Guvs Talk Tough on CRC


Governors Kulongoski and Gregoire have responded to the letter from local officials asking for more local control and review of the Columbia River Crossing project: NO.

“We feel strongly this project must go forward without delay,” Kulongoski and Gregoire wrote in their letter.

Coverage by the Trib and a particularly trenchant comparison to the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle from the Merc’s Sarah Mirk.

Of course, when local leaders shook out the envelope the letter came in, they did NOT find the check for $1B that the two state governments are going to have to cough up to make this project go forward as currently conceived.


34 responses to “Guvs Talk Tough on CRC”

  1. Problem is, Kulongoski is a lame duck. He doesn’t have to care, but he’s sure making his party look bad for the May Primaries and November General Election.

  2. Way to go Gov K , the failing existing bridges are dangerous relics built on rotting wood piling that is in part , 100 years old. Do we have to wait for the soon-to-come earthquake that is going to rip the old rusted steel bridges apart? You are in jeopardy Every time you cross. Is that how you like it? Is that what you want for the kids?
    Mayor Sam , quit playing politics with our lives.

  3. Lets just solve today’s problem and build a, under $1B, highway bridge.

    There is little transit usage today, so it makes no sense to spend $1B on them.

    The interchanges are working, so lets NOT spend $1B on them.

    Result: problem solved $2-3B saved. No tolls!

    (Tolls are only needed to produce lots of dollars to use as the local match for the toy train.)

    Thanks
    JK

  4. Bill, if you’re really worried about things falling down, the Marquam has a much lower structural sufficiency rating than the CRC (the Marquam has the same basic design as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis).

    Why aren’t you insisting the Marquam be dealt with first?

  5. Of course, if and when a seismic upgrade of the Marquam is proposed, there will be many people suggesting that it be removed instead. :)

  6. [Moderator: Formatting changed to clarify attributions. Note to commenters: Movable Type cancels your italics tags (and most other tags) at the end of each paragraph, whether you want it to or not. – Bob R.]

    Chris Smith Says:

    Bill, if you’re really worried about things falling down, the Marquam has a much lower structural sufficiency rating than the CRC (the Marquam has the same basic design as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis).

    Why aren’t you insisting the Marquam be dealt with first?

    I would suggest Billb look at the results of SF Bay Area quakes and see which structures have fared worse: the concrete ones or the mostly steel ones.

    But personally, my Bridgageddon favorite is the southbound ramp from I-5 to I-84. Over 60 feet in the air on six-foot diameter columns and resting on riverbed sediment. (I’m not sure how long the pilings into riverbed are.)

    Or the Morrison Bridge. All six lanes and resting on 36×42 inch concrete pillars.

    The I-35 Bridge was a structure more similar to the Ross Island (four lanes over steel trusses) with four extra lanes added to the outside. Not surprising it gave out. Not really like the Marquam, IMO.

    [JK wrote:]

    Lets just solve today’s problem and build a, under $1B, highway bridge.

    And then we just live with a choked Interstate system with an insufficient number of crossings?

  7. Regarding the letter from the Governors, the Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/adams_challenges_governors_cal.html reports that Mayor Sam is pushing back, saying a review managed by local officials would not delay the project.

    Yesterday’s Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/oregon_washington_governors_re.html has quotes from Patricia McCaig, a former Metro Councilor and now a consultant for the CRC. Has she replaced Tom Markgraff as chief taxpayer-funded shill for this project?

    Off-topic: Can PortlandTransport set its spam filter to delete comments that refer to “rotting wood piling” since this has been thoroughly debunked?

    Don Wagner, the Washington State Department of Transportation’s regional administrator was interviewed in May, 2009 by the Vancouver Columbian. “Wagner said he has no doubts the existing crossings are safe, so much so that he drives and cycles across the spans without hesitation.”

