[MarkDaMan]

I know this thread previously exists somewhere...but where?

Crossing the Columbia
by Kennedy Smith
01/11/2007


It’s a project that will either make or break Vancouver – at least according to the city’s mayor.

The proposed Columbia River Crossing, now in its planning and public feedback stages, is an attempt to improve traffic flow on Interstate 5 from Portland to Vancouver.

The current bridge is actually two separate bridges, built in 1917 and 1958, with the 1958 bridge allowing northbound traffic to come directly into downtown Vancouver, causing traffic headaches for commuters during peak hours. And, Vancouverites say, construction of the second bridge essentially split downtown in two.

“The concern for me and the community is that we have an opportunity to heal and reconstruct what was destroyed when they first put Interstate 5 through Vancouver,” said Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard. “We’re booming and we don’t want to do anything to harm that. This bridge is about the future economic viability of the region, and we ought to heal some of the things done in the past.”

The Columbia River Crossing is definitely on the radar of Vancouver businesses and residents, Pollard said, especially those residing or located near where the interstate spills directly into downtown, causing congestion during peak traffic hours. The Columbia River Crossing Task Force estimates daily traffic demand over the I-5 bridge will increase by more than 40 percent in 20 years, from 125,000 vehicles in 2000 to 180,000 in 2020.

With home buyers flocking to Clark County – the RMLS reported new home listings in Southwest Washington were up 13.1 percent from November 2005 to November 2006, with nearly 8,000 new homes sold by the end of the year – traffic is bound to increase exponentially.

Further, Vancouver has experienced a surge in development in the last three years, with more mixed-use office/retail and condominium buildings rising near the center of downtown. Development includes the new Hilton Vancouver Washington and Vancouver Convention Center, a revamped Esther Short Park on the waterfront and a mixed-use headquarters for The Columbian newspaper now under construction. Plus, downtown has a newly available site, the former Boise Cascade Lumber paper mill.

“Downtown Vancouver is a hotbed of development opportunity right now because of the successful development of Esther Short Park and because of the new Boise Cascade 25-acre site on the river that’s right next to the park blocks,” said Steve Campbell, publisher of The Columbian.

Campbell and Gerding Edlen Development Co. are in the process of building a $27 million, six-story headquarters across the street from Esther Short Park that will house the newspaper along with ground-floor retail and office space for lease.

“With all that potential, I hope nobody would put something in that would jeopardize development prospects,” Campbell said.

City’s economic fate rests with crossing

Vancouver’s economic stability lies with the project, said Steve Burdick, the city’s economic development director.

“Depending upon the design for I-5 after the north bridge landing, the widening of I-5 between about Sixth Street and Evergreen could cause the demolition of businesses such as the City Center 12 theaters (at Eighth and C streets),” he said. “These theaters are a major attraction in the downtown, and we are likely to be very opposed to any design that would affect them.”

Those on the task force say would-be developers and existing business owners in downtown Vancouver have little to worry about.

“There have been concerns expressed about how the project could impact development in Vancouver and throughout Clark County,” said Henry Hewitt, co-chairman of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force and a lawyer with the Portland office of Stoel Rives. “As a result, we’re looking at mid-level bridge alternatives and a couple different mass-transit alternatives that are now out for public comment. All of those are outcomes that would be consistent with a vibrant development of the Vancouver community.”

Mid-level means the bridge would be at a fixed height with no lifts along its span.

Hewitt said the task force has eliminated any bridge alternatives that would have required southbound drivers to yield the right-of-way when entering I-5.

However, the details of each plan are “far out in the future,” Hewitt said. “We don’t know how or where it would come into Vancouver. What I think I’ve heard is anxiety that how that might be negative to downtown.”

The task force has set an early 2008 date for choosing an alternative and late 2008 date for federal agencies to approve the decision.

It is still too early to say whether the bridge would be built in the same place as the current I-5 bridge or up- or downstream.

Bridge alternatives include taking no action, building a replacement bridge with bus access and bus rapid transit, and building a replacement bridge with light-rail transit and bus service.

Columbia River Crossing staff said additional strategies to reduce congestion would be added to the alternatives this year.

“Certainly, resolving the debate on light rail versus bus rapid transit is an important issue,” Burdick said. “Whether the ultimate choice is light rail or bus rapid transit, the way in which high-capacity transit interfaces with properties along its route will be critical to the continued viability of our downtown.”

Pollard said he doesn’t want to see ramps along the west side of the current bridge, where it would encroach, he said, on current development near Esther Short Park. Alternatively, he doesn’t think putting an off-ramp on the east side – in Vancouver’s historic area – would work either.

However, he said, it’s too early to say where the best place for a Vancouver off-ramp would be.

Burdick said a freeway lid is in order. Covering sections of freeway between Sixth and Evergreen streets to allow through traffic would be a positive attribute of the new system for two reasons, he said: “First it would greatly offset the negative sound, light and fume effects of the freeway. Second, the freeway split apart the downtown from the historic reserve, and a lid would reunite this historic tie.

“We need solutions that would cause the city to be supportive and allow us to embrace a new bridge,” he said. “We can’t afford to have our region come to a standstill because of the bottleneck. We’ll be watching it very closely and pushing what we think is right on our side while supporting people on the other side of the river.”

Upcoming Columbia River Crossing

open-house events

Wednesday

5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Battle Ground Police

Department

507 S.W. First Street

Battle Ground, Wash.

Jan. 20

9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Lincoln Elementary School

4200 N.W. Daniels St.

Vancouver

Jan. 25

4:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Oregon Association of Minority

Entrepreneurs

4134 N. Vancouver Ave.

Portland

Jan. 30

6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Hayden Island Yacht Club

12050 N. Jantzen Drive

Portland
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=28703&userID=1

[Dougall5505]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1172305612193630.xml&coll=7
Next I-5 chokepoint: $6 billion
Traffic - A deeply divided task force prepares to vote on a proposal for a big, new bridge over the Columbia
Sunday, February 25, 2007
JAMES MAYER
The decade-long search for a solution to the Portland area's worst traffic chokepoint -- one of the worst along Interstate 5 between Mexico and Canada -- will take an important turn this week.

The 39-member Columbia Crossing Task Force will vote Tuesday on whether to pursue a new $2 billion to $6 billion bridge and transit project to replace the Interstate Bridge as the only solution.

A final decision on what to build, if anything, is still two years away. But the vote will determine what path gets the time, money and resources to move closer to loosening the bridge's grip on commuters, commerce and development.
The task force is deeply divided heading into Tuesday's vote. Pressure is mounting to consider at least one lower-cost alternative that uses the Interstate Bridge's existing twin spans over the Columbia River. Panel members represent a wide spectrum of interests from government, business, neighborhoods and environmental groups.

"This has been a noisy process," said Hal Dengerink, chancellor of Washington State University Vancouver, and task force co-chairman.

The proposal from the task force staff boils down to a choice between committing the region's energy, money and political will to a single megaproject -- "Gargantua, the Bridge," according to one critic -- or doing nothing.

And regional leaders worry that the sheer scale and cost of the project could doom the entire enterprise politically, leaving a clogged, aging, accident-prone bridge in its wake.

Metro President David Bragdon said he doesn't want to narrow the bridge options too quickly. "It would be a fiscal mistake and a political mistake."

The economic consequences of doing nothing are staggering. According to projections, the rush hour will last 16 hours in 2030, leaving a narrow window of travel for freight traffic, which is expected to double. The accident rate -- about a crash a day on the bridge and its ramps -- will get worse, compounding the congestion and safety problems, the task force staff says.

The staff has recommended that three options be explored in the next step, the draft environmental impact study: a "no build" option, a replacement bridge with light rail, and a replacement bridge with a dedicated bus lane. The existing bridges would be removed.
Over the past two years, the task force narrowed the options from 23 river crossings, including bridges and tunnels, and 14 transit alternatives. John Osborn, project director for the Oregon Department of Transportation, said the replacement bridge does the best job of improving congestion, freight traffic, river navigation and safety.

The rough cost estimate breaks down this way: $1 billion to $2 billion each for the bridge, interchanges, and transit. No funding is in place for the project, and it is likely to involve users paying a toll.

Osborn told the Metro Council last week that building another bridge and reusing the existing bridges would not be any cheaper and would not solve the problems on I-5.
Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard is one of the strongest supporters of the staff recommendation. He sees the new bridge as the way to get light rail into his community. And Vancouver-area business groups see the bridge as a necessity.

Supporters worry about wasting more time.

"Spending more public resources to study failed alternatives will not have any other result than to waste taxpayer resources," said Bart Phillips, president of the Columbia River Economic Development Council, in a letter to the task force. Phillips is a task force member.

Despite Pollard's enthusiasm, the light-rail portion of the project remains a tough sell in Clark County, where voters rejected MAX in 1995.

The Metro Council approved a resolution Thursday directing Councilor Rex Burkholder, its representative on the task force, to support adding a supplemental bridge for local traffic and light rail and keeping the existing bridges for freeway travel.

Many of those who testified at Thursday's Metro hearing bemoaned the emphasis on a highway solution.

These critics say reducing the number of cars using the bridge would be cheaper and more effective. Options such as more transit, HOV lanes and planning that encourages jobs in Southwest Washington, rather than residential sprawl with jobs in Oregon, have not been adequately studied, they say.

The Clark County Commission pushes such a plan.

Only so many cars can be pushed through I-5, even with a new bridge, said Chairman Steve Stuart. The bottleneck will shift south to the Rose Garden area, highway officials concede. The only long-term solutions involve using the existing highway more efficiently, Stuart said.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty said standards for the project have been set so high that only the huge replacement bridge qualifies. These include a requirement that the bridge be high enough to handle even the tallest ships, and that it be able to withstand an earthquake that might occur in the next 2,500 years.

