Two New CRC Open Houses


The Columbia River Crossing project invites you to attend an open house in December to learn about plans for light rail on Hayden Island and in Vancouver, a replacement bridge, and fixing seven highway interchanges between SR 500 and Columbia Boulevard.

Public comments will help the project make decisions on key issues including the number of lanes on a new I-5 bridge and design of the bridge, light rail and highway improvements.

Two open houses will be held:

Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Open house: 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Hilton Vancouver Washington
301 W. 6th Street
Vancouver, WA 98660

Public transit: C-TRAN #4
More info: www.c-tran.com or 360-695-0123

Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Open house: 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center
2060 North Marine Drive, Hall D
Portland, OR 97217

Public transit: TriMet MAX Yellow Line
More info: www.trimet.org or 503-238-RIDE


25 responses to “Two New CRC Open Houses”

  1. The project is saying they want public input to help them decide how many lanes to build, but just four days ago they were quoted in the Columbian newspaper (link below) as saying one auxiliary lane “is a nonstarter.” So they appear to be saying they want public input to help them decide between 10 and 12 lanes, and they don’t need the independent analyses of induced demand and global warming requested by Portland and Metro before they decide those are the choices. So much for real public input.

    I hope people go to those meetings to demand real public input, real accountability… not to mention fewer lanes.

    http://www.columbian.com/article/20081102/NEWS02/711029960

  2. I-5 bridge panel maps out next areas of concern

    The council should be able to focus its meetings not on hearing informational presentations, but on making decisions, Stuart [Steve Stuart, a Clark County commissioner on the council] said. He also urged all council members to push for federal money and become advocates for the project.

    Inquiring Minds Want to Know

    The cable-stayed bridge is eight lanes wide, 13,200 feet (2.6 miles) long and has a 186-foot clearance over the Cooper River and Charleston Harbor.

    Palmer’s question is this:

    Why did the Cooper River span (which was completed in 2005) cost $700 million …. while the proposed Columbia River Crossing — six lanes wide (with acompanying light rail), less than a mile long and requiring only a 95-foot clearance — is budgeted at $4.2 billion?

    Financing looms large as new bridge panel meets for first time

    “What I don’t want is the Oregon side coming in and thinking, “This is our project,” because it’s not,” Stuart said afterward. “This is a federal project, with bistate implications.”

    SmarterBridge.org needs to be updated. It is out of date.

    I say, if this bridge is truly about “commerce” and “freight” then lets do this:

    1. Make 1 lane in each direction on the EXISTING bridges “freight only”. Commercial vehicles only.
    2. Make 1 lane in each direction on the EXISTING bridges bus/carpool only.
    3. Leave the remaining 3rd lane for auto traffic.

    There, you have solved the “freight” for the region problems.

    But if my proposal is not considered reasonable, then the CRC is not about freight and commerce, but instead actually about moving commuters in and out of SW Washington. If it is actually about moving commuters in and out of SW Washington then it is NOT a bi-state need, and the SW Washington commuters should pay the bulk of the costs.

    As a Portland Resident, I have a need for Freight to move in and out of the region. I don’t really have much need for free-flowing roads to and from Vancouver.

  3. ValkRider: Changing lanes from general purpose to anything else on a federally funded Interstate Highway is illegal under federal law. It’s not that your proposal is just unreasonable, but that there are federal rules in play as to how you can do things, and dedicating 2/3 of existing and paid-for lanes of an Interstate is absolutely not allowed.

    These are not something that is generally flexible in any situation. Changing shoulders into HOV lanes is okay, changing existing lanes is not.

  4. “Changing lanes from general purpose to anything else on a federally funded Interstate Highway is illegal under federal law.”

    Well then, change the law. Or do it anyways, and claim it is to prevent eminent damage to the planet, a la Greenpeace:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/11/british-jury-says-greenpeace-protesters-were-right-to-vandalize-coal-plant/

    “It’s not that your proposal is just unreasonable,”

    It seems pretty reasonable to me too.

    “but that there are federal rules in play as to how you can do things, and dedicating 2/3 of existing and paid-for lanes of an Interstate is absolutely not allowed.”

