The Columbian is reporting that the C-Tran board of directors has directed their staff to go back to work on the Columbia River Crossing.
This is important, because even in an “Oregon-only” CRC scenario somebody has to worry about the design for LRT stations in Vancouver, and C-Tran has to figure out how to shoulder the operating costs for the Yellow Line extension.
22 responses to “C-Tran Back to Work on CRC”
UPDATE: UPDATE: Herrera Beutler says revived CRC plan doesn’t qualify for federal money | The Columbian
YAY. now the brt fourth plain plan makes sense!
The artist rendering of the latest Hayden Island interchange proposal (Concept ‘D’ made worse) should make plainly evident to even the most ardent supporter of the CRC, that it is a pollution-spewing, noisy, multi-car pile-up death trap for all motorists and truckers who would dare use it. I am flabbergasted that most opponents and supporters don’t recognize the fundamental flaw in engineering design. The double-deck design is likewise a major engineering flaw, so poorly engineered, it won’t last 30 years before beginning to fall apart quickly
The only shovel-ready components are ODOT’s excellent Marine Drive interchange and the Expo-to-Hayden Island local road/bridge with LRT. From a junction there, a BRT system is more ideal as it could follow the proposed path of LRT but also reach Vancouver Mall in the 1st Phase, and ‘evolve’ into LRT if so desired one day.
And it would keep the mouth-breathers north of the river from freaking out about rail-based transit.
A little more respect for our Washingtonian neighbors, please.
Many of us fourth plainers love transit, and we desperately need rapid transit. I for one, HATE BRT. It will end up just a bottlenecked as the current #4.
LRT would make sense since were getting the stops, costs, and ROW that LRT would use anyway.
Besides with rent rising in portland, ridership will only continue, and it is the only way to get cars off that bridge. Even the new one wouldn’t keep up at this rate.
The only way for us to not spend a ridiculous amount of time in a traffic jam we do not contribute to is this bridge. We need to go around the road with transit. not with it.
Chris443, to make clearer my notion of a C-tran BRT, the bridge design I’ve supported since 2008 is transit-only with ped/bikeway, downriver from the southbound span. This BRT line would NOT run in bridge traffic. In Vancouver it follows the LRT route with the same stations but reaches Vancouver Mall in the 1st Phase for more transit service sooner at lower cost.
Finally, I can only support a SINGLE-DECK span, not the double-deck nonsense. A single-deck is simpler to design, construct, maintain, less expensive overall and offers an emergency access lane. Whoever thought the double-deck idea made sense, has another thought coming.
I’m surprised that the WA tea partiers haven’t gone to court to try to stop the waste of public money on planning for a dead project.
” From a junction there, a BRT system is more ideal as it could follow the proposed path of LRT but also reach Vancouver Mall in the 1st Phase, and ‘evolve’ into LRT if so desired one day.”
>>>> Er, you mean ‘DEVOLVE into LRT,’ with the ensuing loss of operational flexibility.
“Evolve” is exactly what I meant, Nick. With BRT 1st Phase from Jantzen Beach to Vancouver Mall, an eventual LRT extension would have shorter route options for reducing cost; mainly, MAX would only have to reach downtown Vancouver. With rail on downtown Vancouver streets (Main/Washington?), streetcars could run on them and then through the waterfront development with a terminus near the Amtrak Station. I’m not much of a chess player, but why can’t MAX opponents think even two moves ahead, nevermind try to play fair?
If this kinda of hokey design makes a few thousand people move easier I am for it. Your design is better. But unless the annoying folks who live out in the rual areas here can’t drive there SINGLE OCCUPANCY CAR between 5 to 7 pm on it, they won’t allow it.
I would love a transit only bridge, but that’s too easy….
Chris443, to again clarify my proposal, a new 5-lane single-deck southbound span is built; downriver, a new 3-lane BRT/Ped span is built alongside and ‘near’ level to act as emergency access lanes. River clearance is about 140′-145′. This is the CRC commission’s own design from 2008. Vancouver would accept this BRT/Ped bridge. Both old bridges are left in place to handle northbound traffic for an interim period of perhaps 20 years.
No five lane bridges for cars!
Where are you going to put two new traffic lanes’ worth of cars when you get them to Marine Drive?????
I’ll tell you right now. Either you’re going to bulldoze the block between Missouri and Michigan or the block between Minnesota and Montana OR you’re going to clog –as in not moving — as in Thrombosis — every north-south arterial from MLK to Greeley.
There…Is…No…Room…For…More…Cars…In…North…Portland!
“blocks”, not “block”.
You would have to widen the freeway all the way from the I-405 split to Marine Drive; not hard to do across the Vanport plains but once you go around the curve it’s take a row of blocks to the east (Missouri to Michigan) or the west (Minnesota to Montana).
There is not enough room in the cut for more lanes.
I love this proposal, I have heard about it before. But as of now I rather have this crc than nothing.
But if this else fails, I’ll rally behind that alternative.
Chris, Wells,
You are going to get rolled on this, just like on the widening of I-5 with an HOV lane. Helicopter Don got his cronies in the State Senate to block the DOT’s funding unless it erased the HOV lane.
The same thing will happen with this, but on a grander scale. The new five-lane rubber-tired bridge will get built, but somehow the new BRT/pedestrian bridge will come a cropper. And you’ll have the new bridge without even an HOV lane.