"That's like earthquake-proofing your house by tearing it down and rebuilding a new one out of concrete 3 feet thick," Liberty said.

Consensus may be elusive, but that shouldn't kill the project, said Matt Garrett, ODOT director.

"Will we ever get to the point where everyone embraces it? No," Garrett said. "But at the end of the day, we have to have a thumbs up, thumbs down vote. We cannot delay this any further. It's too important."

James Mayer: 503-294-4109; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

[PacificNW]

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1172278525290810.xml&coll=7

Build a bridge to better economy
Capitalize on Oregon and Washington's connections, and hasten the replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge
Sunday, February 25, 2007
S ome people have found their own way around the chokepoint known as the Interstate 5 bridge. They've selected the "no-drive" option. They try to steer clear -- a strategy that works beautifully if you happen to live in your own private Oregon or Washington.

It doesn't work for anyone else. And it doesn't work for our economy, or for the future. The I-5 bridge is headed for collapse, not just in an earthquake (although that could easily bring it down) but also from the thundering demands of future travel.

By 2030, morning and evening rush hours will almost merge, leaving little more than an hour of free-flowing traffic. By 2020, the bus trip between downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland (a distance of 71/2 miles) will take almost an hour. It will almost be easier to walk. Worse, as bridge paralysis sets in, our freight-related industries increasingly will look to other places to expand -- places willing to invest in transportation improvements.

On Tuesday, the 39-member Columbia River Crossing Task Force will winnow options to replace the bridge. The best choice would be a new 10- or 12-lane bridge, high enough to avoid marine traffic but low enough to avoid airplanes. The new bridge should, of course, be equipped to handle light-rail trains.

Although drivers experience the hospital-green I-5 bridge as one structure, it's actually two bridges, side by side. The 1917 bridge carries three northbound lanes. Its 1958 "twin" carries three southbound lanes. For all the dread this crossing over the Columbia River inspires, it's only 3,531 feet long. If nothing goes wrong, you can cross the bridge in one minute flat. But most days, something goes wrong.

Narrow and poorly designed, without any safety shoulders, the I-5 bridge and its adjacent roadways boast a dismal accident record of 300 crashes a year. Even a minor stall can back up traffic for hours, with expensive repercussions along the I-5 corridor.

Some people want to see the existing bridges kept, even if a new bridge is built, but that isn't practical. The old bridges would require a seismic upgrade and a huge maintenance investment. Plus, they could interfere with the new bridge.

Although replacement costs are daunting, with estimates from $2 billion to $6 billion, federal funds could cover a great deal of the amount. Tolls could cover the local match, just as tolls helped pay for the two existing bridges (5 cents for the 1917 bridge and 20 cents for the 1958 bridge. Both tolls were eventually retired.)

To keep costs down, though, it's essential for a bistate coalition to move forward quickly, capitalizing on the new transportation clout in Congress within the Oregon and Washington delegations. Both are anxious to see the project move forward.

The new bridge could be a model of green engineering, simplicity and sustainability. Although it can't be another Golden Gate exactly, it could be a low-key tourist attraction in its own right, a kind of Emerald Gate for the Pacific Northwest, connecting, symbolizing and inspiring our entire region.

"I think it should make a statement," says Ginger Metcalf, executive director of Identity Clark County. "The bridge that currently exists makes a statement -- of ugliness." Yet even tourists at the Vancouver Convention Center can't avoid seeing the old bridges, since they dominate Vancouver's skyline.

Today, freight haulers and the region's freight-dependent industries can plan their schedules to avoid rush-hour traffic. A few decades hence, that will be impossible. The I-5 bridge will be, for all practical purposes, uncrossable. Freight-dependent industries will choose to expand in regions with swifter, more reliable connections.

It's time -- right now -- to make the connection, not only between Oregon and Washington, but also between this vital bridge and the continued prosperity of the Pacific Northwest.

[sirsimon]

^ Well said - just make sure it also carries LRT.

[alexjon]

Emerald Gate bridge!!

That's an awesome name

If they're going artsy and we can't avoid them doing that, they oughta pay homage to the area in the design, like maybe something with a mountain motif

[65MAX]

I'd love to see a state of the art suspension bridge over the Columbia, but it won't happen in the flight path. There are height limits in this area.

[PuyoPiyo]

Emerald Gate Bridge... I smell some of unqiue design inside those workers's mind.

I feel something funny about this, if two exist bridges get in construction, then it will be the worst traffic on SR-14 and I-205 (include the bridge) till the Interstate Bridges get constructed. It would be very nice to have a first time 10-12 lanes in Vancouver WA.

Would love to see what "Emerald Gate Bridges" look like!

[PuyoPiyo]

Columbia River Crossing Task Force I-5 bridge project must span political, logistical divides

Sunday, February 25, 2007
BY DON HAMILTON

Building a new bridge across the Columbia River isn't for the faint of heart.

We're only talking, after all, about one of the busiest intersections in America, a place where airplanes, major highways, trains and one of the continent's longest navigable rivers all come within a few hundred yards of one other.

Build a new bridge? That's easy. Just make sure it's high enough for tugboats, low enough for airplanes and wide enough for plenty of trucks and the next generation of commuters. While you're at it, make it an architectural masterpiece and try to keep the price tag under, say, $6 billion, OK?

OK, maybe it's not so easy.

"This is a project the size of which this region has not seen," said Franklin Green, assistant design engineer on the project. "It's a great opportunity as an engineer to be able to work on it."

In some ways, engineering might be the simplest part of this process. Trickier will be the political calculus needed to balance the desires of the 39 different interests that make up the Columbia River Crossing task force, including private companies, environmental groups, truckers, shippers, commuters and state, regional, county and city governments.

The political pressures are quite public. Everyone has a stake and everyone has an opinion. But everyone also wants to see something done.

"All of us are going to have to give something," said Mayor Royce Pollard, Vancouver's representative on the task force. "It's the economic future of our region. We need something we can lay out on the table for the public."



Technical issues

Engineers are trained to solve technical problems, and the new bridge offers the chance to do exactly that. They face serious challenges over major design features, any one of which could, if not worked out just right, kill the whole deal.

Take, for example, how a new bridge would handle Columbia River shipping.

One of the primary reasons for building a new bridge in the first place is to get rid of the lift span, which delays freeway traffic every time it's raised. It's the easiest for shipping because of its height - 180 feet of vertical clearance when open - and because it lines up with the swing span on the BNSF Railway bridge a mile downstream.

But that lift span on the Washington end of the bridge is only one of three primary shipping channels. Closer to midstream is what's known as the barge channel, with a 531-foot-wide, 60-foot-high span. The next span south is called the high span because of its 70-foot vertical clearance at the top of the bridge hump. Tugs and barges use the barge channel or high span whenever they can, only requesting a bridge lift when necessary.

But it's not an easy process. Ships that bypass the lift-span channel have to move quickly toward the river's north side to align with the railroad bridge. It's a tricky maneuver requiring deft handling, especially when the river runs fast.

Taking out the old bridge would mean removing its nine old piers and replacing them with a larger bridge with five or six. That would make navigation a little safer and provide one high, wide span that would accommodate nearly all shipping without a lift span.

Right now, Green said, upwards of 90 percent of the shipping using the lift span need no more than 75 feet of clearance. Rarely, he said, something comes through that needs 120 feet of clearance or more, usually a piece of scaffolding or a construction tower. But those come through only once every year or two.

As a result, the working scenario for the new bridge calls for a 300-foot-wide underpass for ships with a vertical clearance of 95 feet when the water level is zero. It would be located near the north shore, lining it up with the swing span at the railroad bridge downstream.

"We believe it's going to be a better scenario than we have today," Green said. "Under all circumstances, under all water levels, the barges and tugs would be able to use the same channel and wouldn't have to make that complicated maneuver."



Practical, not pretty

All these practical demands won't leave much room for architectural adornments on the bridge. A plain, mid-level bridge is in the works, something closer in design to the Interstate 205 Bridge than the Golden Gate Bridge. Recently, for example, the task force received a suggestion that the bridge design echo the twin spires of the Oregon Convention Center, an engaging but impractical idea considering the proximity of airplanes using Pearson Field.

If shipping means the bridge can't be too low, then aviation means it can't be too high.

The runway at Pearson Field is only a few hundred feet east of the existing bridge, and the approach takes planes directly over where the bridge meets land on the Washington side. Even now, the 230-foot towers at the I-5 Bridge's north end intrude on the airport's airspace.

Green is aware of no serious encounters between the planes and the towers, but the design of the new bridge can't intrude into the airspace, said Sean Loughran, Pearson Field manager.

It shouldn't, at least not under a possible bridge profile being worked out by the Crossing staff. One alignment shows the bridge roadbed crossing into Washington about 32 to 43 feet above the BNSF tracks. Signs and lighting would extend above that level, but should still provide enough clearance for planes either landing or taking off.

One uncertainty in understanding the aviation issues involves not the vertical clearance but its horizontal alignment. One option, building a new bridge immediately upstream of the existing bridge, brings the new structure a few hundred feet closer to the end of the runway and creates more potential for conflict than a downstream alignment. But Green said both create safe landing and takeoff patterns.

"In spite of the limitations," said Loughran, "there's enough room there in the middle to come up with a project that works."

The Columbia River Crossing task force is about to hold the most important meeting of its two-year bureaucratic life.

The 39-member group Tuesday may narrow the wide range of options for a new way across the Columbia River down to just three. Actually, there would be only two, because the law requires one alternative that suggests doing nothing.

