|
|
TriMet spokesperson Mary Fetsch e-mailed me a few minutes ago with the photos you see here (click on the photos to view full-size, the thumbnails don’t really do them justice) and the following statement:
Chris: We have selected a bridge architect with more than 40 years experience working on signature bridges including cable-stayed , suspension and hybrid bridges, and also bike and ped bridges. His work includes the Golden Gate Bridge, the Oakland Bay Bridge and others. I’ve included a link to his website.
We have two bridge designs on the table and I have attached pictures of each. Next week the WRBAC (Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee) will weigh in on these two designs and by the end of June we will select one to move further into preliminary engineering.
We are still in contract negotiations but the architect selected is Donald MacDonald. http://www.donaldmacdonaldarchitects.com/bridges/bridges.html
49 responses to “TriMet Responds on Bridge Design”
Speaking only of bridge design and not funding, what ever the bridge design is, it must be built high enough to have the same amount of clearance from the water as the Marquam and Ross Island Bridges. Anything less is short sighted of how the Willamette may be used as a transportation corridor in the future.
Interesting… was there some controversy with the hybrid bride?
It seemed that that bridge and its architect (whose name i dont know) was a sure thing. And here Trimet is saying theyve selected a completely different design and architect.
Personally i’m not a believer in this cable stayed cliche (the ‘two” bridges in the pictures)…
Is cost a factor? Seems quite strange.
Terry –
It seems incongruous to me, based on your past, oft-repeated insistence on precisely equal funding of transportation projects by all modes, that you’re now advocating for a costly increase based on an unlikely potential future use not forecast by any particular industry group.
Would you fund such a height increase by tolling any ship requiring greater than a 75′ clearance to pay for the bridge?
Suppose that the bridge costs an extra $30 million with interest (completely hypothetical number, but probably in the right ballpark) over a 30-year payoff period for the bonds, and one two ship passages over the 75′ height per day, the toll would be over $1,300.
No group that I’m aware of is demanding a significantly increased height, so who will pay for it under your otherwise-rigid “equity” demands?
Sorry, Bob, this one goes to Terry. The ships won’t use the bridge and were there first.
R.A. –
By your logic, since bicycles were here before the automobile, and many places where auto-intensive development has occurred now limit access previously available to bikes, and automobiles are far more dangerous to bikes than bikes are to automobiles, then motorists should be expected to pick up a share of the cost of bicycle-related infrastructure.
That argument, and similar arguments along those lines, have been flatly rejected by Terry in the past.
Who was “there first” is not a factor in Terry’s arguments against bicycle users.
Personally, I’m very open to entertaining arguments such as yours, but it just doesn’t square with an absolute insistence on 100% equal funding based on mode.
R.A. The point is, the ships WEREN’T there first, because no ship that that gets as far as the proposed new bridge requires a bridge the height Terry is advocating for. Given that river traffic patterns have already been established, and given that there’s been no expressed need by any member of the business or transport community advocating for this sort of stipulation (which you’d also have to apply to the Sellwood Bridge if you wanted to be consistent), it just doesn’t make sense to overbuild to this degree.
How many bridges would have to be re-built in order for the bridge height of the new bridge to be a determining factor? It’s at least 3, right? We’ve recently spent seriou money rehabbing just about every downtown bridge, I can’t foresee a scenario where we’d pull all of those bridges down and rebuild all new bridges in the next 50 years. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money.
R A Fontes Says: Sorry, Bob, this one goes to Terry. The ships won’t use the bridge and were there first.
Terry was not referring to existing river traffic, but speculative future river traffic.
There is no maritime industry left south of the Marquam Bridge other than the gravel operations on Ross Island. Nor is there any shipping that far south. Whatever boat traffic is currently using the river is made up of tourist traffic and recreational boaters — and of course, the barges serving Ross Island. There is NO indication that will change; the river is lined with parks, wildlife areas, housing, office space, and the occasional marina on both sides. Nobody’s going to be putting in any new shipyards or freight terminals.
The clearance beneath the new bridge should be at least as high as the lowest bridge between the Marquam Bridge and Willamette Falls — most likely either the Sellwood Bridge or the railroad bridge at Lake Oswego. It also needs to be high enough for Ross Island Gravel traffic. No additional clearance is needed, or will be needed in the future.
I thought that the Hawaiian Cheiftan or whatever it is ships that have come in for the Rose Festival (and sailed south) would possibly not fit under the new bridge.
Wow! Obviously a nerve or two were struck.
