45 responses to “Bridge Shopping Network Hits the Air”
I doubt this guy, or anyone else who is “rallying” against the 12-lane proposal has any type of formal education in civil engineering.
The number one goal of this project is to get light rail over the state line.
The secondary goal of this project is to ‘pilot’ congestion pricing on an interstate corridor.
The third and most distant goal of this project is to ease up the bottleneck caused from having so many interchanges in such a short distance.
This project DOES NOT add any new through capacity what-so-ever. We have 6 lanes now, we will have 6 lanes when its done. The ONLY purpose of the additional 6 lanes is a complicated maze of add/drop lanes necessary for the number of interchanges in the area.
We could save over a billion dollars just by eliminating light rail from the project.
There’s definitely a bit of BS involved in this, like the ticker at the bottom.
Making amends for not building the Mt. Hood Fwy.
What does a freeway serving SE Portland have to do with a bridge between two states? Other than being a roadway, very little. The CRC includes LRT (which the MHF did not), and is on an existing freeway alignment (which the MHF was not). It’s effective at making an emotional argument, but the CRC has nothing to do with the MHF.
12 full size lanes of driving excitement.
Yes, having narrow lanes only increases accident rates, increases congestion, and thus air-pollution. Why mention full size? Why would we want undersized lanes for the amount being invested in the project?
Why should LA have all the fun?
Do they mean investing heavily in rail transit while ignoring congestion on roadways, and ignoring their bus system until a court order mandated them to invest in buses again?
Can be seen from space.
Ummmm, so? What does this have to do with anything? The creators of this might want to read up on this Space.com article about what’s visible from space. With enough magnification, almost anything is visible from space.
The MOTHER of all bridges.
What is this referring to? It’s not that massive of a bridge. There are longer bridges, wider bridges, and taller bridges than the CRC is proposed to be. Oh, it’s just another scare-tactic.
I think the CRC is unneeded at this time, but this is an easy way to make me also dismiss most of the opposition as being lying wackos rather than honestly working towards a better solution. BS propaganda like this usually often seems to drive away those who aren’t extremists.
I doubt this guy, or anyone else who is “rallying” against the 12-lane proposal has any type of formal education in civil engineering.
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. . . . . .
This project DOES NOT add any new through capacity what-so-ever.
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls.
. . .
I doubt this guy, or anyone else who is “rallying” against the 12-lane proposal has any type of formal education in civil engineering.
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. . . . . .
That’s the type of BS propaganda that I was talking about. There’s no substance. (Once you convince yourself the universe falls into place…)
Form a full argument that includes a new BNSF bridge or some other solution, instead of a flat-out 3 year old no. I’m not in favor of the CRC, but the childish antics of many of those opposed are starting to dissuade me from caring.
Dave’s a sincere contributor to this forum; calling him a “troll” is inappropriate–no matter whether you agree with him or not.
While this video is moderately humorous, it mainly preaches to the choir. If you’re not part of the anti-car crowd, this video does little to convince you why the CRC as proposed is a bad idea.
Great job Joe! Keep it up.
Spending $4 Billion plus to save a relative handful of commuters a few minutes per day is simply absurd. The bridges are fine 90% of the tiem.
Suggesting that a massive capacity increase can be managed by an advisory council is simply dreaming; its a not very funny joke.
Why not manage what we have? ’97 showed us how.
“Do they mean investing heavily in rail transit while ignoring congestion on roadways, and ignoring their bus system until a court order mandated them to invest in buses again?”
I’d just like to point out that Wednesday I saw a brand new, shiny 2900-series bus in revenue service downtown.
*** Please note that this entire post contains my personal opinion as a transit rider throughout. ***
I’ll point out that TriMet could’ve spent even part of the stimulus money on even more new buses. Instead, they’re spending it on pork and a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with moving people from point A to point B on a motor vehicle (please note that I realize someone can argue that new bus stop signs and downtown transit tracker displays supposedly directly benefit riders, but I still think it’s pathetic that middle school kids are riding TriMet buses to school that are almost twice as old as they are): http://trimet.org/openhouse/stimulusprojects.htm
I’d just like to point out that Wednesday I saw a brand new, shiny 2900-series bus in revenue service downtown.
And, I’ll point out that C-TRAN has had even shinier buses running downtown for a year now.
Excellent. But the CRC “dims” in comparison to the waste and abuse of taxpayer money for the I-5 to 99W CONNECTOR between Wilsonville and Sherwood. Get a load of this — almost one billion dollars for a mere 3500 trip increase (pm-peak hour) between I-5 and 99W. What is this garbage. Are the asphalt and bridge contractors now getting the next BAILOUT?
What’s ironic is that the same arguments can be equally applied to any of TriMet’s rail projects – WES ought to be a shining example.
Lenny’s argument, Why not manage what we have? ’97 showed us how. nails it right on the head. We have a bus system that is failing. Why not manage what we have? The fact that our region got a bunch of stimulus funding – and of that, less than $250,000 of that directly went to bus riders.
Bicyclists got more money from TriMet than bus riders did.
And non-existant Streetcar riders in the Eastside, an area that isn’t even developed, got $75 million.
By the way, what about that “everything but automobile” bridge over the Willamette River – a completely unneeded, unnecessary bridge from nowhere to nowhere? It’s just as wasteful as the CRC.
The CRC bridges we have are well past useful and safe life. We use this crossing for moving most of what we buy from food to nike shoes , from Mexico to Canada. Try not to get hung up on commuters , as
the visitors who fill our hotels and restaurants often drive here over this bridge crossing. Let’s build the coolest 21st cent Park – Covered Green Gateway to the Northwest!
Tri-Met’s light rail cars are older than the buses. You keep saying that the bus service is underfunded, particularly in far off areas like the Eastside; but are not willing to admit it is more costly to run bus service in less dense areas as it is in denser parts of Portland.
Busses and trains are long-life capital assets; expensive to buy, and designed to be in service for decades. There seems to be this belief that Tri-Met should by a new bus (and retire an old one) every time some other transit agency buys a new bus, or every time Tri-Met buys a new rail vehicle.
While new busses and trains are almost certainly nicer than older ones; it would be a waste of money to scrap perfectly functional vehicles.
Regarding the new transit bridge–if we’re going to build the “Orange Line” (I know it won’t be called that when it opens), it is needed if MAX is to have a southern crossing–none of the existing bridges are suitable for MAX trains. The Hawthorne and Sellwood aren’t structurally strong enough, and the Marquam and the Ross Island are highway bridges whose current use isn’t compatible with rail of any sort.
Busses and trains are long-life capital assets; expensive to buy, and designed to be in service for decades
Trains do indeed last for decades (the 20-year old original MAX cars are actually currently being overhauled because they still have life on them), but buses do not. It is generally understood that buses have a lifespan of around 10-20 years; the FTA fully depreciates a bus at 12.
