No one is going to step up to pay for the current overblown design of the Columbia River Crossing.
So how much longer will we keep spending millions per month planning something that shouldn’t, and perhaps more relevantly, can’t, be built?
What needs to happen now is:
- Amend the project purpose and need statement to retain the elements that are truly important:
- Reliable freight mobility
- Improved transportation choices for people
- Return to the DEIS phase
- Re-evaluate options based on:
- Realistic demand models
- Least-cost planning
The question now is which leader or leaders are going to step up and have the fortitude to insist on this?
44 responses to “Oregonian Begins to Recongize CRC Reality”
So how much longer will we keep spending millions per month planning something that shouldn’t, and perhaps more relevantly, can’t, be built?
As long as the can get away with it.
Our government is a complete and total catastrophe on every level.
Wait until the real s**t starts hitting the fan.
They need to just build the bridge, period. Not the miles of freeway reconstruction in both directions. That is the vast majority of the total cost, and it’s completely unnecessary. I-5 is in great shape and fuctions perfectly well north of Hwy 14 and south of Marine Drive.
They need to just build the bridge, period. Not the miles of freeway reconstruction in both directions. That is the vast majority of the total cost, and it’s completely unnecessary. I-5 is in great shape and fuctions perfectly well north of Hwy 14 and south of Marine Drive.
Chris Smith:
Amend the project purpose and need statement to retain the elements that are truly important:
Reliable freight mobility
Improved transportation choices for people
Return to the DEIS phase
Re-evaluate options based on:
Realistic demand models
Least-cost planning
JK: Excellent plan!
Lets take a closer look:
Chris Reliable freight mobility
JK: Get the freeway free flowing!
Chris Improved transportation choices for people
JK: Look at the proven choices people have made (From CRC DEIS:)
81,000 people choose to commute by car
1650 people choose to commute by transit
150 people choose to commute by bike
30 people choose to commute on foot.
See: nobridgetolls.com/lowcostplan.html
Chris Re-evaluate options based on:
Chris Realistic demand models
81,000 people actually commute by car
1650 people actually commute by transit
150 people actually commute by bike
30 people actually commute on foot.
Chris Least-cost planning
JK: Lets look at the costs per daily commuter:
2 billion for 81,000 daily car commuters over 30 years at 7%: : $4.80/day
1 billion for 1650 daily transit commuters over 30 years at 7%: $118/day
Looks pretty simple:
Build the road to serve people at $4.80 per day and dump the transit to serve people at $118/day.
Better yet:
Build just the needed road bridge for 3/4 Billion = $1.80/day
(all numbers are ball park – no one knows the real numbers)
Thanks
JK
I think I would be able to accept a simple bridge replacement, provided it included small tolls and HOV lanes for carpools and express busses. I also like the schemes that keep the existing bridges for local access or transit/pedestrian.
For those arguing for a ‘simple bridge replacement’, please recognize that to do that under the Federal NEPA process you would need to do exactly what I suggested: amend the purpose and need statement and return to the DEIS stage to re-evaluate options. The road to do anything other than the current path lies through those two steps.
Chris , can they do it in phases , so as to keep the existing process in place ? Build the bridge now , then deal with each approach on a state by state basis?
My understanding is that because phasing is not contemplated in the current DEIS, they would still need to revisit the DEIS to do phasing.
Just do an 8-lane freeway bridge, plus a new arterial bridge from Hayden Island to Marine Drive. The new arterial bridge will allow closure of the Hayden Island interchange; Hayden Island can still be accessed from Marine Drive or Vancouver. Keep the existing bridges in place for arterial traffic and bus transit for now.
Put off everything else, including light rail, for later, and do each planned CRC element as an individual project that rises or falls on its own merits.
Jim-
do you assume that there would be no modal shift as a result of adding LRT to the bridge? Or are you just putting up meaningless numbers for fun?
Closing the Hayden Island interchange + building a separate LRT bridge to Vancouver is all that we should be doing with this project.
Chris Smith Says: For those arguing for a ‘simple bridge replacement’, please recognize that to do that under the Federal NEPA process you would need to do exactly what I suggested: amend the purpose and need statement and return to the DEIS stage to re-evaluate options.
JK: Lets review the purpose & Need:
1. Growing travel demand and congestion.
2. Impaired freight movement.
3. Limited public transportation operation, connectivity,
4. Safety and vulnerability to incidents.
5. Substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
6. Seismic vulnerability.
A simple, 12 (or so) lane bridge will do each of the above;
Growing travel demand and congestion.
