Updated: 11/08/08
Full documents now available.
Original Post: 10/28/08
While the final report will not be out until next month, today’s O has an infographic with the major options for dealing with the Sellwood.
Updated: 11/08/08
Full documents now available.
Original Post: 10/28/08
While the final report will not be out until next month, today’s O has an infographic with the major options for dealing with the Sellwood.
26 responses to “Updated: Sellwood Options Defined”
I’m a bit confused by Alternative D, how is it possible that they’re replacing the bridge on the same alignment without closure?
Can anyone think of a bridge that looks like Alternative C? I am just curious what the noise would be like as a cyclist or pedestrian using the bridge.
It’s cheaper to replace the bridge than repair it? Seriously?
I’m also confused by the “replace without closure” of Alternative D. Did the Oregonian get that wrong?
If accurate, it seems that D is the runaway best choice: second lowest price tag, least traffic disruption, and pedestrians aren’t hidden from view on a lower deck.
OK, does anyone really believe the closure times? Alt. C would be pretty, but 42 months? If we go 3 and a half years, we might realize we dont really need the Sellwood bridge at all, other than convenience. Didn’t the bay area highway closures show us that people always find a way?
—
In related news, the Seattle lightrail expansion from downtown to the U-district is said to be running $600m PER MILE.
You could win a presidency with that much money and then just award yourself the rest. I am surprised no transit agency has thought of this. Donating 1/2 a mile of light rail to political candidate (illegal? who cares!) aught to be enough to secure the cream of the federal grants.
—
There is no reason for the Sellwood Bridge to have any more than two traffic lanes. Wider sidewalks to accompany pedestrians and bicyles can be installed in a means similar to the improvement of the Hawthorne Bridge. If we need additional traffic lanes they can go on a new river crossing in the Lake Oswego area. The Western end interchange can be improved with underground lanes for through traffic.
The costs of other bridge improvements over the Willamette were $20-40 million. Why $300-400 million for the Sellwood?
I have to admit, this perplexes me. The Minneapolis Bridge, which was much larger, was built in less than one year for what, under $350 million? How can it cost roughly the same amount for a bridge like the Sellwood, while taking at least twice as long?
Here’s a link to the Oregonian article which accompanies the graphic:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1225162507265850.xml&coll=7
There’s not much there — the full official report will be released November 7th.
I’m guessing the “devil in the details” in the pricing might have something to do with the following factors:
1) Anticipated inflation to year-of-bridge construction, 2012 dollars. (Given the current state of the economy can we expect that much inflation in construction materials/labor costs?)
2) Complications of interchange work on the west end of the bridge.
3) Displacement of local businesses (up to 48).
4) Complexities due to business properties immediately below the current bridge.
Still, it does seem like a high price compared to what Minneapolis was able to accomplish. Does anyone know if Minneapolis was able to save some money by completely reusing the existing foundations, approaches, etc.?
I believe Minneapolis accomplished miracles the easy way: financial incentives for early completion and big surcharges for late completion.
Does anyone know anything more about the alternative with dedicated transit lanes? I’m skeptical of it, it seems to me that the transit lanes would only be the length of the bridge and therefore pointless, and more of a way to push a full 4 lane bridge proposal (essentially a wolf in sheeps clothing). You know by the time the bridge opens the transit lanes will turn into 2 additional traffic lanes and voila a 4 lane bridge.
I’m for a simple 2 lane bridge with bike lanes and wide sidewalks and a roadbed built to support a possible future streetcar line branching off the Willamette Shore Line into Sellwood and terminating at the Tacoma Street MAX Station. Also the Sellwood Bridge bike lanes and sidewalk should be designed to tie easily into the Springwater corridor trail and the future Willamette Shore trail.
Yeah, isn’t this like 3-4 times the cost of the proposed “signature” TriMet span further down the river?
The Minneapolis bridge, while an interstate bridge with 8 lanes, is, based entirely upon my own observations of the two structures (that could easily be proven wrong with fact), much smaller in terms of bridge length and height. I’d imagine it used much less material.
Ron Swaren wrote: If we need additional traffic lanes they can go on a new river crossing in the Lake Oswego area.
I actually suggested a new route, starting at McLoughlin and travelling west along Ochoco to 17th, then on the Oregon Pacific Railroad right-of-way to 13th, then almost due west along the boundary of the golf course to the river, crossing and then joining Highway 43/Macadam at a new junction.
This would provide a much better route (with fewer intersections/cross traffic) and provide for a better location for the western end of the bridge (in terms of the landslide issue at the current bridge location).