    There are also laws that say people can’t break down your door, but firefighter do it every day and almost never get charged. Killing people is illegal too, but I don’t see very many coming back from Iraq going to jail. Many times the laws are bent or broken for greater good, and this seems like a good time to do it…

  5. “It’s not that your proposal is just unreasonable,”

    It seems pretty reasonable to me too.

    Try to take it to a vote.

    Killing people is illegal too, but I don’t see very many coming back from Iraq going to jail. Many times the laws are bent or broken for greater good, and this seems like a good time to do it…

    Killing people in some circumstances is legal, and some circumstances illegal. Same idea with manipulating roadway designs to serve only a local purpose with no national interest in mind. Some federally-owned roads can be redesigned on the whim of a community. Other routes (so-called “Interstates”) serve a national purpose. Often it includes connecting urban centers, ports, military installations, and international borders. I-5 and the CRC do that for several of the above, and in the larger scope, all of the above.

    It’s not as simple as getting one tiny exception, downgrading in Interstate to one lane each way means it’s no longer eligible to be an Interstate Highway. This is a precedent I’m not sure most parts of this country will want to set in the next 15-20 years.

    If we replaced the routing with a modern-standards based alternate, we could probably kill off I-5, and in the long run the CRC. Otherwise, it’s pretty much a national issue, and I’m not sure that WA, CA, or OR outside of pockets of Portland will support this idea.

    Replacing I-5 with I-205 is not a precedent that the feds would want to set, since the entire nation technically paid most of the costs of both. It’s not a great investment to start giving back roads that federal money paid for without getting something of significance back.

    I’m not saying I support the CRC, but these laws are in place at a federal level for a reason. I don’t see getting national support for something that very, very few communities really seem to agree with.

  6. 1. Make 1 lane in each direction on the EXISTING bridges “freight only”. Commercial vehicles only.
    2. Make 1 lane in each direction on the EXISTING bridges bus/carpool only.
    3. Leave the remaining 3rd lane for auto traffic.

    There’s another problem with this idea I hadn’t explicitly mentioned, but it’s a safety problem. Which lane is which? Should the GP lane be #3 (to the right, meaning HOV’s and freight would gridlock their lanes to enter/exit), or #1, meaning that they have to cross the HOV and freight lanes, and slow them to merge to the GP lanes?

    Or, do we spend a metric buttload of money rebuilding I-5 so every ramp has three entrances and exits? Maybe I didn’t explain why “unreasonable” means “unreasonable” to me well enough before, but there is a major engineering challenge to solve in this proposal as well as winning people over.

  7. “Replacing I-5 with I-205 is not a precedent that the feds would want to set, since the entire nation technically paid most of the costs of both. It’s not a great investment to start giving back roads that federal money paid for without getting something of significance back.”

    Uhmm, I think you are talking about a different bridge. The one I’m talking about was built about 50 years before the interstate system was even dreamed of, and served horse and buggies and interurban lines. It was paid for by the tolls of the people that crossed it, no federal money paid for it. And more to the point, if we still used that bridge as a local access road, there wouldn’t be a need for a 12 lane one at all, the 12 lanes are only needed to handle the needs of people that want to merge at 65 mph, (while talking on their cell phones, without checking their blind spots.)

  8. Uhmm, I think you are talking about a different bridge.

    Generally the federal government gave credits for sections already built, or at least I’ve been told did for parts of I-90 (NY State Thruway), I-5 (former US-101 upgraded by California), I-4 (across Florida), and I-95 (New Jersey Turnpike).

    Orange County’s toll roads, for example, gave local control, but only to new roads. We would have an easier time getting a surface street built as a federally-funded expressway (no driveways, traffic lights allowed as I mean it) from WA-501 to US-30 than we would reducing capacity of an existing Interstate.

    The easiest solution is to convince Congress to support I-5 “relief routes.” This can be (and has been) done. Maybe we close some Jantzen Beach ramps, build alternate routes (with bi-state support), and show that more people move, we can get funding for more work.

    Otherwise the CRC is maybe delayed, but it won’t be stopped.

