Metro President David Bragdon and Portland Mayor Sam Adams released a joint statement earlier today calling for a Columbia River Crossing project that builds a bridge capable of holding 10 lanes with full shoulders, but only striping the bridge for 8 lanes at opening. They also call for a revised interchange strategy for Hayden Island to protect Island livability (lots more detail – read it!).
But the two leaders also have an accompanying set of guidelines that gets to what is likely to be the heart of the matter – who manages the performance of the bridge? And their answer is a locally representative group, NOT the state DOTs.
Will the Governors give up this control to move the project forward? This is going to be interesting to watch.
But for fans of a supplemental bridge approach (yours truly included) who believe the first principle of sustainability is to not throw away existing assets, this compromise is far from perfect.
45 responses to “CRC Compromise Approaching?”
I think it is likely that Kulongoski will be out of office by the time any state funding is approved. I don’t see that happening this year. When a new governor—-and new legislators— take office in Oregon it will be a new ball game. Gregoire is basically a tax and spender so I don’t foresee her supporting anything less than the CRC and has been actively making appointments to the Sponsor Council to further that agenda.
I think it is likely that Kulongoski will be out of office by the time any state funding is approved. I don’t see that happening this year. When a new governor—-and new legislators— take office in Oregon it will be a new ball game. Gregoire is basically a tax and spender so I don’t foresee her supporting anything less than the CRC and has been actively making appointments to the Sponsor Council to further that agenda.
This is exactly the type of move that will lead to nothing happening at all.
The idea that increasing local control would be more productive is laughable.
These local stakeholders represent the dysfunction which leads to spending $100 million planning only to produce a nonsensical pipe dream bridge design which has never been engineered or built anywhere in the world with no idea how muc it will cost.
How is it that anyone can possibly believe that Mayor Adams and Metro can produce a rational and workable compromise?
Nuts.
I predicted a couple weeks ago MLR will never get built and by extension of the same basis the CRC will not either.
It will take another couple of election cycles and another $100 million more wasted in planning to purge the process of those who wasted the first $100 million.
We need to build the bridge for the future, not just for 2030, so lets be sure it has enough lanes, not less lanes. As the IRC said – the danger is under building, not over building.
Then:
Dump the light rail and spend the BILLION dollars on TWO new bridges at different locations. One near Troutdale and one as part of the West side bypass. That will serve more people cheaper and better.
Thanks
JK
Dump the light rail and spend the BILLION dollars on TWO new bridges at different locations. One near Troutdale and one as part of the West side bypass. That will serve more people cheaper and better.
Does this idea include funding for continual operations of public transit service using *all* Columbia River bridges for those who do not have the ability to own and/or operate a private vehicle?
No.
Neither does the Billion dollars – that is just for construction.
Additional sales tax must be passed to operate the light rail.
Thanks
JK
I went to the Jantzen Beach Center open house Thursday and voiced 2-minutes worth of my usual “build MAX dammit” plus my first impression of the NEW bridge design that installs “NO Entrance NO exit” from I-5 onto Hayden Island. Fantastic! Fan-freakin-tastic!
Access is created via a new bridge from North Portland that lands apparently near Best Buy. The entire North Portland interchange isn’t that much different from the other designs.
This NEW design should get some public attention.
It would isolate Hayden Island from casual users and make commercial access a little more inconvenient. But the islanders want a real community, not a drive-thru, shopping mall, big box, fast food joint-o-rama. They want development that adds a boutique retail center with amenities to serve a larger residential center. With no ramps to I-5, Hayden Island community could raise treescaped hill tops to deaden the noise of I-5. Wow!
Also in my 2-minutes, I had the presiders look at my copy of the 3rd Bridge Downriver design from a few years back that built a southbound I-5/MAX bridge and left the old bridges in place for northbound traffic. Hey. You want to cut cost in half, don’t ignore this option. In 20-30 years when the old bridges reach their actual limited years of service, then replace them.
And I put in a plug for NOT turning West Hayden Island into a stupid car import facility. If in the future everyone is going to drive flying cars, might as well fly them from China to your driveway, right?
What the CRC process has shown is that the region can’t afford the infrastructure needed to support the sprawling development pattern in Clark County. As the DOT group pointed out, once you have dealt with the I5 bridges, you need to fix the Rose Quarter. Once you start dealing with all the other infrastructure needed to handle traffic doubling from Clark County, it becomes apparent that the development there is sustainable only with huge subsidies from the rest of the region.
Just Saying Says: What the CRC process has shown is that the region can’t afford the infrastructure needed to support the sprawling development pattern in Clark County.
JK: Actually it shows that many people find Clark County a more attractive place to live because of the better schools (unlike Portland, they don’t take money school from schools to finance high density development), more affordable housing (their housing is still affordable because their UGB hasn’t kicked in yet), larger back yards (they don’t have our insane land use restrictions).
Just Saying Says: As the DOT group pointed out, once you have dealt with the I5 bridges, you need to fix the Rose Quarter.
JK: Portland’s population has increased a lot since those roads were built. You need to build road capacity to match population increases, just like we build water, sewer, electric, phone etc. capacity to serve more population.