    See full article at: http://www.theconcreteproducer.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1419&articleID=969473

  8. Looking back over the archives, it appears that this assertion (about rotting pilings, etc.) has been made dozens of times, but mainly by Bill, and others have questioned this assertion many times.

    So Bill, since you’ve brought this up a lot, going back to at least 2007, would you care to provide a technical source which identifies clear hazards due to rot and pilings “in mud” for the current I-5 bridges?

  9. hopefully we never will find the $1 billion to get it started.

    Unlikely, given the amount of funding we’re able to find for MAX. If we’re able to keep MAX in the project and tie the whole project into developing the ‘distressed’ urban area of Downtown Vancouver we’ll likely find a lot of federal funding.

  10. Ron Swaren Says:
    [JK wrote:]
    Lets just solve today’s problem and build a, under $1B, highway bridge.

    And then we just live with a choked Interstate system with an insufficient number of crossings?
    JK: I think it wise to have more crossing locations to diversify and improve immunity from disasters disabling one location. However if we must build in the current location, then lets not waste $$$$ on un-needed things like LRT and serviceable intersections.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. Actually the only bridge we need is one with light rail and local lanes. I-5 gets overwhelmed in the peaks because there are no options, neither reliable transit nor lanes for local trips. Why not give ourselves some options for crossing the Columbia…a Broadway Bridge.

  12. While I am not a Materials Engineer , who would have the training and experience to support the assertion that old wood at breakwater and under water for one hundred years , exposed to one of the most powerful rivers in the world with a number of major ice events , will decay in specific ways at particular rates , I did study Engineering a number of years while gaining a degree in Architecture.
    I speak not as an expert , but as an advocate of common sense. Either we ‘believe’ that it is as good-as-new and safe , or we expect that given the harsh conditions of one hundred years of ice events and spring surges , unsafe and unknown amounts of decay have occurred. And yes , I am concerned about a number of bridges and ramps that were designed and built prior to our current knowledge of earthquake resistant design , the Sellwood and Marquam should be replaced.

  13. However if we must build in the current location, then lets not waste $$$$ on un-needed things like LRT and serviceable intersections.

    I don’t think the “need” has been adequately demonstrated. The accusations of inadequacy leveled at the existing bridges are, for the most part, easily refuted. The frustrating conditions of its current operation CAN be changed, with the help of our congressmen. I know they are not particularly beautiful but other bridges in the US, carrying even more traffic, are older than our Interstates. The best part is that they have a track record of getting the job done. It’s hard to argue with serviceability.

    Actually the only bridge we need is one with light rail and local lanes. I-5 gets overwhelmed in the peaks because there are no options, neither reliable transit nor lanes for local trips. Why not give ourselves some options for crossing the Columbia…a Broadway Bridge.

    I think you are looking at the short term picture, just like JK. I am looking at METRO’s projections of industrialization and infill—i.e the Urban Reserves area. The vast majority of these are west of the Willamette, precisely where our transportation infrastructure is least developed. The SW quadrant does have Hwy 217 as a shortcut between I-5 and US Hwy 26,(keeping traffic from pouring into the central city or inadequate local routes) but there is no similar route in the NW quadrant. This is why I-5 is choked with traffic, both in the morning commute and the afternoon’s. This crisis did not become apparent until the spurt of industrialization known as the “Silicon Forest” took off in the late 1980’s. But now, further growth in that area is almost a given. We are getting some beneficial fallout from this congestion, since Clark County residents are bringing in $150 million in tax revenue, yearly. This could increase to $200 million, if we will seek a solution that approximates the various needs that individual groups have identified.

    The recent statewide gas tax increase proposal -to offset a 6 million dollar loss in revenue–is controversial enough. Do we want to turn up our noses at the possible $200 million that Washington commuters could be bringing into our state? But a Northwest route, can also significantly reduce VMT, thus making mass transit and alternative transport much more feasible and appealing to people.

