In an interview with the Trib, Peter DeFazio has again insisted that the Columbia RIver Crossing get smaller and less expensive.
Meanwhile Coalition for a Livable Future has issued an action alert asking folks to comment on the Regional Transportation Plan, asking Metro to balance the plan more strongly toward walking, biking and transit, including removing the CRC from the plan.
20 responses to “CRC on the Ropes?”
This is what happens when you have politicians, planners, and special interests studying a project for so long: BLOAT. Not one of the groups studying the project are even QUALIFIED to determine what is really NEEDED in the project, and most of the parties involved aren’t even looking at meeting current and future travel demand, but are trying to shape the project into some smart growth utopia. Are there even any actual traffic engineers working on this?
It needs to stop!
thank God.
I can agree with everyone and their mother having an opinion creati, but traffic engineers are apart of the problem(s) too. Traffic engineers are only concerned with traffic — keep that in mind. We need to have a common goal in mind that can unify both sides.
As much as I agree that the CRC is a real white elephant and that people should try to find other ways of commuting than individual autos if it is feasible for them, I do think we are going to need some added highway capacity across the Columbia. It doesn’t have to be a controlled access freeway, but should allow rapid travel—-whether by car, bus, bicycle, ol paint, whatever—- from Clark County area to the burgeoning economic zone of Washington Co.
My analysis of this route shows a five mile savings over the Interstate 5 and US26 route, by whatever mode you choose. Clark County residents were bringing in $120 million in revenue to the State of Oregon in 2002. How much higher is it now? Is this source of revenue something we should look askance of?
Actually, now that I think of it, this connection would mean the Vancouver to West Union route is bicyclable. While planning this route a path for that mode could be incorporated, Trying to connect those two areas via the other freeway routes would be a HUGE challenge.
Yes, there are traffic engineers working on the project. Mostly they provide technical contribution–answering questions like “if we want this level of service, and wish to follow each and every Federal highway standard to the T, how many lanes do we need?”
Which is fine. Given the input parameters, the engineers came up with the current proposal.
Answering the political questions–what do we want to build, and how can we afford it, is outside the specialty of traffic engineers, however.
And most of you have proven my point that this project has gone way outside the scope of what it should be.
The current congestion on I-5 does not consist of bicycle riders, transit riders, or pedestrians. Why? Because existing facilities adequately meet their almost non-existant demand.
So, since the CRC project IS about car and truck traffic and nothing else, maybe we should leave the bridge to the engineers.
The current congestion on I-5 does not consist of bicycle riders, transit riders, or pedestrians. Why? Because existing facilities adequately meet their almost non-existant demand.
So, since the CRC project IS about car and truck traffic and nothing else, maybe we should leave the bridge to the engineers.
No, we shouldn’t. Because the agreed-upon transportation system strategy of the Portland region – which will bear the brunt of the additional traffic the CRC will induce – does not support simply widening roads ad infinitum.
Actually, the existing facilities don’t meet the demand of bicyclists, transit riders, and pedestrians.
For folks on two wheels or on foot, the Interstate Bridge sidewalks are a dangerous, frightening experience–only a few feet of clearance (barely enough for two bikes to pass side-by-side), and very close to auto traffic whizzing by.
For transit users–there’s no rail, obviously, and bus riders are routinely subject to the same traffic delays as are motorists.
For folks on two wheels or on foot, the Interstate Bridge sidewalks are a dangerous, frightening experience
It’s been a while since I biked across the bridge (it was on the 4th of July a year ago), but I agree. On one side of the narrow walkway, there’s the bridge structure (and just beyond that, roaring traffic), and on the other side, there’s a railing short enough that if you fall off a bike into it, you might go overboard into the river. And someone coming the other way had to hide in the bridge structure so I could go by.
and bus riders are routinely subject to the same traffic delays as are motorists
And I, and some others, found that out last Friday. But even besides congestion, for many people taking transit requires transferring at Delta Park and then making a double-loop getting onto and off of Hayden Island.
Also, another way to put it: The present facilities are fine because few people use them because of their poor quality.
I-5 wouldn’t be congested if there was one more route for traffic from Washington to points in Oregon. Traffic across the Willamette River in Portland would be an unbelievable mess if there were only two bridges.
Let’s plan the Third Interstate Bridge downstream at the rail corridor—-and do it right. For bicyclists the present I-5 route doesn’t really have that much going for it, anyway. On the Third Bridge a decent bicycle route could be incorporated that would also get them through Forest Park and out to Hillsboro. This, if planned from the beginning, would be a smooth, obstacle free route that would be much more of a joy to take than trying to weave down through the Interstate 5 route and busy Portland thoroughfares. Plus you could get from Vancouver to NW Front Ave, Downtown, the River District and Pearl District. And possibly a route to the University of Portland. Aren’t there plans for a bike route and greenway along the NW Front Ave area, eventually?
With a significantly less congested I-5 bus travel would resume to a dependable and efficient level. The new route could also utilize an express bus service, connecting Vancouver, Terminal 5 and 6, Linnton and West Union.
I-5 wouldn’t be congested if there was one more route for traffic from Washington to points in Oregon. Traffic across the Willamette River in Portland would be an unbelievable mess if there were only two bridges.
We have about 20 directional lanes across the Willamette, versus 7 across the Columbia.
Why do we need a new transit-only bridge across the Willamette again?
Jason McHuff Says: Also, another way to put it: The present facilities are fine because few people use them because of their poor quality.
JK: OK, suppose the ped/bike facilities were perfect. how many users would you expect?
And are they willing to pay the cost of their part of the bridge?
(Keep in mind that the DEIS report reports that there are currently only 30 peds and 150 bikers daily.)
Thanks
JK
JK:
Well, induced demand can certainly work towards getting more peds and bike riders on the bridge, just as it can get more cars on the road.
How are we to guess how many bike/ped users to expect? I’m not sure, but we could perhaps look at bridges across the Willamette for comparison. What’s a Willamette bridge with bike/ped facilities that are as bad as those of the current I-5 bridge? The Morrison? The Ross Island? The St. Johns? How does bike/ped usage compare between those bridges and bridges with excellent bike/ped facilities like the Hawthorne, or the lower level of the Steel? I’m guessing the difference is huge.
And as for paying the cost, a better question might be: does the community at large – this vast metropolitan area, each resident of which is going to be on the hook for thousands of dollars for the CRC – want to pay for bike/ped facilities? I’m sure many of us – even those of us who can’t get around by bike or on foot – would much rather support infrastructure that allows commuters the freedom to bike or walk.
Maybe the relevant comparison would be the Steel Bridge before and after the bicycle deck went in, or the Hawthorne Bridge before and after the sidewalks were expanded. Or even the Morrison Bridge before and after the new bikeway (is that finished yet?) is installed.
The issue of “how many” is rather irrelevant. Any new bridge will be built with taxpayer money. It should be open to ALL taxpayers, not just those who choose to tool around on an internal combustion engine surrounded by a couple of tons of steel and plastic. That means adequate facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, and the bridge should accommodate NEVs and scooters as well.
A light rail project isn’t strictly necessary from a fairness standpoint — transit can be accommodated with an HOV lane and buses — but it’s just smart planning to take the Interstate LRT all the way to Vancouver.
DeFazio is correct that the price tag and number of lanes are too high, especially in the current economic climate. That said, it’s disappointing that Coalition For a Livable Future is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by calling for the CRC to be scrapped altogether — do they really think the current crossing does an acceptible job of handling bicyclists, pedestrians and mass transit?
Also, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts on this subject, it makes little sense to have a drawbridge on an interstate corridor, and freight traffic needs to be taken more into consideration (one reason why I was dismayed so little attention was being paid during the vetting process to adding capacity to the rail span).
If streets and roads are “subsidized” with funds that don’t come out of fuel taxes—-could it be because too much maintenance is devoted to them…far beyond that which is actually needed? In the last few years I have seen the repaving of perfectly fine stretches of highway. Hwy 224 from Milwaukie to Clackamas was one; 99E through Oak Grove, another. And a recent example has been I-405. What was wrong with these roadways in the first place? I have been on all three of them frequently and never noticed any problems other than some small bumps.
Now I-5 after last winter’s snowstorm had some obvious problems that they, fortunately, addressed in time.
What gives? Is it some kind of law? I understand the I-405 was repaved with federal Stimulus dollars. Couldn’t they have found a project that actually needed to be done? I know this goes on despite what party is in power…so don’t think I am making a partisan statement (I don’t belong to a political party anyway). I would just like to know why we spend so much effort fixing that which isn’t broken and leaving actual needs unmet. Perhaps this is why road construction exceeds the amount allotted from fuel taxes.
What gives? Is it some kind of law? I understand the I-405 was repaved with federal Stimulus dollars. Couldn’t they have found a project that actually needed to be done?
A large part of the cost was the signage that was replaced, and that has a direct safety impact. Also I-405 had problems I noticed with rain pooling in the area where most tires go, which is also a significant safety issue.
If I remember the press release about it they had been looking for funding to do that upgrade and repairs since about 2000, so I’d assume they’d done studies and prioritization of projects in the past 10 years to figure out how important it was.
I’ve said it many times!
Tear all the bridges down, erect barriers on all the roads, and stop all illegal immigration into Portland now, before this city is ruined forever! If they wanna get in they will have to pay the entry fee, something like $100 per person should do the trick. With that money we can add streetcars on most every street in PORTLANDIA! {of course bicycles and walkers get in for free}
Actually Al, I think you’ve got some new ideas in there.
As for JK’s comments about peds and bikes, they are simply wrong. Did you make those up JK?
The CRC did this analysis: 80 peds/370 bikes per day today, with acknowledgement that this is low due to the poor facilities. Year 2030 projections: 600-1,000 peds, 900-6,400 bikes.
http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/Memorandums/Pedestrian_Bicycle_ForecastingMemo.pdf