Replacing 6 lanes & NO breakdown lanes with 12 lanes + breakdown lanes meets this.
Impaired freight movement.
Doubling lane capacity solves congestion on the bridge.
Limited public transportation operation, connectivity,
Increased lane capacity allow faster transit across the bridge
Safety and vulnerability to incidents.
Wider lanes & breakdown lanes meets this.
Substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
12 ft wide bike/ped lane solves this
Seismic vulnerability.
Any new design solves this.
Thanks
JK
Chris Smith Says: For those arguing for a ‘simple bridge replacement’, please recognize that to do that under the Federal NEPA process you would need to do exactly what I suggested: amend the purpose and need statement and return to the DEIS stage to re-evaluate options.
JK: Lets review the purpose & Need:
1. Growing travel demand and congestion.
2. Impaired freight movement.
3. Limited public transportation operation, connectivity,
4. Safety and vulnerability to incidents.
5. Substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
6. Seismic vulnerability.
A simple, 12 (or so) lane bridge will do each of the above;
Growing travel demand and congestion.
Replacing 6 lanes & NO breakdown lanes with 12 lanes + breakdown lanes meets this.
Impaired freight movement.
Doubling lane capacity solves congestion on the bridge.
Limited public transportation operation, connectivity,
Increased lane capacity allow faster transit across the bridge
Safety and vulnerability to incidents.
Wider lanes & breakdown lanes meets this.
Substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
12 ft wide bike/ped lane solves this
Seismic vulnerability.
Any new design solves this.
Thanks
JK
Allan Says: Jim- do you assume that there would be no modal shift as a result of adding LRT to the bridge?
JK: I am looking at current usage for both modes. That is the ONLY reliable numbers since projections are notoriously inaccurate and usually inflated in favor of transit.
However if you doubled the LRT estimate, you would cut the daily cost (of construction) in ½ to only $54 per day.
Maybe you could quadruple transit numbers then the daily cost should only be $27.50/ day.
Compared to cars at $1.80/day for the bridge only option.
Allan Says: Or are you just putting up meaningless numbers for fun?
JK: Please quit the accusations. Or should I have questioned you math and logic skills in asking such a question?
Thanks
JK
Here’s an experienced Portland planner who knows why the CRC is in trouble.
http://victoriataftkpam.blogspot.com/2011/08/former-member-of-professional-planner.html
I think everyone can win with the Western Arterial option —if it connects to US 26. Whenever you establish a substantial shortcut it should invite those who are opting out of the SOV culture, too. A bicycle will have an advantage with a shortcut; a bus rider will have an advantage with a shortcut. People who need to get somewhere fast will gain, too.
I realize that Portland area businesses are probably as frustrated as are commuters with the congestion on I-5 north into Vancouver. However, it looks like the greatest industrial and commercial expansion will continue to be in the Beaverton Hillsboro area. The Western Arterial needs to be advanced as a serious solution and to gauge the business community’s reaction. It has always been on the table as a solution—until the CRC swept it off.
Money shouldn’t be an issue, just toll the daylights out of it. $20 each way sounds about right.
dwainedibbly Says: Money shouldn’t be an issue, just toll the daylights out of it. $20 each way sounds about right.
JK: Good point, but far below the actual cost of a light rail ride across the Columbia. The toll should be set at $27 per light rail ride across the river to pay just its construction cost. That is assuming ridership doubles, if it stays the same as the current, faster, bus the toll should be $54 each way.
(A similar toll for a road crossing would be $0.90)
I’m beginning to like this user pays the full cost stuff!
Thanks
JK
JK: Please quit the accusations. Or should I have questioned you math and logic skills in asking such a question?
Allan: Sorry didn’t mean to be so harsh. I guess my approach would be to assume the projections aren’t baseless, so they might be 50% off in either direction (that would be but I would tend to use them as my baseline as opposed to the ‘assume the existing conditions will continue’ approach. Currently, taking transit across the river is a multi-step process for almost everyone — car+transit or a transfer somewhere. Surely the changes that are being proposed + some level of TOD should be able to get ridership of at least half of what they are proposing
from some quick searches of the CRC documents: 3500 current riders (5.9% transit mode split) – this would put your numbers off by a factor of 2
i think the projections for ridership were about 15000 riders on LRT, although I don’t have all of the stuff on hand. if we assume that they’re off by 50% and only 7500 riders show up, then I think the numbers show this is a terrible investment.
