The Congressional delegation is so lukewarm that they may only come up with half of the requested $400M in highway funds for the Columbia River Crossing.
$0.2B down, $4B to go…
[OK, I know that $800M for the transit piece is an easier ask, but I couldn’t resist.]
39 responses to “Business Journal: Lack of Federal Enthusiam for the CRC”
I’m still curious, are Washington and Oregon expected to equally pay down the middle? Washington gets like five redone on/off ramps, while Oregon gets two. (I believe).
Simple solution:
1. Strip out all of the interchange rebuilds, except SR14
2. Make the bridge land mid Jantzen Beach to keep most existing JB on’s and off’s.
3. May want to widen the Columbia slough bridge.
4. Dump wasteful transit modes.
New total cost: around a Billion.
Advantages:
Low enough cost so that tolls should NOT be needed.
Builds only what is needed now.
Builds what people really need: auto capacity.
Recognized that we should not spend close to a Billion to support transit riders that amount to only 1500 people today. And will probably not get much larger in the future as transit’s market share continues to shrink.
Thanks
JK
Which should we do:
800 million on light rail
or
800 million to build a new auto bridge?
Thanks
JK
Strip out all of the interchange rebuilds, except SR14
But the interchanges are a big part of the problem. For example, there’s a lot of weaving in a short distance northbound between the Marine Drive on-ramp and the Hayden Island off-ramp.
Builds only what is needed now
So we can possibly come back again later and have to re-do it again?
what people really need: auto capacity.
Even though there’s plenty of it compared with dedicated (as in outside of traffic) transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities?
transit riders that amount to only 1500 people today
I’m not sure that number is right since it should include people on C-TRAN’s Route 4, C-TRAN’s limited routes, C-TRAN’s express routes and maybe TriMet Line 6.
And will probably not get much larger in the future
Even if it is made a real, reliable alternative that does not get stuck in traffic along with everybody else?
800 million on light rail or 800 million to build a new auto bridge?
Well we do already have two perfectly usable (but maybe not perfectly functional) auto bridges…
Jason McHuff Says: But the interchanges are a big part of the problem. For example, there’s a lot of weaving in a short distance northbound between the Marine Drive on-ramp and the Hayden Island off-ramp.
JK: The weave can be eliminated by extending that add lane across the bridge. JB offs may still be a minor porblem, but not a billion $ problem.
Jason McHuff Says: So we can possibly come back again later and have to re-do it again?
JK: No, what we do stays. We MAY want to do some more things later if the regions really grows as planners think.
Jason McHuff Says: Even though there’s plenty of it compared with dedicated (as in outside of traffic) transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities?
JK: The lack of auto capacity IS THE REASON to improve the crossing. Not to accommodate very few users of odd modes of transport.
Jason McHuff Says: I’m not sure that number is right since it should include people on C-TRAN’s Route 4, C-TRAN’s limited routes, C-TRAN’s express routes and maybe TriMet Line 6.
JK: Maybe it’s wrong – it did come from the CRC DEIS.
Jason McHuff Says: Even if it is made a real, reliable alternative that does not get stuck in traffic along with
JK: You mean like WES? The goal should be to get traffic freely flowing, not to continue congestion to force people into money wasting, energy wasting transit.
Thanks
JK
accommodate very few users of odd modes of transport.
So, are you saying that if transit becomes more comfortable, reliable, faster (because of being able to service Hayden Island without having to get off the highway, make a 360-degree loop in going over to the west side, going over to the stop, making another 360-degree loop back to the east side and then having to wait at the on ramp), etc, the same amount of people will ride it? That if an orange becomes more juicy, ripe, etc, it won’t be any more enticing to eat?
You mean like WES?
If you’re implying that a rail line to Vancouver would have equally low ridership, you need to remember that Beaverton and Wilsonville (and Tigard and Tualatin) are lot different than Portland and Vancouver. Many of the areas around WES are not easily walkable and are a lot less dense (meaning less destinations are in walking distance) than in Downtown Vancouver and North Portland (and even areas beyond those).