  14. Bill,

    ODOT and WSDOT *do* have real Engineers, familiar with the design of the bridge and who inspect it on a regular basis, who are more than capable of assessing the structural sufficiency of the bridge. The opinion of these experts seem to be that the Interstate Bridge(s) are relatively safe–certainly moreso than other bridges in the area. Now experts are occasionally wrong–and bridges do occasionally fall down–but if you want to challenge their assessments, you’ll have to do better than appealing to common sense and a few undergraduate engineering courses you took in college. (I’m an EE by training and took quite a few civil engineering courses as part of OSU’s core engineering curriculum–yet you don’t see me trying to claim any expertise on bridge design).

    When you say things that are a) contradicted by expert reports–such as the assertion that the Interstate Bridge pilings are “rotten”, and b) not backed by any evidence of your own (other than your own supposition of how things must be), it becomes hard to take you seriously.

  15. Lenny Anderson Says: Actually the only bridge we need is one with light rail and local lanes.
    JK: Since you are such a light rail supporter, please tell us this:
    In view of the fact that light rail costs more than automobiles, will take double the travel time (downtown Vancouver to downtown Portland) of the current express bus, and uses more energy than small cars, what is the social good of building this rail line at a cost more than or equal to a 12 lane highway bridge?

    Thanks
    JK

  16. JK:

    What’s the cost of LR to Vancouver? It ain’t cheap, but I believe it covers the actual cost past the bridge. Your comparison that it will cost more than the bridge itself is comparing two different things at different lengths.

    Some clarification would be nice.

  17. Ron,

    You keep advocating a western bypass as if that is a substitute for a better CRC but it’s not. It is a good idea to create that Willamette crossing south of Terminal 6 and improve Cornelius Pass. It’s not gonna be nearly as cheap as you think — probably a billion itself because the bridge has to clear pretty good size ships — but it’s still a good idea.

    BUT, it makes MUCH more sense to tie its access to I-5 at the south end of an improved CRC using the Marine Drive corridor instead of building your favorite Bridge to Nowhere alongside the railroad crossing. (Well, in truth it would serve the Vancouver Amtrak Station, a MAJOR destination for folks from Hillsboro, right? And birders who want to take in both the south end of Ridgefield NWR AND Smith and Bybee Lakes in one trip will save fifteen minutes.)

    Speaking of Smith and Bybee Lakes, keep your government bureaucrat hands off my Medicare. Erase that damn line parallel to Columbia Boulevard through the south end of the wetlands. There is PLENTY of capacity for your bypass on Columbia.

    The right thing to do is to build a five lane southbound bridge and dedicate the existing spans to five northbound lanes. BUT, both directions must have one of those five lanes be HOV priority all the time. Both north and south of the bridge HO vehicles using the bridge reserved lane should operate in peak hour peak direction lanes like the current Portland side northbound one. I’d extend the operation until 6:30 and have a matching one southbound in the morning once the Victory-Columbia stretch is finished.

    That would leave four general traffic lanes, one of which should stretch between SR-14 and Marine Drive to provide the capacity to access your NW bypass route. Some improvement in the northbound access from Hayden Island must be developed, too. Perhaps the first span of the 1918 bridge could be replaced with a new structure to accommodate a better acceleration lane.

    The 1952 span would be restriped with two somewhat wider and higher speed lanes for through traffic and a breakdown lane while the older span would remain three lanes to accommodate the Marine Drive to SR 14 side lane. And both spans should have those steep and bumpy access ramps replaced with roadways that meet them at the proper level.

    JK talks about not fixing the interchanges and I’d broadly agree, except that there do need to be weave lanes between Mill Plain and SR 14 on the north side. Movement between I-5 and SR 14 should be separated from the Mill Plain southside ramps as a part of bridge reconstruction.