1 billion /
20 years x 7500 x 365 = 18$ per trip, at 15000, its still 9$ per trip. I would hope that this isn’t lost on the folks doing the math. in the underestimate case, to get down to your 1.80$ per trip, it would appear like we need 75,000 trips per day. I think we could both agree that that isn’t realistic in the next 10 years, with the future getting fuzzier after that.
just my 2 cents
Allan,
Light rail is a long-term investment. 20 years is not the proper amortization period. Wouldn’t something like 50 years be more reasonable? We are well past 20 years on the east side blue line, and they haven’t had to rip out the tracks and lay new ones yet.
People who take the bus from various further out park & rides will find their bus no longer goes to Portland, but to light rail with its longer travel time. (C-Tran claims they will maintain some of the express buses – time will tell.)
Allan Says: Surely the changes that are being proposed + some level of TOD should be able to get ridership of at least half of what they are proposing
JK:
1.Most people who live in TODs still drive. Its just that a few transit dependent people also move in, so the transit percentage is a bit higher. BTW, who is going to pay for all those TODs?
2. The estimate of 7,250 PM peak transit riders is 19% share and is more than a 439% increase over current. (Based on 1650 all day North bound all day compared to North PM peak, so this is a bit off – but not too far.) See: Exhibit 3.1-24
Allan Says: from some quick searches of the CRC documents: 3500 current riders (5.9% transit mode split) – this would put your numbers off by a factor of 2
JK: I use the number of 3300 from CRC DEIS, Page 3-18. However these people make round trips. What they call a “rider” is actually a “boarding” which is some one boarding a vehicle. This is also referred to as a trip. All the same: one person boards a vehicle. Since these are commuters who make round trips, this is only 1650 people.
Allan Says: i think the projections for ridership were about 15000 riders on LRT, although I don’t have all of the stuff on hand. if we assume that they’re off by 50% and only 7500 riders show up, then I think the numbers show this is a terrible investment.
JK: YEP. You can do a chart:
Amortization cost per day (rough):
800 million x 8% = 64 million/yr = 177,777/ day
Trips………………………….Cost per trip
3300……(100% of today)……$53
6600……(200% of today)……$27
9900……(300% of today)……$18
13,200. .(400% of today)……$9
Keep in mind this is just for between Expo Center and Clark College, not to Portland.
Allan Says: 1 billion /
20 years x 7500 x 365 = 18$ per trip, at 15000, its still 9$ per trip. I would hope that this isn’t lost on the folks doing the math. in the underestimate case, to get down to your 1.80$ per trip, it would appear like we need 75,000 trips per day. I think we could both agree that that isn’t realistic in the next 10 years, with the future getting fuzzier after that.
JK: But we DO get down to $1.80/trip for the auto component!
Chris I Says: Light rail is a long-term investment.
JK: Not really. It has been obsolete for decades. That’s why they ripped out the streetcars – too expensive and inflexible compared the buses of the day, then later cars. (GM had nothing to do with it.)
Chris I Says: 20 years is not the proper amortization period. Wouldn’t something like 50 years be more reasonable?
JK: Maintenance goes way up as the system ages. The lack of that maintenance has caused several really bad accidents around the country.
AND
The actual amortization factor to use is specified by the Feds and is around 8%, probably 8.04% as that is what is used at: http://www.portlandfacts.com/lrt_cost_w_localmatch.html
Thanks
JK
JK: Not really. It has been obsolete for decades. That’s why they ripped out the streetcars – too expensive and inflexible compared the buses of the day, then later cars. (GM had nothing to do with it.)
You are ridiculous. I can’t argue with logic like this.
Trying to compare auto trips to mass transit trips is like comparing apples and oranges…. they’re two totally different animals. And spouting off figure$ for this versus that completely ignores the non-monetary benefits of rail transit.
JK Says: Maintenance goes way up as the [rail] system ages. The lack of that maintenance has caused several really bad accidents around the country.
The same goes for streets and highways, a fact you always seem to conveniently overlook. There are subways and rail lines all over the world that have been functional for well over a century, and will be for centuries more. And yes, OF COURSE you have to maintain them. But steel rails require less maintenance than paved roads.
Chris I Says: Light rail is a long-term investment.
