I attended the joint Portland City Council/Metro Council work session on the Columbia River Crossing this morning. It was interesting to watch the two groups interact directly (something that has only happened once before, on the occasion that Portland sold the St. John’s landfill to Metro).
The main topic was intended to be the number of lanes for the bridge, but the conversation covered a lot of territory. The only one to really tip his hand on the lanes issue was Commissioner Leonard who suggested that since the difference in cost between 8 and 12 lanes was relatively small (only $250M!) we should build the 12-lane bridge but stripe it for 8 lanes and change the striping later if needed.
(That strikes me as being analogous to buying a belt 3 sizes too big on the theory that you can “just cinch it in unless you happen to gain 20 pounds.”)
There were at least two elephants in the room:
- The rationale is that any of the bridge scenarios will have less greenhouse gas emissions than the no-build because the increased capacity will eliminate congestion, while tolling prevents induced demand from congesting the new capacity. Missing from the discussion, because it was eliminated earlier in the analysis, was what might happen to congestion and emissions if the same tolling was applied to the existing bridges.
- There was zero mention of freight rail capacity in the corridor.
Some other interesting points that came out in the discussion:
- All configurations increase VMT compared to the no-build. VMT is only reduced if you toll both the I-5 and I-205.
- Transit usage will not be determined by the toll price, because transit ridership will largely be constrained by two factors: the amount of park-and-ride capacity Vancouver will accept without overwhelming its urban form and the amount of feeder bus service that CTRAN will provide.
For me, I think Councilor Carl Hosticka made the most salient points about risks:
- Modeling demand elasticity based on pricing is relatively new and there is risk that at the projected toll rates, induced demand will still occur.
- We may lack the political will to raise or maintain tolls at the necessary level to constrain demand in the future.
- We may lack the political will to maintain land use policy in the future.
Any of these could result in the sprawl scenario that many of us fear…
18 responses to “From the CRC Front Lines”
Isn’t there a way to “auction” the tolls, so that the tolls are set at whatever amount works to get the desired about of traffic over the bridge?
I imagine that if tolls are set by fiat/law, what will happen is that:
1 – Consumers will eventually get “used” to the amount of the toll and it won’t serve as a deterrent to travel.
2 – Aren’t we supposed to be seeing inflation? Like the gas tax, it may become politically impossible to raise the toll later down the line, despite the fact that it’s fallen quite a bit in terms of present dollars.
Isn’t there a way to “auction” the tolls…
Yes, it’s called “dynamic pricing” and the technology exists.
I think the question is whether our politicians would hang tough against the screaming if it turned out that it took an $8 toll rather than a $2 toll to get the volumes/speeds where we want them?
It seems to me that an electronic tolling system could be instantly and automatically responsive to traffic volumes; moving up as much as a few pennies a minute when traffic volumes are growing, and dropping just as quickly when traffic drops off.
At that point, I think it’s pretty easy for any politician to just tell the whiners “hey, WE aren’t setting the rush hour toll rates. That’s just the market at work. You don’t want to pay rush hour rates, arrange your schedule to travel off of peak hours, take transit, carpool, or take a different route.”
After all, the bridge was reduced to one lane each way (IIRC) in 1997 when it was mostly-closed for repairs. And, lo and behold, congestion wasn’t a problem at all. Turns out that when people are motivated to avoid congestion, enough of them can find alternatives that the traffic will flow smoothly.
I’d like to catalog instances where major roadways (highways, freeways, etc) that have been taken offline in major cities (Minneapolis w/ 35, whatever that freeway in SF, etc) and see how traffic reacts. I suspect that in so many instances, there was no traffic disaster and major congestion despite dire predictions.
or the flip side – when have there been any major traffic disasters NOT related to vehicle collisions?
It is important to remember that the congestion on I-5 is peak hour only…or about 10% of total operations. We learned how to manage that in 1997 when the northbound span was closed…massive TDM (Transportation Demand Mangement) created options for commuters who normally drove alone…HOV lanes for carpools and vanpools, more C-Tran service and even commuter rail. There was no congestionthat week.