  18. JK,

    The reason there is “little transit usage today” is that transit has NO priority in the corridor. And anyway it’s not true; C-Tran runs three express buses to downtown Portland from 134th, 99th and downtown Vancouver plus one limited and one local to Delta Park Max every fifteen minutes over the bridge during the rush hours. That’s twenty buses per hour in each direction.

    No, it’s not the Holland tunnel with a bus every fifteen seconds, but Vancouver ain’t Nort’ Joisey either.

  19. Anandakos Says: The reason there is “little transit usage today” is that transit has NO priority in the corridor.
    JK: More likely it is because transit does not go where the commuter wants to go in a reasonable time (the average USA transit commute is about double the time of driving.)

    Anandakos Says: And anyway it’s not true; C-Tran runs three express buses to downtown Portland from 134th, 99th and downtown Vancouver plus one limited and one local to Delta Park Max every fifteen minutes over the bridge during the rush hours. That’s twenty buses per hour in each direction.
    JK: WOW! 20 buses per hour for the three hour rush-hour for a capacity of 20 x 40 x 3 = 2400 people. Too bad that they only have 1650 actual commuters (CRC DEIS, Page 3-18) BEFORE the recession hit. Those buses must be mostly empty now.

    Compare that 1650 transit riders with 81,000 people in cars.

    Which would a rational person spend $3/4 billion on – 1650 people or 81,000 people?

    If you answered the 1650 people, you probably are a city planner or work for Portland or Metro.

    If you answered 81,000, congratulations you are an ordinary, rational person.

    Thanks
    JK

  20. JK

    All those future auto trips you want to spend billions on with new freeway lanes will cost a lot more in air and water pollution and loss of developable land and greenspace (gobbled up by parking space and lane capacity at the least). Meanwhile new freeway lanes and traffic they induce will add to the growing costs of maintaining existing roads including the increased traffic on residential streets in North Portland.

    Every investment we make that allows future commuters to choose biking, walking, and transit over driving will yield huge returns for society in a healthier environment and less wear and tear on existing roads.

    Jed

  21. Jed Says: All those future auto trips you want to spend billions on with new freeway lanes will cost a lot more in air and water pollution
    JK: Problem: transit pollutes more than small cars since transit uses more energy than small cars.

    Jed Says: and loss of developable land and greenspace (gobbled up by parking space and lane capacity at the least).
    JK: We have plenty of unused land. The only problem with sprawl is the elite won’t make as much money off of us with their artificial shortage inflating land prices.

    Jed Says: Meanwhile new freeway lanes and traffic they induce
    JK: Freeways induce little traffic – what they do is take it off of slow arterials which take traffic off of neighborhood streets.

    Jed Says: will add to the growing costs of maintaining existing roads including the increased traffic on residential streets in North Portland.
    JK: You have this backwards – freeways reduce residential street traffic.

    Jed Says: Every investment we make that allows future commuters to choose biking, walking, and transit over driving will yield huge returns for society in a healthier environment and less wear and tear on existing roads.
    JK: This is complete baloney. Biking and walk walking do nothing to relieve congestion as they are only short trips compared to autos which allow a person to live in an affordable home (not a tax subsidized rat hole) in a nice outer area and work closer in, or more likely (most jobs are NOT downtown) another suburb.

    Your suggestion that people use transit is a suggestion that they waste their time and hence lower their standard of living. Transit also restricts ones job choices, leading to a lower paid job and a lower standard of living.

    To be clear: the average transit commute takes almost TWICE AS LONG as the average auto commute. When you advocate people switch to transit you are advocating them wasting time and lowering their standard of living. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html

    Thanks
    JK

  22. Moderator: JK, if you’re going to continue to engage in copy-and-paste commenting with frequent references to arguments that have been rehashed a thousand times here with little or no adjustment by you to the critiques of others, please drop the incendiary language and derisive tone. Otherwise, your comments aren’t welcome here.