Maybe we should also upgrade all the freeways in the Portland area to 12 lanes too? I’m not so sure this bridge is really going to magically fix all of the rush hour congestion if the road narrows back down right to 4 or 6 lanes after crossing the bridge.
Trolley buses also last a long time. Seattle retired their 1/4 century old AM General 900’s but kept the guts for their replacements. San Francisco MUNI vintage 1976/7 Flyers lasted about 27 years.
Trolley buses would be a wonderful fit for the 8 Jackson Park and other relatively short, low speed, high density routes.
ws wrote: Tri-Met’s light rail cars are older than the buses. You keep saying that the bus service is underfunded, particularly in far off areas like the Eastside; but are not willing to admit it is more costly to run bus service in less dense areas as it is in denser parts of Portland.
So what? I didn’t deny the buses are newer.
BUT: The light rail fleet (the 100 series) are being completely rehabbed from the frame up. Buses are never, EVER subjected to such a rebuild. In addition the 100 series LRV fleet had air conditioning retrofitted to it (the 1400-1900 series buses lack A/C which is considered by most transit agencies a REQUIREMENT) and the 100 series operates in conjunction with a 200/300/400 series car which provides low-floor access.
I don’t see you acknowledging THOSE facts of life.
I keep saying bus service is underfunded – yes. MAX and Streetcar get far, far more capital dollars than the bus ever will; in one budget year (I believe it was 2007) MAX got $10 capital dollars for every $1 capital dollar bus got.
And as for the operating costs, there are ways to deal with that. But what does that have to do with building a bridge to nowhere? Oh, wait, I forgot, off-topic rants were permissable when addressed to me, but when I bring them up then they aren’t, so I might as well address them.
Bus is expensive when there are fewer boardings per ride. Fine. I admit it. I know it. But why does TriMet continue to run a bus to Boring that makes absolutely no sense? Why doesn’t TriMet look for ways to cut costs on the lower density routes – i.e. smaller (more fuel efficient, less expensive operator) buses?
Meanwhile, MAX runs pretty darn empty west of Willow Creek and east of Gateway (in the SUBURBAN areas of Portland — and yet I don’t see the Light Rail supporters calling on TriMet to stop providing light rail service to the suburbs…
EngineerScotty wrote: he Hawthorne and Sellwood aren’t structurally strong enough, and the Marquam and the Ross Island are highway bridges whose current use isn’t compatible with rail of any sort.
It was a big huge deal that when the Hawthorne Bridge was rehabbed back in the late 1990s that it would be built to accommodate light rail. There is no good reason why it can’t be used today – after all we’d be recycling existing infrastructure instead of building a massive new bridge requiring concrete, environmental impacts in the right…and of course the Hawthorne Bridge is already painted green.
A light rail deck could be easily built below the Marquam Bridge using the existing supports/piers but at a much lower level. More construction than using the Hawthorne but less than a totally brand new bridge.
The Sellwood…well it’s too far south to be useful for light rail.
A key part of “managing” crowded roadways is building reasonable alternatives for commuters like light rail, good bike/ped facilities, better bus connections and commuter rail.
re freight, the I-5 bridges are fine 90% of the time so freight move without much problem. I saw a full log truck on I-5 at the Rose Quarter the other day just barrelling along. No problem, and if there is? try the I-205 “bypass.”
The I-5 bridges are in good shape, not even on the State’s at risk list, and can be upgraded to current earthquake standards for less money than it would take to tear them down.
Substandard on/off ramps are responsible for many incidents that degrade operations…they can be closed in the peak hours. Again, management is the answer.
MAX got $10 capital dollars for every $1 capital dollar bus got.
Did that include money to build an extension, such as the Green Line? Projects like that are unusual one-time-only things and are expected to last for decades.
less expensive operator
Would the union agree to that? If not, the idea is worthless. But honestly, one idea would be to expand Sandy’s system to take over service to Boring and Kelso (the Kelso trips actually were the ones that went to Sandy). Also, TriMet does have and use some smaller, 30-foot buses.
You’re wrong and don’t appear to know anything about traffic engineering or planning.
It’s not “managing” you are advocating. Quite the contrary.
A key part of “ignoring” crowded roadways is a disproportionate and irrational emphasis on building extensive alternatives for a small fraction of commuters who use light rail, bike/ped facilities, bus and commuter rail.
This “alternative” for the few approach is not a viable substitute for needs of the many who use the crowded roadways.
I don’t know where you get the idea that it is. The small percentage of commuters who use these alternatives will not grow any more than the last 20 years showed. The share didn’t even keep pace with population.
So how is building billions more in rail transit and ped/bike/bus/rail going to “manage” crowded roadways?
It isn’t. We could spend another 5 Billion on light rail expansion and still less than 1% of commuters would be using it when done.
Yet it appears you would like to see only these and no road expansion.
That’s some management technique.
Actually, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey already shows transit ridership significantly higher than your “less than 1%” figure.
For the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes areas not served by transit at all, and areas served relatively poorly by transit, the commute share of trips (not counting non-commute trips) was 6.2% in the 2005-2007 result set.
Given that light rail accounts for roughly 1/3 of transit boardings (not counting C-Tran, and not counting the Portland Streetcar), that puts light rail’s involvement at over 2%. Not a huge number, but even accounting for more than the survey’s margin of error, more than double your “less than 1%” predicted future share.
Furthermore, there is no need to artificially segregate rail boardings from all transit boardings. Many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. It is far more appropriate to look at transit mode share as a whole.
Finally, looking at the survey, if you add up “other means” (which includes bicycles), walking, work-at-home, transit, and car/vanpooling… that’s over 28% of all commute trips, a significantly large minority. Thus, management of the bridges, as Lenny is correct to suggest, can have significant positive outcomes without major capital investment, even if you leave rail to Vancouver completely out of the mix.
Before you go insulting our commenters with thinly disguised insults like “You’re wrong and don’t appear to know anything…”, it would be best to review the actual statistics.
You are perfectly entitled to the view that transit/bike/ped/carpool investments aren’t worth the effort, but you that doesn’t make it right to downplay today’s actual numbers and to insult those who think that better management of our transportation resources can lead to improved numbers.
Let me add to Lenny’s point: congestion pricing could go a long way to solve our peak-hour problems. We’ve got a system that’s completely adequate 90% of the time. Why spend $4 billion to push that up to 95% when we could get similar or better results with a tolling system that generates revenue instead of consuming it?
It appears you are deliberately trying to manipulate what I said?
Is that appropriate?
Less than 1% of commuters use light rail. Now if you want to respond to that do so. But it’s not OK for you to simply change what I said.
I see you are once again using the “boardings” number in place of riders.
That too is not OK Bob.
But never the less the very few commuters who use light rail, (less than 1% or slightly over 1% is meaningless) makes it a failure as substitute for the many who need roadways.
Apparently you are in favor of spending Billions more to double to the light rail ridership to a paltry 2 or 3%?
