As the Daily Journal of Commerce reports, because:
“When you look at the two pictures (of the bridge designs), most people can’t tell the difference,” [TriMet spokesperson Mary] Fetsch said.
That sounds like something an agency with no elected leadership would say. Sigh.
32 responses to “TriMet Goes for Lowest Cost Bridge”
While I could “tell the difference”, it’s not like we’re talking about the difference between the Fremont and Marquam here–with one design a blatant eyesore, the other a Beautiful Work of Architecture.
Given the lack of cable-stayed bridges in town, I think either design would add nicely to our collection of bridges. The hybrid design has the benefit of a wider span, if I recall–but either is suitable for current river users.
I’m curious–what is the difference in cost between the two designs–is the materials and construction cost for the hybrid design that much more, or is it mainly the architect’s fee? (The architectural community seems to be of the unanimous opinion, that more public dollars should be spent on architecture. Wonder why…)
“While I could “tell the difference”, it’s not like we’re talking about the difference between the Fremont and Marquam here–with one design a blatant eyesore, the other a Beautiful Work of Architecture.”
I know of one way to beautify the Marquam Bridge. Put this light rail or streetcar track on the lower piers–yes with a lift span as needed–and save the taxpayers about 80 million dollars.
Ron,
I seriously doubt that a railtrack below the bottom deck of the Marquam is a viable option, from a technical standpoint. A lift span retrofitted onto the Marquam, without any additional piers going into the river, is almost assuredly impossible from an engineering standpoint–the bridge has to close to other traffic when 100-ton trucks cross it; how is it to support a lift span and counterweight weighing in the millions of pounds?
OK-a question. Is the Marquam bridge designed to hold the traffic occurring when all lanes are blocked in both directions by traffic snarls?
I am not claiming to be the expert—but if it can safely hold that amount of traffic with no fear of collapse–plus it has enormous weight in the structure itself–the added weight of a silly streetcar rail and pedestrian path would be negligible. Orginally I saw no need for MAX to cross there–since I saw no need for Milwaukie MAX, another elaborate boondoggle–but a streetcar crossing in the middle of Portland would be brilliant. The Hawthorne Bridge as a case in point has accomodated buses for years with its open grate design. Perhaps aluminum or other alloy components could be used.
But I figure any Tri Met controlled bridge designer would then add enough extra weight that they would claim it presents problems. Just like we can’t redesign the deck of the Sellwood Bridge–making it akin to the Hawthorne or Morrison—without launching into a three hundred million dollar project.
Just tear down the Marquam Bridge, then the new bridge will look great, no matter the design.
Well, I’m sure they could’ve gone for some super-duper inexpensive box girder design, which would’ve probably been cheaper than all the rest. Obviously, they didn’t. This is still a signature bridge we’re talking about here, so I’m thinking they’re splitting the design vs. cost standpoint down the center.
Call me nuts, but I’ve always been a little freaked out by the main cables on a suspension bridge not actually reaching the deck in the middle. I don’t have any real reason for it, but I always thought it was strange.
FWIW, there’s no cable-stayed bridges in Portland, so IMO I always thought they should’ve gone with the design ever since they first started talking about it and were throwing around the preliminary conceptual drawing (1998/99 or so?)
Ron wrote:
OK-a question. Is the Marquam bridge designed to hold the traffic occurring when all lanes are blocked in both directions by traffic snarls?
Yes.
I am not claiming to be the expert—but if it can safely hold that amount of traffic with no fear of collapse–plus it has enormous weight in the structure itself–the added weight of a silly streetcar rail and pedestrian path would be negligible. Orginally I saw no need for MAX to cross there–since I saw no need for Milwaukie MAX, another elaborate boondoggle–but a streetcar crossing in the middle of Portland would be brilliant. The Hawthorne Bridge as a case in point has accomodated buses for years with its open grate design. Perhaps aluminum or other alloy components could be used.
A pedestrian path could probably be hung from the existing superstructure without much difficulty–and without affecting river clearance. A rail crossing–a structure strong enough to support the weight of a train, PLUS a train–not so much. A lift span and counterweight? No way.
The Hawthorne Bridge has its lift span and counterweight supported by piers in the middle of the river, not suspended from the deck of a box/girder bridge not designed to support that kind of point-source load. You’ll find that pretty much all drawbridges have piers going into the river at either ends of the shipping channel.
But I figure any Tri Met controlled bridge designer would then add enough extra weight that they would claim it presents problems. Just like we can’t redesign the deck of the Sellwood Bridge–making it akin to the Hawthorne or Morrison—without launching into a three hundred million dollar project.
The Sellwood is in far worse structural shape than the Marquam–it can’t even safely support the weight of fire trucks and busses, let alone trains. While the Sellwood might well be better repaired than replaced–I don’t know–running rails across it is a dubious proposition.
Personally, I still think it ought to be converted to a pedestrian bridge, and a new rail/road crossing located elsewhere. But there really isn’t a good place for one anywhere, as OR43 has enough trouble handling traffic from West Linn and LO, without having to absorb thousands of eastside commuters.