It’s actually a huge investment when you consider how much input is, apparently, needed to make any decision. And then, the TOD advocates are defining for the public where the best places to live will be. Why don’t they let people make up their own minds? Furthermore, there is naturally quite a lot of TOD that takes place through other planning processes. Our large cities are where they are, because the location had economic and other advantages. In Vancouver for example, the Columbia waterfront had an appeal. Vancouver leaders are looking at redevelopment plans for their own waterfront and downtown that will increase density. But this is taking place prior to, and independent of, any construction of a light rail system.
We are well past 20 years on the east side blue line, and they haven’t had to rip out the tracks and lay new ones yet.
But the massive, art deco brick and concrete installations are getting badly chipped and cracked. Repairing masonry is expensive, bub. Too many heavy items being toted up the stairs. Thankfully the Clackamas TC uses more minimalist, metal components, and while they may also wear out in several decades, they can either be refinished or replaced for less than concrete repairs.
I don’t have any problem with the light rail concept. Whether intended or not, we’re getting fleeced by the contractors. Please remember that Tom Walsh, influential in much of our light rail system, was a contractor—-and one of the favored ones to our city officials, too.
I don’t agree with JK’s ridership figures which use only current levels. Good planning should also anticipate what will likely—hopefully, certainly happen—- after implementation of a policy. I.e. planning has to hit (many) moving targets. I also don’t agree with strictly a segmental approach to solving a region wide planning problem–i.e. “what is the immediate need at this point..”
But we are going to need roadways that are uncongested for a huge number of reasons. The different transit modes will have to coexist and look for ways to drive their respective costs down, so that there is enough for everybody. From what I understand of our own railroads—and also rail transit in a LOT of other countries—they don’t spend anywhere close to the sums that Tri Met calculates on.
I never trust what contractors claim is going to be needed for payment for their work. I’ve been around too many of them. Please come up with an affordable cost for your dreams. The rest of us have important things to do.
The idea that streetcars were driven out of business by lower cost and more efficient alternatives is legitimate. Check out TriMet’s transit history at http://trimet.org/about/history/transitinportland.htm. One big reality is that privately owned rail companies have to pay for all construction and maintenance costs plus property tax on all the track and signaling infrastructure. Private bus, truck, and car owners essentially share capital and maintenance costs of roads which are exempt from property tax.
The world would be a bit different if there were publicly owned rails instead of asphalt in front of every business and home.
Good point, R A. Private railroads had to compete with socialist roads. Now, people like Jim complain about socialist light rail stealing money from the socialist roads. Where was he when the railroads were going under?
The Union Pacific was started by the US Government, under A. Lincoln, to aid in the civil war, hence the name.
I don’t have figures, but I would think that the federal road expenditure was relatively small, until the construction of the Interstate system. But, it was not only travelers who used the state, local and federal road systems. Farmers used them locally, and businesses used them for local commerce and then, more, for intermediate and long range hauling. As the timber in Western Oregon was exploited lots of state roads were built to help the industry, vital to our earlier economy.
Perhaps the road system had advantages over the rail system, except for high bulk long distance hauling. Which is not to say the latter are obsolete. But hard headed analysis is needed.
Jim Karlock,
You can’t base the decisions solely on what is proven to be happening now. Of COURSE transit, bike and ped are low – the existing facilities are inadequate. Build better facilities, and the usage will follow. If you look at the trends in Portland and Vancouver overall and not just in the I-5 corridor, there is a clear shift from automobile to transit, bike and ped when the facilities are available. Pedestrian usage will likely always remain low due to the distance involved, but transit and bike use would be greatly improved with the addition of facilities that don’t treat those modes like second-class citizens.
In any case, this is good news to a certain extent, because more and more players are realizing that the emperor has no clothes, and the current design just isn’t going to work.
Freight needs to be encouraged to move to rail for through traffic. Auto usage is already on the decline. Let’s look at options for a bridge that will actually serve the needs of our communities and the region rather than a knee-jerk response based on projections of the past which haven’t been predictive for the last decade.
Chris I Says: You are ridiculous. I can’t argue with logic like this.
JK: You can’t argue because the statement is correct. Street cars were made obsolete by buses. Period. And mass transit was made obsolete by the automobile.
August 16, 2011 7:57 AM
Aaron Hall Says: Trying to compare auto trips to mass transit trips is like comparing apples and oranges…. they’re two totally different animals. And spouting off figure$ for this versus that completely ignores the non-monetary benefits of rail transit.