My proposal of a bridge in the rail corridor with some relatively minor improvements to some country roads would shave at least five miles off a trip from Vancouver city center to West Union. During heavy traffic this could amount to ten or fifteen minutes saving. And this would make bus service on that route far more cost effective, too.
Why tear down the I-5 bridges? You know there are a lot of things that people save that just get in the way. But a billion dollar river crossing is in another category! With the predicted influx of new settlers into this region we need all of our existing capacity and then some.
Please see my post: “An Alternate CRC Vision”.in the archives for May 4, 2009
Why in the world would they tear down the I5 bridges?
This country has gone freaking insane!
The existing bridges are dangerous relics.
They have not been maintained , and the steel structure has systemic corrosion making them a danger to you today! The Design is well below today’s engineering standards for earthquake
strength. They are built on top of rotting ancient
supports. You would not live in a falling down rotten house like this.
Hey Bob, why was this an “off topic destraction”
[Moderator: Corrected. Original comment restored.]
billb Says: The existing bridges are dangerous relics.
JK: They are “structureally sound.” (Don Wagner, Admisnistrator, Southwest Region, WADOT)
billb Says: They have not been maintained , and the steel structure has systemic corrosion making them a danger to you today! The Design is well below today’s engineering standards for earthquake strength. They are built on top of rotting ancient
supports.
JK: The CRC DEIS says they can be upgraded for a reasonable cost. See options 4&5.
Thanks
JK
Bill;
My understanding is that the current Interstate bridges, while substandard, are capable of rehabilitation. Many consider them functionally obsolete, as they have short interchange distances on both sides (I don’t know which is scarier, getting on I-5 NB from Jantzen Beach, or I-5 SB from SR14), no rail, etc. 3 lanes per direction of through traffic is probably adequate.
The current CRC, though, appears to be a Christmas-tree project, where the competing needs of different stakeholders are all addressed–with a likely result that the thing doesn’t get built at all. (The present political weakness of Portland mayor Sam Adams probably is a contributing factor–he lacks the political standing to take a hard line on anything these days…)
I strongly suspect, despite Adam’s self-made misfortune, that the pro-transit folks on the Oregon side of the river hold the stronger hand. Many here are perfectly happy with the status quo–the “no build option”–and there’s no point in building MAX to the Couv if the Couv doesn’t want it. It’s the folks north of the river (along with the state DOTs) who really want a bigger, wider bridge, and there’s enough political chops in Portland to prevent that from happening. Especially when it costs $4 billion.
Instead of a new bridge, can’t we just make some new add/drop lanes at the congested interchanges?
The merging lanes that connect to the bridge, would have nowhere to go. I suppose we could close one through lane in each direction, so the current Interstate Bridge(s) have two through lanes and one merging lane on each side, and traffic coming onto the bridge(s) from SR14 or Hayden Island doesn’t have to merge quickly–but I don’t think that idea will fly. :)
The merging at Jantzen Beach, IMO, is not as bad as some northbound merging closer to the Rose quarter. I am referring to the merger of traffic from the Morrison bridge to Northbound I-5. The problem is that traffic from w. bound Morrison bridge has its ramp to I-5, which is also joined by the cloverleaf ramp from e. bound Morrison bridge. Then they both must merge on to the I-5. Frequently I will encounter another vehicle, usually from the e. bound lanes, and have to jockey around within a short distance before joining the n. bound flow. I keep wondering; What if I am doing this some day in heavy traffic, like at 4:30 pm and I come alongside the MIDDLE of a tandem trailer unit from the e. bound merging lane. Do I speed up and then figure out a way to merge on to heavy traffic on I-5? Or do I slow down and risk that the car behind me doesn’t react in time and rear ends me? Sometimes it is bad enough when you are just trying to merge with cars—let alone a long tractor-trailer combo.