Just Saying Says: Once you start dealing with all the other infrastructure needed to handle traffic doubling from Clark County,
JK: Not to mention all the added people on this side of the river. But not to worry, if both cities continue on their current paths, Vancouver will surpass Portland as the region’s center because of their orientation towards the needs of people and business, as opposed to Portland being oriented to the dream world of out of touch planners. So, in the future the problem may solve itself as Portland self destructs under the planner’s dictates.
Just Saying Says: it becomes apparent that the development there is sustainable only with huge subsidies from the rest of the region.
JK: It is not Vancouver that is broke. It is Portland! (But Vancouver is in danger as some of Portland’s developer weasels (thanks Bojack) have moved North to find taxpayers that haven’t been maxed out and schools with money (not to mention social services, fire and police money) they hope to get their mitts on to finance more high density housing for singles.
And don’t forget that the bridge is only a $500-$800 million project. It is light rail and un-needed interchange work that runs up the tab. My best guess is that the interchanges were included to make the total project cost high enough to justify high tolls which will be used as the local match for the toy train. If the project were only a bridge and toy train, the tolls would not be high enough to use as the local match for the toy train. (Light rail is a toy because it costs too much and does too little.)
Thanks
JK
It’s quite simple… if you don’t like traffic and long travel times don’t live so far away. I can’t stand people living in a remote place who feel entitled to get everywhere traffic free in less than 15 minutes and turn my neighborhood in their speedway.
If you choose the rural, exurban or tax haven lifestyle of Clark County, fine… suck it up and deal with the negatives that come with it. Don’t force everyone in the region have to pay billions of dollars to mitigate your own self-inflicted problems.
You all know this free bridge is the only thing that allows your remote tax haven lifestyle to work and yet those of us who decided to live close to work now have to deal with your traffic congestion, dangerous speeds, air pollution and bridge costs. And perhaps worst of all, you people intentionally live somewhere to skirt taxes to pay for this government infrastructure that apparently is so vital to you and your lifestyle.
“Actually it shows that many people find Clark County a more attractive place to live”
Some do. But in the context of the Portland region, over 3/4 of the people don’t. They choose to live in Oregon. And housing prices reflect that. Houses in Clark County are far cheaper than a similar house on the Oregon side of the river.
They choose to live in Oregon. And housing prices reflect that. Houses in Clark County are far cheaper than a similar house on the Oregon side of the river.
JK: You are ignoring basic economics. Prices are NOT driven up by demand. They are driven up by demand IN EXCESS of supply.
Oregon restricts supply of land and that is why housing costs more here.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/housing.html
Thanks
JK
America Says: It’s quite simple… if you don’t like traffic and long travel times don’t live so far away. I can’t stand people living in a remote place who feel entitled to get everywhere traffic free in less than 15 minutes and turn my neighborhood in their speedway.
JK: Adequate freeways would remove that traffic from your neighborhood. Too bad Metro doesn’t like to build freeways.
America Says: If you choose the rural, exurban or tax haven lifestyle of Clark County, fine… suck it up and deal with the negatives that come with it.
JK: I hope you know that Clark County people who work in Oregon get hit with Oregon’s income tax. They ae being double taxed!
America Says: Don’t force everyone in the region have to pay billions of dollars to mitigate your own self-inflicted problems.
JK: No one needs to spend billions. That big price tag is for light rail. The new bridge pair is under a billion.
Thanks
JK
Adequate freeways would remove that traffic from your neighborhood.
Actually, the history of urban freeways is the “removal” of actual neighborhoods, not the removal of traffic.
“Oregon restricts supply of land and that is why housing costs more here.”
No one is forced to live in Oregon and pay more for housing. They do that by choice.
Prices are forced up by competition because there are many more people who want a house in Oregon than there are who want a similar house in Clark County. Housing costs more in Oregon than Clark County because many people are willing to pay a premium for housing in Oregon.
But you are probably right that blowing out the UGB would results in lower housing values across the region – including in Clark County. I am not sure many home owners would think that is an argument in its favor.
Is the Columbia River Crossing issue created by “exurban” commuters from Clark Co.?
Looking ahead a few decades I would say that the entire growth of the three state (and three nation, too) I-5 corridor will play just as much a factor in leading to congestion and overuse of our present infrastructure. Note that we happen to be somewhere in the middle of this route, since it doesn’t bypass us as it does San Francisco.
Getting more freight off the Interstate system and on to rail might be a partial solution, although I’m not sure that even that would fix the problem. And just how much federal money is going into THAT priority?
And even if the projected 2 million new inhabitants (just in the Portland area, mind you) were to settle within the UGB, would that mean they are not going to also be using other roadways around the region? Then there are the millions of new inhabitants in the rest of the I-5 corridor, who want stuff transported for them.
Maybe our underlying problem is overall growth? Now, who is pushing that?
Our interstate traffic is a very complex issue.
JK: Adequate freeways would remove that traffic from your neighborhood. Too bad Metro doesn’t like to build freeways.
so cars and trucks only travel on freeways and never use local roads and streets?!?!? no, you build more freeways and you’ll get more traffic on local streets and arterials traveling to/from the freeway.