JK: Care to name a few of those “non-monetary benefits” that are worth $53 per river crossing? (Over $100 per round trip)
Aaron Hall Says: There are subways and rail lines all over the world that have been functional for well over a century, and will be for centuries more. And yes, OF COURSE you have to maintain them. But steel rails require less maintenance than paved roads.
JK: All over the world is not correct. The correct statement is “in cities many times more dense than Portland will ever be” And most passenger rail lines are government subsidized outside of a few in Japan and maybe one-two in Europe.
R A Fontes Says: The world would be a bit different if there were publicly owned rails instead of asphalt in front of every business and home.
JK: Yep! We’d all be living in poverty just to pay the cost of all those rails. That’s why we use roads – they are cheaper. And our private cars go where we want to go when we want to go. Mass transit can not do that.
Chris I Says: Good point, R A. Private railroads had to compete with socialist roads. Now, people like Jim complain about socialist light rail stealing money from the socialist roads.
JK: Roads are not socialist. They are user paid, with user fees being collected by the government. Transit is socialist because it is NOT user paid – it is subsidized by NON USERS.
Chris I Says: Where was he when the railroads were going under?
JK: Railroads are doing just fine.
Or were you referring to the struggling Federal government subsidized passenger service that carries less trips per day than MAX? You know, the one that has over a $100 subsidy for each person carried from Eugene to Portland.
Thanks
JK
matt picio Says: You can’t base the decisions solely on what is proven to be happening now.
JK: The other choice it to pretend that you know the future. Of course we do know that the USA has well over a 100 year supply of oil, coal & natural gas. So one can conclude that oil prices will not rise and autos will remain much cheaper than transit.
matt picio Says: Of COURSE transit, bike and ped are low – the existing facilities are inadequate. Build better facilities, and the usage will follow.
JK: Good. Let them pay for the better facilities, just like autos paid for roads.
matt picio Says: If you look at the trends in Portland and Vancouver overall and not just in the I-5 corridor, there is a clear shift from automobile to transit, bike and ped when the facilities are available.
JK: Lets see your sources for that claim. The gold standard, US Census data journey to work shows transit losing market share for decades. Of course transit went up, but slightly less fast than the population. Also immigrants tend to use transit until they are able o afford a car, so our rather large immigrant population has temporarily increased transit market share.
matt picio Says: Pedestrian usage will likely always remain low due to the distance involved, but transit and bike use would be greatly improved with the addition of facilities that don’t treat those modes like second-class citizens.
JK: And who is going to pay for these improvements? They are not worth it to the users as evidenced by their being unwilling to pay the real cost, around $10 per transit trip. Can you come up with some good reason non-users should be paying 80% of the cost of transporting well off transit users?
matt picio Says: In any case, this is good news to a certain extent, because more and more players are realizing that the emperor has no clothes, and the current design just isn’t going to work.
JK: What’s not working about our current transportation network. (Except that Metro has refused to increase road capacity as our population has increased.)
matt picio Says: Freight needs to be encouraged to move to rail for through traffic.
JK: Portland planners have already screwed up the region’s road network, destroyed housing affordability, wasted billions on smart growth. Don’t let them get near making decisions for freight. They will only screw it up too.
matt picio Says: Auto usage is already on the decline. Let’s look at options for a bridge that will actually serve the needs of our communities and the region rather than a knee-jerk response based on projections of the past which haven’t been predictive for the last decade.
JK: That’s why we need top remove the light rail component and let buses run in free flowing general purpose lanes.
Thanks
JK
Why doesn’t everyone just agree to not engage JK in comments? There are a couple similar trolls on the Seattle Transit Blog and people have gotten pretty good at just ignoring them. If someone doesn’t have a basic understanding or appreciation of the value that non-auto transportation brings to society, they have no place commenting on this blog. I’ve noticed every thread just ends up getting hijacked by one or two trolls like JK and the resulting debate is not really very interesting, because people end up using data to try to back up what are actually questions of values. That just doesn’t work. Ignore them! I also would really like to see threaded comments here so we could have some productive conversations alongside the inevitable pointless ones.
zefwagner Says: If someone doesn’t have a basic understanding or appreciation of the value that non-auto transportation brings to society
JK: Care to articulate exactly what these values are and how they benefit society?