    And more to the point, if we still used that bridge as a local access road, there wouldn’t be a need for a 12 lane one at all

    I agree, completely. I’d encourage a surface-grade expressway between Mill Plain and N Portland across the Columbia and Hayden Island. As needed plan for improvements to the rail corridor for future commuter rail to Downtown Portland.

    The problem that we’re finding is this is outside the scope of Federal road finances. Maybe now that Stevens and Shuster are out of the way we might be able to divert funds from an I-5 replacement to a rail improvement/road addition/light rail improvement project that will in the long term help Hayden Island, Downtown Vancouver, Downtown Portland, and N Portland areas in between.

    I understand the concerns of those that are anti-roads, but I hope you can understand I’m a commuter who is not going to trade a 20 minute drive for a 2+ hour bus/MAX/bus/walk route.

    At my average gas use, I buy under 4 gallons of gas a week to drive to and from work, as well as any other driving I do.

    Really, the only way to stop some incarnation of the CRC (which is likely over-priced now to account for overruns that every other project hits, Oregon seems good at over-pricing projects overall) is to provide a good alternative.

    Showing up with infeasible ideas like a GP, a HOV, and a freight lane won’t work. We need some solidarity behind any other option. A kind of hybrid expressway that is a lower/similar cost and would relieve I-5 (with future growth planned for) is the way to make something happen. Not positing ideas that can not be reasonably implemented.

  9. A “hybrid expressway” that would relieve traffic on I-5 would be the route in the BNSF rail corridor. I am not talking about the infamous “Westside Bypass Freeway” by any means, but it makes sense to have some improved highway connections to our fast growing westside, just as I-205, 25 years ago, provided needed connections on the Eastside. There are a number of exisitng routes in Northwest Portland metro area that could connect into a multi-modal bridge, that then connects to the AMTRAK station in Vancouver and then eventually to I-5. Plus we can add mass transit to that, as well. I don’t see any reason the Interstate MAX could not detour less than a mile west and cross on that (new) bridge.

    Compared to other cities in comparable situations —-major city, water barrier, interstate suburban regions—-we are really behind the curve. The CRC taskforce proposal as it stands does practically nothing. Two bridges—-and no prospect for improving rail service in the region—just ain’t enough.

  10. Maybe we should be redefining “reasonable” and “unreasonable”.

    Maybe we should not be using the same planning, thinking, and methodology which got us into this problem in the first place.

    I think it is “unreasonable” to spend 2 to 4 billion dollars so that people can move farther and farther out. The housing crisis, rising energy costs, greenhouse gas emissions, sprawl – why on earth would we want to keep thinking the same old way?

    Metro has been modeling “extreme” scenarios to provide some “what-if” material. In 2035 what happens if we do this or that? You know what the results have been so far? No matter how many freeways we build nothing helps. In fact, not even the massive High Capacity Transit makes a huge difference. But the most amazing thing is that none of the scenarios even get us close to the GHG reductions mandated by both states.

    It is time to think different. To think change. To think outside the box. Pick your cliché.

    But we have over and over and over presented “reasonable” alternatives that don’t spend billions to get the same old results.

    1. Seismically retrofit the existing bridges.
    2. Build a small local traffic bridge to Hayden Island for cars, bikes, peds, and light rail.
    3. Close the I5 exit onto Hayden Island (except for emergency vehicles).
    4. Realign the railroad bridge and shipping channel to better line up with the hump in the Interstate bridges, reducing the need for bridge lifts and increasing the safety of the shipping channel.
    5. Institute HOV lanes at least during peak travel periods, and enhance bus service to/from Vancouver.
    6. Toll with priority for freight.

    Those 6 things are completely reasonable, but cost much much less and can be phased in as funding allows.

    These options have been largely ignored because solving the problems are not the true agenda of the CRC. Building a massive new bridge is what is the agenda of the CRC – whether it is needed or not.

    But the way we have been doing things for 50+ years is not working.

  11. The problem that we’re finding is this is outside the scope of Federal road finances.

    Where did you get that idea? For instance, federal money paid part of the cost of the new bridge to Sauvie Island. There is no barrier to using federal funds for a local bridge between Vancouver and Portland.

