 32, 33, 41.
Jon Says:
As for the OMSI and South Waterfront stations, by their location on the map I assume they are elevated and somewhat on the bridge approaches?
Lance Says:
The OMSI station will be at ground level. Keep in mind that the east side of the river bank is higher than the west side.
The South Waterfront station will be likely be elevated when first built. However, once development is complete, the station will be at ground level. This part of South Waterfront will have its elevation raised with fill in order to get it above the floodplain and to cope with ground contamination issues.
Jon Says:
What’s the plan for extending LRT to Oregon City? Is it still a plan even if long term? If so, what is the likely timeframe? Would O.C. likely be served via Milwaukie or I-205 route or both?
Lance Says:
There are no firm plans to go to Oregon City at this time. Future extensions are currently being studied as a part of Metro’s high capacity transit study. I would place my odds on an I-205 extension, if any at all in our lifetimes. Continuing down McLoughlin would be very expensive, and would be highly contraversial with ODOT.
Like Bob, I thought I’d like the cable-stayed bridge, but those triangular braces simply looked wrong. I much preferred the wave frame. It’s attractive and reasonably unobtrusive.
Popping back to my pet notion about letting cars on the proposed light-rail bridge on a tolled basis:
According to the last PDOT figures I could find (2005) the Hawthorne Bridge carries about 30,000 cars per day. PDOT also mentioned about 66,500 crossings per day on the Ross Island bridge in 2004. The Marquam Bridge had a 136,000 count in 2002. My point is, there’s a lot of traffic across the river in that vicinity.
If a two-lane toll bridge to South Waterfront carried just 1/4 of the traffic of the Hawthorne Bridge, it would carry 7,500 cars per day. (If all of that traffic was packed into just 6 hours, it would average just under 11 cars per minute each way — a realistic traffic load.) Assuming 300 days per year (simplified to treat each Saturday and Sunday as half-volume) and averaging $1.50 in tolls per crossing, this would raise over $100 million over 30 years. If the bridge is budgeted at under $90 million, tolls would pay for the entire bridge.
Of course, I just made up those numbers. Take the Hawthorne Bridge, cut the lanes in half, and cut the volume per lane in half. I don’t know how many motorists would pay for a “shortcut” to and from South Waterfront or what the demand for the shortcut would be. This would need to be studied by people who can work out realistic projections of expected traffic volumes and toll prices.
But if the numbers work, maybe the City of Portland could build the bridge immediately as part of the Eastside Streetcar project instead of waiting for Tri-Met to get the light rail project going. We could finish the Streetcar loop and have the bridge in place for light rail when it’s built.
Also, I don’t know how federal law works on this, but if the City of Portland built a $90 million bridge for cars and the streetcar, and then *donated* the whole bridge to Tri-Met for the light rail project, could that “donation” leverage another $90 million in federal matching funds?
I actually prefer the cable-stayed, even though it’s not as dramatic as a cantilevered version of the concept. The lines of sight looking south from the north side of the Marquam are improved with the two uprights…it actually adds architecture to the Marquam in a sort of trompe l’oeil fashion.
If you look carefully, the two uprights on the cable-stayed are also a sort of reversed reflection of the support structure of the Ross Island bridge…the wave form also accomplishes this, but will a little less emphasis.
Overall, I also prefer the extreme vertical thrust up between the two very linear bridges. It’s a more interesting contrast.
The through arch leaves me flat…and if they choose that version for the Sellwood design, it’s even less appealing for this bridge. The Sellwood makes a better bookend.
Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
“Friedrich Nietzsche”
Al, if you’re going to post quotes, can you at least add a sentence or two to explain why you think they are topical? Otherwise, quotes and links which don’t directly apply to the thread’s topic will be removed.
Doug –
The only real concern I have about the tolling idea is how safety requirements will affect light rail operating speed.
In places where light rail shares with traffic, it’s operating speed is constrained.