JK: I hope you know that Clark County people who work in Oregon get hit with Oregon’s income tax. They ae being double taxed!
and then they go back to Oregon (specifically Hayden Island) along with all the Clark County residents who work in Washington, to do all their shopping sales tax free. and we wonder why this bridge is congested… traveling 10 exits on a freeway to get a bag of groceries or a DVD tax free.
JK: No one needs to spend billions. That big price tag is for light rail. The new bridge pair is under a billion.
please spare me. the price tag is so high because they are building a new 10/12 lane 600 ft wide highway bridge with tens of related overpasses and flyovers. a bridge that is so big that they were able to place both LRT and a multi-use path inside unused space within the bridge’s enormous structure.
America Says: JK: Adequate freeways would remove that traffic from your neighborhood. Too bad Metro doesn’t like to build freeways.
so cars and trucks only travel on freeways and never use local roads and streets?!?!? no, you build more freeways and you’ll get more traffic on local streets and arterials traveling to/from the freeway.
JK: Actually free flowing freeways draw traffic off of arterials because they save people’s time. That makes arterial more free flowing, so they then draw traffic off of lesser streets all the way down to neighborhood streets.
America Says: JK: I hope you know that Clark County people who work in Oregon get hit with Oregon’s income tax. They ae being double taxed!
and then they go back to Oregon (specifically Hayden Island) along with all the Clark County residents who work in Washington, to do all their shopping sales tax free. and we wonder why this bridge is congested… traveling 10 exits on a freeway to get a bag of groceries or a DVD tax free.
JK: You have a problem with people being free to choose?
America Says: JK: No one needs to spend billions. That big price tag is for light rail. The new bridge pair is under a billion.
please spare me. the price tag is so high because they are building a new 10/12 lane 600 ft wide highway bridge
JK: the price of the bridge is UNDER a billion – $500-800 billion depending on options. The light rail, for 1650 current commuters, costs about the same. And those 12 lanes are not each 50 foot wide, so your 600 foot claim is suspect.
America Says: with tens of related overpasses and flyovers.
JK: None of which are really in need of rebuilding (except SR14 because of height difference). They can be staged later to save about a billion.
America Says: a bridge that is so big that they were able to place both LRT and a multi-use path inside unused space within the bridge’s enormous structure.
JK: Actually the space under the bridge is the supporting structure. They proposed to make it even taller to run the toy train in it. However they later changed the design to one that has never before been built anywhere in the world. That will raise the cost and delay the design. All due to the toy train.
The actual highway bridge pair can be built for under a BILLION, it is only light rail and un-needed interchange work that makes it a giant mega project.
Thanks
JK
JK, the footprint of the CRC (not the bridge alone) does in fact exceed 500′ wide as proposed.
I commented about the issue in this thread from June.
Here is a repost of the relevant portion of those comments:
———————
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.
———————
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.
You have a problem with people being free to choose?
Geez, JK, knock it off with the accusations against everyone who disagrees with you or makes commentary about problems they see in our area as being somehow opposed to freedom.
It’s childish, insulting, and gee guess what, not true.
People are free to choose where they want to shop. We as a region are free to choose whether to build a massively expanded bridge for people to drive on. That’s a choice, too.
light rail, for 1650 current commuters
As has been said before, that’s an apple-and-oranges comparison. Considering the current bi-state transit service, a direct rail line that’s an extension of an existing one would be much better and should attract a lot more riders. And even if there are exactly 1650 transit riders now, that number ignores that they cross the bridge twice.
un-needed interchange work
As has been said before, the close spacing of the interchanges and their designs is a big part of the problem.
Oregon restricts supply of land and that is why housing costs more here
I’ve read that even the home builders alliance can’t prove that the growth boundary has increased prices. In addition, I bet that doesn’t consider the other costs of low-density housing–pipes, wires and services all have to travel farther when people are more spread out.
Jason McHuff : (quoting jk) light rail, for 1650 current commuters
As has been said before, that’s an apple-and-oranges comparison. Considering the current bi-state transit service, a direct rail line that’s an extension of an existing one would be much better and should attract a lot more riders.
JK: Why would more people suddenly ride it just because they extend a line – its not like there is huge number of people in North Portland going to Clark College or to the Vancouver Hilton.
The real little secret here is that the rider ship estimates rely on downtown Vancouver becoming a high density ghetto like the Pearl and SoWhat. Absent that, there are no riders much beyond the current 1650.
But suppose the rider ship doubled – that would be spending a BILLION dollars to accommodate 3300 people. Compared to spending a lesser amount ($630 million?) for a pair of bridges to accommodate 81,000 people. Which is the best use of money?
Jason McHuff : And even if there are exactly 1650 transit riders now, that number ignores that they cross the bridge twice.
JK: No it doesn’t it is the actual number of people who currently use transit to cross the river. (It comes from the CRC DEIS, so we know its accurate.) Counting boardings, as Trimet does, only makes their number of users look bigger.
Jason McHuff : (quoting jk) un-needed interchange work
As has been said before, the close spacing of the interchanges and their designs is a big part of the problem.