While ignoring the roadways of course.
Yeah many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. And every time they are probably counted as another rider.
That’s how you get to the meaningless 28% of all [Portland] commute trips.
And with the bulk of them in close proximity to the core and having nothing to do with the greater commuting and commerce problems
the significance is NOT what you peddle and wish it to be.
I’ll say again Lenny is not advocating “management”of the bridges at all. His long held aversion to roadways discounts his contributions.
Time and time again Lenny has chimed in on other choke points around the region without any knowledge of their circumstances.
Each and every time his “management” involves the prohibition of added roadway and bridge capacity.
Likewise, youself and others do the same.
So Lenny is not correct. Pointing it out is far less insulting than his and your embellishing of alternatives at the cost of real roadway management. And there is no thin disguise as you imagined.
Keeping rail to Vancouver and Milwaukie completely out of the mix is the only sensible thing to do if we are in a genuine pursuit of traffic engineering and authentic bridge and roadway management.
Your summary that my view is that “transit/bike/ped/carpool investments aren’t worth the effort” is another contrived manipulation.
They have their usefulness and are a reasonable part of the system. Billions on light rail and fantasy commuter rail are a huge waste of money which diminishes the function of all other modes.
Better management of our transportation resources does not mean repeating the last 30 years.
Your insistence that we do, flies in the face of the track record we have witnessed.
If you are hypersensitive to these harsh realities I apologise for your perceiving this as insulting.
Jason and Erik claim that Tri-Met is not spending any of the stimulus package (or, not more than $250k) on buses. Yet, at the bottom of the .pdf file at the link that Jason provided, it clearly states that Tri-Met is actually spending $5 MILLION of the stimulus package on NEW BUSES. That’s not insignificant!
The rest of the stimulus package seems like a pragmatic collection of “shovel-ready” projects, like new heated switches and covered catenary lines to prevent ice buildup, that are just good, necessary expenditures and a wise investment in the future of the system.
“Apparently you are in favor of spending Billions more to double to the light rail ridership to a paltry 2 or 3%?
While ignoring the roadways of course.”
Ignoring the roadways. I can’t understand how people continue to make that statement with a straight face. I-5 is being widened about a mile south of the river RIGHT NOW.
It appears you are deliberately trying to manipulate what I said?
Nope.
Is that appropriate?
Not happening.
Less than 1% of commuters use light rail.
Not true. Unless by that statement you mean to make it so watered-down to include areas which don’t have light rail at all. I wouldn’t expect areas which have no light rail to be used in a comparison of how many people actually choose to use light rail, would you?
I was about as generous to your statement as anyone reasonably could be.
Yeah many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. And every time they are probably counted as another rider. That’s how you get to the meaningless 28% of all [Portland] commute trips.
No, John. I provided a link to the survey results. These are census numbers, and the methodology is published. You don’t have to guess about how things are “probably counted”, you can go to the Census Bureau’s publications.
The bus purchases listed at the bottom of the PDF are in a separate category of potential “alternative” projects. As far as I know, there is no commitment to proceed at this time. That’s why I didn’t include those in the bullet points I listed in my earlier comment.
Not only is there NO COMMITMENT to buy buses, but Fred Hansen is ON RECORD that no new buses will be purchased for the next two to three fiscal years (once the 2900s are delivered).
The only commitment as listed on TriMet’s own document for bus rider improvement is $250K for Transit Tracker signs at cross-mall bus stops. The rest of the “bus” “improvements” are non-revenue, non-public, non-rider facilities improvements.
Jason McHuff wrote: Projects like that are unusual one-time-only things and are expected to last for decades.
Yes, but once TriMet is done with one MAX project, it starts another. Once the Red Line was done, the Yellow Line began construction. When the Yellow Line was done, the Green Line started (along with WES). Once the Green Line is done, the Milwaukie Line will start. There is MAYBE a one year gap, but TriMet still budgets extensive amounts of money for Capital Planning to plan these projects.
Also, TriMet does have and use some smaller, 30-foot buses.
The vast majority of the sub-30s were retired (because the particular model of bus had a tendency to catch on fire; I believe two or three of the fleet was written off due to fire). The remaining 2400s are used for the Washington Park Shuttle (I believe only three buses) and thus are in storage for much of the year.
Cherriots and C-Tran both use a different model of sub-30 that have proven successful and popular with riders in those cities. Chicago’s CTA and Salt Lake City’s UTA also extensively use sub-30s (I believe the same model that C-Tran uses) and have proven popular. TriMet continues to believe in their “one-size-fits-all” approach to bus service which is not duplicated by any other transit agency in TriMet’s class.
Bob R doesn’t understand stats. The “non-commute” (he really means non journey to work) is 70% of the trips.
Lenny doesn’t even make an attempt at trying to get information. The old span will have to be replaced or completely overhauled.That “handful” of commuters he is willing to disadvantage is more than the entire number of people on rail transit in the metro area. He should multiply the vehicle bridge count by 1.3. Further, rail doesn’t bring goods and services.
How dare Lenny bring up costs. All of the money would come from gas taxes to the feds and to the states as well as tolls. Transit fares pay nothing towards capital costs and only 20% of the Tri Met operating revenue (2008 audit).
The I-5 bridges are in good shape, not even on the State’s at risk list, and can be upgraded to current earthquake standards for less money than it would take to tear them down.
Are you sure about that? I remember seeing figures — although I can’t recall where — that said upgrading the bridges to current standards would be a bit more expensive than removing them. I haven’t been able to find those numbers again. Does anyone else have them?
Of course, even if it were to cost twice as much to upgrade the existing bridges as to remove them, it’s still worth doing. Assuming that the new bridge is built, saving the old bridges would give us a ready-made light-rail crossing with two arterial traffic lanes and a decent bikeway.
Bob R doesn’t understand stats. The “non-commute” (he really means non journey to work) is 70% of the trips.
What on earth are you referring to?
Here’s the table I was using to from the link that I posted:
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over
1,037,957
+/-5,432
Car, truck, or van – drove alone
72.0%
+/-0.5
Car, truck, or van – carpooled
10.8%
+/-0.3
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
6.2%
+/-0.3
Walked
3.1%
+/-0.2
Other means
2.4%
+/-0.2
Worked at home
5.6%
+/-0.2
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
24.6
+/-0.2
Your original assertion was “We could spend another 5 Billion on light rail expansion and still less than 1% of commuters would be using it when done.” To arrive at my response, I used census figures related to commute trips. Entirely appropriate. Who doesn’t understand statistics?
“The CRC bridges we have are well past useful and safe life”
The older of the two structures goes back to 1918. The well used Brooklyn bridge in New York City was opened in 1883. Is there any move to tear that down? There is a similar bridge in Cincinatti that is a decade older than that.