  12. John Reingold wrote: I think it is “unreasonable” to spend 2 to 4 billion dollars so that people can move farther and farther out.

    Incidently, how’s that freeway to Banks working out for sprawl? It was widened back in the 1960s; Banks and North Plains (both outside of Metro’s urban planning reach) have not significantly grown (there was one subdivision in Banks that added a hundred homes or so, but within a tightly formed boundary with no room to expand created by Highway 6 to the south and the POTB/P&W Railroads to the east), and even the new Jackson School Road interchange failed to create significant development around the interchange.

    The development around Cornelius Pass Road came about after growth in the Orenco area…which, ironically, was created due to MAX and not the freeway which was already a freeway for over 20 years.

    I fail to see how widening the Interstate Bridge will automatically result in people moving even further away when such highway projects have been done on this side of the river without such a result, even in rural areas within Washington County where Metro has little to no say in the planning.

  13. Ross Williams wrote: federal money paid part of the cost of the new bridge to Sauvie Island. There is no barrier to using federal funds for a local bridge between Vancouver and Portland.

    Sure there is.

    The Sauvie Island Bridge project was replacing an existing bridge, not a new bridge, did not add capacity. So the federal funding likely came from a “modernization” program.

    A new bridge between Vancouver and Portland would by definition create capacity and would be funded out of a different federal program for new highways. The last time I checked, the federal government hasn’t funded a new road in many years unless it was to replace an obsolete stretch of road, and usually that road would have been an Interstate Highway (i.e. I-90 in Idaho).

    Yes, it’s possible to move money from one account to another but it’s not easy – it is often a very long, drawn-out process and isn’t always successful – you can either get your way, or you can very well lose all of your funding and see it reappropriated to another state/project – especially if you don’t have a high ranking Senator/Representative on the committee that makes the final decision.

  14. The Sauvie Island Bridge project was replacing an existing bridge, not a new bridge, did not add capacity. So the federal funding likely came from a “modernization” program.

    “Modernization” is in fact the category for expansion of capacity. Repaving and maintenance are “preservation” in highway-speak.

  15. The last time I checked, the federal government hasn’t funded a new road in many years

    You might have heard of the “bridge to nowhere”? That bridge didn’t replace anything and it was going to be federally funded.

    Closer to home, Roy Rogers Road in Washington County was paid for, in part, with federal funds. There are different “pots” of money – but there are plenty of federal dollars that can be spent on new roads and bridges. And there is absolutely nothing preventing an earmark for a new local bridge rather than a freeway bridge.

    People have to stop making up facts to fit their opinion.

  16. The last time I checked, the federal government hasn’t funded a new road in many years unless it was to replace an obsolete stretch of road

    In San Diego County alone I can name new parts of/improvements to CA-52, CA-54, CA-56, CA-94, CA-125, I-5, I-805, I-15, I-8, as well as future I-905 and future CA-11. Add in pedestrian crossings, Trolley (LRT) expansion, HOT/BRT system expansion, and commuter rail improvements for the full benefits.

    There’s plenty of roadway projects going on with significant federal backing, Portland just hasn’t tried to get any of them. San Diego goes for 1/3 highways, 1/3 local roads (includes some bus-related improvements and smart growth plans as well), and 1/3 transit for their TransNet .5% sales tax measure.

    They get federal funding for almost all projects because they have local matching funds already available. It allows for very fast construction with the assistance of SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments), their version of Metro.

  17. Ross Williams wrote: People have to stop making up facts to fit their opinion.

    That’s right, Ross. So let’s fact-check your statements:

    You might have heard of the “bridge to nowhere”? That bridge didn’t replace anything and it was going to be federally funded.

    Where is this so-called “Bridge” to nowhere? How can I get to it? What roads lead to it? Is there a sidewalk or bike path on this bridge?

    Wait a second…this so-called bridge doesn’t even exist! So there’s a “fact” that was made up to suit an opinion.

    But let’s do some more fact-checking…

    Roy Rogers Road in Washington County was paid for, in part, with federal funds.

