|
I don’t think this is new, but it showed up recently in the RSS feed on Mayor Adams’ site (probably a link from a blog post), and I thought a refresher might be in order.
Click on the thumbnail to see the full image, and understand where lanes get added as we move from the current bridge to 8, 10 or 12 lanes on the Columbia River Crossing.
30 responses to “CRC Lane Refresher”
And this demonstrates why the 22 lane claim that I keep hearing about this is so absurd. With ramps it’s true that we could end up with more than 12 absolute lanes, but it’s not the vision that most people will have when they hear 22 lanes.
I’d still like to see further examination of a third bridge idea, but if this is the only way to get more capacity over the river I don’t entirely hate it.
Funny every one of those lane maps still shows 6 through lanes. SIX.
We need at least 8-10 through lanes from downtown Portland to SR-500, just like any modern urban interstate. Its time we got out of the dark ages!
Anthony,
“Need” is a slippery concept. If tolls were $3 on both bridges right now, we wouldn’t “need” any additional capacity at all. OK, maybe $3.50 or $4.00.
Why does the region “need” Clark County to grow? Why does the region as a whole “need” to grow? To give jobs to Hispanic dry wallers and block layers? So the preening politicans of both parties can strut and crow? To enrich the asphalt lobby?
What the world needs is ZPG and robots to take care of us oldsters. Japan has it right once again; they just don’t seems to understand how well they have it.
To give jobs to Hispanic dry wallers and block layers?
If you’re going to argue about the bridge and the merits of Clark County growth, leave race out of it. Seriously off-topic and borderline xenophobic.
Bob,
I specified “Hispanic dry wallers” not because they shouldn’t work but because a large percentage of residential constructions workers are in fact Hispanic. There’s all this agitation about keeping Latino immigrants out of the country and I was merely pointing out that construction — broadly defined — is one of the major employers of illegal workers. I apologize for not expanding the proposition.
And it’s not “seriously off topic”. There is a mindless assumption that the Portland-Beaverton-Vancouver SMSA is going to double in population by 2030. I think it’s BS.
What are all those people going to do? They can’t work at Starbucks and afford a loft in the Pearl.
Construction is EXACTLY the sort of work that attracts temporary workers to the region. It’s the kind of boom-and-bust Gold Rush mentality that produces soul-less communities that bulldoze themselves every thirty years.
Let’s concentrate on figuring out what we can make or services we can provide the rest of the world and THEN build transportation infrastructure to accommodate the people to do the work.
The old paradigm of “baseline plus 20%” is what got us into the unsustainable mess we’re in.
Again, you can discuss all of that without bringing race into the equation. In your original comment you said “hispanic” and not a thing about immigration, migration, temporary workers, etc. Sometimes people use phrases like “illegal immigration” as a cover for anti-latino sentiment. Oddly enough, you’ve done precisely the opposite, mentioning “hispanic” when you meant illegal/undocumented workers. In fact, you did it again in the first sentence of your reply to me. So drop it.
Dave H, the reason these don’t show the 22 lanes is the various braided ramps comprise 10 or so of them – and they’re not shown on these diagrams.
The currently planned cross-section does indeed use a 21 or 22-lane cross-section across Hayden Island, plus all the shoulders these ramps require. This is in addition to the light rail tracks. The footprint is about 700′ wide including light rail, 550′ just for the highway. Imagine the discomfort of walking under that thing. Kiss any sense of island community goodbye.
I can’t find a link online, but maybe someone else has one – the maps have been shown at various meetings.
I think Anandakos is making some good points, which are generally true no matter where the construction workers originate from. I’ve been one of them for thirty years, and one of the last things any stable community needs, IMO, is a big influx of “temporary” construction workers from outside of the area. We have plenty of people locally who can be trained to do the job when the need arises. I loathe Gov. Kulongoski’s suggestion that the CRC would be a good project because it would produce 27,000 jobs. The same holds true for light rail projects and local infrastructure projects, unless they are absolutely necessary to replace malfunctioning and/or dangerous components.