I’m skeptical of “seismic upgrades.” I’ve seen many in my construction experience that didn’t have a prayer of holding up a building in a strong earthquake. I am not saying that there haven’t been improvements in seismic engineering—we’ve definitely come a long way from the days of unreinforced masonry. Yet to be able to predict how a structure will hold up in a serious quake is very difficult to do. And the more massive the structure is—remember, the CRC proposal is several times larger than the existing bridges—the more variables enter into the equation. A more massive structure will have greater inertial forces upon it.
First of all the Portland area is in a significantly lower hazard zone than our other Pacific Rim neighbors–notably San Francisco and Seattle. True, we have a sedimentary base that is susceptible to liquefaction, but we don’t have the numeric incidence of large quakes that these other regions have. The Portland area has never had a quake greater than 6.7. And they don’t happen very frequently. I would like to see any evidence that Portland’s bridges or even the historic, unreinforced structures on the Old Columbia River highway have ever had seismic damage.
The dreaded Cascadian Subduction earthquake occurs from 300 to 800 years apart. And there is a broad swath of territory, from the center of the Coast Range to one hundred miles offshore and in a 1200 mile span, where the epicenter could be. The more likely damage in the Portland area would be from flooding.
The biggest problem with the current I-5 bridges is that there is only one other alternative for regional traffic—that’s I-205. Comparable cities typically have two or three times the crossings that we have. The river navigation is a problem, but this would be resolved when the current railroad bridge is replaced with a modern span that eliminates the preponderance of concrete piers that now pose an obstacle course. Having another crossing would be a safety valve for the present traffic congestion, it would reduce area VMT, and get the traffic on I-5 moving at a tolerable rate.
I would like to see any evidence that Portland’s bridges or even the historic, unreinforced structures on the Old Columbia River highway have ever had seismic damage.
This area has hardly been watched in the long-term scale. It’s been about 200 years since Lewis and Clark first wandered by. 200 years? I can look out my window and see trees that are older.
I was in an older building in San Diego during a near 4.5, and the damage was more than I expected. The walls were cracked, the building leaned, and made some bad noises. I wouldn’t want to try a 9.0 in Portland today. Especially on the Interstate Bridge.
And the Columbia River Highway was only started on 95 years ago. I’ve lived in several houses older than that on the east coast. I’ve had Europeans laugh at me for referring to my place as a historic building. It was a pre-Civil War carriage house in Buffalo that I rented. And it felt like it was about to collapse at any moment.
We don’t have any bridges in Oregon still in use that I know of that were built 150 years ago.
That Cascadia Zone really is quite away from us so that the ground forces felt here will be much less than what we would experience in a lower magnitude quake on a local fault. Check the gound shaking numbers that are color keyed on the IMS15 v. sheet 3.
The big problem for us with a subduction quake is that it will last for several minutes as the actual center of movement migrates along the fault. That gives plenty of time for oscillations to amplify.
Bob R,
You provide the Census data for journey to work trips a/k/a “commuting to work trips.” As I previously said, those trips constitute constitute a small portion of the trips. From NHTS (National Travel Household Survey:
“Knowing why people take trips helps urban planners lay out residential, work, and commercial structures that minimize travel times and distances. A large portion of trips were taken for family and personal reasons such as shopping and running errands (45 percent) (figure 7, table A-11) (See glossary for definitions). Social and recreation trips, such as vacations and visiting friends, accounted for 27 percent of the trips. Despite the strong focus on work and commuting trips by researchers and urban planners, commute trips7 accounted for about 15 percent of all trips taken in the United States. Trips made for work, other than the commute to and from work, accounted for an additional 3 percent of trips. Trips to school and church accounted for about 10 percent of all trips.”
NHTS shows the type of trips by hour. In the peak hours, “commuting to work,” which is called Journey To work (JTW).
There are potential advantages to delaying replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridges, should that even be determined to be an actual necessity.
1. Seismic protection is gradually advancing. Look to the Japanese for innovations; also Turkey. And we can watch what happens in the Bay area.
2. True, the CRC proposal may be very well protected against ground heaving. I know that is why they are calling for long pilings (They are not as long as Bay Area pilings, which can go to 300 ft.) But what will these long piling do when the earth is moving sideways? There are several layers of sedimentary deposits underneath the Columbia and I wonder if these could move relative to each other and shift the long pilings?
3. The material cost doesn’t always go up on construction jobs. I know we got used to inflating our cost projections when projects were delayed. Lately, with the worldwide recession, many basic costs have come down. The same thing happened with lumber costs about two years ago. Now, steel has declined quite a lot. Rising construction prices are not always a given.
4. If we did have a 9.0 quake, I am not sure that even the CRC proposal would be guaranteed to survive undamaged. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be destroyed; only, it’s safety called into question to close it down. A bigger structure, inherently, has more exposure to damage. A small structure far less. In a 9.o we would see many small bridges emerge unscathed, but, I think, heavy concrete structures–like the Marquam–probably suffering major damage, because of the larger inertial forces entering into play.
Again, we could look to Japan as a test tube for what does happen in these bigger quakes. Also, the SF Area Loma Prieta quake (7.2) severely damaged (older, unreinforced) concrete structures, like the Cypress Parkway. The Bay Bridge had only very minor damage.
The prolonged shaking of a 9.0 I agree is very severe. Fortunately the Cascadian quake isn’t every 300 years. 500 yr/avg is more like it. Seismic protection is still in an infancy stage. I would not necessarily trust that the CRC design would be totally safe. I would rather be close to the ground than 120 ft in the air.
Bob R., You provide the Census data for journey to work trips a/k/a “commuting to work trips.” […] As I previously said, those trips constitute constitute a small portion of the trips.
John, the original assertion to which I was responding, which I’ve already re-quoted to you once, clearly stated:
We could spend another 5 Billion on light rail expansion and still less than 1% of commuters would be using it when done.
Please note that this original assertion, made by John E. and not by me, clearly is talking about “commuters”. Thus, as I have said already, it is entirely appropriate for me to quote data about commute trips when discussing that assertion. It is not my responsibility to talk about other trips when that’s not at all what the original assertion was.
You appear to be a perfect example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You see some data and don’t appreciate the entire context.
Too little reading comprehension is a dangerous thing, too.
45 responses to “Bridge Shopping Network Hits the Air”
I doubt this guy, or anyone else who is “rallying” against the 12-lane proposal has any type of formal education in civil engineering.
The number one goal of this project is to get light rail over the state line.
The secondary goal of this project is to ‘pilot’ congestion pricing on an interstate corridor.
The third and most distant goal of this project is to ease up the bottleneck caused from having so many interchanges in such a short distance.
This project DOES NOT add any new through capacity what-so-ever. We have 6 lanes now, we will have 6 lanes when its done. The ONLY purpose of the additional 6 lanes is a complicated maze of add/drop lanes necessary for the number of interchanges in the area.
We could save over a billion dollars just by eliminating light rail from the project.
There’s definitely a bit of BS involved in this, like the ticker at the bottom.