    How much federal funds? And how new is this road?

    I looked on Google and this road is about 4.75 miles long. I used to drive this road before it was named Roy Rogers Road, and you know, all but .75 miles of this road existed previous to the rebuild. That’s right, only 3/4s of a mile of brand new road was built – this shortened the overall distance by 1.6 miles (that means a huge decrease in VMT) on a road that was hazardous to drive on, lacked safe bicycle facilities (yes, Roy Rogers Road is a popular route for bikes and even connects to a signed and marked bike route on Scholls Ferry Road!), and there were three intersections that were among Washington County’s most hazardous. Today, there are few if any accidents on this road – and no additional road capacity (other than the new shoulders which make it a much safer route for bikes) was added for motor vehicles…save for a couple of turn lanes.

    Furthermore, much of the land along Roy Rogers Road is undevelopable and federally protected wildlife refuge.

    Speaking of “making up facts to suit one’s opinion”, how’s all that development out on the Sunset Highway that was turned into a freeway in the 1970s? It seems to me, looking at development maps and aerial photography, that most of the development is a bit to the south of the Sunset…mainly in the Orenco area, around a MAX station, which required widening numerous streets for this so-called “transit oriented development”. Until the late 1990s, the Cornelius Pass Road interchange was quite undeveloped…and to this day the Helvetia/Shute and Jackson School Road interchanges are undeveloped; and little development has occurred in North Plains or Banks – despite having a freeway built over 30 years ago, and having a further benefit of being outside of Metro’s land use planning reach.

  18. But let’s do some more fact-checking… How much federal funds?

    Go for it. Go find some facts.

    That’s right, only 3/4s of a mile of brand new road was built

    So what? How long is a new local bridge across the Columbia.

    this shortened the overall distance by 1.6 miles

    A new local bridge would certainly shorten the distance from downtown Vancouver across the river.

    Here is what you said:

    “The last time I checked, the federal government hasn’t funded a new road in many years unless it was to replace an obsolete stretch of road, and usually that road would have been an Interstate Highway (i.e. I-90 in Idaho).”

    A statement which you have now contradicted. Perhaps you should try checking your facts before posting them instead of fact-checking yourself later. The information you provide completely unreliable. If anyone believes the details you posted above they are being foolish. I would bet most of them are correct, but who in their right mind wants to sort through it. Not me.

    The fact is that if the region chose to build a local bridge between Vancouver and Portland, federal funding is just as likely to be available to pay for it as would be to pay for the CRC’s proposed new freeway bridge. Given the political opposition to the CRC bridge, it might even be more likely to get funded.

  19. Where is this so-called “Bridge” to nowhere? How can I get to it? What roads lead to it? Is there a sidewalk or bike path on this bridge?

    Wait a second…this so-called bridge doesn’t even exist! So there’s a “fact” that was made up to suit an opinion.

    It was to connect Ketchikan, AK to Gravina Island, where their airport is. The bridge might not be built, but about $25 mil of the funding allocated for it (that was later redirected) DID go to building the approach roads for the unbuilt bridge.

    $25 million, for a road nobody uses, paid for by federal tax dollars.

    Don’t believe it? Here’s one article among many:

    http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/sarah-palin-said-yes-thanks-to-a-road-to-nowhere-in-alaska/

  20. I fail to see how widening the Interstate Bridge will automatically result in people moving even further away when such highway projects have been done on this side of the river without such a result, even in rural areas within Washington County where Metro has little to no say in the planning.

    Banks and North Plains have Urban Growth Boundaries, rural Washington County has a lot of Exclusive Farm Use zoning. Not so much in Clark County. The undeveloped stretches of the Tualatin Valley out along the Sunset Highway are not an accident, they are a result of Oregon land use laws.

  21. The development around Cornelius Pass Road came about after growth in the Orenco area…which, ironically, was created due to MAX and not the freeway which was already a freeway for over 20 years.

    So the massive expansion (post MAX) of 26 from the tunnel, over Sylvan hill, across the interchange with OR 8, and out to 217 had nothing to do with that growth?

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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