After all is said and done, the Willamette is a navigable waterway of the United States and all kinds of federal laws and rules come into play. My alluding to Terry was based more on Bob’s counterargument that ships should have to pay for the bridge to conform with Terry’s general trend of thought. The point is that watercraft use the water, not the bridge. If we want a bridge for land vehicles and dry feet, then the bridge will need to accommodate “existing” water traffic [and perhaps reasonable potential traffic] or will have to get special federal permission for a waiver.
As far as the bike thing goes, I agree with Bob’s later comments in that road builders do need to provide for cyclists and others whose preexisting activities would be curtailed by major projects. Whether another blogger is consistent or not is really beside the point.
It’s been almost 40 years since I had any involvement with maritime or navigation law, (and very little then) and claim no current knowledge in the field. That said, Jeff’s comment that a new bridge which was at least as high as the lowest bridge between the Marquam and Willamette Falls makes sense. It might still need a special waiver if it were lower than the lowest bridge downstream of the new bridge.
Is there anyone here who thinks that these two bridge designs are over the top? I remember when there was the “wave” bridge design option on the table and I found it to be more in sync with Portland’s existing bridges, as well as the Portland vibe. Anyone with me?
Can someone tell me when these current bridge options were decided as the designs to choose from?
What isn’t over the top around here? More than one person has suggested simply rehabbing the Sellwood Bridge. I would like to know why the Marquam could not have the rail track—that would be on this new bridge–added on to its structure. It sure looks strong enough and links virtually the same points. The CRC is way over the top. The MAX lines are way over the top.
It is said that [certain people] have never met a spending project they didn’t like.
I’m quite certain that the folks involved in designing the bridge know exactly how much river clearance is required. Whether or not the concept design sketches take that river clearance into account, I dunno–but the answer ain’t gonna be found by debate here. :)
One other interesting question, though, is how the bridge support piers might affect river navigation. The pier on the eastern end of the bridge is awfully close to the Sternwheeler dock.
Daniel –
You’re right… a lot of people were drawn to the Wave design. It was deemed too expensive (but at the time, the architect disputed some of the engineering requirements), and the “hybrid” design was offered up as a less-costly alternative.
But now it appears the “hybrid”, which was to be the cost-effective compromise, is now potentially on the chopping block.
Ron Swaren wrote: I would like to know why the Marquam could not have the rail track—that would be on this new bridge–added on to its structure.
Ron’s idea is excellent; I’ve thought this myself before and it would provide a light rail station literally right at the front door to OMSI.
If not this, why not the Hawthorne Bridge which was supposedly rebuilt to accomodate rail traffic?
Isn’t “reuse” part of the environmental creed, instead of “build new”?
Light rail on the Marquam? Boy, you guys have some imagination.
Doesn’t anyone around this blog understand that the light rail bridge is being funded by…wait for it…light rail money. Adding anything else – peds, bikes, pretty designs, is so completely secondary. Not saying this is how it should be, but this is how it is. Time to put your wooden train sets/Erector/Tinker Toys away, foamers.
$1.4B for the project – that is like $1,000 for every man woman and child in the metro area. For what? Maybe 20,000 daily riders, 20 years from now? And when half of those riders already/would ride the bus?
Erik: please dream up what bus system you would design with $1.4 billion?
Yeah, I wondered about putting it on the Marquam myself. The route seemed to make sense, and it looks like the existing pilings could support trackway. My only concern would be clearance for river traffic, but since the current bridge has 130 foot clearance and (apparently) only 75 is needed, that gives designers 55 feet to work with.
Of course, since Tri-Met isn’t doing it, I’m wondering if federal stimulus money could be used to hang a wide bicycle deck from cables underneath the Marquam. That seems like an easy design (attach cables, hang deck) and it might take some of the bike traffic off the Hawthorne Bridge.
Ted, I had sticker shock over the price tag too. I’m gonna cross my fingers and hope that Tri-Met follows through with an extension to Oregon City and (maybe) Clackamas Town Center as well. The cost will be a little easier to swallow if the route winds up carrying a couple of lines and a LOT more people than currently planned. (Although $1,000 per person comes to about $1.67 per person per month over the 50 year lifespan of a light rail car … not all that bad for a capital investment in infrastructure.)
Unless we’re talking about adding rails under the Marquam using the existing pillars, I can’t really see it working, for the simple reason that the Marquam approaches are way too steep and long for railcars to climb effectively.