That narrowing will come in a vote to begin work on a draft environmental impact statement for a big new bridge. The Crossing staff is recommending scrapping the old Interstate 5 Bridge and replacing it with a bigger bridge with extra room for traffic - as well as either light rail or bus rapid transit. If the task force takes that step, it will officially dismiss 23 configurations of new and old bridges, including a tunnel, and 14 mass-transit methods, including monorail, maglev rail, ferries, high-speed rail, streetcars and automated people movers, that were all at various times under consideration.

The Crossing staff is recommending the task force include three alternatives for study in the draft EIS. They are:

- No build. This alternative is included in all projects built with federal money as a way to compare action with inaction.

- Replace the old bridge with a new one with bus rapid transit.

- Replace the old bridge with a new one with light rail.

The meeting will be Tuesday at the Oregon Department of Transportation offices in Portland.

But don't expect that staff recommendation to win quiet or quick approval. Rex Burkholder, the Metro Council's representative on the task force, won council approval last week to ask that a third bridge, while keeping the old bridge, be added to the draft EIS study. Burkholder only carries has one of the 39 votes, but Metro's voice carries extra weight because of its long history in transportation planning and because it distributes federal transportation money around the Portland area.

No fewer than seven task force members or their representatives appeared before the Metro Council last week, some in support of the staff recommendation but some opposed. Other suggestions for adding to the draft EIS seem likely to surface during Tuesday's meeting.

Advocates for keeping the old bridge and building a new one upstream or downstream have been particularly vocal, as have supporters of bus rapid transit, who fear that concept is getting short shrift despite its apparent inclusion in the draft EIS.

But the governors of Oregon and Washington empaneled the Crossing project, and its members seemed determined to keep the process moving forward.

After launching the draft EIS, whatever its final incarnation, the bulk of the complicated work will be carried out by the Crossing staff, which at times numbers up to 50, augmented by consultants. When it's done, perhaps 30 percent of the final engineering could be compete, said Franklin Green one of the bridge engineers.

And once the draft EIS is under way, the 39-member task force won't be needed as often. At least not for a while. After Tuesday, the group has only four more meetings scheduled through the rest of 2007, mostly for progress reports. A preliminary schedule calls for reviewing the EIS in the spring of 2008 and reaching a decision on what's called the locally preferred alternative - the final decision, in other words - by June 2008.



Update

Previously:

The Columbia River Crossing staff is recommending a new Interstate 5 bridge with either light rail or bus rapid transit.

What's new:

The Metro Council representative will ask to include other options in the draft environmental impact statement.

The 39-member Columbia River Crossing task force meets in Portland on Tuesday night to vote on the draft EIS. Why not just build a third bridge?

That wouldn't solve the problems, the crossing task force decided. A new upriver or downriver bridge wouldn't fix the Interstate 5 Bridge lift span that clogs I-5; wouldn't upgrade the aging, seismically vulnerable bridges; could mean a new highway through Vancouver and Portland neighborhoods; and could make an already complicated river navigation process even more difficult.

Why not keep the old bridges?

Using them not for an freeway but as arterials would create new traffic problems for downtown Vancouver and Hayden Island. Seismic upgrades to the old bridges would be very expensive. The lift span would still disrupt traffic, confounding its use for mass transit. And navigation problems would remain.

What would happen to the old bridges?

No one knows. Most likely, both the northbound span, which opened in 1917, and the southbound span, opened in 1958, would be sold for scrap. But someone could always buy one, like that guy who bought the London Bridge in 1968 and rebuilt it in Arizona.

Why not a tunnel?

A tunnel would have to burrow so deeply under the silt and sand that it would miss Hayden Island, Highway 14 and downtown Vancouver altogether. That means they'd be cut off from I-5 or served only by a complicated and expensive series of underground interchanges.

Will there be bicycle and pedestrian access?

There will be room for bikes and pedestrians, though exactly how hasn't been decided. That will be part of the planning during the draft environmental impact statement process.

What's a draft environmental impact statement?

Federal law requires an environmental impact statement for projects that may have an impact on their surroundings. Projects and likely alternatives undergo a rigorous analysis, which leads to a draft environmental impact statement, a final environmental impact statement and, finally, selection of a "locally preferred alternative." The project then can go to Congress and ask for money.

Why is the task force so big?

Because Interstate 5 affects so many interests. The task force includes transit agencies, ports, trucking companies, tugboat operators, business interests, environmental organizations, a union and no fewer than 12 governments, counting cities, counties and the two states.

What will it cost?

There are no formal estimates yet, but somewhere between $2 billion to $6 billion is possible.

What would a new bridge look like?

Don't expect the Golden Gate Bridge. The design will be tricky because of the needs of shipping and aviation. So something practical if pleasant is more likely than an architectural marvel.

Why such a wide range on the cost estimate?

Mostly because highway interchanges are spendy. Thoroughly smoothing out the Marine Drive interchange in Portland, for example, would be far more expensive than more modest changes to its configuration today. The whole project could involve 50 bridges, counting onramps and offramps. So the final cost depends a lot on things not directly involving the bridge itself.

Who will pay?

Everyone. The process isn't complicated: Get the Oregon and Washington congressional delegations on board, get as much as possible from the feds, and get what's left from some combination of state and local sources.

Will it be easy to get funding?

No. It can't hurt that the Northwest now has more transportation clout in Congress. Washington's Sen. Patty Murray is now chairwoman of the Senate's Appropriations subcommittee on transportation and Oregon's Peter DeFazio is chairman of a House transit and highways subcommittee. But Congress has vowed to budget on a pay-as-you-go basis, and there's not a lot of spare federal money these days.

Will it involve new taxes?

Unsure. No decisions have been made.

Will there be tolls?

Perhaps. There's been a lot of talk about tolls among the Crossing staff. Nothing is certain, but tolling is being considered along with more traditional sources of money. All the Columbia River bridges in this region - the Interstate 205 Bridge is the exception - were paid for with tolls that were eventually removed.

Will there be a vote on the bridge?

Maybe, but nothing's certain. The public rarely gets to vote on highway projects unless new taxes are involved. So it depends on the funding mechanisms. A new tax to pay a local share of the project could mean a vote. In 1995, Clark County voters cast ballots on a sales tax increase that would have paid for light rail. But Portland's light rail lines to the airport and through North Portland were built without a public vote, as is the new Clackamas County line just getting started.

- Don Hamilton



Don Hamilton can be reached at 360-759-8010 and

don.hamilton@columbian.com

[mcbaby]

oh for the love of frank.. the more they wait and bicker, the more $$ it's going to cost.

[tworivers]

A plain, mid-level bridge is in the works, something closer in design to the Interstate 205 Bridge than the Golden Gate Bridge.

Is this a joke?

I am praying to the gods that Metro is able to use its sway to send this mega-bridge project to the dustbin with the Mt Hood Freeway where it belongs. This will be a 10-to-12-lane disaster that will spawn major problems for Future Portland, assuming that we have a future worth caring about.

[pdxstreetcar]

Who/what uses Pearson Field? Could this airport be closed and redeveloped since PDX is so close?

[alexjon]

Most private and hobby flyers use pearson field, it's pretty busy...

Also, it's historic or somethin'

[WonderlandPark]

Wikipedia has Pearson as the oldest operating airfield in America. I had no idea, I knew it was historic and all, but the oldest in operation?

[edgepdx]

Is this a joke?

I am praying to the gods that Metro is able to use its sway to send this mega-bridge project to the dustbin with the Mt Hood Freeway where it belongs. This will be a 10-to-12-lane disaster that will spawn major problems for Future Portland, assuming that we have a future worth caring about.

Unfortunately I doubt this is a joke. The development interests in Vantucky have a lot riding on a new bridge and maybe more so the new interchanges. They want to spend a bunch of money improving the Delta Park interchanges not for the benefit of local residents, but so those folks living in cheapy houses up north of Battleground can zoom past Delta Park and North Portland on their way to work in downtown Portland.

Your Mt Hood Freeway analogy is fitting, same interests at work. Like I said before you could build 15,000-20,000 new houses or condos in Portland for the price of this freeway project. Which one would reduce traffic congestion more in the long term ?

I've always felt like Vancouver was sort of a parasite on Portland reaping all the benefits that we've built here on the Oregon side while having a development free for all on the Washington side. This bridge and highway proposal just reaffirms that in my mind.

I'm sure UrbanPDX will jump in here any minute to tell us why we all need to pay for new freeways so those folks up in La Center can have their property rights or whatever ...

Sorry for the angry rant it's just the more I think about this project the more it seems like a boondoggle with money that could be spent better else ware such as burying I5 on the east side of the Willamette.

[tworivers]

edgepdx, I was going to say the same thing earlier.
Bury I-5 first, and give us back our eastbank.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/404134775_49571b912c.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/404134778_07d8915d92.jpg?v=0

The idea that we're going to transfer the Columbia bottleneck to the Rose Quarter, while throwing away billions of transportation dollars, is ridiculous. What next? Widening I-5 through N PDX? Not a chance. Vancouver has indeed allowed unchecked sprawl to run rampant up there for years. They, not Portland, need to feel the consequences of that. I support building the "third option", an arterial bridge (with MAX) downriver from the existing bridges, which would then receive a major upgrade, and tolls, instead of demolition. People need to realize the true cost of driving asap.

Portlandtransport.com is focused on the issue all day today in anticipation of the big meeting tomorrow. Highly recommended for a critical perspective.

[Drmyeyes]

tworivers...damn, the scene in that top picture is gruesome. The Feb 25 Don Hamilton article raises valid concerns about the inadequate shipping channels that exist with the old bridges, but otherwise, I'm finding it hard to be supportive of the bridge proposals so far.