JK: The interchange work is un-needed because they are not a source of congestion. Yes they should be improved, but that can be done over time, instead of running up the bill on the mega project to the point that it requires tolls that will bankrupt many people. (Proposed up to $15.60 each day – $4000/yr)
Jason McHuff : (quoting jk) Oregon restricts supply of land and that is why housing costs more here
I’ve read that even the home builders alliance can’t prove that the growth boundary has increased prices. In addition, I bet that doesn’t consider the other costs of low-density housing–pipes, wires and services all have to travel farther when people are more spread out.
JK: That is because they aren’t paying attention to basic economics. If the supply cannot keep up with demand, the price goes up.
You may want to brush up on what experts say. You will find links to 16 studies at http://www.portlandfacts.com/housing/housingcost.htm
They include
Harvard Institute of Economic Research
Federal Reserve Bank of NY Economic Policy Review / June 2003
Director of the Division of Affordable Housing Research & Technology at HUD.
REGULATION FA L L 2002
Portland State University
University of Washington
Report prepared for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Thanks
JK
JK: The interchange work is un-needed because they are not a source of congestion. Yes they should be improved, but that can be done over time, instead of running up the bill on the mega project to the point that it requires tolls that will bankrupt many people. (Proposed up to $15.60 each day – $4000/yr)
Interchanges don’t back up an already-crowded freeway? Aux lanes are typically part of interchange costs, even if they’re not (to an observer) directly part of the interchange.
Not building the aux lanes defeats the purpose of the CRC, which is improving flow. If that was true we could make the existing bridges for through traffic only and the DEIS would have shown a supplemental bridge would have solved everything.
suddenly ride it just because they extend a line
Oh maybe because it would remove a required transfer and (especially off-peak) the need to spend time meandering around Hayden Island, or because it would allow them to bypass bridge congestion and/or tolls?
high density ghetto like the Pearl and SoWhat
I think you’ll find a lot of upscale housing in the Pearl District. And a lot of things to do in the area. Hardly a ghetto. And I know of no place named “SoWhat”.
that would be spending a BILLION dollars to accommodate 3300 people
Do you have proof that a MAX extension (as in without any other modes) would cost that much? The bridge on the Milwaukie line is slated to cost only a fraction of that.
No it doesn’t
But I’m pretty sure most capacity studies would count use, in this case “crossings”.
they are not a source of congestion
When you’ve got many vehicles entering in a short length (e.g. from many ramps), that’s congestion.
Proposed up to $15.60 each day
1. That’s only an idea, hardly the final rate. 2. I believe that number is in future dollars, and equivalent to a lot less today.
basic economics
And basic economics says that low-density, single-family houses with all of the costs of services included (such as a mail carrier or garbage truck having to drive to each and every one instead of making one stop at a multi-family complex) are very expensive.
I think it is likely that a MAX to Vancouver may gain quite a large number of passengers, even if it is a mere 1.4 miles. Vancouver residents like to shop in Oregon and this will give those who might not have car a or don’t wish to drive some opportunities. They likely won’t be the big spenders. however, who rely upon the auto.
That however would be a negative for Clark Co. businesses which would lose customers, and would put a further damper on Washington state tax revenues. So it’s kind of a devil’s bargain. A MAX line would better serve Vancouver, if it crossed downstream, such as by the BNSF bridge, and then swept through downtown Vancouver within walking distance of the expanding business area on the waterfront. This waterfront urban renewal project will extend as far west as the BNSF bridge, nearly an entire mile from the proposed alignment near I-5. It is the most densifying project envisioned for Clark Co. so it would make much more sense to have mass transit connections to it.
Yesterday at Sen. Patty Murray’s press conference a representative from Legacy Emmanuel hospital remarked that trauma patients coming from Clark Co. can sometimes be delayed by bridge openings. Yet SW Washington Regional Medical Center, on E. Mill Pain Bv. opened only a few years ago and has state of the art medical equipment. And perhaps someone should also build a trauma center in the north end of Clark County. This is an actual need and certainly would not cost the $4 billion slated for the CRC.
The aux lanes are needed to accommodate local trips getting on and off at those too frequent interchanges. Those trips should not be on an Interstate freeway (“carrying freight from Canada to Mexico!”), but on the arterial network, including a new arterial bridge. 1/3 of I-5 trips are local. Why not accommodate them with a “Broadway Bridge?” Why should you have to get on the freeway to have a drink at Shenanigans? Its absurd.
The aux lanes are needed to accommodate local trips getting on and off at those too frequent interchanges. Those trips should not be on an Interstate freeway (“carrying freight from Canada to Mexico!”), but on the arterial network, including a new arterial bridge. 1/3 of I-5 trips are local. Why not accommodate them with a “Broadway Bridge?” Why should you have to get on the freeway to have a drink at Shenanigans? Its absurd.
You seem to be obsessed with “getting a drink at Shenanigans.” since you’ve mentioned it before. Maybe you should just move in to the mobile home park, next door. Is this really a justification for taxpayers putting up money for even another bridge?
Of course, groups in Clark Co. want other bridges for their pet interest, as well. And I suppose light rail groups would want an east region crossing, too, someday. Soon the Columbia in the Portland -Vancouver region could look like the Willamette.
Can’t we find one solution that works for everyone? And have some rest from this bulldozer madness?