Building a new bridge (and using a good architect) might be expensive, but bikes, pedestirans, trains, and busses all could use another crossing between the Sellwood and Hawthorne bridges. It’s a long-term investment, one that should serve to concentrate development near the city core.
Some possible four-letter reasons for a new bridge:
SOWA
TRAM
OHSU
%*#&
Unless we’re talking about adding rails under the Marquam using the existing pillars
I think that’s what everyone’s talking about.
What isn’t over the top around here? More than one person has suggested simply rehabbing the Sellwood Bridge. I would like to know why the Marquam could not have the rail track—that would be on this new bridge–added on to its structure. It sure looks strong enough and links virtually the same points. The CRC is way over the top. The MAX lines are way over the top.
It is said that [certain people] have never met a spending project they didn’t like.
This post says it all,no need for me to write anything further.
I still like the ‘Wave’ design better. And I’m wondering how geese, eagles and other birds will adapt to the cable wires. Fatally?
And I’m wondering how geese, eagles and other birds will adapt to the cable wires. Fatally?
Here’s an article from Bridge Design & Engineering from March, it goes into some detail.
http://www.bridgeweb.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1664/A_wing_and_a_prayer.html
It appears it really depends on the site, and very likely on the overall height of the bridge.
Since we’re dealing here with a location which already has nearby bridges at the same basic height, and a relatively low spire height overall, the impact upon bird populations, especially migratory birds, should be minimal.
But there is now a precedent for environmental review taking into account bridge design as it affects avian populations, so it wouldn’t be completely unexpected to see it come up as an issue in the approval process for this bridge.
“Unless we’re talking about adding rails under the Marquam using the existing pillars
I think that’s what everyone’s talking about.”
Right. Those are huge cross members on between each concrete piling of the marquam–and the highway dech has huge steel girders. I don’t think a wimpy streetcar track would add very much weight and it could graduall rise from the ground level at Riverplace and then have a lift span in the center. So you would have almost as much clearance as under the present lower highway deck. It could descend back through the parking lot at OMSI and have a stop almost at the main entrance. That would be close to PCC, too.
I had thought a few years back that allowing a streetcar to cross over there could enable a streetcar system serving four quadrants of the Portland area—for less than the additional MAX lines.
Ive spend considerable time pondering this bridge issue, and this is what I think the new bridge should look like.
As has been said right here, let’s do it correctly!
Al’s Bridge
The Marquam isn’t going to get any rail alignments on it because the city council has been planning on finding a way to run I-5 under the willamette and tear downt he Marquam for almost 10 years.
It’ll be a big issue after the Columbia Crossing is built… the Marquam bridge won’t exist 30 years from now, I’m sure.
RA Fontes wrote: Some possible four-letter reasons for a new bridge:
SOWA
TRAM
OHSU
SoWa is not a reason for a new bridge. (They got their streetcar line serving it.) If the Marquam Bridge were used, MAX would cross the streetcar line near Riverplace and thus a very quick and easy transfer would still provide whatever transportation need there is from Milwaukie to SoWa.)
Tram is not a reason for a new bridge. It is not in and of itself a transit generator; it’s suggesting that the reason for the St. Johns Bridge was Bridge Avenue. (Frankly, extending the tram over the Willamette River to a proposed MAX station/Transit Center near Powell/McLoughlin is probably more cost effective.)
%*#&
I can name a lot of reasons to spend money on that logic. How’s that new gold-plated (and I’m seriously talking about real gold here, folks) bus line to Tigard doing? Complete with gold sidewalks, gold transitways, gold benches, gold shelters (and let’s use the ones they use in Dubai – fully enclosed with automatic doors and with air conditioning!)
%*#& is not a valid justification for anything.
Ted Johnson wrote: Erik: please dream up what bus system you would design with $1.4 billion?
Well, considering that I pegged the cost of a “BRT-Lite” line replacing the 12-Barbur route from downtown Portland to Sherwood at about $25 million – that’s all brand new DE60LF buses, all new bus stops, full traffic signal priority, and dedicated bus lanes in many (but not all areas)…I figure it we were to go full-on BRT, probably $50 million (because of some bridges that would have to be built).
The 12B line is one of TriMet’s longest routes, at over 15 miles from PSU to Sherwood. Most of TriMet’s routes which could be upgraded to BRT service are about 10 miles – so figure they’d be cheaper. In addition, just over two miles of the 12-B BRT project would be shared with at least three other high capacity routes (44, 54, 56). (The 44 likely wouldn’t go BRT but would certainly benefit from going “Frequent Service” with new buses and the same type of bus stop/pedestrian improvements that are lacking on Capitol Highway.)