I'm not that sure about a lot of general details associated with this traffic point, but this project definitely seems to raise the question, 'what is the intended purpose of this bridge?'. What volume of traffic across this traffic point do we wish to promote? You can tell that planners most closely related to studying the bridge proposal aren't thinking about a configuration that would stabilize or reduce present traffic volume, but rather, accomodate anticipated increased traffic volume.

At this point, I'd definitely lean to light rail or/and rapid bus lanes and to the idea of paying for it with a toll. And, carefully examining what much of the present and future traffic volume represents would make a lot of sense.

If it were possible to definitively identify a tangible percentage of that volume using the bridges purely for the purpose of commuting back and forth from state to state, job to home, a significant portion of that volume might be able to be reduced by more of a focus on residence/employment arrangements that wouldn't require this particular commute. Just dreaming on the keyboard, but...

Incidentally, any who haven't should seriously check out Pearson. It has a nice little museum and a quaint old timey airshow in the summer. It is historic. As usual, vague on details, but way, way back russian gonzo flyboys made a historic transpolar flight and made their landing at Pearson. Flew a beautiful long wingspan monoplane you can see pics of there.

[zilfondel]

You know, Phoenix is going to expand I-10 to 22 lanes; we - as the transportation leaders of the nation - need to outdo them and get I-5 up to 24 lanes from the Rose Garden all the way to Vancouver! That would be so great! Just think of all the black people we could kick out of NoPo... and perhaps we could put in some nice freeway exits to drop people right down onto the trendy Alberta st and Mississippi Ave! Wow... /end sarcasm

I'm sure that something akin to earthquake-proofing the existing I-5 bridge (which is otherwise completely structurally sound), adding a new non-freeway bridge from Hayden Island to Vancouver with bicycle and MAX, and a new triple-tracked railbridge that actually lines up with the existing I-5 bridge's lift span is just TOO crazy of an idea. Good thing they aren't, you know, considering it as an alternative.

[pdxman]

I'm not sure if i like where this project is heading...it seems to me like this is only benefiting the people who live in vancouver while portland is getting dumped with the cost and fallout of this entire thing. The only thing i worry about with traffic continuing to get worse is the freight issue. I could care less about people sitting in rush hour traffic but i don't want to choke out the economy by limiting the movement of goods.

[bvpcvm]

You know, Phoenix is going to expand I-10 to 22 lanes; we - as the transportation leaders of the nation - need to outdo them and get I-5 up to 24 lanes from the Rose Garden all the way to Vancouver! That would be so great! Just think of all the black people we could kick out of NoPo... and perhaps we could put in some nice freeway exits to drop people right down onto the trendy Alberta st and Mississippi Ave! Wow... /end sarcasm

Dude, you're not thinking big enough: what about those 1/4-mile *wide* superfreeways they're planning in Texas? Ram one of those down through North Portland, now THAT would really get of the poor people!

[65MAX]

I'm sure that something akin to earthquake-proofing the existing I-5 bridge (which is otherwise completely structurally sound), adding a new non-freeway bridge from Hayden Island to Vancouver with bicycle and MAX, and a new triple-tracked railbridge that actually lines up with the existing I-5 bridge's lift span is just TOO crazy of an idea. Good thing they aren't, you know, considering it as an alternative.

Currently, the lift span of the rail bridge is mid-channel while the I-5 liftspans are closer to the north bank, forcing zigzag maneuvers for the river pilots. Since the I-5 bridges ARE structurally sound (as Z said) and the rail bridge is likely close to its end-of-life, it makes sense to replace the rail bridge.

This is exactly what SHOULD be done. Align the lift spans of a new multi-modal bridge with the existing I-5 lift spans. Reroute all local truck and rail freight traffic coming to and from the port facilities to the new bridge. Add a third feight rail for added capacity. Add light rail. Add access to Hayden Island for local automobile traffic. Add bike lanes and a walkway. Voila, problems solved.

In the meantime, they could start seismically upgrading the twin bridges. No widening of the freeway to 12 lanes, no rebuilding of interchanges, no shifting of bottlenecks further south. The lack of shoulders on the bridge can be mitigated with tow trucks stationed at both ends for immediate response to breakdowns. Bridge lifts are already prohibited during rush hours, and reader boards north and south can notify interstate through traffic of upcoming lifts in time to detour to I-205.

[WonderlandPark]

^^^Agree 100%, and you forgot to mention the billions saved.

[MarkDaMan]

James Bond posted an article from the Seattle Times in the NW Economy section about Washington's growth. This is the part on Clark

CLARK COUNTY

For years, the Vancouver area has been dismissed as hip, eco-urban Portland's dowdy sibling — the repository for all the development that couldn't be contained within Portland's tight urban-growth boundary. Local officials have sought to turn that distinction to the county's advantage.

"Clark County is still filling up, and there's lots of developable land," said Scott Bailey, the state Employment Security Department's regional labor economist for Southwest Washington. "The land-use plans have continually allowed for as much residential development as we could take. It's been 'Come on in, homebuilders.' "

Now, Bailey said, the county's population has grown enough that it can support a level of retail and services that once could only be found across the Interstate Bridge — though Oregon's siren call of tax-free shopping continues to beckon.

People who bought into the stacks of newly built homes across from Legacy Salmon Creek, for instance, can now shop at a new Best Buy store a few miles down Interstate 5. (Clark County has added 2,400 retail jobs during the current boom.)

"Now we're getting all the stores Portland has, only ours are all brand-new," said Gretchen Amacher, manager of Legacy's Family Birth Center.

One industry that helped fuel growth in the late 1990s, semiconductor manufacturing, isn't much of a factor this time around. Chipmakers shrank or closed several of the newly built plants during the recession. Employment in computer and electronics manufacturing shrank from 5,300 at the end of 2000 to 3,000 at the depth of the recession, and the sector has added just 500 jobs since then.

I reaaaaly like this part:

"Clark County is still filling up, and there's lots of developable land," said Scott Bailey, the state Employment Security Department's regional labor economist for Southwest Washington. "The land-use plans have continually allowed for as much residential development as we could take. It's been 'Come on in, homebuilders.' "

fine bastards, build your own fucking bridge. I cannot support paying for a bridge that really, as long as we can still send our goods down south, our economy will be fine. In order for Sea-Tac to remain a major port, they need to get their goods to Califas as well, so if Washington would check Clark's sprawl, bring the MAX across the river and to SR500, and close down Pearsons and turn it into a massive new downtown, than I could support a joint partnership for a new bridge. It just incredible that the cost of the bridge could be up to $2B more because of flight restrictions at Pearsons.

[PuyoPiyo]

Some of you might think repairing the Interstate Bridge might be very stupid idea, but HOLD ON. Have you ever drive through those bridges? How about during the morning from Vancouver to Portland, and then afternoon from Portland to Vancouver? It takes me 1 hour average to do that. I'd rather to drive to somewhere else for 1 hour. Also if Vancouver people don't work at Portland, then Portland will not have those kind of skylines.

The freeways inside Portland are doing fine, capping them might help Portland's downtown, but what about those (almost) 50 percent of Vancouver people works in Portland? They might want have a comfortable transportation to work at Portland.

[MarkDaMan]

Also if Vancouver people don't work at Portland, then Portland will not have those kind of skylines.

actually it could be argued if the 100,000+ Vancouverites that work in Portland didn't come across the bridge, the need for higher density housing would increase, leading to an even more spectacular skyline, since our UGB would prevent Vancouver style sprawl.

[PuyoPiyo]

Unfortunately I doubt this is a joke. The development interests in Vantucky have a lot riding on a new bridge and maybe more so the new interchanges. They want to spend a bunch of money improving the Delta Park interchanges not for the benefit of local residents, but so those folks living in cheapy houses up north of Battleground can zoom past Delta Park and North Portland on their way to work in downtown Portland.

Your Mt Hood Freeway analogy is fitting, same interests at work. Like I said before you could build 15,000-20,000 new houses or condos in Portland for the price of this freeway project. Which one would reduce traffic congestion more in the long term ?

I've always felt like Vancouver was sort of a parasite on Portland reaping all the benefits that we've built here on the Oregon side while having a development free for all on the Washington side. This bridge and highway proposal just reaffirms that in my mind.

I'm sure UrbanPDX will jump in here any minute to tell us why we all need to pay for new freeways so those folks up in La Center can have their property rights or whatever ...

Sorry for the angry rant it's just the more I think about this project the more it seems like a boondoggle with money that could be spent better else ware such as burying I5 on the east side of the Willamette.

Those properties at La Center, Battleground, Ridgefield, whatever are not cheap. You should consider more north than those, like Amboy, Woodland, Yale, Cougar, they are cheap just becasue nobody want to live there. There's nothing but forest there.

Check out at MSN Homes for sale in Battleground, I see no cheap price there. It's just the same as Vancouver.

Sorry, I live in Vancouver whole my life, have been looking for house for sale for a year, so I know.

[Drmyeyes]

Is it only Pearson that would require height limitations on a new bridge? Maybe they could relocate Pearson for say....1 bil....saves 1bil !

[edgepdx]

Those properties at La Center, Battleground, Ridgefield, whatever are not cheap. You should consider more north than those, like Amboy, Woodland, Yale, Cougar, they are cheap just becasue nobody want to live there. There's nothing but forest there.

Check out at MSN Homes for sale in Battleground, I see no cheap price there. It's just the same as Vancouver.

Sorry, I live in Vancouver whole my life, have been looking for house for sale for a year, so I know.

Actually I said "cheapy" not cheap, those houses are the typical 8000 sq. ft. McMansion's built of cardboard. Their not cheap to buy, but they are cheaply built to maximize profit for the developer.

I think the point we're all making here is if you work in Portland then live in Portland instead of expecting everyone to toss in a few $B for a new bridge and freeway project because you decided to live on the wrong side of the biggest river on the west coast from where you work.