In many ways the problems on I-5 (as well as 217) are the result of too many on/off ramps and poor arterial connections, forcing trips onto the freeway that otherwise would not be there. Closing substandard on/off ramps is doable when combined with better arterial/frontage road connections, including in the case of the Columbia River, a bridge…light rail combined with local traffic lanes. One would think that downtown Vancouver merchants would love to have a few more local commuter trips past their storefronts. With fewer on/off ramps the existing three thru lanes would do the job; add HOV lanes (freight only in non-peak) and tolls, and we are done.
Any talk/congestion forecasts on roads that occur after the bridge expansion?
How much would a 12 lane bridge saturate other roads?
I’d love for light rail to work, but I just can’t get around the fact that everyone would need to park downtown Vancouver to ride it. Park n’ rides are good to a point, but you do not want to ruin downtown Vancouver in doing so.
Although,some of Portland’s development occurred after the line came in.
Can’t they just leave space for future light rail development? Downtown Vancouver really needs to invest more in good urbanism, like Esther shore area, before light rail becomes remotely viable.
Clearly, the tolling scenarios brought forward exemplifies a dictator like socialistic control mindset. The Columbia River Crossing is a vital link in the I-5 corridor that carries both interstate and international commerce. Currently no tolls exist on I-5 between Canada and Mexico. The bridge itself is both a highway bridge and a local connector. Any new bridge needs to better connect the region together. Using divisive tolls to manipulate motor vehicle travel does just the opposite.
The real elephant in the room is how to pay for the light rail and bicycle infrastructure. “If” tolling does occur, it must be minimal, removed when the bridge is paid for, and to be equitable, tolls or fees MUST be charged to the users of ALL modes of vehicle transport including requiring that bicyclists and transit passengers pay their own way. Any revenue derived from motorist paid tolls must only be applied to pay for the highway part of the crossing.
Some additional statistics that relate to the number of lanes are:
Peak am pm congestion by 2030: 8 lanes 7 to 9 hrs, 10 lanes 5 to 7 hrs, 12 lanes 3.5 to 5.5 hrs.
Projected annual crash rate in the bridge influence area: 8 lanes 300, 10 lanes 240, 12 lanes 200. The current annual crash rate is 750.
Sam is always promoting roadway safety. Therefore he should either walk the talk and support the 12-lane option, or stifle it. Additionally, a wider bridge will not only lower the crash rate, but also significantly reduce congestion and contribute to better traffic flow. Highway safety should not be minimized. The efficiency of placing transit on a lower deck under the highway deck works best with a 12-lane option, but does not work with an 8-lane option. The cost difference between the 12 lane option and the 10 lane option (as identified by a CRC staff member at one of the public workshops) is $100m. If there is a true intent to save money on this project by Sam and others, there needs to be an open discussion about slimming down the excessive 20 foot wide bicycle path, and deleting all the pork barrel spending for recreational bicycle trails that have been attached to this project. Furthermore, an artsy bridge may require a significant amount of maintenance costs in the long term and if so, should be rejected.
Approximately 70 percent of the traffic using the CRC (also as identified by a CRC staff member at one of the public workshops), including trucks, enters or exits I-5 in the bridge influence area, SR500 to Columbia Boulevard. Therefore, it would be cost prohibitive for transit to serve, or well serve, the majority of CRC commuter destinations. Transit ridership will largely depend on the number of commuters either going to downtown Portland (where Max goes), or have a destination within a few blocks of a Max station on the Interstate line. Without an Eastside Connecter that would bypass the snails pace movement of transit through the downtown area, transit ridership from Clark County going farther South will be very constrained.
Terry Parker: “If” tolling does occur, it must be minimal, removed when the bridge is paid for
ws: A bridge is never “paid for”. It is always in need of constant maintenance.
I have a general feeling that you’re trying to get other modes to “pay their way”, but are completely not acknowledging the fact that automobiles do not pay their way in terms of environmental impacts, safety services, and local street improvements which are paid through general tax funds and not solely “user fees”.
Under your definition of “dictator like socialistic control mindset”, do you consider car-pool lanes to fulfill this mindset? Afterall, it’s “telling” people to carpool and limiting one’s freedom of choice to drive by themselves.
The number one reason mass-transit cannot “compete” enough with automobile transit is lack of a free-market regarding transportation.
Bikes and pedestrians have limited externalities and therefor should be exempt from competing directly with cars or mass transit.
Are you saying we should toll pedestrians?