I have a plan to fix this, and at the same time free up a lot of space in the area. This would make the ongoing Eastbank riverfront debate more or less moot. In hoping that the CRC project doesn’t get built we still have the skeleton of the Freeway Loop reconstruction hanging around. So the latter would not be necessary and we can still reclaim a lot of the rivefront are for purposes other than traffic. These two projects are like two— very expensive—dominoes, one waiting upon the other to fall first. So, I think, we don’t need either one, yet we can reclaim the waterfront—and perhaps in a way that is even better than the Freeway Loop plan.
This pattern mor or less repeats north of Broadway, where the Broadway on-ramp meets with traffic leaving I-82 and going n. bound. Anyone else ever felt very uncomfortable on these merging ramps? However, I think there are some easy solutions–that would help reduce the intense experience of driving through our dense downtown core on I-5.
The scariest merge I can think of in the Portland area is the merge from SW Hood Avenue onto I-5 south, just south of the Ross Island Bridge.
The scariest merge I’ve ever seen in the US was an onramp onto the eastbound (southbound) Hollywood Freeway in downtown LA, near Union Station–that ended in a stop sign. It appears that this onramp has been removed or re-designed, but I still shudder thinking about that one.
EngineerScotty Says: The scariest merge I can think of in the Portland area is the merge from SW Hood Avenue onto I-5 south, just south of the Ross Island Bridge.
Really? I’ve never thought of it like that at all. My biggest issues are usually trying to get on to northbound I-5 from the Morrison Bridge on-ramp when the moron traveling in the slow lane refuses to yield, even when there’s no one in the fast lane.
The scariest merge I’ve ever seen in the US was an onramp onto the eastbound (southbound) Hollywood Freeway in downtown LA, near Union Station–that ended in a stop sign. It appears that this onramp has been removed or re-designed, but I still shudder thinking about that one.
I found myself on that one once, about 15 years ago!
no point in building MAX to the Couv if the Couv doesn’t want it
Well, what about reverse-commuters, and maybe Oregonians who want people from Vancouver to have the option of taking it, in hopes that it will reduce (okay, slow the increase of) traffic in Oregon?
an onramp onto the eastbound (southbound) Hollywood Freeway in downtown LA, near Union Station
You mean this one?
Frankly, I’d be for replacing the I-5 bridges altogether… it seems ridiculous to have a drawspan on an Interstate corridor. That said, the current 12-lane proposal probably falls under the category of “overkill”; this is where Ron Swaren’s aforementioned alternate CRC proposal might come in.
The ramp was a bit further west of the Hollywood/Santa Monica interchange, between it and the Four-Level. It appears the freeway was widened to accomodate an acceleration lane, from recent google photos. But you were close. :)
Obviously, Tri-Met and Metro have no sway in Vancouver, so light-rail ain’t going to the Couv unless voters there want it–even if a new CRC does include provision for light-rail. No matter what reverse-commuters from Oregon think.
A few years ago, Stephen Colbert made the joke that Oregon was Washington’s Mexico–or California’s Canada. (“Idaho’s Portugal” was also mentioned; though that one doesn’t really work…)
I’ve decided that Vancouver, WA… is Portland’s Taiwan. :)
@EngineerScotty or East Berlin.
” My biggest issues are usually trying to get on to northbound I-5 from the Morrison Bridge on-ramp when the moron traveling in the slow lane refuses to yield, even when there’s no one in the fast lane.”
Yes, that is part of the problem I was referring to; and it is even worse when both Morrison bridge ramps to I-5 are packed with traffic. But the thing to remember is that “the moron traveling in the slow lane” has been given no clue that there will be merging traffic on the right. Moreover, they are not required by law to yield; it is the merging traffic from the onramp that is obligated to do that. Besides during late afternoon traffic it might be hard for them to move over.