Not building the aux lanes defeats the purpose of the CRC, which is improving flow. If that was true we could make the existing bridges for through traffic only and the DEIS would have shown a supplemental bridge would have solved everything.
It probably would have, if they’d bothered doing a DEIS on a supplemental bridge. EVERY “third bridge” option was dismissed out-of-hand during the scoping process, except one: a “designed to fail” concept that used the existing bridges for northbound traffic only, and created a new bridge for southbound traffic. It was only there so they could PRETEND to analyze an “alternative” to the design they’d settled on before the hundred-million-dollar sham “public process” even started.
In essence, any design that wasn’t freeway-only was rejected without study.
You seem to be obsessed with “getting a drink at Shenanigans.” since you’ve mentioned it before. Maybe you should just move in to the mobile home park, next door. Is this really a justification for taxpayers putting up money for even another bridge?
Oh come on, Ron, Lenny’s line was clearly a metaphor for all local trips to/from the island. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a mall there, office parks, and a number of individually-sited businesses.
It is nuts to force people to get on the freeway for a mile or two trip to the island.
A MAX line would better serve Vancouver, if it crossed downstream, such as by the BNSF bridge, and then swept through downtown Vancouver within walking distance of the expanding business area on the waterfront. This waterfront urban renewal project will extend as far west as the BNSF bridge, nearly an entire mile from the proposed alignment near I-5. It is the most densifying project envisioned for Clark Co. so it would make much more sense to have mass transit connections to it.
The developers of the Boise-Cascade site have mentioned they’re considering a streetcar as part of the project, but they want to know what the MAX alignment will be before planning that. Pollard brought up building a streetcar to connect the rest of downtown to the MAX as well, but who knows if that will happen.
The aux lanes are needed to accommodate local trips getting on and off at those too frequent interchanges. Those trips should not be on an Interstate freeway (“carrying freight from Canada to Mexico!”), but on the arterial network, including a new arterial bridge.
Well, they also help keep flow by allowing cars more time to get up to speed and more time to decelerate without being in the through lanes. Most of their purpose isn’t to connect two exits directly, but to make the flow of cars entering/leaving the general lanes smoother, and not screw up things for the through traffic.
Overall though, I do agree that we should be looking at a new corridor rather than replacing what we have. Other access to Jantzen Beach could allow at least the SB off and NB on ramps to be removed, which are some of the biggest problems for traffic flow in that area.
Bob R.: It is nuts to force people to get on the freeway for a mile or two trip to the island.
What has been even more discouraging to me is the complete lack of an alternative when I did decide to shop there and saw southbound I-5 traffic at a crawl.
southbound I-5 traffic at a crawl
And then there’s the crawl trying to get on the freeway going north. A backup that many transit riders must sit through.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) suddenly ride it just because they extend a line
Oh maybe because it would remove a required transfer and (especially off-peak) the need to spend time meandering around Hayden Island, or because it would allow them to bypass bridge congestion and/or tolls?
JK: Wouldn’t it just move the transfer to downtown Vancouver. But we both know that the express buses run directly from downtown (or park & rides) to downtown. And the bus is 15 min compared to 30+ min for the rail. Again, why would people suddenly choose a slower option?
Of course, what CRC/Metro don’t say much about is the projected riders are projected to come from all those new housing units projected for downtown Vancouver. Just as soon as the current glut clears, they can start building. So I am really advocating a path (stopping light rail) that will avoid the embarrassment to Trimet of a third line with too few riders that should have never been built – and this one may make WES look like a success!
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) high density ghetto like the Pearl and SoWhat
I think you’ll find a lot of upscale housing in the Pearl District. And a lot of things to do in the area. Hardly a ghetto. And I know of no place named “SoWhat”.
JK: SoWhat is Bojack’s term for the South Waterfront district. Which is really the North Macadam Urban Renewal District, but the PR people don’t like that name, so they usually call it the South Waterfront (much more warm & fuzzy.)
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) that would be spending a BILLION dollars to accommodate 3300 people
Do you have proof that a MAX extension (as in without any other modes) would cost that much? The bridge on the Milwaukie line is slated to cost only a fraction of that.
JK: IRC report, page 148:
Funding for the LRT component of the CRC is anticipated to come from Federal and State
sources. CRC originally requested $750 million through the New Starts submission; but has
since raised that request to $850 million. The total year of expenditure amount is $945
million. (Bold added)
Of course 945 million rounds to one billion in even hundreds of millions.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) they are not a source of congestion
When you’ve got many vehicles entering in a short length (e.g. from many ramps), that’s congestion.
JK: Once you get over the bridge, in the afternoon, traffic flows freely – there is no present congestion problem from the interchanges. The DEIS report shows speed profiles and the speed North of the bridge is not a problem. If a problem develops in the future, we can fix it – in the future.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) Proposed up to $15.60 each day
1. That’s only an idea, hardly the final rate. 2. I believe that number is in future dollars, and equivalent to a lot less today.
JK: I have not heard of it being formally disowned.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) basic economics
And basic economics says that low-density, single-family houses with all of the costs of services included (such as a mail carrier or garbage truck having to drive to each and every one instead of making one stop at a multi-family complex) are very expensive.