There is someone who shows up at numerous public hearings, who is a big proponent of the CRC AND of numerous other projects, because he insists our infrastructure is in perilous danger.
I am not doubting the man’s ability or even sincerity but I think it is possible to arrive at a warped perspective:
With more than 50 years experience in the construction industry and union activities, XXXXXXXX contributes a strong labor perspective to the Commission. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Union Labor Retirement Association and is a board member of the Northwest Labor Press. He served on the
C-Tran/Tri-Met Light Rail Advisory Committee and was co-chair of the Columbia River Bi-State I-5 Corridor Committee. XXXXXXXXX represented the International IBEW on the Council for Industrial Relations and Maritime Trades for the electrical industry in the United States and Canada. He is past president of the Columbia-Pacific Building Trades Council and was an executive board member of the Washington Building Trades Council.
So, do you think there could be some vested interests pushing what I term “The Growth Agenda?” And that includes all of the officials who seem to think that the CRC and abundant light rail systems are absolutely needed and inevitable.
The predictions of doubled population in the Portland Vancouver area may just be “mindless assumptions” as Anandakos says.
Driving is a privilege and a luxury, not a right. Nobody has a right to a fast long-distance commute.
You can choose a big fancy house in Vancouver and have the long slow commute. Or you can choose the smaller crummy house close-in Portland and have a kick-ass commute. It’s a tradeoff.
It’s your choice. No complaining.
That being said, more lanes is insane. Lanes will always be over capacity as fast as we can build them. More lanes = more cars.
P.S. Generous auto infrastructure expansion has worked so well for Detroit.
You can choose a big fancy house in Vancouver and have the long slow commute. Or you can choose the smaller crummy house close-in Portland and have a kick-ass commute. It’s a tradeoff.
I think this comment is way out of line. It presumes that people who live in Vancouver live in luxury and those who live close in in Portland live in poverty. Usually the opposite is more likely true, excepting the differences that come with age and maturity. Speaking of which, I think it is fine that whoever can bicycle around for their needs to do so, and we should make some financial accomodation for that. But many people cannot, for a number of legitimate reasons. Or their employment may require both a long commute and travel during the day. Further, it is rather unrealistic to think that most people can choose to live close to their place of employment, especially once they become homeowners. There are just so many reasons why employment changes, and another host of reasons why people choose to live in one neighborhood and not another. And a couple may have employment in two places far, far apart.
Further I would like to know how bicycling to work makes much difference if you are still participating in the corporate system. If you are a corporate climber aren’t you in part responsible for pushing a consumerist lifestyle, which in turn depends upon transportation infrastructure? If your company didn’t sell its product or service, you wouldn’t have a job to bicycle to. A lot of the service industry is also geared to this.
I guess the idea that age brings a degree of wisdom has gone out of style in Portland.
Further I would like to know how bicycling to work makes much difference if you are still participating in the corporate system. If you are a corporate climber aren’t you in part responsible for pushing a consumerist lifestyle, which in turn depends upon transportation infrastructure? If your company didn’t sell its product or service, you wouldn’t have a job to bicycle to. A lot of the service industry is also geared to this.
Ron, you can be a dedicated cyclist–including for reasons such as environmentalism or other public good–without having to become a card-carrying commie. You don’t have to be a dirty hippie to ride to work; and just because you do ride to work doesn’t indicate a desire to overthrow the system.
And of course, bikes don’t clog the roads that freight shippers use to get products to market; cars often do.
“I think it is fine that whoever can bicycle around for their needs to do so, and we should make some financial accomodation for that. But many people cannot, for a number of legitimate reasons.”
The same is true of use of an automobile isn’t it?
“There are just so many reasons why employment changes, and another host of reasons why people choose to live in one neighborhood and not another.”
Most people choose to live in cities because they are close to employment and services. People buy a house in Clark County, rather than Harney County, because of its proximity to Portland employment centers. The current I5 bridge “accommodates” that.
“It presumes that people who live in Vancouver live in luxury and those who live close in in Portland live in poverty.”