If you cannot do that, you should just admit it is you religion and quit trying to force your values on others. Otherwise you would be doing the same as George Bush trying to write his religion into law.
Thanks
JK
BTW, this thread is about what the CRC should do in view of limited money. That makes this discussion of the value of transit exactly on topic:
Do we build facilities that will serve people at a dollar each or fifty dollars each.
If this is about values, it is the value of wasting massive amounts of money and people’s time. It is very legitimate to ask what is the benefit to society of spending $50 per crossing. Is it the best use of money to further the goal of benefiting society?
Thanks
JK
Can you guess what I just did? I just skipped right over JK’s comments without reading them. I know it was probably something about how cars are so superior to transit, even though millions of people in the world prefer transit to the cost and hassle of owning a car and living in car-oriented neighborhoods. We are all different, and we all prefer different modes and lifestyles. I think public infrastructure spending should support all modes and lifestyles and development types, rather than primarily one mode and lifestyle and development type. I think the allocation and subsidizing of transportation should be determined by political bargaining and should not be based on a strict “user fee” system.
Clearly JK disagrees, and that’s what I mean by a clash of values. No amount of data or logical argumentation will change his basic position or my basic position. Debate happens at the margin, not from pole to pole. This blog needs to start from the premise that we all agree on the need for many modes of transportation (thus the name Portland Transport rather than Portland Auto Transport) if we are to have productive debate rather than pointless arguing.
Someone who goes on a blog premised on one basic philosophy, just for the sake of arguing the opposite, is a troll by any definition. The whole point is to rile everyone up and dominate the conversation. JK is a troll, and needs to be ignored. The moderators should seriously consider banning him if they want to have this blog to result in meaningful discussions. This is not a free speech zone, and disruption is disruption. In any case, don’t even read his posts, don’t respond, don’t comment, pretend they don’t exist. He is beneath the need for our attention.
I somewhat agree with zefwagner. Honestly, I have mostly stopped reading the comments since Mr. Karlock started posting in great quantity on this blog.
To Ron Swaren,
By “The Western Arterial” are you talking about the Great Wall of Vancouver (e.g. the plan to build an elevated roadway between Mill Plain and 13th across the north end of downtown Vancouver)?
If that’s your proposal, please don’t talk to those of us in Vancouver. We don’t want it.
The part of the proposal south of the Columbia might be a useful addition to the regional network when linked to the CRC, but the low-level bridge across the Willamette just below the port is probably a non-starter. There is quite a bit of rail-served useful riverfront between Swan Island and the BNSF bridge that should not be cut off from oceangoing ships.
The proposed bridge is to have effectively five lanes, but there are only three south of Delta Park and likely none will ever be added. I do not understand why people obsess over adding a bridge next to the BNSF Columbia bridge. There’s nowhere for it to collect/gather north of the river except The Great Wall. Believe me, people in Vancouver will not accept The Great Wall.
But building the Oregon side of the proposal (with a better Willamette crossing which unfortunately would add many megabucks) would be a pretty good way to absorb those two extra lanes worth of traffic without overwhelming the North Portland street grid.
Anandakos,
In answer to your question, No, I am not in favor of the Great Wall. I agree that this would be a suicide decision for this proposal and is really unnecessary to begin with. But since you point out that connections on the Oregon side would be advantageous—and even to the Hillsboro Airport which could become a commercial flight hub, in time—there are connections on the Vancouver side that would have some impact, but could largely be handled by existing roadways. Yes, I know that people don’t want any increases in traffic anywhere. OTOH, most people like to be able to go a shorter distance by the means of their choice So that is a tradeoff in route planning.
And instead of just thinking of the Western Arterial route as diverting a portion of traffic from I-5, it’s more reasonable to think in terms of a regional “travel shed”. Thus a third bridge route, that utilizes Fruit Valley Rd as the main N-S thoroughfare, would also have surface connections to 39th, 4th Plain and Mill Plain, to Amtrak, and to a southbank street from the new downtown that will eventually be built on the waterfront. Given the topography of the land I think a tunnel could connect the existing I-5/39th exit (which also connects to Hwy 500 and Hwy 99) to Fruit Valley Rd. Perhaps just two lanes at this time. I suppose you could give the bike riders a segment in this, to get them off the surface.
Is this diverting I-5 traffic into neighborhoods? Sort of.