Ron Swaren said: ”I know of one way to beautify the Marquam Bridge. Put this light rail or streetcar track on the lower piers–yes with a lift span as needed–and save the taxpayers about 80 million dollars”
Ron, this is truly thinking outside the box. I must say I agree with you on this idea. Although I have advocated for a river clearance on the new proposed bridge that is equal to that of the Marquam Bridge to maintain the Willamette as a transportation corridor for the future; a lift span as you suggest would likely not be regularly used with current river uses, but would provide for future opportunities associated with the river. Additionally, saving the taxpayers money is extremely and equally important. Transit in Portland provides a service to the people who use it, but the unsustainable trajectory of state and local taxpayer funded subsidies to pay for it, especially for streetcars, has become the ultimate government controlled ponzi scheme.
Moreover, if the construction of a new bridge of any design moves forward, it should be a toll bridge whereby bicyclists are required to pay tolls to use it, and transit passengers are assessed a fare surcharge that would replace any taxpayer subsidies.
Retrofitting rail onto the Marquam is a non-starter, because the structure is not designed to carry more weight than it currently is. I don’t know how much a Streetcar weights, but MAX weighs an average of 60 tons. The new deck’s structure, rails, caternary, etc. would add to this.
As for “carrying the weight of snarled traffic” a vehicle puts marginally less downforce on the ground when stopped than it does in motion. Moving laterally doesn’t bypass gravity; in fact, vehicles moving over a bridge tend to cause more downforce on the structure due to the rebounding of the shock absorbers, and any equipment the vehicle may have to specifically cause downforce, such as front air dams and rear spoilers that direct drag from travel into vertical force to improve handling and stability of the vehicle.
All transportation plans must first obey physics before even remotely being considered.
super-duper inexpensive box girder design
You mean something like the one in the project’s logo?
Also, regarding using the Marquam Bridge piers, I think that might run into the people who want the example of a lack of design torn down (not that it would necessarily prevent that). And moreover, the bridge has been moved well south of it to serve South Waterfront.
Overall, given the project’s potential budget issues (like has been noted here; also note that they are assuming a high, 60% Federal match), TriMet’s general budget issues and what’s happened with the nearby tram, WES (though that’s not really a fair comparison since that was really due to the the world-unique vehicles), and maybe the westside MAX tunnels, I think choosing the less-expensive design might be the way to go.
Lastly, I just uploaded video of this month’s TriMet board briefing last night. They gave a (I believe) half-hour presentation on the bridge design. I think they said that the more expensive bridge would require a temporary bridge be built, and that having the piers be farther from the shore would be better for fish, Portland Spirit’s docks, etc.
whereby bicyclists are required to pay tolls to use it
That’s fine, as long as bicyclists only have to pay for the extra width (it’s MAX that really needs a more substantial structure), don’t have to pay for use by pedestrians and get a 100% discount for attempting to have better health and not using any fuel or electricity.
transit passengers are assessed a fare surcharge that would replace any taxpayer subsidies
As long as taxpayer subsidies for motorists (such as Interstate highway bridges financed by the Federal government and the Big Pipe) are also replaced.
“All transportation plans must first obey physics before even remotely being considered.
Well if we start doing that around here, it’s going to take all the fun out of this blog! ;)
“Moreover, if the construction of a new bridge of any design moves forward, it should be a toll bridge whereby bicyclists are required to pay tolls to use it, and transit passengers are assessed a fare surcharge that would replace any taxpayer subsidies.”
Now THAT is a splendid–and just–idea. Portland’s public transit wizards want a $4billion bridge for the Columbia complete with–what is it now–$7 tolls. So, they should not object to $7 tolls IN PERPETUITY for their specialized bridge across the Willamette. Bicycles, pedestrians, riders on the toy train. Hahahaha! That’s a good one, and under the Oregon Constitution I think you have a good argument.
Sombody get the word out on it. (Now go and comment on my article so that I don’t have O comments on it.)
“The Sellwood is in far worse structural shape than the Marquam–it can’t even safely support the weight of fire trucks and busses, let alone trains. While the Sellwood might well be better repaired than replaced–I don’t know–running rails across it is a dubious proposition.’
The piers of the Sellwood Bridge are bigger than those of the Ross Island. The metal truss is plenty adequate for a two lane road. It’s the old approaches (recycled from an older Burnside Br) that are problems, along with the failing deck. I estimate that about 1200-1500 tons of useless concrete (the railings and concrete girder underneath) could easily be removed from the Sellwood and replaced with modern materials. In fact that might even be the net gain in weight reduction. Now what does that do for any statement that the Sellwood is unrepairable. A 31 ton streetcar is pretty lightweight, compared to twelve hundred tons of concrete that could be removed.
We had a state bridge inspector at a meeting who said it was repairable
“All transportation plans must first obey physics before even remotely being considered.”
Best comment ever.
And which laws are we referring to, praytell, Mr. Newton?
So Chris, you alluded to the fact that that Trimet is not an elected public agency. Could you tell me your views more specifically on this issue? I tried to make sense of it over at my blog. Maybe you could tell me what you think:
http://pdxme.com/?p=211
All transportation projects WILL obey the laws of physics, like it or not.