Also, just wait until the new bridge and freeway project goes in and the developers start building the new "expensive" houses in Cougar and Woodland. That's how it works, buy some cheap land way out there where no one wants to live, build a freeway, a subdivision of McMansions and a Best Buy and sell at a huge profit. As the land prices go up and the freeway get clogged up, move out farther. Pretty soon your living in Houston.

I think the idea about upgrading the railroad bridge and adding a local access/freight bypass/LRT bridge is a great idea. I'll bet we'd be talking $1.5B tops.

[pdxman]

Amen! Thank you edgepdx

[Snowden352]

I disagree.

[PuyoPiyo]

Actually I said "cheapy" not cheap, those houses are the typical 8000 sq. ft. McMansion's built of cardboard. Their not cheap to buy, but they are cheaply built to maximize profit for the developer.

I think the point we're all making here is if you work in Portland then live in Portland instead of expecting everyone to toss in a few $B for a new bridge and freeway project because you decided to live on the wrong side of the biggest river on the west coast from where you work.

Also, just wait until the new bridge and freeway project goes in and the developers start building the new "expensive" houses in Cougar and Woodland. That's how it works, buy some cheap land way out there where no one wants to live, build a freeway, a subdivision of McMansions and a Best Buy and sell at a huge profit. As the land prices go up and the freeway get clogged up, move out farther. Pretty soon your living in Houston.

I think the idea about upgrading the railroad bridge and adding a local access/freight bypass/LRT bridge is a great idea. I'll bet we'd be talking $1.5B tops.

Portland need Vancouver's workers to work in Portland, Vancouver need Portland's workers to live in Vancouver. They're cooperating for many years. Portland and Vancouver have the rivers, they just have to deal with it, rivers are just the nature part of the land.

Also northern Clark County already have I-5. Woodland is on the I-5, have good stores, like Safeway, Movie Gallery, etc and also it have cute little downtown. Woodland is fine actually, it don't need Vancouver/Portland's help. Cougars is very far northeast of Clark County and only use for vacation. Cougars have very strict laws on the lands up there, that's why nobody want to live there.

[MarkDaMan]

:lmao: time for a reality check for this cat^^^ :haha:

[PacificNW]

↑ :notacrook:

[360Rich]

Where did the 2 - 6 billion dollar figure come from if there is no formal proposal as of yet? We don't even know what (if anything) will be included, so how can you estimate its cost?

That number sounds like a off-the-cuff estimate to me, but is so broad that it really serves no purpose.

[MarkDaMan]

^you're right, someone from the task force said that out loud and the media has taken off with that number as if it was based on actual estimates.

[Snowden352]

just a note: according to the Task Force Meeting Materials of Feb. 27th (today), the draft has been approved.

Here's a link: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/materials/meetingMaterials/TaskForce_02-07-06_1-23-07%20Summary_Draft.pdf

Next meetings discuss transit and design concepts. Here's a link: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/materials/meetingMaterials/TaskForce_02-27-07%20-Nextsteps-activitiesin2007.pdf

[alexjon]

So they're more than likely including LRT? Or are they still listening to urbanpdx?

[bvpcvm]

where is he, anyway? did ti.org forget to renew his trolling grant?

[Snowden352]

According to a recent article in the Portland Tribune, they (the CRC council) will also be considering only a supplemental bridge in addition to the other three options.

[360Rich]

Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By DON HAMILTON Columbian Staff Writer

PORTLAND — Clark County moved a step closer to getting a new Interstate 5 bridge Tuesday night, but plans for a third bridge remain alive.

After a four-hour meeting attended by more than 100 people, the Columbia River Crossing group voted 33-0 to launch its draft environmental impact statement (EIS), which will look in detail at replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge with a new bridge that includes mass transit.

But the panel also agreed to draft an additional alternative for inclusion in the draft EIS. It will be considered at its March 27 meeting.

Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, who will be on the committee drafting the new alternative, said he expects to see it include lower cost ways to move more people and consider keeping the existing I-5 Bridge.

The compromise means the draft EIS can get started even with the new alternative under study. Henry Hewitt, the task force co-chairman, said he expects the new alternative will be included in the draft EIS.

That new alternative probably will include a third Columbia River bridge proposal, task members indicated.

The decision to launch the draft EIS came after an hour of public testimony followed by three hours of discussion among the members of the task force.

Despite the unanimity of the vote, uncertainty remained about the cost, the availability of federal money and the effectiveness of a new bridge. Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard at first opposed anything that would delay the project.

“We could be very well sitting here in six months or a year from now saying we need to know the cost. We need to get this process moving. You want to look at something else? We don’t have a lot of time.”

But adding the new alternative will be important to gaining public support and ensuring that the range of alternatives considered isn’t limited, members of the task force said.

“If we can get to a locally preferred alternative that people can get their arms around,” Stuart said, “we have a chance at finishing this. If not, we’re finished.”

“If we go forward without anything other than a big-build option, there won’t be public support,” said Serena Cruz Walsh, representing Multnomah County commissioners.

Stuart said he added up the width of the proposed bridge, counting three through lanes in each direction, shoulders, on- and off-ramps, mass transit and auxiliary lanes.

“That’s 228 feet wide,” he said, “two thirds of a football field wide. How do we take 228 feet of width and not further divide the city of Vancouver?”

Pollard echoed his concerns. The city has the Vancouver National Historic Reserve on one side of I-5, he said, and an aggressive economic development plans on the other.

“We’re working very hard to minimize impacts,” said Jay Lyman, consulting team project manager.

Doug Ficco of the Washington Department of Transportation, one of the project’s two directors, discussed the staff recommendation. He said building a third bridge without removing the existing bridge would complicate navigation for Columbia River shipping.

The draft EIS, he said, would fill in specifics on many other issues, including freight improvements, bike and pedestrian facilities, environmental effects, bridge appearance, cost, air quality, noise reduction and public transit. Cost, as much as $6 billion in some estimates, remains a big question, Ficco said.

“We really don’t know the cost,” he said. “It’s going to be hard to define.”

During public testimony, 26 people spoke and demonstrated the very personal ways the transportation system affects their lives. They spoke of their commutes, their cars, their bikes and their health.

Kristine Perry, representing Community Choices 2010 of Clark County, urged the task force to include state-of-the-art bike and pedestrian systems to help address obesity problems.

“We are very concerned about the lack of equitable attention to pedestrian and bikeway systems,” she said. “It’s critical these vital systems not be overlooked.”

T. J. Harrison, a Lewis & Clark College student, urged programs that encourage more use of bikes and mass transit. She carried a sign saying “No more lanes – clean air.”

“Adding more lanes and more congestion is a health issue and an environmental justice issue,” she said. “The residents of North Portland have to breathe that exhaust.”

The new bridge had its supporters as well.

“I’m one of the silly people who wants to ship things by truck,” said John Leber, owner of Swanson Bark and Wood Products of Longview. “There are going to be long-term problems if we don’t fix this,” he said. “Companies like ours, which does business in 47 states, will need to move if we don’t.”

Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association, said I-5 on both sides of the Columbia River remains the most congested stretch on the freeway and needs to be addressed.

“It’s embarrassing,” he said, “and an economic hindrance.”

http://www.columbian.com/printArticle.cfm?story=109504

[MarkDaMan]

Replacement bridge study will go ahead
Columbia crossing - An option to keep existing spans and build a supplemental bridge stays on the table
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
JAMES MAYER
The Oregonian

The 39-member Columbia Crossing Task Force gave the green light Tuesday to a detailed study of a new Interstate Bridge to replace the existing twin spans across the Columbia River.

But an option that would keep the existing bridges got only a yellow light, with its fate put off until next month.

The task force vote capped a tense four-hour meeting in Portland as members struggled to find a compromise that would satisfy those who wanted to move ahead without delay on the new bridge study and those who wanted other alternatives studied.

The project staff, made up of engineers from Oregon and Washington transportation agencies, as well as consultants, recommended that only the replacement bridge, with either light rail or a dedicated bus lane, be taken into the federal environmental impact study, together with an option to do nothing.

The task force voted 26 to 7 to support an amendment by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder to add a supplemental bridge to the study and to appoint a subcommittee to come back with a specific proposal at the March meeting. Task force members then voted unanimously in favor of studying the amended staff recommendation. Six task force members were absent and did not vote.

The staff recommendation concluded that traffic volumes on the I-5 bridge will increase from about 130,000 vehicles today to about 180,000 in 2030, if no improvements are made. The current six hours of congestion would grow to 16 hours.

They argued that an additional bridge for local traffic would not significantly reduce congestion on Interstate 5 or improve freight travel but would create new traffic jams in Vancouver and Hayden Island.

But pressure has been building in recent weeks to keep a lower-cost alternative alive that would build another bridge for local traffic and transit and retain the existing freeway bridges. The Metro Council and the Clark County Commission have approved resolutions supporting this approach, and environmental groups have pushed for alternatives that don't pour more cars and trucks on the roads.

Henry Hewitt, task force co-chairman and a Portland lawyer, said it was critical that an alternative be found or support for the staff recommendation would unravel.

Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, a strong advocate for extending light rail across the Columbia River, voted against the amendment, citing the political clout the region currently enjoys with Washington Sen. Patty Murray and Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, both Democrats in positions of power over transportation spending.

"We could very well miss the only opportunity we will have to preserve the future of these communities," Pollard said.

But Dave Frei, a task force member representing the Arnada Neighborhood Association in Vancouver, argued that it will be worth taking the extra time to test the new bridge against something tangible other than doing nothing.

"I'd like to have a choice between quality of life in the corridor and capacity," Frei said.