It’s also allowing travelers on Hwy 500, 4th P and MP to get out to the NW Metro area by other means than down I-5 and out 26. It reduces that travel by several miles. Roundtrip savings from Van. to Silicon Forest could be 12-14 miles. That makes it bicyclable, too. It is currently 20 miles from Vancouver CC to West Union Jct. via I-5 and US 26. Change that to 13-14 miles and I think it is doable.
Sharon Nasset did invite CRC alternative proponents to a forum at the end of July at the CC Service Building. She deserves applause for all the work she put into it, and is planning another one in Portland. It was posted on this blog so stay tuned.
I don’t have any axe to grind for any form of transit; have used them all. We can save money by planning that takes all trends into account and also connects to a greater number of existing routes. A western interstate arterial from NE 39th all the way to US 26 at West Union would be a single. master stroke that would solve numerous problems and could make a lot of the rest of the expensive Portland and METRO agenda superfluous.
I-5 currently has a tipping point at which congestion becomes intolerable; this happened after the explosive growth of Intel and other companies in the silicon forest in the 1980’s. Get back below the tipping point and surface traffic and things like express buses become attractive again, especially with shorter distances. Add a shortcut like the W.A., serving a broad area of the Metro area on both ends and —the winners outnumber the objectors.
Fruit Valley Road? You must be kidding. It was just rebuilt as two lanes with a turn lane and used up its available right of way. Plus it creeps through the Fruit Valley neighborhood; you’d have to bypass the neighborhood to the west, and the potential ROW just got built out south of the Frito-Lay plant.
I live in Hazel Dell and use it regularly when the freeway is Red, but at those times it’s pretty much full today (darn those other hip-to-Google commuters!).
And a TUNNEL under 39th Street? I thought you were trying to save money vis-a-vis a Big New Bridge. Not to mention the problem of rationalizing the SB I-5 exit to 39th Street.
As I posted on a different thread, I don’t think the Big New Bridge is going to get built. No money and the Repugnant’s are not in a mood to gie any goodies to the People’s Soviet of Washington.
And you can double-darn-betcha that the powers that be in the Washington and Oregon DOT’s are NOT going to pay for a two mile tunnel under 39th Street as an alternative to a new Columbia River Crossing.
To channel W’s dad: wouldn’t be prudent.
A tunnel under 39th would not be an absolute necessity right away. It could be done later; and perhaps it could be contracted to a firm that can do it at a reasonable cost. I read an amazing story of a project in Mexico through a mountain range: 45 miles, 95 bridges and tunnels, last cost est. $900 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-25-mexican-highway_N.htm
The length of a tunnel under 39th, or in the vicinity is about .8 miles, not 2.0. The Fruit Valley rd route would still be fed by 4th plain and Mill plain, 78th st, 90th st., 119th St, and 139th st, N-S traffic from Lakeshore area on NW 39th Ave, from DT Vancouver and from Hwy 14 as well. The NW 39th Street connection is critical to do properly because I-5, Hwy 500 and Hwy99 connect in at that area. And there is already an I-5 exit and connection to Hwy 500 there.
Generally speaking the more IMMEDIATE connection you can make to existing routes the better. This keeps traffic (including bicycles and buses) from using neighborhood streets or thoroughfares to get to the main route they are headed for.
I don’t view this as something to save money viv-a-vis the CRC bridge. I view it as something to save even more money compared against METRO’s larger vision. The CRC with its high price tag yielding only 1.5 miles of MAX in WA state, was acknowledged by one of the higher ups as only a beginning. He told me the next step would be a light rail line through Clark Co. So the cost of light rail in Clark Co. isn’t a few hundred million or even 1 billion: it’s, for intents and purposes, several billion. I’m not against that per se, just the extravagant cost such solutions have risen too, when money actually is tight, no matter what party you talk to. (excepting “progressives” Dems, and the CPUSA).
They won’t give money for the P.R. of WA? Can’t Patty Murray get some more? She has been pretty good at landing the military contracts, and other funds for big time cheaters, Boeing. Maybe she’s afraid to Tea Party types in Washington. It’s too late to stop crying “wolf” now, though.
Ron,
You obviously haven’t read my posts in the past. I also think bringing the Yellow Line to Vancouver is a REALLY DUMB IDEA, because of the cost and long travel times down Interstate Ave.
But building a bridge alongside the railroad bridge and ruining the west side of Vancouver is also a REALLY DUMB IDEA. What have we done to you?