Making amends for not building the Mt. Hood Fwy.
What does a freeway serving SE Portland have to do with a bridge between two states? Other than being a roadway, very little. The CRC includes LRT (which the MHF did not), and is on an existing freeway alignment (which the MHF was not). It’s effective at making an emotional argument, but the CRC has nothing to do with the MHF.
12 full size lanes of driving excitement.
Yes, having narrow lanes only increases accident rates, increases congestion, and thus air-pollution. Why mention full size? Why would we want undersized lanes for the amount being invested in the project?
Why should LA have all the fun?
Do they mean investing heavily in rail transit while ignoring congestion on roadways, and ignoring their bus system until a court order mandated them to invest in buses again?
Can be seen from space.
Ummmm, so? What does this have to do with anything? The creators of this might want to read up on this Space.com article about what’s visible from space. With enough magnification, almost anything is visible from space.
The MOTHER of all bridges.
What is this referring to? It’s not that massive of a bridge. There are longer bridges, wider bridges, and taller bridges than the CRC is proposed to be. Oh, it’s just another scare-tactic.
I think the CRC is unneeded at this time, but this is an easy way to make me also dismiss most of the opposition as being lying wackos rather than honestly working towards a better solution. BS propaganda like this usually often seems to drive away those who aren’t extremists.
Pretty damn funny. “Only one million payments of $4,000 each.” Heee! And the ticker was hilarious.
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. . . . . .
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls.
. . .
mmm name calling.
and I’m the troll?
I doubt this guy, or anyone else who is “rallying” against the 12-lane proposal has any type of formal education in civil engineering.
Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. Must not feed trolls. . . . . .
That’s the type of BS propaganda that I was talking about. There’s no substance. (Once you convince yourself the universe falls into place…)
Form a full argument that includes a new BNSF bridge or some other solution, instead of a flat-out 3 year old no. I’m not in favor of the CRC, but the childish antics of many of those opposed are starting to dissuade me from caring.
Dave’s a sincere contributor to this forum; calling him a “troll” is inappropriate–no matter whether you agree with him or not.
While this video is moderately humorous, it mainly preaches to the choir. If you’re not part of the anti-car crowd, this video does little to convince you why the CRC as proposed is a bad idea.
I didn’t realize using a humorous Internet meme was name calling or BS propaganda.
And it was in response to Anthony, not Dave.
But the non-sequitor civil engineer comment, and the comment about not increasing capacity comments were what I was considering baiting…
This video is about raising awareness with people who had never even thought about it.
Great job Joe! Keep it up.
Spending $4 Billion plus to save a relative handful of commuters a few minutes per day is simply absurd. The bridges are fine 90% of the tiem.
Suggesting that a massive capacity increase can be managed by an advisory council is simply dreaming; its a not very funny joke.
Why not manage what we have? ’97 showed us how.
“Do they mean investing heavily in rail transit while ignoring congestion on roadways, and ignoring their bus system until a court order mandated them to invest in buses again?”
I’d just like to point out that Wednesday I saw a brand new, shiny 2900-series bus in revenue service downtown.
*** Please note that this entire post contains my personal opinion as a transit rider throughout. ***
I’ll point out that TriMet could’ve spent even part of the stimulus money on even more new buses. Instead, they’re spending it on pork and a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with moving people from point A to point B on a motor vehicle (please note that I realize someone can argue that new bus stop signs and downtown transit tracker displays supposedly directly benefit riders, but I still think it’s pathetic that middle school kids are riding TriMet buses to school that are almost twice as old as they are):
http://trimet.org/openhouse/stimulusprojects.htm
I’d just like to point out that Wednesday I saw a brand new, shiny 2900-series bus in revenue service downtown.
And, I’ll point out that C-TRAN has had even shinier buses running downtown for a year now.
Excellent. But the CRC “dims” in comparison to the waste and abuse of taxpayer money for the I-5 to 99W CONNECTOR between Wilsonville and Sherwood. Get a load of this — almost one billion dollars for a mere 3500 trip increase (pm-peak hour) between I-5 and 99W. What is this garbage. Are the asphalt and bridge contractors now getting the next BAILOUT?
What’s ironic is that the same arguments can be equally applied to any of TriMet’s rail projects – WES ought to be a shining example.
Lenny’s argument, Why not manage what we have? ’97 showed us how. nails it right on the head. We have a bus system that is failing. Why not manage what we have? The fact that our region got a bunch of stimulus funding – and of that, less than $250,000 of that directly went to bus riders.
Bicyclists got more money from TriMet than bus riders did.
And non-existant Streetcar riders in the Eastside, an area that isn’t even developed, got $75 million.
By the way, what about that “everything but automobile” bridge over the Willamette River – a completely unneeded, unnecessary bridge from nowhere to nowhere? It’s just as wasteful as the CRC.
The CRC bridges we have are well past useful and safe life. We use this crossing for moving most of what we buy from food to nike shoes , from Mexico to Canada. Try not to get hung up on commuters , as
the visitors who fill our hotels and restaurants often drive here over this bridge crossing. Let’s build the coolest 21st cent Park – Covered Green Gateway to the Northwest!
Erik:
Tri-Met’s light rail cars are older than the buses. You keep saying that the bus service is underfunded, particularly in far off areas like the Eastside; but are not willing to admit it is more costly to run bus service in less dense areas as it is in denser parts of Portland.
Busses and trains are long-life capital assets; expensive to buy, and designed to be in service for decades. There seems to be this belief that Tri-Met should by a new bus (and retire an old one) every time some other transit agency buys a new bus, or every time Tri-Met buys a new rail vehicle.
While new busses and trains are almost certainly nicer than older ones; it would be a waste of money to scrap perfectly functional vehicles.
Regarding the new transit bridge–if we’re going to build the “Orange Line” (I know it won’t be called that when it opens), it is needed if MAX is to have a southern crossing–none of the existing bridges are suitable for MAX trains. The Hawthorne and Sellwood aren’t structurally strong enough, and the Marquam and the Ross Island are highway bridges whose current use isn’t compatible with rail of any sort.
I think they should get rid of all the bridges and give every citizen a boat!
Arm power for sea and leg power for land!
Busses and trains are long-life capital assets; expensive to buy, and designed to be in service for decades
Trains do indeed last for decades (the 20-year old original MAX cars are actually currently being overhauled because they still have life on them), but buses do not. It is generally understood that buses have a lifespan of around 10-20 years; the FTA fully depreciates a bus at 12.
Maybe we should also upgrade all the freeways in the Portland area to 12 lanes too? I’m not so sure this bridge is really going to magically fix all of the rush hour congestion if the road narrows back down right to 4 or 6 lanes after crossing the bridge.
Trolley buses also last a long time. Seattle retired their 1/4 century old AM General 900’s but kept the guts for their replacements. San Francisco MUNI vintage 1976/7 Flyers lasted about 27 years.