The question is: If the bridge is just light rail & buses, will they be permitted to traverse the bridge at a higher speed than if vehicles from the general public are sharing the lane?
If it makes no difference in transit travel speeds, then I am open to the idea of letting some private automobiles use the bridge.
But if it does negatively impact speeds, I’m not keen on the idea — we already have one bridge where transit crawls into town (mostly for structural reasons, in that case).
Does anyone know what the allowed operating speeds will be?
The cable-stayed design looks like a grade school project designed by using Popsicle sticks. It should be immediately round filed. The through arch design, reminiscent of the elegant art deco Romanesque arch bridges along the Oregon Coast designed by Conde McCullough in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the wave frame girder design, are a much better fit for the Portland Harbor and the view from the West Hills.
So far however, the entire bridge design project is coming up extremely short sighted. First, any new bridge of any design needs to have a river clearance height equal to that of the Marquam Bridge (up river to the South) so any river traffic of the future, including the possibility of larger and higher ships or commuter ferries, can be accommodated. A 75 foot navigational height clearance simply just does not cut it.
Second, there are obviously additional costs to make the bridge artsy to satisfy the Adams regime and his coconspirators. His reckless spending practices must not be funded by taxpayers. The bridge must be paid for by the right method. Therefore, both the initial costs of the basic structure and the added costs to make it artsy need to come from the users. Since cars and trucks will not be allowed to use the bridge, NONE of the money ought to be poached from motorist paid and fuel tax dollars that fund roadway bridges. This bridge needs to be a toll bridge paid for with a surcharge added to transit fares, and congestion pricing applied for other users such as bicyclists.
Correction, the Ross Island Bridge is to up river to the South. The marquam Bridge is to the North. The navigational height clearance height still needs to equal that of both bridges.
TriMet has posted documents from the groups studying the bridge on their Web site. I extracted images of all the designs that were considered from one of the documents and posted them here. As for me, I find the wave design funky and interesting. Are there any existing bridges of that type?
And regarding letting private vehicles on the bridge, I’d wonder if there would be enough capacity left. Besides MAX and buses, the streetcar is also planned to used the bridge. In fact, I’ve heard that even Line 4 wouldn’t get to use it.
Terry Parker Says:
The through arch design, reminiscent of the elegant art deco Romanesque arch bridges along the Oregon Coast designed by Conde McCullough in the 1920’s and 30’s, and the wave frame girder design, are a much better fit for the Portland Harbor and the view from the West Hills.
I don’t often get to say this, so I’m pleased to agree with Terry, especially about the continuous through arch design, not only because I find the aesthetics most pleasing but because of those great bridges along the coast. This design just feels like Oregon to me.
Thanks Lance for answering all my questions.
Has anyone run numbers about how much more it would cost to have 2 lanes in each direction? Perhaps if they did a cheaper aesthetic design they might be able to get a 4 lane bridge within the budget?
Has anyone seen the old renderings of the proposed transitway for the Mount Hood Freeway? I believe it called for a transit-only bridge in the vicinity of this proposed bridge that would have connected into the Transit Mall. Plus there would have been full subway-like stations with concourses and escalators down to the transitway in the median of the Mt. Hood Freeway.
As for the talk about have cars and trucks on the bridge, I think it makes absolutely no sense to have automobiles and trucks use the bridge if it remains just one lane in each direction. This should be a place on the TriMet system where the trains and buses can make up some time and speed.
Quite frankly, I can’t really imagine building and planning this line without at least a rough plan to go to Oregon City in the future. Its a lot of money to just go to Milwaukie/Oak Grove and end there. Oregon City-Portland is such a major travel and transit corridor in the region. From what I understand, the first plan for Light Rail in the region in the 1970s was to re-link Portland to Oregon City via the old interurban line. I would think the route to OC would be the best candidate for a light rail line well before almost any other planned line in the region.
meanwhile, the sellwood bridge continues to crumble, public transit from the eastside to most places on the westside still requires going through a congested downtown, the existing rail bridge between milwaukie and lake oswego remains freight-only, and the lake oswego trolley still doesn’t interchange with portland streetcar.