While I think it is clearly an exaggeration of the choice, the fact is that a house in Clark County is far cheaper than a similar house in Oregon. And, as Metro’s modeling showed, adding capacity to the I5 bridge will make those Clark County homes worth more and the Oregon homes worth less. In other words, adding capacity to the I5 bridge not only “accommodates” people living in Clark County, it encourages them to live there by making that choice more attractive.
“I guess the idea that age brings a degree of wisdom has gone out of style in Portland.”
Actually it has never been true. Age can bring wisdom, but it can also bring dementia. Most often it just means a different perspective, neither better nor worse. Evaluating the merits of that perspective have nothing to do with the age of the person.
The same is true of use of an automobile isn’t it?
Did I say it wasn’t?
Actually it has never been true
Oh really? So a large variety of actual experiences doesn’t improve a person’s perspectives?
Most people choose to live in cities because they are close to employment and services. People buy a house in Clark County, rather than Harney County, because of its proximity to Portland employment centers. The current I5 bridge “accommodates” that.
I actually believe that a large number of retired military people choose to live in Clark Co. so they won’t get dinged with a state income tax. They may have second careers in either state. This could account for some of the more conservative outlook in Clark Co. and if their combined income is high,which is often true, an auto is a negligible expense. And even though an equivalent amount of money will buy a bigger spread in Clark Co, the potential for appreciation may not be as great as in Portland. For people who buy a home on margin this is important.
The I-5 bridge may be accommodating a bi-state lifestyle, but it does a lot of other vital things as well. So would a third crossing of the Columbia downstream.
And, to ES, I never said that bicyclists were dirty or commies. I actually said the opposite and tried to commend their personal choice of transport ( as contrasted with attempting to establish a uniform policy for all), with the qualification that the career they may be in may not be as populistic as others, some of which could require a car to get around. There are a lot of variety of opinions on this board; please read more carefully.
We will never get everyone to make the same transport choice; and I don’t see why we should attempt to. However, we can have a vision that is balanced and cost effective, which is why I support the idea of a multi modal third Columbia Crossing.
Is this a bridge project or an auxiliary lane project? Could have fooled me by those pictures.
“Oh really? So a large variety of actual experiences doesn’t improve a person’s perspectives?”
Not always, no.
“Indecision is the graveyard of good intentions”
“The currently planned cross-section does indeed use a 21 or 22-lane cross-section across Hayden Island, plus all the shoulders these ramps require. This is in addition to the light rail tracks. The footprint is about 700′ wide including light rail, 550′ just for the highway.”
What are you smoking? There are reasonable factors not to favor the 12-lane option but your rant is mythology. The graphic clearly shows only six through lanes, the other six are aux lanes to help with weaving and channelization at the ramps and that is only on the bridge portion. I have always liked the 10-lane option as a compromise
The graphic only shows add/drop lanes. It does not show the full ramp system in the proposed design.
There have been a number of maps published over the years… the 22-lane count very likely comes from this document on the CRC web site:
Locally Preferred Alternative Options – Map 12/18/2008 (14MB PDF)
Look at the map on page 4, “12 Lane Replacement Concept”. Just glancing at the midpoint of Hayden Island, I count 21 lanes on elevated structures, NOT including light rail/transit/bike facilities.
And here’s a more recent map:
Current Project Area Map – March 2010 (6MB PDF)
The lane designations are not quite as clear, but it isn’t difficult to see how one arrives at 22 lanes (again not even including transit/bike/ped facilities) by looking at that map.
And that also doesn’t count the surface street changes along-side and underneath those structures.
So please take a moment to read the official CRC publications before you draw inferences about the smoking habits of other commenters. Thanks.
You look at all the connections they make, it seems apparent where they expect all the extra traffic to go – MLK Boulevard. Or at least they intend to make sure its easy to get there. Are there actually numbers somewhere for the expected traffic counts on MLK?
This drawing goes way back. I went to a Metro Thursday board meeting to comment that this drawing was useless if not disengenuous.