$1.4 billion could go a very, VERY long way to improving bus service in Portland. In fact, replacing every single TriMet bus in the fleet today with a DE60LF (hybrid-electric articulated bus) would only cost $552.5 million – doing that would dramatically increase capacity by 40% on the bus system, guarantee 100% low floor and air conditioned buses, and provide a cleaner, more energy efficient bus fleet (higher capacity, lower fuel burn, fewer emissions) – and would benefit nearly EVERY TriMet passenger. Add a little more for wi-fi access on the buses (since WES has it). And you still have over $800 million left for bus stop improvements, new transit centers, refurbishing transit centers, transit tracker signs at major stops, dedicated busways…
The real problem is that if we were not going to spend the money on the bridge, would that be available for bus projects? Much of the money comes from the Federal government, the state lottery and other sources that may be dedicated to this project.
And is the $1.4 billion just the cost of the bridge or the cost of building a brand-new transitway much on a brand-new alignment all the way to Milwaukie?
Also, remember that this bridge is planned to help buses, too, by allowing them to bypass the Ross Island Bridge congestion.
replacing every single TriMet bus in the fleet today with a DE60LF
Are you saying we should do that? Many routes don’t need that capacity and some can’t even handle those buses.
last i checked buses are going to use this bridge
and there are at least 2 BRT projects in the works…
-“Central East High Capacity Transit (HCT) Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis”
-“East Metro North South High Capacity Transit (HCT) Alternatives Analysis”
plus one planned in washington county on TV Highway
Thanks, Erik. That’s my point. For the price of the new light rail line (bridge included), the REGION could have a truly kick-ass bus system. But, FTA funding doesn’t work like that: if Trimet is awarded money for light rail under the New Starts program, well, that’s what the money is for. It can’t be used for anything else. And qualifying for $1.4b for a bus system just isn’t an available option federally, as far as I know (or a total longshot). And if we don’t get the money, someone else does – we don’t get the lump sum and can choose to use it on education or anything else.
The question of whether or not the new line is worthwhile isn’t really a question at all. The sole goal is to collect federal money for a new transportation project. That’s what Trimet is good at. Really good. I suggest to all that they keep these funding realities in mind when discussing ANY project (you may think you do, but you really don’t), because the discussion is germane to all of them. And before folks throw baseless criticism and no-nothing armchair planning/engineering suggestions, think about what can be said about YOUR favorite project…don’t just shut your eyes and think that because the rest of America is paying for your highly subsidized form of transport, it is ‘better’ than something else. To the people that really know what’s what, it isn’t.
Jason,
1.4 Billion is for the entire line, including the bridge….. don’t know the cost of just the bridge.
“if Trimet is awarded money for light rail under the New Starts program, well, that’s what the money is for.”
Congressman Blumenauer’s new earmark for the Lake Oswego streetcar extension is pretty much the same thing. It doesn’t provide for the possibility that one of the two remaining bus choices – no-build and enhanced – will be the final locally preferred option. All this while the DEIS barely gets underway and definitely well before the local governments & TriMet take their final [even if preordained and pro forma] votes on what type of transit system we want for the corridor.
Because Congress can spend money anyway it sees fit, it’s possible that the final appropriation might be flexible enough to accommodate enhanced bus (sort of like BRT lite with even the possibility of short queue jump lanes). If not, we may just have to give the money back. Fat chance, right?
Bob said: “Would you fund such a height increase by tolling any ship requiring greater than a 75′ clearance to pay for the bridge?”
Bob – Large ships including passenger carrying vessels can already pass by the point where the bridge is proposed to be constructed. It seems like you want motorists, motor freight carriers, taxpayers in general and now the operators of ships, possibly boats, on the river to pay for it. You have it exactly backwards. It ought to be the transit passengers, the bicyclists, and in general the people that use the bridge also pay for the bridge, even if it requires maintaining the Willamette as a transportation corridor now and for the future.
Suggesting that now river users should help pay for the bridge only demonstrates how transit and bicycle advocates think – that other taxpayers should subsidize and fund their lifestyles.
Doug said: “Given that river traffic patterns have already been established” . . . “it just doesn’t make sense to overbuild to this degree” and “I can’t foresee a scenario where we’d pull all of those bridges down and rebuild all new bridges in the next 50 years. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money.”
Nobody is advocating replacing any of the existing bridges. Many of them, although not high above the river, open to allow big ships to pass. No bridge should be built with less river clearance than (or opening clearance) than the next one up stream. TriMet does not want a bridge that opens for river traffic.