But I do have a plan. And I think it would make this area much safer and free up a lot of land for future development. I am going to be going to Metro and JPACT with this idea—since I think it is highly unlikely that the Freeway Loop plan, per se, will ever be implemented (too costly) and the first domino of the CRC isn’t going to fall either (Keeping my fingers crossed.)
But I do think there is a way we can make the eastbank riverfront a premier high value urban parcel, accessible to people. Without imitating the Big Dig. (sorry, Chris)
the Broadway on-ramp meets with traffic leaving I-82
That would be a heck of a ramp!
The solution to the substandard on/off ramps is a frontage road…common throughout the world.
In this case it would be an arterial extension of Denver or MLK, would cross the Columbia on its own bridge with light rail and bike/ped facilities to downtown Vancovuer. Hayden Island ramps could be closed…someone going north would cross the River on the arterial bridge and get on the freeway. The arterial bridge size…2 lanes or 3 or even 4…would be based on accommodating SR 14 in some manner.
Why are the DOTs willing to spend so much money to get folks on and off a freeway when many are going for only a short distance? One should not have to get on an interstate freeway to go to Shenanigans.
“Well, what about reverse-commuters, and maybe Oregonians who want people from Vancouver to have the option of taking it, in hopes that it will reduce (okay, slow the increase of) traffic in Oregon?”
I want my neighbor to get rid of his chickens, in the hopes that I’ll be able to sleep in on a weekend, but how far you think that’s gonna go?
Same concept here. Oregon has no legal (or any other kind of) mandate to tell Washington what to do. Even suggesting it is the kind of arrogance that Vancouver hates about Portland.
Oregon has no legal (or any other kind of) mandate to tell Washington what to do. Even suggesting it is the kind of arrogance that Vancouver hates about Portland.
Nor does Washington have a mandate to do likewise to Oregon. It’s equally arrogant to assume that Portlanders will simply put up with more and more traffic generated by Vancouver’s choices. If Vancouver wants to have an auto-centric development strategy, so be it. But don’t expect that Portland is just going to accept that.
Which is why I suspect the CRC won’t be built any time soon. The compromise proposal is too expensive, and the lower-cost alternatives are likely to annoy one side of the river or the other.
One other possibility would be for Salem to openly take the side of the feds and Washington State, and align against the Portland metro area, and essentially (via legislation) decree that the bridge shall be built, whether local and regional government likes it or not. But such power plays are seldom successful–as witnessed by numerous uncompleted freeway projects in politically powerful locales (the Pasadena Freeway in LA, the Embardacero and Central Freeways in SF).
as witnessed by numerous uncompleted freeway projects in politically powerful locales
And yet San Diego was forced to complete I-15, improve parts of I-5 and I-8, and widen CA-163 to be able to get the state to back them for federal funding for SD Trolley expansions.
Portland might have enough influence, but I’m not sure that many people in Portland will get mad enough. The examples in LA and SF that you mentioned would have wiped out existing neighborhoods. The CRC won’t.
Well, I was at Metro council today explaining that the CRC is like the first of two dominoes that must fall. The second is the Freeway Loop plan to bury I-5 and remove the Marquam. This has been strategized for several years. If the CRC is built traffic will inevitably soar resulting in unendurable congestion on the I-5 in Portland. Then cries will arise for the next domino to fall–bury the I-5— which would make the CRC look like child’s play. So if the CRC is four billion, the second domino would be 15-20 billion. “Pretty soon we are talking about real money.”
But if we invest in the BN route, which I think can be done for about 1.5 billion, this makes both dominos unnecessary. And the juicy plum that they are after–reclaiming the east bank as premier commercial property— can still go ahead. It just has to coexist with the I-5—a strategy that is already working in many other cities.
I like Al M’s thoughts again…
Why the !@#$ are we even attempting to build this stupid !@#$%$# bridge. Just build an arterial for about $400-600 million and call it a day.