JK: You have to compare that to the cost of high density. Just look at the price of comparable houses in areas with severe government building restrictions like Portland with less restricted areas, generally away from the West coast. We pay about double. That will pay for a lot of extra garbage truck miles. Besides how does our garbage rate compare with low density areas OUTSIDE of metro’s influence. I seem to recall our rates going up when Metro started messing with garbage. That is another thing density advocates frequently ignore – we do not pay the costs – we pay the charges. The difference being sweet deals and excess profits guarantee to players with metro.
Thanks
JK
It is nuts to force people to get on the freeway for a mile or two trip to the island.
Not sure why: I have even used I-5 as a shortcut from N. Weidler to SE McLoughlin. It works pretty well and saves a few minutes over the MLK route.
But back to the point I was raising (w/o sarcasm). There are a lot of groups that are proposing varied and sundry crossings of the Columbia. Is it better to go at these piecemeal or do a project that is a happy medium of all perceived needs?
Wouldn’t it just move the transfer to downtown Vancouver
No, because many people already have to make a (second) transfer there.
the express buses run directly from downtown
And don’t serve anyone who wants to go to or from points along the way, such as Swan Island, Rivergate and other places in North Portland. Also, I do believe that the Yellow Line should have been built to be faster, kind of like the Green Line was.
SoWhat is Bojack’s term for the South Waterfront district
So that’s not a real name for some place.
Once you get over the bridge
But what about BEFORE (e.g. south) of the bridge? And going south? And what if removing the bottleneck of the bridge unleashes a lot more traffic and starts to cause problems to the interchange to the north?
I have not heard of it being formally disowned
Have you heard of that numbers being in today’s dollars?
Just look at the price of comparable houses
So you’re comparing low density to low density, which is not the comparison I was making?
compare with low density areas OUTSIDE of metro’s influence
So you’re saying that the rates are a problem of Metro? Again, that’s not the comparison I was making. And its not just garbage trucks that have to travel farther, its recycling trucks, streets, school buses, transit, paratransit, water pipes, sewer pipes, electricity lines, telephone lines, cable television lines, postal vehicles, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other mailing services, pizza/other delivery services, police, fire protection,…
Bottom line: think about the comparison of one (or a few) stop vs many stops, and some wires & pipes vs a lot of wires & pipes.
But back to the point I was raising (w/o sarcasm). There are a lot of groups that are proposing varied and sundry crossings of the Columbia. Is it better to go at these piecemeal or do a project that is a happy medium of all perceived needs?
If put to a vote, I’d say “piecemeal.” Let each project rise and fall on its own merits. If the issue was simply to build a $500 million supplemental bridge to add a couple of lanes each way for arterial traffic between Marine Drive and downtown Vancouver, we’d probably have broken ground on it by now.
If put to a vote, I’d say “piecemeal.” Let each project rise and fall on its own merits. If the issue was simply to build a $500 million supplemental bridge to add a couple of lanes each way for arterial traffic between Marine Drive and downtown Vancouver, we’d probably have broken ground on it by now.
No we wouldn’t have. ODOT would have opposed such a bridge from the get-go. Likewise a “simple freeway bridge” without transit is not politically viable–neither side trusts the other that their needs will be met.
“No we wouldn’t have. ODOT would have opposed such a bridge from the get-go. Likewise a “simple freeway bridge” without transit is not politically viable–neither side trusts the other that their needs will be met.”
Take a look at ThirdBridgeNow.com
and if there is some way it doesn’t meet the needs that have been raised—at least within a reasonable approximation—-I would like to know. Even if Portland area’s population doesn’t increase by two million, we will still have a lot of newcomers. Plus, the population in other cities in the I-5 corridor will, also, increase, so I would expect more through traffic. Hopefully rail could pick up more of the long distance freight and regional travel can find some better means, whether by rail or by air.
Ron,
I’m not commenting on the technical merits of projects, I’m commenting on the politics. ODOT wants to widen and modernize I-5; and has made it plain that they will act to block any other bridge proposal across the Columbia unless their needs are met.
Likewise, Metro and the CofP have made it clear that THEY will block any new bridge proposal unless THEIR needs are met.
The third bridge proposal, whatever its merits, is not something that ODOT wants to build. Nor is it something that the CofP really wants to build either. Both the state and the city want their new bridges in the president corridor, because that’s where the current freeway and light-rail are.
Again, I’m not knocking the merits of the third bridge; just its political viability.
A “simple freeway bridge without transit” would be a completely viable approach as long as the existing bridges were renovated instead of demolished. We could have freeway lanes with wide shoulders each way, and the existing bridges could carry arterial traffic, transit, bikes and pedestrians. ODOT would get their freeway bridge and we could meet everyone else’s needs on the cheap.
Why ODOT and WashDOT are so obsessed with tearing out two perfectly usable bridges and forcing EVERYONE onto a single gigantic bridge to cross the Columbia is quite beyond me.
Why ODOT and WashDOT are so obsessed with tearing out two perfectly usable bridges and forcing EVERYONE onto a single gigantic bridge to cross the Columbia is quite beyond me.
Exactly, I second that.
You could just raise the existing bridges a little higher so that barges can clear without opening the bridge. This has already been done once with these bridges so it is possible.
Here is one idea… Build a third bridge to the west immediately adjacent to the existing I-5 bridges and use it initially and temporarily for one direction of freeway traffic while one of the existing freeway bridges is rehabbed. Then when both freeway bridges are rehabbed make the third bridge into a local arterial bridge with LRT and multi-use path.
“Why ODOT and WashDOT are so obsessed with tearing out two perfectly usable bridges and forcing EVERYONE onto a single gigantic bridge to cross the Columbia is quite beyond me.”
Because both agencies build highways and this project will provide significant professional opportunities for staff in the two highway agencies with its huge budget. In fact, it already has. Would Patty Murray be trying to get $45 million for planning on top of the $100 million already spent if the project were a new arterial bridge?
“Here is one idea…”
Andy Cotugno at Metro was informally pushing that idea when the project started. It obviously had no legs.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) Wouldn’t it just move the transfer to downtown Vancouver
No, because many people already have to make a (second) transfer there.
JK: But many don’t transfer – they get a direct ride from:
Salmon Creek Park & Ride to downtown Portland (#105)
99th street transit center to Lloyd center. (Lloyd District express #157)
Salmon Creek Park & Ride to downtown Portland (Salmon Creek Express #134)
Kmart Park & Ride, BPA Park & Ride to Marquam Hill (Marquam Hill Express #190)
99th street transit center to downtown Portland (Salmon Creek Express #199)
All these get a direct ride without transfers. (Of course, C-Tran promises to NOT discontinue these lines, raising the question of where the LRT riders will come from.)
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) Once you get over the bridge
But what about BEFORE (e.g. south) of the bridge? And going south?
JK: The problems South of the bridge are NOT addressed by the CRC except Marine drive, which should perform OK with its own auxiliary lane all the way across the river. Same for Victory Blvd.
Jason McHuff : And what if removing the bottleneck of the bridge unleashes a lot more traffic and starts to cause problems to the interchange to the north?
JK: If that actually happens, they can be staged as money becomes available, thus avoiding tolls.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) Just look at the price of comparable houses
So you’re comparing low density to low density, which is not the comparison I was making?
JK: Sorry, that is the case to show the cost of the planner’s mandates.
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) So you’re saying that the rates are a problem of Metro?
JK: Yes metrto sets garbage rates, instead of free market competition. That made rates rise, also metro gets a cut!
Jason McHuff : (quoting JK) Again, that’s not the comparison I was making. And its not just garbage trucks that have to travel farther, its recycling trucks, streets, school buses, transit, paratransit, water pipes, sewer pipes, electricity lines, telephone lines, cable television lines, postal vehicles, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other mailing services, pizza/other delivery services, police, fire protection,…
JK: Why is it the government’s job to cut the costs to private enterprise like:
garbage trucks, recycling trucks, electricity lines, telephone lines, cable television lines, postal vehicles, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other mailing services, pizza/other delivery services
or metro’s job to mess with local governments who have their own taxing power:
police, fire protection, streets, school buses, transit, paratransit
If these are too costly, the people who live in those areas will pay for it, so why is that your concern?
And low density does not even require:
water pipes, sewer pipes
But you forget the other side of the equation:
Even if services were to cost more, you have to balance that against the doubling of housing cost due to the metro created shortage of land.
And you forget the over-riding consideration: who should determine how people live? The government planners or the people themselves?
If you answer planners, they you also have to happily accept the imposition of Republican ideals the next time we have a Republican administration, then back to the Democrat mandates when a Democrat gets elected.
Thanks
JK
But many don’t transfer – they get a direct ride
As I said, they “don’t serve anyone who wants to go to or from points along the way, such as Swan Island, Rivergate and other places in North Portland. Also, I do believe that the Yellow Line should have been built to be faster, kind of like the Green Line was”, better for through travelers (and some local ones too).
should perform OK with its own auxiliary lane all the way across the river
Are you saying that interchange improvements aren’t needed at Marine Drive? There’s a lot of traffic that gets on and off there, and would still have to get to/from the ramps despite the auxiliary lane. Same for other places, too.
they can be staged as money becomes available
How sure are you that there would be money available? Not to mention that the money really probably should go towards actual fuel-related expenses, like petroleum defense and pollution control/effects. And in any case, costs go up when things are delayed and it would mean more (drawn-out) construction. Also, it might not be possible to do sections separately.
Why is it the government’s job to cut the costs to private enterprise
For those things that actually are privately run and not rate-controlled, they could pass the extra expenses on themselves. And some of the extra expenses (such as petroleum defense and pollution cleanup/effects) they don’t have to pay for themselves.
metro’s job
I did not say that Metro should be the one to set things. I said inside vs. outside Metro is “not the comparison I was making”.
the people who live in those areas will pay for it
No, everybody in the surrounding area often pays the costs. For example, school districts often consist of development that has existed for a long time and has long since payed for its schools, as well as development that’s brand new and needs brand new capacity. But everyone in the district is forced to pay for the new capacity.