The people we’re dealing with: King David, Helicopter Don, and Lady Ann — are megalomaniac scoundrels and not to be trusted on anything.
Anandakos, a 5-lane Southbound span for the CRC is 3 lanes of thru-traffic plus 2 lanes for exits to Hayden Island and Marine Drive. I-5 further south remains unchanged. No need to widen I-5 through North Portland.
If we’re talking about republicans Don Benton and Ann Rivers, I’m grateful they refused to fund the horribly engineered design for the CRC. They put their political careers on the line in defiance of their peers. It was a respectable demonstration of bravery.
Wells,
Benton and Rivers did not “put their careers on the line”. Their position is the popular one in Clark County so they’re heroes. But Don Benton has proven himself to be an implacable foe of transit and high-occupancy vehicles by extorting the Wash DOT to remove the southbound HOV lane from I-5.
It’s true that it was initially underused, but less than two years after it was erased the 99th Street TC opened, tripling the number of C-Tran buses which would have used it, and carpooling always needs time to grow.
The point is that it was sold to the Federal Highway Administration as an HOV project; that’s why it was funded 90/10. And I suspect strongly, the double-cross is a major contributor to the FHA’s unwillingness to participate in the CRC funding. They expect the promised HOV lane to be erased there, too.
So far as the “slip lanes”, there are about as many cars entering at Hayden Island in the morning as there are exiting, so that would essentially be through lane; when traffic got heavy cars would exit with the lane, then U-turn and re-enter the slip between Hayden and Marine Drive. Net result: one additional lane’s worth of traffic.
The one that “ends” at Marine Drive would simply dumps cars there. There is nowhere near a full lane’s worth of traffic headed for the Port and St. Johns; most of the traffic takes the cloverleaf to southbound MLK. Adding a slip ramp from Mill Plain to Marine Drive simply means that the four lane section of I-5 south of SR500 will flow unimpeded onto the bridge. Most of that traffic will simply divert to MLK and Vancouver, as a half a lane does today.
The result of building a 60% increase in the highway capacity over the river will be a significant expansion of the UGB north along I-5, perhaps all the way to La Center. By leaving well enough alone development will be directed to the Oregon side of the river, resulting in a denser regional growth model.
Oh, and you do not have any idea of the howling on this side of the river for I-5 to be widened. It is constant, it is selfish, and it is shortsighted. Those are nice neighborhoods along I-5 between Alberta and Lombard and one of the rows of blocks beside the freeway will eventually be bulldozed if this five lane monstrosity is built. The cars that cross it will ruin all the arterials of North Portland and the people a few blocks from the freeway will vote to sacrifice those right along side it in order to get their local streets back.
Anandakos, there is no UGB (urban growth boundary) limiting suburban sprawl development in Vancouver. Any CRC bridge built to reduce rush hour traffic congestion would give developers the go-ahead to build more car-dependent sprawl. LRT and BRT have more potential than carpooling to influence transit-oriented development.
I support a review and further consideration of ODOT’s 2010 Concept #1 Off-island Access alternative. Its southbound exit ramp to Hayden Island lands just west of Home Depot. Its access bridge is about the same height and impact as the Expo-to-Hayden Island local road/bridge. Northbound access first navigates the new Marine Drive interchange. With no entrance/exit ramps to Hayden Island directly at I-5, I figure a 4-lane model could be justified as one merge in each direction of travel is eliminated, but concluded that 5-lanes is necessary to divide heavy truck traffic from passenger car traffic, and for the same reason, the current 6-lane bridge design (striped for 5-lanes) is unecessary.
ODOT finished its fine design work 3 years ago. Wsdot however will never admit their double-deck bridge and Hayden Island spagetti ramp designs are unacceptably incompetent.
Wells,
Actually, there is an urban growth boundary in Clark County, although it may have a slightly different technical name. Washington has land use laws similar to Oregon’s, but they are less strict.
If you drive across the “UGB” in Clark County you notice a distinct difference in the development. It’s not as air-tight as Oregon’s, but it does make it harder to create “islands” of development outside of it.
So far as the bridge, if we have to have one, your idea is better than the double deck version. It would probably be somewhat cheaper, at least initially, because it would only have to be half as wide as the full Monty version.
But you are still increasing the carrying capacity of the bridge 60% (actually, a bit more because the lanes will be wider so people will drive more freely and they will certainly use the breakdown lane to pass on the right). Where are you going to accommodate those cars? They’re not going to Jantzen Beach or Delta Park in the AM rush……
I understand, Anandakos, what you’re saying about ‘induced demand’ a new CRC bridge would create, increasing traffic problems south of Marine Drive. However, my position on the Southbound span remains 5-lanes is ideal: 3 lanes for thru-traffic plus 2 lanes for exits to Marine Drive & Hayden Island to keep (large, slow) truck traffic separated from passenger car traffic.
At this point, the only shovel-ready components of the CRC are the Marine Drive interchange and the Expo-to-Hayden Island local road/bridge. In addition, ODOT’s 2010 Concept #1 Off-island Access Alternative should be kept on the table as an option. Concept #1 eliminates one traffic merge/problem thus minimizing the perceived need for a 6-lane Southbound span. The latest redesign of the Concept ‘D’ Hayden Island ‘spagetti ramp’ interchange, actually adds a merge between entering/exit traffic in both directions. Unbelieveable.
The problem is Wsdot incompetence and corruption.