The right thing to do is to build a new four through lanes CRC with slip ramps between downtown Vancouver and the Marine Drive/MLK interchange. One of the through lanes in each direction should be 24/7/365 HOV (maybe get a little extra Missoula by allowing HOT with extra tolls at the peak). Drop the second “extra” lane at Delta Park as today southbound and build your Western Arterial starting at the Marine Drive interchange.
It’s simple, it’s cost-effective (we DO need to replace the old, dangerous bridges sometime soon) and the HOV lanes will provide smooth sailing for express buses through the bridge influence area.
Eventually I’d think that ODOT would want to put a second level for the HOV/HOT on stilts a-la San Antonio between Delta Park and the Fremont Bridge. An HOV-only spiral ramp from the Fremont exit to the northbound elevated section would allow buses and HOV’s from the westside to bypass the mess at the 405/5 merge. Southbound the structure could just feed into the high level north to west ramp directly.
Yes, such a facility would have to be pretty high over the five bridges that cross the freeway, but the San Antonio upper deck structures rise and fall between overpasses and it seems to work fine.
And actually, nearly a third of the total distance between Delta Park and downtown could be accommodated by widening the existing road yet again. There’s no impeding construction between Delta Park interchange and the beginning of the section with sound walls.
Wow!!!
OK, so let me get this straight….
You think that extending the Yellow line into Vancouver is a REALLY DUMB IDEA, but building a 5-6 mile long elevated HOV/HOT structure ON TOP of I-5 through North Portland, with spiral ramps (?), and tall enough to FLY OVER the Lombard, Rosa Parks, Killingsworth, Alberta, Going and Skidmore (6) overpasses…. THIS is what you consider to be a GOOD IDEA?!?! Because it “seems to work fine” in San Antonio?
Seriously, I don’t understand you at all. You vehemently oppose a similar “Great Wall of Vancouver” proposal (presumably because you live in Vancouver), yet you’re perfectly fine proposing an even Greater Wall through North Portland. Besides being physically and monetarily infeasible, and politically impossible, the hypocracy of your proposal is staggering.
Wiping out a crappy west Vancouver neighborhood would be much more feasible than building 50ft high HOV lanes right next to the vibrant Mississippi and Interstate neighborhoods in Portland. Neither will happen, though. I will be surprised if we ever have enough money to do a major project on I-5 in N Portland.
There are many reasons to support a THIRD interstate crossing. This does not correlate to any sort of “freeway building frenzy”—- but restricting interstate crossings in the Portland-Vancouver region to just two would be laughed at by planning agencies all over the world. Even more so when you consider long term growth. It would be needed at some point, anyway—why not now?
Memphis Tennessee is the only similar US city that still has only two such crossings—-and there is very little in the suburb of West Memphis (pop. 28,000). Not anywhere near the 150k population of Vancouver. Working out the details should be open for discussion. Typically, urban regions all over the world use a Ring Road concept.
Our close neighbor to the north, Seattle, actually has FOUR N-S routes within the metro region: I-5, I-405, Hwy 99, and Hwy 3 on the Kitsap Peninsula (Yes, that is within the metropolitan area). Plus they have the Sounder commuter train and light rail (in progress) plus bus express lanes.
As far as the I-5 bridges being old and dangerous, that’s pretty subjective. The Hawthorne Bridge (now, an icon) is older. The Brooklyn Bridge dates to 1893. Experts say they are upgradeable—and seismic retrofit technology will inevitable progress over time, as do other technologies. We may achieve better results by buying time. So far the
But building a bridge alongside the railroad bridge and ruining the west side of Vancouver is also a REALLY DUMB IDEA. What have we done to you?
What, indeed. It was proposed by the SW Washington Regional Transportation Council as “Option West 4”:
http://www.rtc.wa.gov/studies/vision/
We are for local control, aren’t we?
I am really interested in this “Western Arterial” option. Why is the whole Portland area transportation system designed with “Portland proper” in mind? It seems everything has to pass through downtown and then even the NIMBYs want to tear it all down so they can have bike paths and zero cars. I think the Western Arterial would be an excellent choice – bypass Portland altogether. And in regards to the CRC “canibalizing” other projects, is the Newberg bypass at risk for this? There are so many things which need to be done but we are all being held hostage by inefficient governmental bureaucracies and moronic anti-jobs and anti-growth policies in Oregon.