I suggested this to the Multnomah County bridge project team and got a very nice e-mail back stating that it was a great idea and studied, but there was too much property acquisition involved.
The other significant drawback would be the need to build a new rail line from the current industrial park area (intersection of Ochoco and McBrod) east to the Union Pacific mainline to make up for the loss of railroad connection west. This railroad would be much shorter than the current line to East Portland, but would require crossing McLoughlin Boulevard.
That said, I think given the current choices – putting the bike/ped path underneath the roadway is a security issue (although it would be nice to have a covered walkway!). I don’t see the need for a separate bus lane in each direction on the bridge; I do see the need to improve Tacoma all the way to McLoughlin but I don’t see the neighborhood association supporting any improvements (thus my suggestion of building a new road/bridge to the south, bypassing Sellwood).
It appears as if some stacking of the deck has occurred on the committee (literally) in coming up with the alternatives. For example; Alternative C, a replacement bridge using the same alignment as the existing bridge would require a 42 month closure of the crossing while Alternative D, a replacement bridge also using the same alignment would require no closing at all of the crossing.
Additionally, Alternative D has more deck space allotted for bicycles and pedestrians than for cars and trucks while Alternative E with dedicated transit lanes combined with bicycle and pedestrian deck space also leaves the smallest amount of deck space allotted for cars and trucks. Obviously there has been some less than impartial narrow minded socialistic political involvement that had undue influence on coming up with something logical. The alternatives are short sighted and there is no need for dedicated transit lanes. 30,000 cars and trucks cross this bridge daily. The Sellwood Bridge is the most motor vehicle traveled two-lane bridge in Oregon. There will never in 100 years be 30,000 bicycles daily or 30,000 transit vehicles daily using the crossing. I have continually advocated the need for a four lane motor vehicle bridge in part to relieve traffic backing up on the West side of the river during the evening peak travel period. The only option on the table that even remotely makes sense (other than just fixing up the existing bridge at about one-fourth of the cost compared to the other options) is Alternative C where the center lane could be reversible. However, with an unrealistic 42 month crossing closure attached to that alternative, it appears that socialistic politics have doomed any chance of this option being chosen even though it is the least expensive of the five build alternatives.
Furthermore, if Alternative D or E is chosen, no motorist paid taxes should be applied to the bridge since the car and truck lanes would be the lesser part of the bridge (an accessory) as compared to the space for other modes of transport. If A, B or C is chosen, any motorist paid taxes used for the bridge must also be proportionately complemented with alternative mode taxes (such as a bicyclist only paid tax and a surcharge tax on transit fares) – the proportions based on the percentage of deck space allotted for each mode.
Terry: It’s clear that alternative D will lead to a closure, I assume someone messed up on the graphic. You can’t build a brand new bridge in the same place as the old one without some down time.
Second, the people in the Sellwood community have CONTINUALLY rejected a four lane bridge, and frankly making the bridge four lanes wouldn’t alleviate the backup unless you made Tacoma 4 lanes as well, which the community has roundly rejected.
If you take a look at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/Alternatives.aspx you will see that alternative D is built in stages. The first stage is built to the south of the existing bridge, allowing traffic to remain. Then traffic is diverted to the first stage while the existing bridge is replaced with the second stage. The result is a wide bridge that is at least partially on the existing alignment, and that does not require long term traffic closure to construct.
Terry: You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
That said, it’s not often I agree with Terry, but giving MORE space on the bridge to bicycles and pedestrians than cars seems a bit weird. In fairness, the 6′ bikeways in Alternative D are “shared space” — they double as shoulders for traffic.
It makes me wonder how much they could save on the bridge by simply trimming it down to 42′: two 12′ traffic lanes, each with a 3′ shoulder (the minimum, according to the site), and a 12′ mixed-use two-way sidewalk/bikeway along one side. Does projected foot traffic really justify 24′ of’ sidewalks?
Douglas K. Says:
It makes me wonder how much they could save on the bridge by simply trimming it down to 42′: two 12′ traffic lanes, each with a 3′ shoulder (the minimum, according to the site), and a 12′ mixed-use two-way sidewalk/bikeway along one side. Does projected foot traffic really justify 24′ of’ sidewalks?
It doesn’t seem to me like the Sellwood would ever have heavy foot/bike traffic. It’s not like any of the downtown bridges and, at least from casual observation, it doesn’t seem possible to have a lot of residential development on either side of the bridge.
It doesn’t seem to me like the Sellwood would ever have heavy foot/bike traffic.
I think the Sellwood actually would be a bike artery. In fact BTA has it very high on their priority list.