And low density does not even require
What!? Are you saying that low density doesn’t require water or sewer? (If you’re thinking of having individual pumps and septic tanks, they only work in very low (rural-like) density.
doubling of housing cost due to the metro created shortage of land
Do you have proof that they’ve increased just the land costs so much as to double the price of an entire residence (building + land)? Also, given the amount the low-density development that’s been built, I don’t see a shortage of land needed to house the amount of people that are here.
And in any case, regulations that control land aren’t needed to build denser development.
who should determine how people live
The marketplace should. And as I have been trying to say, the marketplace is broken and favors driving and low-density development. And you’ll find that planners do indeed restrict higher density from happen.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) But many don’t transfer – they get a direct ride
As I said, they “don’t serve anyone who wants to go to or from points along the way, such as Swan Island, Rivergate and other places in North Portland.
JK: Those are candidates for other buses – you don’t spend a billion dollars for a subset of the 1650 people who currently use transit.
Jason McHuff Says: Also, I do believe that the Yellow Line should have been built to be faster, kind of like the Green Line was”, better for through travelers (and some local ones too).
JK: How do yo do that – fewer stops? They already have stops much further apart than the bus stops were.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) should perform OK with its own auxiliary lane all the way across the river
Are you saying that interchange improvements aren’t needed at Marine Drive?
JK: Not $400 mil worth! Just give the North bound Marine Dr on ramp its own lane across the river. Same for Victory blvd.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) they can be staged as money becomes available
How sure are you that there would be money available?
JK: One is never sure the money is available. Including for this mega project!
Jason McHuff Says: Not to mention that the money really probably should go towards actual fuel-related expenses, like petroleum defense
JK: Are you seriously saying that, if we were energy independent, the USA would let the rest of the world’s petroleum defenseless? That we would stand by as the rest of the world went into a deep depression?
Jason McHuff Says: And in any case, costs go up when things are delayed and it would mean more (drawn-out) construction. Also, it might not be possible to do sections separately.
JK: Costs DO NOT GO NECESSARILY UP in inflation adjusted terms.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) Why is it the government’s job to cut the costs to private enterprise
For those things that actually are privately run and not rate-controlled, they could pass the extra expenses on themselves.
JK: Again, why is this the government’s job?
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) metro’s job
I did not say that Metro should be the one to set things. I said inside vs. outside Metro is “not the comparison I was making”.
JK: Then what comparison were yo making that you named several examples of things you allege would be cheaper in high density. Of course, as usual, you forget all the offsetting factors like time wasted in congestion, higher franchise fees, etc.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) the people who live in those areas will pay for it
No, everybody in the surrounding area often pays the costs. For example, school districts often consist of development that has existed for a long time and has long since payed for its schools, as well as development that’s brand new and needs brand new capacity. But everyone in the district is forced to pay for the new capacity.
JK: That is wat system development fees are supposed to be for.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) And low density does not even require
What!? Are you saying that low density doesn’t require water or sewer? (If you’re thinking of having individual pumps and septic tanks, they only work in very low (rural-like) density.
JK: Naw, 1/4 acre lots can use septic. A friend on 5 acres (only used about 1 acre had well & septic.
Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) doubling of housing cost due to the metro created shortage of land
Do you have proof that they’ve increased just the land costs so much as to double the price of an entire residence (building + land)?
JK: Yep. Papers from HUD, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Federal Reserve, Regulation, University of Washington, Reason Foundation, Demographia.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/housing/housingcost.htm
Jason McHuff Says: Also, given the amount the low-density development that’s been built, I don’t see a shortage of land needed to house the amount of people that are here.
JK: What do you propose – tear down that pre-existing “low-density development” to make room for higher density? That sure will NOT save money.
Jason McHuff Says: And in any case, regulations that control land aren’t needed to build denser development.
JK: You completely miss the point. It is high density that costs more, not low density. Metro forces the cities to mandate high density in many areas.
JK: (quoting JK) who should determine how people live
The marketplace should. And as I have been trying to say, the marketplace is broken and favors driving and low-density development.
JK: No, that is not a broken market – that is people trying to be free to live how & where they want to. It is only broken in the dreams of out of touch planners who just know how other people should live. (While themselves often living in low density)
That statement reminds me of the argument claiming the market failed in the Betamax-VHS war because an inferior format, VHS won. What, the would be dictators of other’s choices, ignored was that they had different priorities than the general population. The would be dictators only considered picture quality, while the general public overwhelmingly voted for lower cost, especially per hour of recording.
It is this difference in priorities between planners and the general population that is the fatal flaw in ALL top down planning and why, smart growth will eventually self-destruct. As we are starting to see with the MLR and CRC.
You and the planners are ignoring the fact that the market has been delivering just what people want (and planners don’t want): a nice house in a low density neighborhood. With good schools. With low crime. If they have to drive farther to get there, they make that choice. It is NOT YOUR JOB to dictate to them otherwise.
As one person said, “I have never heard someone living in a low density cul-de-sac with a large backyard, low crime and good schools say ‘I really wanted to live in a high density TOD with high crime and crappy schools, but had to settle for this’”
Jason McHuff Says: And you’ll find that planners do indeed restrict higher density from happen.
JK: The general mandate from Metro is higher density, more infill, more congestion.
Thanks
JK