Trolley buses would be a wonderful fit for the 8 Jackson Park and other relatively short, low speed, high density routes.
Vancouver doesn’t want light rail and the region’s voters who have to pay for it would never vote for it if given the chance.
Yet in this dishonest handling ot the CRC the $4 Billion price tag includes $700 million for light rail IN Vancouver, after it crosses the bridge.
The light rail component from expo and across the bridge probably adds another Billion.
All things considered both the CRC light rail and Milwaukie light rail should be cancelled, period.
Cancel the rail,
Cancel the bridge,
Cancel the world,
Cancel the kids.
ws wrote: Tri-Met’s light rail cars are older than the buses. You keep saying that the bus service is underfunded, particularly in far off areas like the Eastside; but are not willing to admit it is more costly to run bus service in less dense areas as it is in denser parts of Portland.
So what? I didn’t deny the buses are newer.
BUT: The light rail fleet (the 100 series) are being completely rehabbed from the frame up. Buses are never, EVER subjected to such a rebuild. In addition the 100 series LRV fleet had air conditioning retrofitted to it (the 1400-1900 series buses lack A/C which is considered by most transit agencies a REQUIREMENT) and the 100 series operates in conjunction with a 200/300/400 series car which provides low-floor access.
I don’t see you acknowledging THOSE facts of life.
I keep saying bus service is underfunded – yes. MAX and Streetcar get far, far more capital dollars than the bus ever will; in one budget year (I believe it was 2007) MAX got $10 capital dollars for every $1 capital dollar bus got.
And as for the operating costs, there are ways to deal with that. But what does that have to do with building a bridge to nowhere? Oh, wait, I forgot, off-topic rants were permissable when addressed to me, but when I bring them up then they aren’t, so I might as well address them.
Bus is expensive when there are fewer boardings per ride. Fine. I admit it. I know it. But why does TriMet continue to run a bus to Boring that makes absolutely no sense? Why doesn’t TriMet look for ways to cut costs on the lower density routes – i.e. smaller (more fuel efficient, less expensive operator) buses?
Meanwhile, MAX runs pretty darn empty west of Willow Creek and east of Gateway (in the SUBURBAN areas of Portland — and yet I don’t see the Light Rail supporters calling on TriMet to stop providing light rail service to the suburbs…
EngineerScotty wrote: he Hawthorne and Sellwood aren’t structurally strong enough, and the Marquam and the Ross Island are highway bridges whose current use isn’t compatible with rail of any sort.
It was a big huge deal that when the Hawthorne Bridge was rehabbed back in the late 1990s that it would be built to accommodate light rail. There is no good reason why it can’t be used today – after all we’d be recycling existing infrastructure instead of building a massive new bridge requiring concrete, environmental impacts in the right…and of course the Hawthorne Bridge is already painted green.
A light rail deck could be easily built below the Marquam Bridge using the existing supports/piers but at a much lower level. More construction than using the Hawthorne but less than a totally brand new bridge.
The Sellwood…well it’s too far south to be useful for light rail.
A key part of “managing” crowded roadways is building reasonable alternatives for commuters like light rail, good bike/ped facilities, better bus connections and commuter rail.
re freight, the I-5 bridges are fine 90% of the time so freight move without much problem. I saw a full log truck on I-5 at the Rose Quarter the other day just barrelling along. No problem, and if there is? try the I-205 “bypass.”
The I-5 bridges are in good shape, not even on the State’s at risk list, and can be upgraded to current earthquake standards for less money than it would take to tear them down.
Substandard on/off ramps are responsible for many incidents that degrade operations…they can be closed in the peak hours. Again, management is the answer.
MAX got $10 capital dollars for every $1 capital dollar bus got.
Did that include money to build an extension, such as the Green Line? Projects like that are unusual one-time-only things and are expected to last for decades.
less expensive operator
Would the union agree to that? If not, the idea is worthless. But honestly, one idea would be to expand Sandy’s system to take over service to Boring and Kelso (the Kelso trips actually were the ones that went to Sandy). Also, TriMet does have and use some smaller, 30-foot buses.
Lenny,
You’re wrong and don’t appear to know anything about traffic engineering or planning.
It’s not “managing” you are advocating. Quite the contrary.
A key part of “ignoring” crowded roadways is a disproportionate and irrational emphasis on building extensive alternatives for a small fraction of commuters who use light rail, bike/ped facilities, bus and commuter rail.
This “alternative” for the few approach is not a viable substitute for needs of the many who use the crowded roadways.
I don’t know where you get the idea that it is. The small percentage of commuters who use these alternatives will not grow any more than the last 20 years showed. The share didn’t even keep pace with population.
So how is building billions more in rail transit and ped/bike/bus/rail going to “manage” crowded roadways?
It isn’t. We could spend another 5 Billion on light rail expansion and still less than 1% of commuters would be using it when done.
Yet it appears you would like to see only these and no road expansion.
That’s some management technique.
Actually, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey already shows transit ridership significantly higher than your “less than 1%” figure.
For the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes areas not served by transit at all, and areas served relatively poorly by transit, the commute share of trips (not counting non-commute trips) was 6.2% in the 2005-2007 result set.
Given that light rail accounts for roughly 1/3 of transit boardings (not counting C-Tran, and not counting the Portland Streetcar), that puts light rail’s involvement at over 2%. Not a huge number, but even accounting for more than the survey’s margin of error, more than double your “less than 1%” predicted future share.
Furthermore, there is no need to artificially segregate rail boardings from all transit boardings. Many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. It is far more appropriate to look at transit mode share as a whole.
Finally, looking at the survey, if you add up “other means” (which includes bicycles), walking, work-at-home, transit, and car/vanpooling… that’s over 28% of all commute trips, a significantly large minority. Thus, management of the bridges, as Lenny is correct to suggest, can have significant positive outcomes without major capital investment, even if you leave rail to Vancouver completely out of the mix.
Before you go insulting our commenters with thinly disguised insults like “You’re wrong and don’t appear to know anything…”, it would be best to review the actual statistics.
You are perfectly entitled to the view that transit/bike/ped/carpool investments aren’t worth the effort, but you that doesn’t make it right to downplay today’s actual numbers and to insult those who think that better management of our transportation resources can lead to improved numbers.
Let me add to Lenny’s point: congestion pricing could go a long way to solve our peak-hour problems. We’ve got a system that’s completely adequate 90% of the time. Why spend $4 billion to push that up to 95% when we could get similar or better results with a tolling system that generates revenue instead of consuming it?
Bob R,
It appears you are deliberately trying to manipulate what I said?
Is that appropriate?
Less than 1% of commuters use light rail. Now if you want to respond to that do so. But it’s not OK for you to simply change what I said.
I see you are once again using the “boardings” number in place of riders.
That too is not OK Bob.
But never the less the very few commuters who use light rail, (less than 1% or slightly over 1% is meaningless) makes it a failure as substitute for the many who need roadways.
