With the Mercury’s Sarah Mirk.
Two comments on the exchanges Sarah has written up.
- Nobody is talking about the elephant in the room: the Hayden Island Interchange design certainly has impacts on the community there, but it’s also about whether the Port of Portland gets to develop the West end of the Island at some point in the future.
- And David Bragdon pretty much lays out the strategy opponents would likely follow in suing to block the adoption of the EIS.
I’m afraid we have years of fun yet to be had with the Columbia River Crossing.
16 responses to “Eavesdropping on a CRC Phone Call”
Chris, you write:
“Nobody is talking about the elephant in the room: the Hayden Island Interchange design certainly has impacts on the community there, but it’s also about whether the Port of Portland gets to develop the West end of the Island at some point in the future.”
I’ve been trying to follow issues surrounding the CRC, so I’m a little embarrassed to admit I was unaware of this particular elephant. Can you explain this in more detail? Is the issue that if Hayden doesn’t have an on/off ramp to/from the CRC, the Port of Portland wouldn’t be able to develop the west end? If so, does that mean a local arterial bridge wouldn’t do it for them?
Because the presence of that Hayden interchange – the turbulence it causes – always seemed to me to be a culprit in the congestion caused by the crossing. So I wonder: why not just get rid of that interchange, and have a nice local bridge for the Hayden locals?
I never give much thought to the West end of Hayden, but looking at the map, it’s baffling that its so free of development.
I’d love to hear more about how the west end of Hayden and the CRC relate.
The Port has a long-term plan for the City of Portland to annex West Hayden Island and then develop marine-related industry in that area. The environmental community is very concerned about protecting the habit in what is now a natural area.
If the Port is to develop this area, they need to be able to get freight access. There are multiple ways this might be accomplished, but high-capacity CRC access to the island is definitely one of them.
The exchange near the end was a little unsettling. I get Adams’ point, but the way he was trying to make it doesn’t sound too constructive.
As far as the west end of Hayden Island being developed, if it’s going to happen it’ll happen with or without this bridge. The real estate might not be as desirable resulting in lower rents, and it’ll likely cost more then to add infrastructure that wouldn’t be needed if the bridge were built, but I’m sure they’ll find a way to make it happen even without a CRC.
I’d almost call it a benefit to the CRC if it would save money later on when we develop the land anyway.
The Port has a long-term plan for the City of Portland to annex West Hayden Island and then develop marine-related industry in that area. The environmental community is very concerned about protecting the habit in what is now a natural area.
I’ve got news for the environmental community. The Portland area has made, overall, a remarkable recovery since it’s earlier years when it was a logged over patch of wilderness nicknamed “Stumptown.” ( I’ll spare the readers gory details about Nature “red in fang and claw.”)And starting a dozen or so miles upstream we have the Columbia Gorge Scenic area, and, downstream, numerous wild islands. Why should they complain about a half-square mile patch of valuable riverfront property centered between two ports? Ohh…I know—they don’t actually work at a job.
Why are we even talking about a small “arterial connector” to Hayden Island. How many bridges do you want to build, anyway? Does each group that has a differing point of view get it’s own bridge?
Our “Third Interstate Bridge” proposal does it all, without trying to fix what isn’t broke, and hopefully would eventually get rid of the BNSF RR bridge and solve the river pilot’s consternation as well.
‘The Portland area has made, overall, a remarkable recovery since it’s earlier years when it was a logged over patch of wilderness nicknamed “Stumptown.”‘
Portland is mainly made out of impermeable surfaces that send storm water and contaminants flooding into our rivers. Hardly an environmental wonderland.
“Why should they complain about a half-square mile patch of valuable riverfront property centered between two ports? Ohh…I know—they don’t actually work at a job.”
I’m an environmentalist, and I have a job. Own my own business, actually; it’s doing quite well and I pay lots of taxes. Assertion debunked.
And really, you could draw an accurate venn diagram with a pretty substantial overlap between the gainfully employed, and the environmentally concerned.
But maybe you were just engaging in ludicrous hyperbole for effect, in which case I’m sorry for spoiling the fun with facts and stuff.