  23. Anandakos wrote:
    BUT, it makes MUCH more sense to tie its access to I-5 at the south end of an improved CRC using the Marine Drive corridor instead of building your favorite Bridge to Nowhere alongside the railroad crossing. (Well, in truth it would serve the Vancouver Amtrak Station, a MAJOR destination for folks from Hillsboro, right? And birders who want to take in both the south end of Ridgefield NWR AND Smith and Bybee Lakes in one trip will save fifteen minutes.)

    I don’t know if that “bridge to Nowhere” jibe was a politically directed comment or not ( I get a lot of those) but I’ll just take it as a good natured teasing. However, if this idea was THAT, would the SW Washington Regional Transportation Council have recommended it in 1999? Doesn’t seem like they would conjure up a crossing that had no connection to any major routes. I’ll bet they thought of that!

    And I think it is intended to go on Columbia Bv. (although personally I prefer Marine Dr. ) rather than parallel to it. As I suggested you can visit your fellow Democrat, Ms. Nasset, at her HQ at 5003 N. Lombard if you wish to discuss this. However, she is more of a freeway proponent than I am. I would prefer to see existing routes well utilized before planning new ones. However, Sammy Adams and ODOT have already determined that our beloved I-5 route is at its capacity, so I wouldn’t even think about adding more capacity in the Interstate corridor (proper) unless we are also prepared to spend billions more on the rest of I-5 when the traffic load goes over the limit.

    Where would all of this spending stop? I believe in the Occam’s Razor principle: Consider first the simplest solution.

    We need to do it right the first time. Then, we might not need a whole set of expensive “solutions.”

    Portland certainly would be a mess if we had only two bridges crossing the Willamette, instead of the baker’s dozen that we have. And we don’t go around fixin’ the ones that ain’t broke.

  24. JK,

    About half of those 81,000 people are not commuters, and you know it. All the C-Tran riders are.

    Ron,

    It IS a Bridge to Nowhere because it DOESN’T connect to I-5. There are not that many people in the neighborhoods west of I-5 that are headed to Silicon Rainforest to make it worthwhile.

    If you connect by using Marine Drive west to the road that crosses the wetlands parallel to the BNSF, down to Columbia Blvd, around the point to where you want the Willamette crossing, you have a route that draws from I-5, SR14, SR500 and even far Northeast Portland (via Marine Drive).

    Building a bridge that connects to Mill Plain or Fourth Plain is functionally identical to that stupid offramp from the Fremont Bridge that dumps people out two blocks from the arterial couplet.

    I can’t find the URL, but there is an organization advocating this westside route that clearly shows a new road through the south edge of the Smith and Bybee Lakes reserve. It does NOT use Columbia Blvd.

    And I really don’t care what some North Portland Democrat has to say about the issue. Democrats aren’t always right, that’s for sure, and she’s just talking her book — doing what she thinks will keep overflow traffic out of her constituents’ neighborhood.

    She has no idea whether it makes more sense to bridge the river in the existing freeway corridor or a mile downstream. She just doesn’t want intercity cars driving down Williams, Albina and Interstate. Which of course is part of her job.

  25. JK,

    I agree with you about the bridge, [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.] . I don’t need to be talked down to about the complete lack of sense building the MOuSe represents. I’ve posted over and over that it doesn’t make sense, precisely BECAUSE it won’t carry enough people to be cost effective.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed. – Bob R.]

  26. JK, I get the impression that you are fairly new to the area.

    Adding freeways only speeds travel for a short time. This has been proven here before.

    The Glen Jackson bridge was constructed to “Alleviate congestion on I-5” Instead, speculators acquired most of the farmland in east clark county, and a sprawl-boom occurred. It took just a couple of years, to have two bridges at capacity during peak times. Once the twelve-lane CRC is built, rapid development north, and north-west of Vancouver will swell. Residents of Vancouver Proper will experience horrific traffic from suburban commuters. You may be new here, but I remember well before the I-205 bridge was opened.

Leave a Reply to Anandakos Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *