“Bright Lights” Focus on New Willamette River Bridge


For its next leg of light-rail, TriMet is proposing what will be downtown’s first new river bridge in 35 years–and the nation’s first-ever transit/pedestrian/bicycle bridge. It’s a trophy in the making to add to Portland’s ever-growing mantel of green alt-transport innovations.

But, not surprisingly, a debate is emerging over cost and aesthetics. So for the first Bright Lights city design discussion of the new year, we’ve invited the project’s designer, Boston-based architect Miguel Rosales. He’s trying to create a beautiful bridge TriMet can afford.

Presented by Portland Spaces magazine and the City Club of Portland–and sponsored by the Architecture Foundation of Oregon–the Bright Lights series features conversations with the designers, planners, elected officials, and other movers and shakers affecting the city. The discussions take place every second Monday of the month at Jimmy Mak’s, 221 NW 10th Ave.

Rosales has designed such sublimely elegant bridges as the Puente Centenario over the Panama Canal and the Zakim Bridge in Boston. Over the past six months, in collaboration with German engineering firm Schlaich Bergermann and Partners, he has studied a dozen types of bridges for TriMet and the Willamette River Transit Bridge Advisory Committee. The final two contenders could not be more different: a cable-stay bridge with towers reaching 270 feet high and a wave bridge that echoes the surrounding hills with an undulating open-web truss pattern. A more standard bridge, the cable-stay is estimated to cost between $89 million and $93 million. The wave bridge, which has never been built before, could run from $93 million to $119 million.

At Bright Lights, Rosales will speak about the merits and risks of each design, as well as his own career in bridge design. In particular, he will address the challenges of designing unique structures like the wave bridge. The Guatemalan-born, MIT-educated Rosales has led the design of more than 15 major bridges, including the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge in Washington, DC, and the Liberty Bridge in Greenville, South Carolina.

Doors open at 5:00 p.m. Presentation begins at 5:30 p.m.


20 responses to ““Bright Lights” Focus on New Willamette River Bridge”

  1. Although I personally do not like the design of the cable strayed bridge, plus the towers will block views and the cost of long term maintenance is questionable, the “design” issue that deserves the most attention is the clearance as it applies to river traffic. To maintain the Willamette as a viable transportation corridor for the future, no bridge should be built that has pillars that impede river traffic, or that has a passable height clearance for river traffic that is less than the bridges on both sides Furthermore, since this is a special interest bridge rather than one that also carries general motor vehicle traffic and freight, the cost for whatever design is chosen needs to be paid for by just the users.

  2. Since public schools are for kids 18-and under, should the cost be paid solely by that “special interest” group?

  3. On one hand, we’ve got a bridge that doesn’t really fit with its surrounding environment. The other one blends beautifully with the surrounding landscape, all while saying that Portland is willing to be first at something different. I’m just saying.

  4. As I’ve said in the past: this bridge should be open to private cars on a toll basis — at least if sound economic projections show that tolling will pay for the bridge. (This is based on the concept that there will be high demand for a SoWa to Eastside shortcut that avoids the probable traffic bottlenecks at the north and south ends of the district, and skips the circuitous approaches to the Hawthorne and Ross Island Bridges.)

    Use variable tolls to control demand at peak hours, and traffic lights at each end to clear the bridge for forty seconds every six minutes (or less often off peak hours) to give light rail a clear crossing. Buses and streetcar can travel with the cars. Result: a bridge we can afford. And maybe we can even make it pretty.

  5. i’m sorry but no motorist is going to pay a toll on just this one bridge when there are numerous free parallel crossings within a mile of this bridge.

    having autos and trucks on this bridge will require a different design to accommidate the extra capacity and the functional differences of auto traffic, for transit-only it only needs a lane in each direction.

    i want the best design possible for this bridge, but i just cant see spending a good deal more money just to get an experimental design for a bridge, and btw i’m not even sure experimental bridge design is a good thing. what is most important is to get a bridge that works and has the least risk of having problems. being the first of its kind, the cost could very likely go up even further than projected.

  6. Will there be any discussion of “beautifying” the other two-thirds of TriMet’s transit service – from attractive buses, to redesigned, “gathering places” as bus stops?

    Or does soliciting community input and bringing in architechural experts for making transit attractive only count for light rail projects — because nobody gives a damn about a bus stop? Why is TriMet not holding meetings to discuss the “Future of the Bus Stop” and the “Future of the Bus”?

  7. i’m sorry but no motorist is going to pay a toll on just this one bridge when there are numerous free parallel crossings within a mile of this bridge.

    No motorist except all the ones who will. A common criticism of the South Waterfront project is that there are only two access points: north end and south end. Everything coming in the north end will have to come through Moody; everything at the south end through Macadam. This will lead to significant congestion once the area is built out, with residents trying to get out to their jobs and employees or OHSU students trying to get to work.

    Take a good look at the maps. Anyone coming or going from the east side will have a choice. Pay a dollar or two for a shortcut to trim fifteen minutes off the trip or sit in traffic and fume. Not everyone will want to pay the toll, and they’ll have options. Me, I’d look at what the price was, weigh it against time saved, and decide how much it’s worth to me to skip the traffic jam.

    So, yeah. People will pay the toll. Not the people traveling from any random place on the east side to any random place on the west side, because they wouldn’t want to go through SoWa anyway. But as one of only three gateways into the area … it’ll be pretty valuable corridor after SoWa builds out. And anyone who can afford one of those waterfront condos won’t flinch at paying a couple of bucks for a low-traffic shortcut in and out of there.

    All Tri-Met needs to do is build a rail + bus bridge and open it to a limited number of motorists, and the bridge will be self-funding. Maybe. Like I said, they’d need solid, credible numbers.

  8. Why is TriMet not holding meetings to discuss the “Future of the Bus Stop”

    They did, with respect to the transit mall project, at least a dozen. I went to many of them.

    But the topic here is the specifically the bridge, let’s keep it that way.

  9. Oh phooey! The motor vehicle access to SoWa argument makes sense, but the drawbacks to making the bridge accessable to motorists includes the effect (affect? I get these two mixed up) of creating a motorist corridor through the OMSI area and SoWa. Something to think about. If an ideal access to OMSI can be maintained with transit, why encourage motorists? Yeah, I said Phooey!

  10. I did not realize “funding public schools” was a topic to be discussed under this thread.

    It’s not.

    I wasn’t discussing public schools, I was presenting a counter-example by way of analogy to your “special interest bridge” remark about how the bridge must be paid for by users. I’m still talking about bridge funding.

    If you don’t want to defend your position about bridge funding, that’s fine, but argument-by-analogy is not the same as being off-topic. I had assumed you would know the difference.

  11. Bob R. Says:

    “Since public schools are for kids 18-and under, should the cost be paid solely by that “special interest” group?”

    Since you wish to use that analogy, why not?

  12. Since you wish to use that analogy, why not?

    Thanks for taking up the argument… my view would be that because an educated populace benefits society as a whole in many ways, it is to society’s benefit to have everyone pay into the school system, rather than charging children or their parents directly for full tuition.

    Now if a bridge provides benefits to the whole region, it could be suggested that even those who do not directly use the bridge can chip in. However, whether or not the level of benefit warrants payment by non-users is certainly up for debate, as it is with the CRC as well.

    The point is that one can’t just argue that expensive public facilities MUST be paid for by ONLY the users in all cases, there are plenty of gray areas and points of view.

    As soon as a person advocates for community-wide funding of a particular program, it opens the door for discussion of other programs as well.

  13. Bob R. Says:

    The point is that one can’t just argue that expensive public facilities MUST be paid for by ONLY the users in all cases, there are plenty of gray areas and points of view.

    I’d argue that we never build expensive public facilities with fees from only the users — except in rare cases like bridges paid for by tolls. (And of course you get the abusive instances like the Bay Bridge, where tolls were gathered long after the bridge had been paid for, even after the community had been promised this would not happen.)

    Why highways, bridges, tunnels or public transit should be any different than the rest of our public construction is beyond me.

  14. Bob R. wrote: But the topic here is the specifically the bridge, let’s keep it that way.

    OK, I’ll rephrase my question.

    Since TriMet refuses to spend money to improve the aesthetics of bus service, then why does TriMet allow additional money – money which does not improve or increase transit service – towards a rail-based project?

    I see no reason why this bridge needs to be more than a flat concrete slab. So what if it is ugly – TriMet is not the “Department of Art and Culture”. Just as TriMet claims that the purchase of hybrid buses are too expense and doesn’t provide meaningful benefit; the purchase of an artistic bridge provides no meaningful benefit to transit users. The lowest cost bridge design should be the only consideration.

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/225/493880918_adc1e46808.jpg

    http://www.soundtransit.org/Images/newsroom/releases/Duwamish-cantileverLG.jpg

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2714728103_670b194850.jpg?v=0

    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/8350233.jpg

  15. The motor vehicle access to SoWa argument makes sense, but the drawbacks to making the bridge accessable to motorists includes the effect (affect? I get these two mixed up) of creating a motorist corridor through the OMSI area and SoWa. Something to think about.

    “Effect.” (Since you sort of asked.) Part of the point of putting variable tolls on the bridge would be to minimize the use of the bridge by “through” traffic at all times of day. With rare exceptions, most people going “through” the area would use the Marquam, Hawthorne or Ross Island bridge, depending on their origin and destination. There would be no reason to brave the bottlenecks getting into SoWa in order to use a toll bridge, not when there are multiple toll-free options available. Seriously: auto use of the bridge would be largely traffic going to or from SoWa –and not much else.

  16. Bob said: “Now if a bridge provides benefits to the whole region, it could be suggested that even those who do not directly use the bridge can chip in. However, whether or not the level of benefit warrants payment by non-users is certainly up for debate, as it is with the CRC as well.”

    Bob – You make a good case, strike that, a great case for directly taxing bicyclists and adding a road tax to transit fares, to not only pay for specialized infrastructure (including on the CRC), but to help pay for the roads that benefit the commerce and freight mobility of the entire region. The primary benefit to this bridge however will be to the people to use it, and so far is has not been proposed they financially chip in anything.

  17. [Terry] wrote: The primary benefit to this bridge however will be to the people to use it, and so far is has not been proposed they financially chip in anything.

    I would say that a hefty state income tax & property tax is chipping in. Where do you think all of the infrastructure costs for your car come from? I’m pretty sure registration & liscensing fees don’t cover that. I’m also not a firm believer that people that drive cars benefit commerce anymore than those that don’t. Think of all the future commerce potential opening the lower eastside to the streetcar will create.

    [Moderator: Attribution corrected.]

  18. Brandon – Income taxes and property taxes do not pay for roads and bridges. The head of PDOT even said that at an infrastructure form a few weeks back. The only exception is in urban renewal districts where tax increment funding pays for transportation infrastructure of all kinds.

Leave a Reply to Terry Parker Cancel reply

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