If light rail is wanted/needed then build another bridge for the $1.2-1.4 billion to get it all the way over there to downtown Couv (even though I strongly believe they ought to put it where the people are and extend it over along I-205 up to the Couv. Couv knows it, we ought to figure it out too.
I also gotta point out a FACT that JK points out also…
“JK: They are “structureally sound.” (Don Wagner, Admisnistrator, Southwest Region, WADOT)”
This BS statement by some schmuck politician that didn’t know what was the truth, has been retorted against and retracted already. JK is right, as he points to the quote by Don Wagner – The bridge is STRUCTURALLY SOUND. We have other bridges that are in far worse shape (including other Interstate Bridges)!
So really, WTF are we trying to spend 4.x Billion (which will end up easily being 5-15 Billion after inflation by the time it is built, thanks in part, to all this bailout action and influx of cash on the money supply in the country)…
CRC == Stupid.
Adron–one point to note. You suggest running MAX up I-205 into WA–doing so would require either closing freeway lanes to make room for MAX tracks, or a new bridge. There is a persistent myth (and I’ve been guilty in the past of repeating it myself) that the Glenn Jackson bridge can accomodate a rail line with minimal modification–it can’t.
Adron, connecting MAX to downtown Vancouver makes sense due to it being the most dense area they already have, and that they’re planning to continue to encourage development of downtown Vancouver.
Considering the Boise-Cascade site is planned to hold about 10-12 thousand housing units alone, I’d think that connecting to the downtown area would be a priority over the strip malls of eastern Vancouver. I think Vancouver would prefer to have MAX go downtown also, since the city’s actively trying to improve it into more of a real urban center.
The Southwest Washington RTC did a comprehensive “High Capacity Transit System Study,” and the entire final report is on their website:
http://rtc.wa.gov/hct/information.asp#documents
Note that the Southwest Washington RTC study of High Capacity Transit indicates that the Glenn Jackson Bridge is fully capable of carrying light rail, as was the intent when it was built.
I would consider closing 1 (of four) lanes in each direction a “minimal modification” to permit light rail, since this would not reduce the peak-hour capacity of the bridge. With only a seated load, a train every 5 minutes during the peak would carry as many people as a freeway lane.
Unfortunately, I think this would take more than a “minimal modification” to the current conventional wisdom about where transportation dollars should be spent.
Also, I want to add my thanks to Jim Karlock for pointing out (earlier in this thread) that the current I-5 bridges are safe and structurally sound.
I would consider closing 1 (of four) lanes in each direction a “minimal modification” to permit light rail, since this would not reduce the peak-hour capacity of the bridge.
That won’t pass federal standards. It’s not allowed to remove lanes from an Interstate for any purpose, including HOV/HOT/transit.
The bridge wasn’t originally designed to add light rail later, and without an act of Congress, that won’t change. BRT across the bridge is plausible without construction, LRT is not.
I was actively involved in transportation issues at the time the Glenn Jackson bridge was designed and built. Multnomah County insisted that the bridge be built to allow the later addition of light rail. This was done. This is an historical fact. Who says “the bridge wasn’t originally designed to add light rail later…”? Read the RTC study referenced above, which confirms the correct history.
Given enough $$$ and political muscle, much can be accomplished. However:
1) There isn’t any room on the current bridge deck to add light rail, without removing highway lanes. According to Dave, the Feds won’t permit it. (I might ask, is this a new law/regulation? I seem to recall freeway lanes being converted to HOV in the past). Even if permissible, converting freeway lanes to MAX use would be politically difficult.
2) It is unknown (to me) whether the superstructure can support the construction of additional surface–either widening the existing bridge deck, or addition of rail underneath. Either would be expensive, no doubt.
3) It could well be the case that “designed to support light rail” means little more than “able to bear the weight of trains”; MAX trains are heavier point-source loads than most freeway traffic.