By comparison, if you want to talk about a waste of taxpayer money – motor vehicle traffic patterns have been established in the Portland area for decades, yet streets and roads are being rebuilt to accommodate bicycles. It just doesn’t make sense to overbuild to this degree!
Terry Parker:Suggesting that now river users should help pay for the bridge only demonstrates how transit and bicycle advocates think – that other taxpayers should subsidize and fund their lifestyles.
ws:He was merely pointing out the logical fallacy that you had that the bridge should be tailored to ships going through the area which might increase construction costs.
Most of your posts are regarding “user fees” and people paying their way, but why should large ships get special design treatment without paying for it?
Shouldn’t they pay the extra design costs to allow for such passage of their vessels?
This is a completely contradictory statement to everything you have said on this forum. Maybe you have just a *slight* (sarcasm) bias against the pedestrian and bicycle?
Thanks for the link, Bob. However, I took from it that bird kills is a significant concern especially in cable-stayed bridges. According to the article, the cable-stayed Oresund bridge between Sweden and Norway has a record of bird kills. The Willamette is a flight path for bird populations including bald eagle. Should we build this potential obstacle?
Yes, but the Oresund bridge is much, much taller, and is out in an open channel with little else nearby.
The proposed TriMet bridge design(s) would have much lower spires, and would have the Ross Island and Marquam bridges nearby, so the flight paths of migratory birds would likely be out of the way anyway.
Someone should do a proper analysis, of course, using available research, but my lay impression is that the bridge wouldn’t be particularly harmful.
I think we should send the entire TRIMET BOARD OF DIRECTORS to Adelaide Australia to think about bridge design.
Then the public should fund the entire PORTLAND TRANSPORT membership to travel to the following locations to make the final decision.
Ptransport Trip
AL M , great link dude , man with that idea we can start a bridge way north of the Couv and span completely across to Oregon City….
AL M , great link dude , man with that idea we can start a bridge way north of the Couv and span completely across to Oregon City….
See, now were talking bridge design!
billb got the right idea!
Build the biggest, best, most luxurious bridge in the HISTORY OF MANKIND!
Portland will be THE PLACE TO VISIT!
“Portland will be THE PLACE TO VISIT!”
As long as they don’t stay… (T.McC. [sort of])
Bob, there is cause for debate on this point. Because the Willamette River is more narrow than the Oresund bridge locale, waterfowl here are constricted directly into the flight path of the cables. And the height of adjacent bridges does not matter. Waterfown fly at all heights as they follow the Willamette. In probably too many situations, the cables will appear invisible until it’s too late. If you really prefer the ‘Wave’ design for its asthetics, why excuse the cable-stay design for its potential drawback?
Correcton: “Waterfowl” fly at all heights…
Wells, I’m not excusing the cable-stay or hybrid designs. I do prefer the “wave” design. As I said, there is apparently now legal precedent for getting these things studied, and someone ought to look into it and determine if it’s an issue. Have any of the local avian/wildlife/environmental groups taken a position on this?
When I say my impression is that it wouldn’t be particularly harmful, it’s just that, my impression, not an “excuse” for the design. (In any case, I’m not in any position of authority to make a decision about the bridge one way or another.)
Wouldn’t it be required that bird issues be dealt with in an environmental impact statement? It doesn’t seem that much different than what fish limit them to do.
Re: attaching to the Marquam
I’m no structural engineer, but it’s worth saying that attaching light rail lines to the Marquam would not work.
Why? The train alone weighs 60 tons. This isn’t a streetcar we’re talking about, it’s MAX. Two trains passing on the bridge, in a retrofit trackway inserted where the original engineers didn’t plan on weight being applied to the structure would most likely not work, or not work for very long.
Just because it looks strong, doesn’t mean that it is. The Brooklyn Bridge looks pretty damn strong too, but it still has a 6000 lb. per-vehicle weight limit.
I remember a few years back, there was a 55-ton freight shipment (being trucked somewhere on I-5?) that needed to cross the Marquam Bridge.
For this to happen, the bridge was closed to all other traffic, in both directions, for an hour, while the item in question crossed the bridge–at about 5 miles per hour.
Anyone else remember this?
I sent an email to the Audubon Society regarding the issue of cable-stayed bridge impact to birds. They haven’t replied yet. One look at that picture and it seems obvious the cables are directly in the flight path. They will have to navigate the cables, for sure. In inclement weather, the chance of bird kill is a concern.