“Why are we even talking about a small “arterial connector” to Hayden Island. How many bridges do you want to build, anyway?”
My vote: upgrade the existing I-5 bridge, upgrade the train bridge, and then build an arterial to Hayden. That way Hayden residents, and shoppers at those big-box stores get their own way on and off the island. And it would be much cheaper, because the channel between the Portland side and Hayden is something like 2/5 the breadth of the Columbia Crossing. Then, once the Hayden residents have a dependable way to get on and off their island (and don’t have to fight their way onto and off of a busy freeway), close the I-5 Hayden Island on and off ramps, which likely produce turbulence that is behind much of the congestion on the crossing. We could even build two arterials onto Hayden and have change to spare with all the money we’d save on a big-bridge CRC.
Thanks for asking.
“Does each group that has a differing point of view get it’s own bridge?
Hmm, that’s an interesting qu-
“Our “Third Interstate Bridge” proposal does it all, without trying to fix what isn’t broke, and hopefully would eventually get rid of the BNSF RR bridge and solve the river pilot’s consternation as well.”
OK, question answered: yes, everyone gets their own bridge. Or at least the right to suggest one. Or two, or several.
Portland is mainly made out of impermeable surfaces that send storm water and contaminants flooding into our rivers. Hardly an environmental wonderland.
So why are we spending big money on the Big Pipe? Most of the pollutants in the Willamette come from agriculture upriver. You’ve got some good points there on surface pollution but I don’t know what they have to do with Hayden Island.
I’m an environmentalist, and I have a job. Own my own business, actually; it’s doing quite well and I pay lots of taxes. Assertion debunked.
One anecdotal example doesn’t debunk an assertion. But maybe you were trying to suppress my own sarcasm….and ignoring others.
I agree with upgrading the I-5 bridge. However I don’t see much of a gain in extending the Interstate MAX just ONE MILE into Vancouver, if we have to spend four billion more to do it and then several billion more, later on, for the rest of the I-5 bottleneck. The $15-20 billion total would have to be the Guinness Record for most expensive light rail extension.
Then, once the Hayden residents have a dependable way to get on and off their island (and don’t have to fight their way onto and off of a busy freeway), close the I-5 Hayden Island on and off ramps, which likely produce turbulence that is behind much of the congestion on the crossing.
They already have an easy way to get on an off their island, using I-5. During some times of the day it could take a few minutes longer. Does that justify a whole new project to save that small amount of time? Advocating for a special bridge just for that purpose seems like the height of excess—-except, of course, the multiple billions to extend MAX to Clark College.
OK, question answered: yes, everyone gets their own bridge. Or at least the right to suggest one. Or two, or several.
Your point is?
However I don’t see much of a gain in extending the Interstate MAX just ONE MILE into Vancouver, if we have to spend four billion more to do it and then several billion more, later on, for the rest of the I-5 bottleneck. The $15-20 billion total would have to be the Guinness Record for most expensive light rail extension.
Where are you getting $4 billion to build a mile of MAX? We also get several miles of new freeway and a bunch of new interchanges for that price.
That’s really about the only net gain in the CRC scenario.
Where are the “several miles of new freeway?” Just replacing something that already exists isn’t a gain. We have a well-functioning section there already.
Our efforts should go in to something else, because the net gain is pretty much the one mile of MAX in Vancouver. Sending this on to Guinness now.
Ron Swaren:
“You’ve got some good points there on surface pollution but I don’t know what they have to do with Hayden Island.”
Chris said that environmentalists were concerned about protecting habitat on Hayden Island, and you replied that you had news for environmentalists, that Portland had made a great recovery since the old days. My point was that a city that consists of mostly impermeable surfaces hardly counts as an environmental recovery. (Particularly when those surfaces are pretty clogged-up with cars.)
The Big Pipe is certainly a step in the right direction, though.
“They already have an easy way to get on an off their island, using I-5. During some times of the day it could take a few minutes longer. Does that justify a whole new project to save that small amount of time?”
My own personal motivation in suggesting a local arterial bridge for Hayden is primarily to reduce the turbulence caused by island residents and big-box store shoppers using the I-5 exits. That turbulence might be behind much of the congestion on the current Columbia crossing.