Apparently you are in favor of spending Billions more to double to the light rail ridership to a paltry 2 or 3%?
While ignoring the roadways of course.
Yeah many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. And every time they are probably counted as another rider.
That’s how you get to the meaningless 28% of all [Portland] commute trips.
And with the bulk of them in close proximity to the core and having nothing to do with the greater commuting and commerce problems
the significance is NOT what you peddle and wish it to be.
I’ll say again Lenny is not advocating “management”of the bridges at all. His long held aversion to roadways discounts his contributions.
Time and time again Lenny has chimed in on other choke points around the region without any knowledge of their circumstances.
Each and every time his “management” involves the prohibition of added roadway and bridge capacity.
Likewise, youself and others do the same.
So Lenny is not correct. Pointing it out is far less insulting than his and your embellishing of alternatives at the cost of real roadway management. And there is no thin disguise as you imagined.
Keeping rail to Vancouver and Milwaukie completely out of the mix is the only sensible thing to do if we are in a genuine pursuit of traffic engineering and authentic bridge and roadway management.
Your summary that my view is that “transit/bike/ped/carpool investments aren’t worth the effort” is another contrived manipulation.
They have their usefulness and are a reasonable part of the system. Billions on light rail and fantasy commuter rail are a huge waste of money which diminishes the function of all other modes.
Better management of our transportation resources does not mean repeating the last 30 years.
Your insistence that we do, flies in the face of the track record we have witnessed.
If you are hypersensitive to these harsh realities I apologise for your perceiving this as insulting.
I find it healthy debate.
Jason and Erik claim that Tri-Met is not spending any of the stimulus package (or, not more than $250k) on buses. Yet, at the bottom of the .pdf file at the link that Jason provided, it clearly states that Tri-Met is actually spending $5 MILLION of the stimulus package on NEW BUSES. That’s not insignificant!
The rest of the stimulus package seems like a pragmatic collection of “shovel-ready” projects, like new heated switches and covered catenary lines to prevent ice buildup, that are just good, necessary expenditures and a wise investment in the future of the system.
“Apparently you are in favor of spending Billions more to double to the light rail ridership to a paltry 2 or 3%?
While ignoring the roadways of course.”
Ignoring the roadways. I can’t understand how people continue to make that statement with a straight face. I-5 is being widened about a mile south of the river RIGHT NOW.
It appears you are deliberately trying to manipulate what I said?
Nope.
Is that appropriate?
Not happening.
Less than 1% of commuters use light rail.
Not true. Unless by that statement you mean to make it so watered-down to include areas which don’t have light rail at all. I wouldn’t expect areas which have no light rail to be used in a comparison of how many people actually choose to use light rail, would you?
I was about as generous to your statement as anyone reasonably could be.
Yeah many bus riders transfer to/from rail, and vice versa. And every time they are probably counted as another rider. That’s how you get to the meaningless 28% of all [Portland] commute trips.
No, John. I provided a link to the survey results. These are census numbers, and the methodology is published. You don’t have to guess about how things are “probably counted”, you can go to the Census Bureau’s publications.
Garlynn –
The bus purchases listed at the bottom of the PDF are in a separate category of potential “alternative” projects. As far as I know, there is no commitment to proceed at this time. That’s why I didn’t include those in the bullet points I listed in my earlier comment.
Not only is there NO COMMITMENT to buy buses, but Fred Hansen is ON RECORD that no new buses will be purchased for the next two to three fiscal years (once the 2900s are delivered).
The only commitment as listed on TriMet’s own document for bus rider improvement is $250K for Transit Tracker signs at cross-mall bus stops. The rest of the “bus” “improvements” are non-revenue, non-public, non-rider facilities improvements.
Jason McHuff wrote: Projects like that are unusual one-time-only things and are expected to last for decades.
Yes, but once TriMet is done with one MAX project, it starts another. Once the Red Line was done, the Yellow Line began construction. When the Yellow Line was done, the Green Line started (along with WES). Once the Green Line is done, the Milwaukie Line will start. There is MAYBE a one year gap, but TriMet still budgets extensive amounts of money for Capital Planning to plan these projects.
Also, TriMet does have and use some smaller, 30-foot buses.
The vast majority of the sub-30s were retired (because the particular model of bus had a tendency to catch on fire; I believe two or three of the fleet was written off due to fire). The remaining 2400s are used for the Washington Park Shuttle (I believe only three buses) and thus are in storage for much of the year.
Cherriots and C-Tran both use a different model of sub-30 that have proven successful and popular with riders in those cities. Chicago’s CTA and Salt Lake City’s UTA also extensively use sub-30s (I believe the same model that C-Tran uses) and have proven popular. TriMet continues to believe in their “one-size-fits-all” approach to bus service which is not duplicated by any other transit agency in TriMet’s class.
Bob R doesn’t understand stats. The “non-commute” (he really means non journey to work) is 70% of the trips.
Lenny doesn’t even make an attempt at trying to get information. The old span will have to be replaced or completely overhauled.That “handful” of commuters he is willing to disadvantage is more than the entire number of people on rail transit in the metro area. He should multiply the vehicle bridge count by 1.3. Further, rail doesn’t bring goods and services.
How dare Lenny bring up costs. All of the money would come from gas taxes to the feds and to the states as well as tolls. Transit fares pay nothing towards capital costs and only 20% of the Tri Met operating revenue (2008 audit).
The I-5 bridges are in good shape, not even on the State’s at risk list, and can be upgraded to current earthquake standards for less money than it would take to tear them down.
Are you sure about that? I remember seeing figures — although I can’t recall where — that said upgrading the bridges to current standards would be a bit more expensive than removing them. I haven’t been able to find those numbers again. Does anyone else have them?
Of course, even if it were to cost twice as much to upgrade the existing bridges as to remove them, it’s still worth doing. Assuming that the new bridge is built, saving the old bridges would give us a ready-made light-rail crossing with two arterial traffic lanes and a decent bikeway.
Bob R doesn’t understand stats. The “non-commute” (he really means non journey to work) is 70% of the trips.
What on earth are you referring to?
Here’s the table I was using to from the link that I posted:
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over
1,037,957
+/-5,432
Car, truck, or van – drove alone
72.0%
+/-0.5
Car, truck, or van – carpooled
10.8%
+/-0.3
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
6.2%
+/-0.3
Walked
3.1%
+/-0.2
Other means
2.4%
+/-0.2
Worked at home
5.6%
+/-0.2
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
24.6
+/-0.2
Your original assertion was “We could spend another 5 Billion on light rail expansion and still less than 1% of commuters would be using it when done.” To arrive at my response, I used census figures related to commute trips. Entirely appropriate. Who doesn’t understand statistics?
“The CRC bridges we have are well past useful and safe life”
The older of the two structures goes back to 1918. The well used Brooklyn bridge in New York City was opened in 1883. Is there any move to tear that down? There is a similar bridge in Cincinatti that is a decade older than that.