Most citizen comment, much of it emotional, weighed heavily against building a large new bridge, citing the cost and environmental impacts.

"It's going to kill people, and kill businesses, and your children and grandchildren will be looking at this group and saying, 'You had a bunch of good bureaucrats, why couldn't you figure it out?' " said Paul Edgar, an Oregon City resident and vocal critic of the project.

But supporters urged the panel to get on with solving the problem.

"The fact that we have the most congested corridor wrapped on both sides with the strongest economic areas is shocking," said Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association.

James Mayer: 503-294-4109; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1172645770131870.xml&coll=7

[Urbanpdx]

Why the hell does it take 12 years to plan this bridge?

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117263685471509900

[pdxman]

Haha because its Portland!

[Urbanpdx]

Or is the whole point of both the delays and the gold-plating is that Portland does not want to add any capacity to any of its roads, for that might relieve congestion?

[tworivers]

Cars bring out my nihilistic streak. I could give a shit if those who choose/have to drive around the city spend much of their time driving in congestion (Same goes for industrial food addicts dying of obesity and diabetes. You reap what you sow.), and I support the city's attempts to right the transportation mistakes of the last half-century plus. From the view on my free-moving bicycle, it looks like a bunch of retarded lemmings on the road every day. In numbers, the auto-dependent still rule, but I definitely sense that the tide has solidly turned on the political battlefield. Thankfully. You are losing, Urbanpdx. Good luck out there.

[Drmyeyes]

Here's a link to an interesting article, not directly, but somewhat related to the discussion here. Urbanpdx, you'll love it...lots of numbers, and raises the issue of government contrasted with private enterprise, balanced with the realities of modern transportation. (nwig over at portlandarchitecture "give amtrack tracks" article provided the link.

http://www.glscs.com/archives/4.00.rfocus.htm?adcode=90

[Urbanpdx]

If not for all those "retarded lemmings" you would starve in the streets on that bicycle. Those "lemmings" are the reason there is food in the store and a roof over your head at night and a bicycle to ride.

The automobile is the greatest invention in our nation's history.

http://americandreamcoalition.org/Greatest.pdf

[edgepdx]

Yah' know I remember when this forum was actually about skyscrapers, cities and development and not a libertarian troll fest like every other F'ing forum on the Internets. Hmm, anyone want to guess as to when that changed (and I largely stopped posting). Just leave us alone UrbanPDX, talk to your buds over at the Cascade Policy Institute and start your own forum. I promise, we won't go over there and troll.

[pdxman]

Here, here! I second that motion

[Drmyeyes]

Tworivers never said all those trapped motorists were lemmings, just that they looke like lemmings. What they really are is victims of the auto obsessed mindset exploited by the usual profiteers. Autos were fun and practical for quite a few decades, but now look where we are. We have this huge highway system that will be devilishly hard to maintain in the decades to come, yet much of the population is desperately dependant on it to get from home to job, etc.

[bvpcvm]

Yah' know I remember when this forum was actually about skyscrapers, cities and development and not a libertarian troll fest like every other F'ing forum on the Internets. Hmm, anyone want to guess as to when that changed (and I largely stopped posting). Just leave us alone UrbanPDX, talk to your buds over at the Cascade Policy Institute and start your own forum. I promise, we won't go over there and troll.

This is really too bad. I've noticed you hardly post here anymore and there are others too who seem to have left - Cab rarely posts nowdays, Mitch-e hardly ever, even Tworivers. But the minute we stop, the minute we give up, The Terrorist (UrbanPDX, obv) has won. He's ruined what was once a nice place to share news but hijacking it and turning it, as you said, into a trollfest. He's practicing his own little privatized version of censorship. Honestly, I've wondered if there's anywhere else we can go. I like this board, but as things have been going lately...

[brandonpdx]

This is really too bad. I've noticed you hardly post here anymore and there are others too who seem to have left - Cab rarely posts nowdays, Mitch-e hardly ever, even Tworivers. But the minute we stop, the minute we give up, The Terrorist (UrbanPDX, obv) has won. He's ruined what was once a nice place to share news but hijacking it and turning it, as you said, into a trollfest. He's practicing his own little privatized version of censorship. Honestly, I've wondered if there's anywhere else we can go. I like this board, but as things have been going lately...

just ignore posts by the trolls. there's still lots of good stuff going on here; there's just a few pop up adds (posts) for libertarian rhetoric that I choose to skip over.

[65MAX]

just ignore posts by the trolls. there's still lots of good stuff going on here; there's just a few pop up adds (posts) for libertarian rhetoric that I choose to skip over.

Don't feed the trolls, or just like stray cats, they'll keep coming back. Portland Transport has gotten so bad I rarely post there anymore. It's just constant ideological bickering. Unfortunately, Chris Smith feels that he can convert them, so he is always engaging them (feeding them).

It's very easy to skip over diatribes by Urbanpdx and his ilk. It just takes practice.

[tworivers]

The automobile is the greatest invention in our nation's history.

Thank you for supplying me with my new signature. I'm tempted to respond to the other lobotomized statement you coughed up for that post, but I'll refrain out of respect for the other posters here.


It's very easy to skip over diatribes by Urbanpdx and his ilk. It just takes practice.

I agree. However, just like many of you, I stumble occasionally.

Honestly, I've wondered if there's anywhere else we can go.

I've periodically (during the Cascadia debate; while thinking about the effect The Troll has had on this forum) thought about trying to figure out what it would take to start something up like SSP, focused entirely on the cities of Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. Just a forum. And strictly moderated to exclude the Wendell Cox's of the world.

[Drmyeyes]

Oh c'mon. Sometimes you guys are just too much (just like me?) Urbanpdx is just one guy. Forget about it. It's the real world and you can't get your knickers in a twist everytime some dude nearby creates an annoyance as they work out their personal idiosyncracies. I prefer to know what people are really thinking, even though I might not like it. It's worse when some of these characters hide off in their secret corners with their buddies creating real poison that hardly anybody knows about until the day they start infecting an usnsuspecting world.

[zilfondel]

I agree. This is all pretty dumb.

[65MAX]

I still don't understand why the existing bridges can't just be seismically upgraded. Then all we need is a four lane bridge for freight and local port and Hayden Island traffic, two light rail tracks and three freight rail tracks.

[tworivers]

^^^There are multiple issues to contend with, obviously, but that does seem like the best idea for the best value. Basically, we need to be doing everything we can to NOT make I-5 the route of choice, not building a giant bridge that will attract even more traffic and drop even more vehicles into a PDX bottleneck. There are lots of creative options at hand.

[pdxman]

What about a tunnel and keep the current bridges? A tunnel can't be more expensive than the current 6 bil estimate, can it?

[PuyoPiyo]

^^^Tunnel through the under river? That's crazy to me *nervous chuckles*

[WonderlandPark]

^^^Tunnel through the under river? That's crazy to me *nervous chuckles*

What is wrong with a tunnel under the river? It is done all the time: Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, Queens Midtown (NY), Ted Williams (Boston), Detroit to Canada to name a few. BART goes under SF bay, Baltimore has a couple under its bay.

I think a tunnel combined with using the existing bridges is a good way to go. It would have to start in Delta Park and end up just past downtown Vancouver, but the majority of traffic on I-5 does doesn't need to stop at Jantzen or Downtown Vancouver, so that traffic would use the existing bridges.

[pdxman]

^^^don't forget the chunnel in france/britain!

[edgepdx]

What is wrong with a tunnel under the river? It is done all the time: Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, Queens Midtown (NY), Ted Williams (Boston), Detroit to Canada to name a few. BART goes under SF bay, Baltimore has a couple under its bay.

I think a tunnel combined with using the existing bridges is a good way to go. It would have to start in Delta Park and end up just past downtown Vancouver, but the majority of traffic on I-5 does doesn't need to stop at Jantzen or Downtown Vancouver, so that traffic would use the existing bridges.

I think the report concluded that the tunnel would have to start too far past downtown Vancouver and Delta Park and that the bottom of the Columbia is very thick silt so it would have to go very deep thus increasing cost.

The bridge upgrade with rail/local replacement seems like by far the best idea. Is anyone on the committee considering it or are they just railroading through (pun intended) the freeway mega-bridge and bulldoze NOPO plan.

[WonderlandPark]

I think the report concluded that the tunnel would have to start too far past downtown Vancouver and Delta Park and that the bottom of the Columbia is very thick silt so it would have to go very deep thus increasing cost.


That is why I was saying to keep and upgrade the existing bridges. Most of the I-5 traffic doesn't go to either Jantzen or Vancouver downtown, let them go all the way through without stopping or interchanges via tunnel. That will substantially lighten the load on the existing bridges, maybe even take one lane out on one of the existing bridges for MAX/bus.

[PuyoPiyo]

What is wrong with a tunnel under the river? It is done all the time: Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, Queens Midtown (NY), Ted Williams (Boston), Detroit to Canada to name a few. BART goes under SF bay, Baltimore has a couple under its bay.

I think a tunnel combined with using the existing bridges is a good way to go. It would have to start in Delta Park and end up just past downtown Vancouver, but the majority of traffic on I-5 does doesn't need to stop at Jantzen or Downtown Vancouver, so that traffic would use the existing bridges.


Ohh interesting, I just never see a tunnel under the rivers before.

[edgepdx]

That is why I was saying to keep and upgrade the existing bridges. Most of the I-5 traffic doesn't go to either Jantzen or Vancouver downtown, let them go all the way through without stopping or interchanges via tunnel. That will substantially lighten the load on the existing bridges, maybe even take one lane out on one of the existing bridges for MAX/bus.