Terry Parker Says:
Clearly, the tolling scenarios brought forward exemplifies a dictator like socialistic control mindset. The Columbia River Crossing is a vital link in the I-5 corridor that carries both interstate and international commerce. Currently no tolls exist on I-5 between Canada and Mexico. The bridge itself is both a highway bridge and a local connector. Any new bridge needs to better connect the region together. Using divisive tolls to manipulate motor vehicle travel does just the opposite.
Terry, you’ve raised this rationale before. The mere fact that no tolls exist on I-5 currently has nothing to do with whether they can or should be imposed in the future. I-5 is no more critical than any other Interstate in the country, and I’ve already provided you (several times) with information about existing tolls on other Interstates.
And you continue to make wild claims about the costs of bicycle infrastructure on the bridge. Any bridge, really, regardless of the reality of the structural requirements for a wide sidewalk. The “elephant in the room” is a mouse.
How much would a 12 lane bridge saturate other roads?
Commissioner Leonard’s suggestion made me think of something: If we decide to have additional lanes, either now or in the future, are we sure that putting them at the existing crossing is the best idea? What about spreading out the congestion that leads to/from a crossing, and possibly making it people don’t have to drive out of the way as much?
So tolling both bridges isn’t really on the table?
Capacity charges aren’t new- they’ve been used in Southern California for nearly a decade, iirc. HOT is a decent way to do that.
I’m still amused you used the term “urban” in the same sentence as “Vancouver”.
So tolling both bridges isn’t really on the table?
No, it can’t be unless we find a reason to replace the Glenn Jackson.
Capacity charges aren’t new- they’ve been used in Southern California for nearly a decade, iirc. HOT is a decent way to do that.
As supplemental lanes, not replacement.
Dave: Lets change those laws.
Dumping 12 lanes of traffic on north Portland arterials is a recipe for disaster with no remedy.
If we must have three thru lanes, I say put them in a tunnel, tear out the old freeway between Columbia Blvd and Mill Plain, and convert the existing bridges to arterials with light rail.
I had a conversation with one of our regular commenters last night (I’ll leave the name out because I didn’t say I was going to blog about it), but one thing came up in the conversation which stood out…
The argument was framed that the debate about the number of lanes was between a “smaller bridge” and a “bigger bridge”. In fact, the debate is about way more than that.
When we talk about 8 lanes or 10 or 12, vs. the current 6, we’re also talking about building a bridge wide enough for 13′ or 14′ lanes plus shoulders on both sides.
If we build an “8 lane” crossing, future generations, should they so choose, can stripe those bridges with lane widths like the current bridges and eliminate shoulders, and get 10 or more lanes.
Worst-case, the CRC DEIS proposes a ROW of 99ft in each direction for the “12 lane” option. If striped with 11′ lanes and one 11′ shoulder in each direction, that’s 16 travel travel lanes. Without shoudlers, that’s 18 travel lanes.
That’s right, using methods similar to the striping of the current bridges, an 18-lane bridge could theoretically be constructed. Now, I don’t think anybody would want to drive at highway speeds on a 9-lane stretch with just 11′ lanes, but even 12′ gets you 16 lanes and a bit of shoulder. 13′ gets you 14 lanes.
The 8-lane proposal roughly doubles the witdth of the structures over what we have today.
So just how big of a bridge are we talking about here?
For me, the choice is not “smaller vs. bigger” (if we even *must* make this choice rather than consider alternatives), it’s “much bigger” vs. “much much bigger”.
Addendum: The DEIS states on page 2-19 that travel lanes will be 12′. With a 99′ ROW, that gets you 13.5′ shoulders on either side.
Probably 12′ shoulders and 18-inch barrier walls on either side. Those are standard interstate dimensions.
Dave: Lets change those laws.
It’s unlikely that would work out too well, as it would need to have national support. As I’ve pointed out before, it would set a precedent for other areas/regions to be able to decide to add tolls to completed facilities.
It would be a great cash cow for CalTrans to toll I-5 across Camp Pendleton in San Diego County, for example, because there are no other routes (without going 50 miles out of your way) between San Diego/Tijuana and Orange County/Los Angeles.
As another example, Memphis could toll access to/from West Memphis to raise money. Colorado could toll I-70 to avoid raising the gas tax.
These facilities are already paid for, like the Glenn Jackson Bridge, so opening the door for one opens it for the others. I doubt you’ll see national support for allowing tolls on existing roads.