I’m skeptical of “seismic upgrades.” I’ve seen many in my construction experience that didn’t have a prayer of holding up a building in a strong earthquake. I am not saying that there haven’t been improvements in seismic engineering—we’ve definitely come a long way from the days of unreinforced masonry. Yet to be able to predict how a structure will hold up in a serious quake is very difficult to do. And the more massive the structure is—remember, the CRC proposal is several times larger than the existing bridges—the more variables enter into the equation. A more massive structure will have greater inertial forces upon it.
First of all the Portland area is in a significantly lower hazard zone than our other Pacific Rim neighbors–notably San Francisco and Seattle. True, we have a sedimentary base that is susceptible to liquefaction, but we don’t have the numeric incidence of large quakes that these other regions have. The Portland area has never had a quake greater than 6.7. And they don’t happen very frequently. I would like to see any evidence that Portland’s bridges or even the historic, unreinforced structures on the Old Columbia River highway have ever had seismic damage.
The dreaded Cascadian Subduction earthquake occurs from 300 to 800 years apart. And there is a broad swath of territory, from the center of the Coast Range to one hundred miles offshore and in a 1200 mile span, where the epicenter could be. The more likely damage in the Portland area would be from flooding.
The biggest problem with the current I-5 bridges is that there is only one other alternative for regional traffic—that’s I-205. Comparable cities typically have two or three times the crossings that we have. The river navigation is a problem, but this would be resolved when the current railroad bridge is replaced with a modern span that eliminates the preponderance of concrete piers that now pose an obstacle course. Having another crossing would be a safety valve for the present traffic congestion, it would reduce area VMT, and get the traffic on I-5 moving at a tolerable rate.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The John A. Roebling Bridge in Cincinatti was opened in 1866. The Brooklyn Bridge was designed in imitation of it.
I would like to see any evidence that Portland’s bridges or even the historic, unreinforced structures on the Old Columbia River highway have ever had seismic damage.
This area has hardly been watched in the long-term scale. It’s been about 200 years since Lewis and Clark first wandered by. 200 years? I can look out my window and see trees that are older.
The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Interpretive Map Series No. 16 might disagree with potential earthquakes. They show a 9.0 as possible, and that would kill a lot of us. I’d like to see Portland at least try to survive a 9.0.
I was in an older building in San Diego during a near 4.5, and the damage was more than I expected. The walls were cracked, the building leaned, and made some bad noises. I wouldn’t want to try a 9.0 in Portland today. Especially on the Interstate Bridge.
And the Columbia River Highway was only started on 95 years ago. I’ve lived in several houses older than that on the east coast. I’ve had Europeans laugh at me for referring to my place as a historic building. It was a pre-Civil War carriage house in Buffalo that I rented. And it felt like it was about to collapse at any moment.
We don’t have any bridges in Oregon still in use that I know of that were built 150 years ago.
That Cascadia Zone really is quite away from us so that the ground forces felt here will be much less than what we would experience in a lower magnitude quake on a local fault. Check the gound shaking numbers that are color keyed on the IMS15 v. sheet 3.
The big problem for us with a subduction quake is that it will last for several minutes as the actual center of movement migrates along the fault. That gives plenty of time for oscillations to amplify.
Bob R,
You provide the Census data for journey to work trips a/k/a “commuting to work trips.” As I previously said, those trips constitute constitute a small portion of the trips. From NHTS (National Travel Household Survey:
“Knowing why people take trips helps urban planners lay out residential, work, and commercial structures that minimize travel times and distances. A large portion of trips were taken for family and personal reasons such as shopping and running errands (45 percent) (figure 7, table A-11) (See glossary for definitions). Social and recreation trips, such as vacations and visiting friends, accounted for 27 percent of the trips. Despite the strong focus on work and commuting trips by researchers and urban planners, commute trips7 accounted for about 15 percent of all trips taken in the United States. Trips made for work, other than the commute to and from work, accounted for an additional 3 percent of trips. Trips to school and church accounted for about 10 percent of all trips.”
NHTS shows the type of trips by hour. In the peak hours, “commuting to work,” which is called Journey To work (JTW).
Bob R.,
You appear to be a perfect example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You see some data and don’t appreciate the entire context. You should go to
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/section_02.html
That is a summary which provides direction to the specifics as to who, how,when, why people travel and how many.
Also, see
http://www.demographia.com
to see how many people use rail which accounts for a small part of transit which is tiny part of all trips.
Mel
There are potential advantages to delaying replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridges, should that even be determined to be an actual necessity.
1. Seismic protection is gradually advancing. Look to the Japanese for innovations; also Turkey. And we can watch what happens in the Bay area.
2. True, the CRC proposal may be very well protected against ground heaving. I know that is why they are calling for long pilings (They are not as long as Bay Area pilings, which can go to 300 ft.) But what will these long piling do when the earth is moving sideways? There are several layers of sedimentary deposits underneath the Columbia and I wonder if these could move relative to each other and shift the long pilings?
3. The material cost doesn’t always go up on construction jobs. I know we got used to inflating our cost projections when projects were delayed. Lately, with the worldwide recession, many basic costs have come down. The same thing happened with lumber costs about two years ago. Now, steel has declined quite a lot. Rising construction prices are not always a given.
4. If we did have a 9.0 quake, I am not sure that even the CRC proposal would be guaranteed to survive undamaged. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be destroyed; only, it’s safety called into question to close it down. A bigger structure, inherently, has more exposure to damage. A small structure far less. In a 9.o we would see many small bridges emerge unscathed, but, I think, heavy concrete structures–like the Marquam–probably suffering major damage, because of the larger inertial forces entering into play.
Again, we could look to Japan as a test tube for what does happen in these bigger quakes. Also, the SF Area Loma Prieta quake (7.2) severely damaged (older, unreinforced) concrete structures, like the Cypress Parkway. The Bay Bridge had only very minor damage.
The prolonged shaking of a 9.0 I agree is very severe. Fortunately the Cascadian quake isn’t every 300 years. 500 yr/avg is more like it. Seismic protection is still in an infancy stage. I would not necessarily trust that the CRC design would be totally safe. I would rather be close to the ground than 120 ft in the air.
Bob R., You provide the Census data for journey to work trips a/k/a “commuting to work trips.” […] As I previously said, those trips constitute constitute a small portion of the trips.
John, the original assertion to which I was responding, which I’ve already re-quoted to you once, clearly stated:
Please note that this original assertion, made by John E. and not by me, clearly is talking about “commuters”. Thus, as I have said already, it is entirely appropriate for me to quote data about commute trips when discussing that assertion. It is not my responsibility to talk about other trips when that’s not at all what the original assertion was.
You appear to be a perfect example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You see some data and don’t appreciate the entire context.
Too little reading comprehension is a dangerous thing, too.