It seems to me that the 10 or 12-lane CRC is designed to accommodate West Hayden Island conversion to port facility, principally automobile imports. Obviously, GM doesn’t wish to produce ‘affordable’ hybrids. The Chevy Volt is a luxury sports sedan. Therefore, cheap Chinese 40mpg disposable weirdo sub-compacts must be imported like somewhere, dude, oh wow.
I think a 20 lane bridge would be more appropriate and the Feds need to step in and make a ruling and get the quibbling local people completely out of the picture! They should also add another 2 or 3 lanes to I5 down to at least Wilsonville.
I think a 20 lane bridge would be more appropriate and the Feds need to step in and make a ruling and get the quibbling local people completely out of the picture! They should also add another 2 or 3 lanes to I5 down to at least Wilsonville.
YUP!
My preferrence has long been a downriver 3rd Bridge with MAX/ped/bikeway and leave the old bridges in place for now. This would cut project cost in half. In 20-30 years when the old bridges reach their age limits, build replacements one at a time. As for expanding port facilities, build parking structures on old surface lots in North Portland. This would keep disposable import cars dry.
Mopar Goodness, you’re apparently easily confused by schematics. Thanks Bob R for the links. Mopar, I suggest you look at the actual concept plans that Bob linked to.
21 lanes by any count, 700′ footprint – these are the actual proposal.
The footprint is about 700′ wide including light rail, 550′ just for the highway. Imagine the discomfort of walking under that thing. Kiss any sense of island community goodbye.
550 feet at 22 lanes is 25 feet per lane. At 37.5 feet wide per track for four tracks, that’s the extra 150′ you’re claiming.
That might be the ROW claim, but that’s not accurate for how wide the actual road will be. I don’t like the CRC like I don’t like some politicians, but it’s not necessary to misrepresent things to make a point.
700 feet is more than three downtown blocks. Unless the highway departments are building 20 foot shoulders it doesn’t make sense even for a 26 lane (counting transit, even then over 25 feet per lane) alignment which is absurdly large if we’re not going to build a new bridge.
To add to the last post, a typical Interstate lane is 12 feet. If we build to 5 lanes at 13 feet with a 6.75 foot shoulder on each side (legal to Interstate standards I know), that can be stretched to 6 lanes at 12 feet with a 5 foot shoulder (again legal.)
With a 6 foot wide median that’s only 190 feet. 700 is absurd. I’ve walked under a freeway that was 8 total lanes plus 2 aux and 2 lanes reversible (Mira Mesa Blvd, San Diego CA 92126) and it wasn’t even close to 300 feet to walk under 12 lanes.
400 feet could easily contain 26 lane (which should be able to contain light rail.) It’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s not 550-700 feet.
Looking again at the March 2010 map, and comparing it to an aerial view via Google Maps, an estimate can be made of the overall width of the CRC proposal.
This is admittedly an inaccurate means, but just to get in the ballpark, take a look at this image.
Just eyeballing it using Gmaps Pedometer, the overall ROW consumed by elevated structures over N. Tomahawk Island Drive on Hayden Island (this time including light rail) is about .11 miles, or roughly 580 feet.
There are other segments where the ROW width, counting interchanges, is a bit wider, but I think it is fair to say that the structures over Tomahawk Island Drive are sufficiently close together as to be viewed as a single entity — there’s not much useful exposure to the space underneath to do anything like build commercial buildings or put in a pocket park, etc.
I’m not sure what the 700ft figure is supposed to represent, but I can definitely see how one can arrive at the idea of a 500ft+ footprint, at least at this one particular cross section.
Obviously, GM doesn’t wish to produce ‘affordable’ hybrids. The Chevy Volt is a luxury sports sedan. Therefore, cheap Chinese 40mpg disposable weirdo sub-compacts must be imported like somewhere, dude, oh wow.
Perhaps competition from Ford will motivate them. Although we are not getting the 60 mpg Ford Fiesta (now being produced in Europe) my understanding is that they will produce a hybrid Focus in Detroit. If the diesel technology could be cleaned up enough (50/50 biodiesel) or if the EPA would change it’s standards, maybe an 80 mpg Ford could be produced. Volvo is supposed to have a 70 mpg hybrid in 2012—but once again, in the luxury market.