Whether said laws dictate the bridge will remain standing or fall down–is a matter for the engineers. :)
And–to answer Ron–Newton’s laws, and other laws of classical mechanics–will suffice. Nothing crossing the bridge will even remotely approach the speed of light after all, so relativist and quantum effects need not, in all likelihood, be considered.
So Daniel Ronan,
your a new transit blogger?
The trimet board (aka the Fred Fan Club) is appointed by the governor, who apparently gives them instructions to do everything that FRED tells them to do without question.
who apparently gives them instructions to do everything that FRED tells them to do without question.
THAT IS NOT INTENDED AS HUMOR!
So Chris, you alluded to the fact that that Trimet is not an elected public agency. Could you tell me your views more specifically on this issue?
Daniel, I’m generally pretty supportive of TriMet, and am in agreement with their mission and long-term strategy.
But they get it wrong on a lot of details (arguably the rail vs. bus resource allocation is out of balance) and manage to regularly appear tone deaf to public perception. I think we might well get much better results in some areas if there were more direct accountability (when’s the last time you heard the Governor ask a TriMet director to resign?).
That does NOT necessarily look like electing the TriMet Board (and certainly not the General Manager – an agency like TriMet should have a professional manager hired by the board, not a politician). For example, Metro has the ability in their charter, by a majority vote, to take over control of TriMet. I don’t know that this would necessarily be a bad thing.
Or you could restructure TriMet’s charter such that it’s board consisted of elected officials (e.g., one County Commissioner from each County plus a City Commissioner from Portland, or some other politically viable mix). The governance models for JPACT and MPAC at Metro look like this and are basically functional.
100% plus, Chris. The plus is that Metro would have to be absolutely insane if they wanted to take over TriMet. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t, only that we’re in real trouble if they want to.
Why would Metro have to be “insane”? Metro already serves a lot of regional government functions, including planning–specifically, transportation planning. While the Tri-Met and Metro boundaries are not currently congruent, they mostly overlap (Wilsonville is a big exception). I assume that Tri-Met would remain as an operating entity within Metro, possibly with some consolidation of things like support services.
There’s obviously been a bit of political intrigue over at Metro recently–but that’s typical, I think for a large organization.
Would Metro be the best choice to run Tri-Met (vs staying independent)? I dunno–a separate agency might be able to do with less bureaucracy. But they certainly COULD do it. Running a transit authority is probably a more sensible function for a regional government than running things like zoos and performance venues…
“All transportation projects WILL obey the laws of physics, like it or not.
Whether said laws dictate the bridge will remain standing or fall down–is a matter for the engineers. :)”
Boy, I’m sure glad no one ever built any bridges before Newton’s time….
Wait! They did build bridges! In fact, there are 19 structures still remaining in Italy dating back to Roman times. I guess they had better tear them down, though…y’know, safety concerns. I’m writing the letter to Alesandro Bianchi (Transport Minister) right now!
Ron, I fail to see your point. Are you saying those bridges weren’t designed by engineers?
Just because Newton hadn’t yet formulated and expressed his observations (or for that matter, hadn’t yet been born), does not mean that there wasn’t an established profession which had catalogued techniques which worked to build enduring structures.
arguably the rail vs. bus resource allocation is out of balance
I’m a little surprised to hear that from you. However, I think part of the resource allocation is based on a long-term strategy of creating places where people really are attracted to transit (and generally are more vibrant), and the argument is that rail stations are what do that. But as I’ve said here before, I think fix the real problems of the subsidies that discourage those things.
ask a TriMet director to resign?
1994, with Loren Wyss, though its argued that he was doing too good of a job and opposing the union. Also, I think its possible that Fred would make a great politician.
Metro has the ability in their charter, by a majority vote, to take over control of TriMet
Don’t know if its different now, but a 1988 Oregonian article found that “PATHWAY TO ALTAR FOR TRI-MET, METRO FILLED WITH FINANCIAL, LEGAL< POTHOLES”, including pension, bond and other issues. But as I’ve mentioned before, ideally there would be a “Metro County”. However, I think that the idea of using already-elected officials has merit. I believe that’s what C-TRAN has.
Lastly, I’m working on creating maps that compare agencies’ boundaries.
I’m a little surprised to hear that from you.
I have more dimensions than you appreciate :-)
Chris Smith: Or you could restructure TriMet’s charter such that it’s board consisted of elected officials (e.g., one County Commissioner from each County plus a City Commissioner from Portland, or some other politically viable mix).
Jason McHuff: However, I think that the idea of using already-elected officials has merit. I believe that’s what C-TRAN has.
In a word, yes.
http://c-tran.com/meet_the_board.html
But they get it wrong on a lot of details (arguably the rail vs. bus resource allocation is out of balance) and manage to regularly appear tone deaf to public perception.
Tribute to Chris Smith, who now gets the photo on my YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcXAGEvJHv8
pssst…al m. can you change the video out of widescreen mode?
pssst…al m. can you change the video out of widescreen mode?
Well it’s a little late, why, what’s the problem?
Ok, Stand by for the revised version!