Ah, I get it. That's a pretty good idea. I5 and the existing bridge become a local bypass from Delta Park to Downtown Vancouver. Maybe they should narrow that section and put in local intersections (i.e. change that section of I5 from limited access to an arterial type road with the MAX) in Delta Park Jantzen Beach and Downtown Vancouver. That would connect that entire area into a local town center. Just thinking out loud.

[thewack]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what about the I-205 bridge? If the freight companies are whining about Portland traffic on I-5, why don't they use I-205 instead? Is that not part of the point of I-205 avoiding downtown Portland?

Let's stop subsidizing oil. Problem solved...no need for a new bridge as the true cost of oil will be reflected and pressure will mount to make public transit efficient, fast, and appealing. Those who choose to drive can pay for the true costs.

Modify the existing rail bridge and I-5 bridges to accomodate BRT and LRT is my vote.

Another option...do they really need to use so many trucks when there is a rail network for freight along I-5? Is it that crowded?

[South-by-West]

Yes, I think a tunnel option, opening from just south of Delta Park to just north of downtown Vancouver would be a good option.

My take: Through traffic would use the tunnel to bypass Delta Park and downtown Vancouver. Keep the existing bridges for traffic between the length of the tunnel, and extend light rail over the bridges. I-5 would split at both ends of the tunnel into 'tunnel thru lanes' and 'bridge local lanes.'

[zilfondel]

Note: not all tunnels need to be bored. The bay bridge tunnel is a series of metal tubes connected together, sunk in a narrow trench. It's supposed to be a really inexpensive way of doing things.

==

There are only three reasons for replacing the existing bridge, however:

-can't see very far ahead to allow high speeds safely
-no emergency lane
-lifting for boats causes delays

The bridge is actually considered one of the most structurally sound in Oregon.

I would like to see a brand new rail bridge with 4+ rail lines running on it.
Throw in a new 4 lane + lightrail local bridge to connect to downtown Vancouver, and we're done! It'll probably cost 1/4 of the proposed $6 Billion one from the CRC group.

[pdxman]

Weather, ships also don't affect a tunnel-which is a plus

[CouvScott]

Tuesday, March 06, 2007
By JEFFREY MIZE Columbian staff writer

Transportation officials are honing two options for routing high-capacity transit through Vancouver as part of the Columbia River Crossing project.

Both assume that either light rail or bus rapid transit would cross the Columbia River and head north on Washington Street through downtown to Mill Plain Boulevard. The options will be studied as part of a formal environmental impact statement.

One option calls for the transit line to veer east, under Interstate 5 on McLoughlin Boulevard or 16th Street, to serve Clark College before heading north along the east side of the freeway. From there, what is being called the I-5 alignment would cross over state Highway 500 and I-5 before ending at a planned Park & Ride lot just north of Kiggins Bowl.

Instead of veering east, the second option would continue north on Main Street or Broadway until the two streets merge just north of Fourth Plain Boulevard. The transit line would continue north on Main Street to the proposed Park & Ride lot near Kiggins Bowl.

Each alignment has advantages. Preliminary analysis indicates the Main Street/Broadway option would be cheaper to build and operate, with construction costs 15 percent lower and operating costs 7 percent lower than the other alignment.

The difference is primarily because the Main/Broadway line doesn't head east to Clark College and therefore covers a shorter distance. Bridges spanning state Highway 500 and I-5 also would not be necessary, thereby reducing construction costs.

The Main/Broadway option would provide direct service to more residents who live within a half-mile of transit stations. The option also has the potential to spur urban redevelopment, such as what north Portland is experiencing along the Interstate Avenue light-rail line.

Advantages to the I-5 alignment include direct service to Clark College, with a Park & Ride lot planned near the college, and to the Vancouver Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Because a large stretch of the route would be confined to the existing I-5 corridor, trains or buses could move passengers faster, possibly at 55 mph, than the other option and slightly improve commuting times for workers heading into Portland.

The I-5 alignment also has less potential to affect properties along the route. Officials believe they could squeeze a transit corridor between I-5 and K Street, which lines the east side of the freeway north of Fourth Plain Boulevard.

Jay Lyman, consultant team project manager for Columbia River Crossing, said officials do not believe either alignment would requiring taking large pieces of private property.

Officials say ridership potential along the two routes is comparable, less than a 3 percent difference. The potential for future expansion of a light-rail system to head east and then south across the Interstate 205 Bridge, creating a transit loop in Vancouver, is not considered a significant factor in evaluating the two transit alignments.

Officials intend to work closely with city government and residents on transit routes.

"We want to start a discussion with the city and particularly with the neighborhoods about how best to serve this part of Vancouver with high-capacity transit," Lyman said following a city council meeting Monday evening. "At the heart of the issue is what the city and neighborhoods want to do."

So far, almost all of the buzz surrounding the multibillion-dollar Columbia River Crossing project has been focused on which bridge options should be studied in a draft environmental impact statement.

Three options definitely will be part of the study: a no-build alternative, a replacement bridge with light rail and a replacement bridge with bus rapid transit, a system of frequent buses with limited stops and dedicated lanes. A fourth option also is being prepared that could include retaining the existing I-5 Bridge or adding a third bridge.

Officials wanted to present the two transit alignments to the city council Monday, but council members were focused on other issues related to the Columbia River Crossing. The council will resume its review of the project, including transit alignments, at a March 26 meeting.

Gregg Snyder, consultant team transit manager, said crossing officials have looked at a variety of transit alignments and zeroed in on the two best options, which means it's unlikely additional transit alignments will be evaluated in the draft environmental impact­ statement.

[CouvScott]

Note: not all tunnels need to be bored. The bay bridge tunnel is a series of metal tubes connected together, sunk in a narrow trench. It's supposed to be a really inexpensive way of doing things.

This is what I want to see. If they had to, they could trench it in to retain depths for ships. Kind of a cut-and-cover on the river bed.

[MarkDaMan]

Residents get say on bridge over I-5
Pedestrian span - Sam Adams wants neighbors to slice the $11 million pie

...crap wrong I-5 Bridge...

see this thread...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=82240&page=28

[Snowden352]

This is what I want to see. If they had to, they could trench it in to retain depths for ships. Kind of a cut-and-cover on the river bed.

Dude, I have images of this glass tube on the bottom of the Willamette with neon lights illuminating the river-bed. THERE'S YOUR FUCKING ICON!!!!!

NOTE: that's excitement, not anger. Just thought I'd point that out, because the expression on my face isn't carried over broadband cables.

[65MAX]

Dude, I have images of this glass tube on the bottom of the Willamette with neon lights illuminating the river-bed. THERE'S YOUR FUCKING ICON!!!!!

NOTE: that's excitement, not anger. Just thought I'd point that out, because the expression on my face isn't carried over broadband cables.

Kinda like the shark exhibit at the Oregon Coast Aquarium.... great idea.:tup:

[zilfondel]

Hmm, I think San Fran lost their opportunity for it... but they have a couple of SWEET bridges instead. =\

[MarkDaMan]

I saw a flick in 'couver this weekend and driving through some neighborhoods on the way there saw signs in people's yards saying 'No Loot Rail over our Columbia Crossing'. Looks like opposition is already forming.

[pdxman]

Oh, so its their columbia crossing? Good, then they can pay for it...

[CouvScott]

I saw a flick in 'couver this weekend and driving through some neighborhoods on the way there saw signs in people's yards saying 'No Loot Rail over our Columbia Crossing'. Looks like opposition is already forming.

As with any cause, it's the people who are unhappy that are the loudest. Hopefully, we will get more than equal support to extend light rail into Vancouver.

[mcbaby]

i supported light rail when i lived in vancouver but got tired of waiting so now i've lived in portland for the last 11 years. this is a joint effort between two cities and two states and a major arterial along the west coast. vancouver nearly has 200,000 people in it's city limits and can no longer ignore mass transit particulary a link with one of the country's most successful light rail systems. it could be a seamless link if people could look towards the future and not just the price tag. the numbers always seem bigger with inflation anyway. downtown vancouver is becoming more dense and conjestion and gas prices are increasing too. to complain about "loot rail" now seems ridiculous.

[PuyoPiyo]

to complain about "loot rail" now seems ridiculous.

Rock on! :notacrook: I agree. I wouldn't drive now if there's a "loot rail". I definitely support the "loot rail" cuz it can reduce the pollution and traffic. :worship:

[65MAX]

Oh look, Vancouverites. Gas is over $3/gallon again. Too bad you have no other way to get to work in Portland. I wonder how long it'll take to get to $4/gallon. $5. $10. Hmmm.

[zilfondel]

I'd actually go visit Vancouver if light rail went over the Columbia. The bridge view alone would likely be worth it... and all the new development being planned for their downtown, it should be really neat to watch unfold!

Perhaps I'll even get to design some stuff there in the future. =D

[MarkDaMan]

Railway an issue for I-5 span fix
Adding supplemental bridge may create problems for boats
By Jim Redden
The Portland Tribune, Mar 16, 2007


Any effort to build a supplemental bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Wash., must overcome a major complication — the Vancouver Rail Bridge that crosses the Columbia River approximately one mile west of the existing Interstate 5 bridge.

The 39-member Columbia River Crossing Task Force has been studying how to reduce congestion and improve safety on and around the I-5 bridge for more than two years.

It is on the verge of approving a Draft Environmental Impact Study of replacing the bridge with a large, new span that could carry cars, trucks, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists.

But in large part because such a project could cost $6 billion or more, including inflation, the task force recently created a subcommittee to develop a lower-cost alternative focused on keeping the existing I-5 bridge and building a second bridge that would carry local traffic and a new transit line between the two cities.

The subcommittee held an organization meeting Monday. At that time, it directed the task force staff to prepare information on how a supplemental bridge could be constructed and what kind of traffic it could carry.

The subcommittee could finalize its option as early as Monday, in its next meeting.