On the east it connects to the Springwater trail and to the Esplande. On the west there is a reasonable and planned to be improved trail connection to downtown. If a major trail is built along with the Lake Oswego streetcar, the west side connection will be even stronger.
Well, there you go ruining speculation with actual information. Shame on you.
Oddly enough, I will be moving soon and it appears the Sellwood Bridge will be my best route to my aikido dojo. Maybe I should start paying more attention.
I, along with many other people, commute by bicycle across this bridge evcerday. It is extremely dangerous, as the sidewalk is only about 3′. 6′ bike lanes would be great! I just hope they are raised above the street level like the Hawthorne Bridge.
“I think the Sellwood actually would be a bike artery. In fact BTA has it very high on their priority list.”
Then it should be the bicyclists and the BTA that directly pay for it with a bicycle tax!
Chris Smith wrote: I think the Sellwood actually would be a bike artery. In fact BTA has it very high on their priority list.
Not that I am a BTA shrill, but actually I agree that the Sellwood Bridge would be a good bike route if the bike facilities were upgraded. Right now, they suck, plain and simple.
I’ve done quite a few bike rides starting at a marina just north of the Sellwood Bridge, riding north to the Steel Bridge, across the bridge than south on the Springwater Trail to Spokane Street – then in reverse. Access to the Sellwood Bridge is difficult – between a very steep hill, and then no bike lane on the bridge (in fact the signs on the bridge actually tell bicyclists to WALK THEIR BIKE, but my experiences driving across the bridge seeing a bicyclist suggest that very few actually obey this plainly written traffic control device, and I’ve seen at least one bicyclist/pedestrian altercation on the bridge because the bicyclist was too arrogant to understand that Oregon law very specifically states that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way over a bike, unless the pedestrian is at a signallized intersection with a don’t walk signal and the bike has a green light.)
But I digress – I don’t think the Sellwood Brdige has anything to offer for pedestrians (although I see a fair share of people walking across it), but it is a valuable gap in the bike system.
all road bridges built should have pedestrian access, it is absolutely absurd to deny the most basic form of transportation. afterall roads and streets are first and foremost public right of ways to access private property. for whatever reason someone may need or desire to walk somewhere, maybe their car breaks down and they need to go to get help. with roads and streets there is always some type of shoulder space but with bridge construction there should at least be a modest shoulder on one side of a bridge to allow one to move reasonably safely (i.e not walking in traffic). the question is to what extent a bridge should accommodate pedestrians.
Poncho wrote: all road bridges built should have pedestrian access, it is absolutely absurd to deny the most basic form of transportation
Most bridges, at least all new ones, are going to have either a shoulder (in a rural area) or a sidewalk or walkway.
afterall roads and streets are first and foremost public right of ways to access private property.
Not necessarily, a freeway does not grant access to private property. Just try building your own driveway. (OK, Union Pacific has some “driveways” off of I-84, but that’s a rare exception.)
with roads and streets there is always some type of shoulder space but with bridge construction there should at least be a modest shoulder on one side of a bridge to allow one to move reasonably safely
Come to my house sometime. There is not a consistent shoulder on my road and I’m within the City of Portland. The white fog line designates the end of pavement and if you drive over it, you’re either in an embankment above the road, or you’re going to meet Barbur Boulevard about fifty feet below you.
If the bridge needs to have at least 3′ shoulders, why not double their functionality and make them functional bike lanes, at least 6′ or 6.5′ wide?
If shoulders weren’t needed, I would, as a cyclists prefer a Hawthorne-bridge-style sidewalk with enough room for cyclists and pedestrians. With the expected number of pedestrians, it might even be acceptable to make the sidewalks somewhere in the range of 12′ to 18′ wide, but only to reduce the overall size and cost of the bridge, not to add vehicle lanes.
As it appears that shoulders are in fact required, why not make them double as large-enough bike lanes?
The vehicle congestion problem would not be solved in any way by adding more lanes, as the bottle neck would simply be moved to either side of the bridge. The real solution to that specific problem would be to look at a bridge in the vicinity of Lake Oswego.
In the aforementioned aspects, along with the second lowest average cost, along with the absence of a closure, D is clearly the best option.
Just FYI, the Downtown Seattle to University of Washington costs $600 million a mile because it is fully tunneled with 2 underground stations (Capital Hill and Husky Stadium)
We have secured the $825 million dollar federal funding and the rest will be covered by the tax payers. The 3.15 mile tunnel will be bored with 3 tunnel boring machines, two which will run Pine Street Tunnel (Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel) to Capital Hill and the third will run from Capital Hill to Husky Stadium.
Since Prop 1 passed, the tunnel boring machine could very well continue onward to Roosevelt Station but that has yet to be determined.