Certainly access to Hayden is important, but pure unfettered convenience? Less so. At some point it seems like if someone chooses to live on an island, they have to be ready to live with a little inconvenience. (Just like if someone chooses to live on one side of a very large river, and work on the other.)
“Your point is?”
You seemed to find it silly that people were suggesting that extra bridges (beyond, I assumed, just the I-5 bridge) might provide a fix to the problem of the crossing. Then in the very next sentence you suggested a third bridge. I thought that apparent self-contradiction was kind of funny, but maybe I misunderstood something.
Finn,
I see the alternatives as between one project that reasonably accomodates all of the needs that have been expressed by different groups (i.e our Third Interstate Bridge) and does it at a reasonable cost while at the same time anticipating future metropolitan area growth as projected by METRO sources….versus….a piecemeal approach that could end up with a string of projects that keeps draining the public purse while never completely solving the interstate transportation needs. On this board we have heard numerous views and passionate arguments for each of them–but how are we going to be able to build everything that people suggest, and why should we?
As far as the environmental recovery of Portland. There ha been a tremendous amount of regrowth of flora, most due to individual efforts, since it was logged over, and that flora has provided a habitat for a lot of wildlife. I don’t really care if Portland returns to a natural state—-which would actually take us back to the time before the native Americans had burned off a lot of the undergrowth and killed off the megafauna of the Pleistocene. Besides there are plenty of natural areas round the Pacific Northwest so I don’t see what the importance of one little parcel of land in the Columbia is.
Ron, you ridicule others for making pie-in-the-sky suggestions….then go on to make your own pie suggestion in the next breath.
Are you trying to be ironic?
And sorry, the idea that Portland is better off environmentally with 2+ Million people than it was with 50,000 – as Stumptown – is delusional.
Where are the “several miles of new freeway?” Just replacing something that already exists isn’t a gain. We have a well-functioning section there already.
Our efforts should go in to something else, because the net gain is pretty much the one mile of MAX in Vancouver. Sending this on to Guinness now.
By that logic why are we building anything at all? There’s a lot more net gain than the light rail, but if you want to live in your own fantasy world that’s fine.
Again, SOVs in the peak are the obstacle to moving freight on I-5. Non peak hours are no problem, and traffic counts are down.
1/3 of trips on I-5 over the River are local and should not be on a freeway at all.
High capacity transit must, by definition, have its own ROW, whether rail or bus.
We need an arterial bridge for local trips with exclusive ROW for HCT…and bicycles while we are at it. Once done, we can remove substandard On/Off ramps from I-5, including Hayden Island.
re West Hayden Island, Portland sees 1% of west coast container traffic, exports wheat and minerals, imports autos; not sure but what that end of the Island is not more valuable as habitat than for more high volume, low value trade.
High Capacity Transit, by definition, does not need its own right of way.
The key word is “Capacity,” which has to do with the number of passengers it can carry, not the road (or rail) that it runs on…
HCT is actually one of those feel good terms with no measurable definition, much like sustainability and livability. I could call my car high capacity because it holds more people then a motorcycle :)
We could actually do better adding a fourth HOV/HOT lane on I-5 between the 405 and maybe Salmon Creek and buying a fleet of articulated buses. It would be Higher Capacity Transit compared to what we have now, cost less then the 1 mile of light rail proposed, and can carry a lot more then just buses. Furthermore, if plans fail, and people do not ditch their suburban home and car for high density condo living and transit, the lanes can be repurposed to general use for the cost of paint.
What you mean to say is High “Cost” Transit.. that would come with its own ROW.
No exclusive tranit right of way means poor reliability and hence, no significant ridership gain. Want HOV lanes? just get out the paint.
By that logic why are we building anything at all? There’s a lot more net gain than the light rail, but if you want to live in your own fantasy world that’s fine.
Dave H, I think you have been tuned in to this blog long enough to know what our group proposes as the most realistic alternative. And it has been proposed by groups that actually deal with regional transit issues in an official capacity such, as the SW Washington RTC. Your “fantasy world” smear is really inappropriate.