1. Comparison with Tacoma:
http://www.pbase.com/ericnoel/image/31774106
It should be noted that this photograph is taken from the Chihuly Museum of Glass, a key focal point of the development of the Foss Waterway area which could be considered akin to Portland’s “Waterfront Pearl” proposal.
Just to the west of this location is a four-track BNSF mainline and I-705, connected with a spectacular “Bridge of Glass”, which connects to the Washington State History Museum/U.S. Courthouse complex, and then to the UW/Tacoma campus – with the Tacoma Link “Light Rail” streetcar line. Yet this area is consistently popular with visitors and residents despite a major transportation thoroughfare in the middle.
Note the cable-stayed bridge in the background; this is actually a major freight corridor to the Port of Tacoma.
2. Aaron J. Grier wrote: the sellwood bridge continues to crumble
Good point, why can’t we get the Sellwood Bridge rebuilt? Would seem more logical to build a bridge that will support more daily commuters (35,000 vehicles, plus bus routes, bikes and peds).
3. I still want to know why this bridge has to be “artistic”. We have plain jane busses and bus stops. They are functional. If plain jane is good for a bus, it’s good for a bridge. If we have to overload the cost of this light rail project then why isn’t the same being done to bus service? Are all bus stops within a one-mile radius of this bridge and MAX alignment going to be replaced with “artistic” stops and shelters?
As far as I’m concerned, we can duplicate the Glenn Jackson Bridge. Better yet, save the money and use the Hawthorne Bridge since it was rebuilt to support light rail – this alone would save probably $300 million or more.
A. It’s a transit/bike/ped bridge, not a light-rail-only bridge.
B. The Oregonian article puts the estimate bridge costs at $58 to $84 million, depending on the type chosen, not $300 million.
C. There is Sellwood Bridge replacement process going on right now. The draft EIS is under federal review. To get involved, visit: http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/
PS… The Tacoma cable-stayed bridge looks quite impressive… and far different than the renderings for the proposed Caruthers bridge. If the design process creates a more refined structure than the rendering, I’m open to the cable-stayed design.
The question is: If the bridge is just light rail & buses, will they be permitted to traverse the bridge at a higher speed than if vehicles from the general public are sharing the lane?
Two thoughts.
(1) Given the short distance between stops at OMSI and OHSU, it probably won’t matter whether MAX and buses can get up a really good speed over this segment.
(2) Traffic lights. Cars enter by road, MAX and Streetcar (and buses) enter via a transit lane (which might be shared with buses). At peak hour, MAX will be along every six minutes, and the streetcar (probably) less frequently than that. When a rail vehicle is approaching, the private car ramp gets a red light for about thirty seconds until the rail vehicle passes. That gives thirty seconds for the bridge ahead to clear, giving the railcar clear sailing all the way across the bridge — it won’t catch up to the cars ahead. Once it passes, the light goes green and lets cars on behind it.
Actually, only MAX would need the “thirty second signal” to clear the road. Buses and streetcar can run in traffic, and would need signal preemption only to jump the line (if any) to get onto the bridge.
In short, well-designed signal preemption can keep the bridge clear when a transit vehicle comes along.
MAX and Streetcar (and buses) enter via a transit lane (which might be shared with buses)
Brought to you by middle-of-the-night posting and the Department of Redundancy Department.
The Sellwood Bridge is county government and this transit/ped bridge is Metro & TriMet. Whether you believe in their operations or not, you can’t blame Metro and TriMet for being much more efficient agencies that actually get stuff done.
If you want more examples of Multnomah County ineptness just look the planned new courthouse fiasco or the new jail that sat empty for years.
A few months back, early renderings included a simple unadorned bridge, no cable-stays, no arch, no wave. That simple design was my preferrence then. From what’s being offered now, the ‘wave’ design seems to blend best with Marquam and Ross Island Bridges.
At the South Waterfront open house this week, the pedestrian bridge over I-5 options included a cable-stay design that I think most fitting. Its wires relate to the gondola tram wires overhead, and its support pillars relate to the center pillar of the gondola.
To see the proposed Gibbs pedestrian bridge designs, visit this page:
http://www.gibbsbridge.org/Meetings.aspx
…and click on “Open House Display Boards – 3D Images”.
I just want to note that the issue pushing which Willamette River bridge design is chosen appears to be span length. The barge owners are wanting 600 feet horizontal clearance and some bridge designs can’t provide that economically.
What is wrong with a plain concrete bridge that seems to be fine in every other neighborhood outside the downtown area?
***Speaking of the ped bridge, I think the sellwood bridge needs to be widened and replaced before we start talking about a transit bridge.
What is wrong with a plain concrete bridge that seems to be fine in every other neighborhood outside the downtown area?
The new Sauvie Island bridge isn’t a plain concrete bridge, it has a prominent arch design.
The new ped/bikeway bridge over 99E near Tacoma St. isn’t plain concrete.
The new Bybee Blvd. bridge, between East Moreland and Westmoreland, although not an arch or truss design, has decorative cladding and railings to pay homage to the previous bridge.
The new MLK Viaduct will not be plain concrete, and will include historic/replica light fixtures and gateway treatments.
What plain concrete bridges are you referring to which are of the same size/scope as being proposed?
I think the sellwood bridge needs to be widened and replaced before we start talking about a transit bridge.
Too late, we’re already talking about it. :-)
Jon wrote: The Sellwood Bridge is county government and this transit/ped bridge is Metro & TriMet. Whether you believe in their operations or not, you can’t blame Metro and TriMet for being much more efficient agencies that actually get stuff done.
Actually, Metro does not own/operate a single inch of transportation infrastructure – unless you count the parking lot of its Regional Center and the roadways around Blue Lake Park, Smith/Bybee Lakes, etc. (Metro doesn’t even own the parking lot in front of its zoo.)
We’ve known about the Sellwood Bridge problems for what, a decade or two? It should be proof enough that the Sellwood Bridge – as existing infrastructure – is not getting the attention it needs, while the MAX bridge – as BRAND NEW construction – is taking front and center. Ironically, the transit folks are the ones that claim that “we can’t build our way out of congestion” – yet we are doing exactly that, instead of using existing resources like improving the Sellwood and routing MAX on the Hawthorne.
C. There is Sellwood Bridge replacement process going on right now. The draft EIS is under federal review. To get involved, visit: http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/
Thanks, Bob!
Although the site hasn’t been updated, the time and location of the next Sellwood Bridge Community Task Force Meeting is Monday Night (the 13th), 5:30 PM, at SMILE Station in Sellwood (on TriMet routes 41-Tacoma and 70-12th Ave.). There will be time for public comment. I’m really looking forward to this project moving forward as the project selects a locally preferred alternative.
The press release announcing the meeting is here (copy/paste this into your browser location bar):
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/news/newsreleases/10-07-08%20Sellwood%20Bridge%20Community%20Task%20Force%20Meeting.pdf
Yes, I’m still a CTF member.
so have metro take over the planning for the new sellwood bridge. my point is whether you agree with what they do or not, metro gets &%#$ done unlike the county which sits on things until theyre in an awful embarassing state.
the county knew the existing courthouse needed a replacement for years, there was also an ideal site next to the police station available for decades, then when finally there was a proposal ready to build for an office tower on the site they say they want to buy the site or make a site swap. obviously no deal there. now the existing courthouse continues on, and theres just a very rough idea that a new courthouse will be built sometime in the future that first requires the hawthorne bridge ramps need to be relocated. i’d say its at least 8 years away. or maybe 8 years away before they move the ramps. it shouldnt be any wonder why the sellwood is in the state its in.
[btw i would recommend an extensive behind the scenes tour of the multnomah county courthouse, the arch heritage center offers them every once in a while.]