But unless the option also calls for renovating the rail bridge, it would adversely affect the navigation of the ships, boats and barges that travel that stretch of the river.

The rail bridge has a swing span at the north end to allow large vessels to pass through it. It is on the same channel — called the primary channel — that runs under the lift span on the north end of the I-5 bridge.

Because I-5 bridge lifts are prohibited during morning and evening rush hours, vessels traveling the river at those times must perform a tricky S-turn between the swing span and the center of the I-5 bridge, where the two highest spans — known as the wide span and the high span — are located.

“The turn is especially dangerous when the water is high and the river is running fast,” said Jerry Grossnickle, chief financial officer of Bernert Barge Lines Inc., one of several towboat and barge companies that work the river.

Any supplemental bridge would make the turn even trickier by increasing the number of piers in the Columbia River that must be maneuvered around. But moving the swing span to line up with the center of both the existing and potential supplemental bridges would add at least $42 million to the project.

“You can’t add another bridge to the river without fixing the rail bridge,” Grossnickle said.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty believes remodeling the rail bridge could be part of a package of smaller projects that could reduce congestion without requiring the replacement of the existing I-5 bridge. According to Liberty, the package could include a supplemental bridge and improving the freeway interchanges on both ends of the existing bridge.

“Moving the swing span on the rail bridge would only cost a small fraction of the cost of a new bridge,” said Liberty, who is perhaps the most outspoken critic of building a new bridge in the region.

The rail bridge is owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, one of the largest rail companies in the nation. Also known as BNSF Bridge 9.6, it links the ports of Portland and Vancouver and also is used by the Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak.

Gus Melonas, a BNSF spokesman, declined to discuss the company’s future plans for the bridge with the Portland Tribune.

“We will discuss with appropriate parties as necessary however we will not speculate further at this time,” Melonas wrote in an e-mail reply.

The U.S. Coast Guard must approve the siting of any new bridge in the river. Austin Pratt, the guard’s bridge administrator in Seattle, said he would be reluctant to recommend the construction of any supplemental bridge unless the lift span on the rail bridge also was moved to eliminate the S-turn.

Boats now have to begin turning as they pass under the I-5 bridge — fishtailing, really — to make the turn. If there were more piers in the river, “that might not be possible,” Pratt said.

The Coast Guard studied the idea of moving the swing span on the rail bridge in response to requests from towboat operators in 2003. The cost of building a new lift span closer to the center of the river was estimated at $42 million at that time.

According to Pratt, the guard rejected the proposal because it did not meet the federal government’s strict cost-benefit analysis.

Even with the prohibition on rush-hour lifts on the I-5 bridge, lifts still occur on an almost daily basis, causing long traffic delays in both directions. The resulting cost in lost productivity and delivery delays was not included in the cost-benefit analysis, however.

“The study did not take delays on Interstate 5 caused by bridge lifts into account. Federal law limited the study to navigation on the river,” Pratt said.

Using the rail bridge to help ease regional traffic congestion has been discussed in the past. The Southwest Regional Transportation Council studied using it for a commuter rail connection between Vancouver and Portland in 1999.

A report issued by the transportation council concluded the idea was not feasible for several reasons, including existing freight traffic on the rail line during morning and afternoon rush hours.

The Columbia River Crossing task force voted Feb. 27 to begin a Draft Environmental Impact Study of replacing the bridge with a large span that also carries mass transit, bicycles and pedestrians. At that time, it also created the subcommittee to draft a smaller study option to be considered at its next meeting on March 27.

The subcommittee was created at the request of Metro, the elected regional government charged with managing growth in most of the Portland area.

The Metro Council voted to request the smaller option after learning that a replacement bridge and related freeway interchange improvements could cost up to $6 billion — or even more, when inflation costs are considered.

The resolution calls for the development of an option that retains the existing bridge — which actually is two side-by-side bridges, one in each direction — and adds a supplemental bridge that carries cars, trucks, high-capacity transit, bicycles and pedestrians.

The subcommittee charged with developing that option is co-chaired by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder and Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart.

Members include: Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN executive director and chief executive officer; Fred Hansen, TriMet general manager; Dean Lookingbill, transportation director of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council; Tom Zelenka, environmental and public relations manager for the Schnitzer Group; Scott Walstra, Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce public affairs committee chairman; and Walter Valenta, the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association land use planning committee chairman.

The co-chairs of the CRC Task Force — Washington State University Vancouver chancellor Hal Dengerink and Portland attorney Henry Hewitt — are ex-officio members of the subcommittee.

jimredden@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117399153007861800

[edgepdx]

Sounds like this is more reason to go with the "Skyscraper Page" plan of fixing the rail bridge, building a local access/MAX bridge and calling it good. I still don't understand the supposed benefit of replacing the I5 bridge other than the lift span problem. It's 3 lanes in each direction and is supposed to be structurally sound.

[Snowden352]

The problem is that more people are moving to Clark County/Vancouver and there are only two ways for them to come into the city. Until the region allows for more bridges built connecting Portland and Vancouver the only solution will be bigger and bigger bridges (rather than more, smaller bridges).
There are a lot of legitimate complaints with this bridge, but if you look at the CRC council, it's mostly people who would want to see a bigger bridge built. I doubt you'll see this alternative talked about much more past April.

[zilfondel]

^^^ Snowden, the $6 billion bridge plan is to include the exact same number of through lanes that currently exist: 3 in each direction.

It won't add any capacity on the bridge itself. Part of the money, however, was to be used to rebuild all of the freeway interchanges and approach ramps on both sides of the river... I think I remember hearing that alone would take half the money.

However, the flip side to this is that all the congestion would merely move south to the Rose Garden I-84 interchange area anyway, while dumping another 30,000+ cars each day onto North Portland surface streets.

==========

Also, the complaints are coming from Multnomah County, PDOT, city of Portland, the Mayor, and citizens - both residents of NoPo (traffic) and people all over the state of oregon who don't want to pay $3 billion for something that won't benefit Oregon very much at all.

[edgepdx]

^^^ Snowden, the $6 billion bridge plan is to include the exact same number of through lanes that currently exist: 3 in each direction.

It won't add any capacity on the bridge itself. Part of the money, however, was to be used to rebuild all of the freeway interchanges and approach ramps on both sides of the river... I think I remember hearing that alone would take half the money.

However, the flip side to this is that all the congestion would merely move south to the Rose Garden I-84 interchange area anyway, while dumping another 30,000+ cars each day onto North Portland surface streets.

==========

Also, the complaints are coming from Multnomah County, PDOT, city of Portland, the Mayor, and citizens - both residents of NoPo (traffic) and people all over the state of oregon who don't want to pay $3 billion for something that won't benefit Oregon very much at all.

Yeah, the more I hear about this scheme the more it seems like a giant subsidy to Vancouver developers at the expense of NOPO. Let people sit in traffic, then maybe they'll think twice about moving to the 'Couve (or La Center), but I may be giving folks giving to much credit.

[Snowden352]

The CRC website has listed under the staff recommendations:
5 or 6 lanes in each direction that can carry cars, trucks, transit, bicycles and pedestrians
Which, doesn't specify whether those lanes will be one or the other...
It's too vague

[pdxman]

Yeah, the more I hear about this scheme the more it seems like a giant subsidy to Vancouver developers at the expense of NOPO. Let people sit in traffic, then maybe they'll think twice about moving to the 'Couve (or La Center), but I may be giving folks giving to much credit.
I don't think there is a word for how much i agree with you edgepdx...all this bridge does/will do is encourage people to drive and it will really only benefit people who live in sw washington. Vancouver people in general suck(not you couvscott or puyopiyo) so i don't mind them sitting in their trucks and suvs getting pissed at traffic. But, then maybe i do because they will be polluting portland. How about we hand this over to a toll company and let those who drive it pay for it. Sounds fair.

[PuyoPiyo]

I don't think there is a word for how much i agree with you edgepdx...all this bridge does/will do is encourage people to drive and it will really only benefit people who live in sw washington. Vancouver people in general suck(not you couvscott or puyopiyo) so i don't mind them sitting in their trucks and suvs getting pissed at traffic. But, then maybe i do because they will be polluting portland. How about we hand this over to a toll company and let those who drive it pay for it. Sounds fair.

That is why Vancouver want Light Rail, to reduce the pollution. Yea you are right, it only benefit for Vancouver, but don't forget that Vancouver is part of Portland's metro area. If you think other city bordering Portland was the ones that cause horrible traffic, then blame Beaverton too. I drive through there several times, it's the worst than Vancouver (my opinion).

I guess just wait till they decide whatever the best for us, but I hope they don't skip the light rail!

[360Rich]

Monday, March 19, 2007
By DON HAMILTON Columbian Staff Writer

Work resumed Monday morning on a small but critical new piece of the plan for a new Columbia River bridge.

A Columbia River Crossing subcommittee has been drafting a new alternative for inclusion in the draft environmental impact statement, the formal study of the project just now getting under way. When completed, the new alternative will mean the task force will study in depth an additional bridge while keeping the existing Interstate 5 Bridge.

On Feb. 27, the 39-member task force launched the draft EIS, calling for a thorough study of three options: replace the existing Interstate 5 Bridge with a new bridge with bus rapid transit; replace the old bridge with a new bridge with light rail; and don't build anything.

But the task force also formed the subcommittee to draft another option to give more serious consideration to keeping the old bridge. The full Columbia River Crossing task force plans to vote on March 27 to add the new alternative.

The point, said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, co-chairman of the subcommittee, is to explore a lower cost option.

"We're trying to find out how to create the smallest footprint while maximizing use at the lowest cost," he said.

At the Monday meeting, the subcommittee started narrowing the elements that will be included in the new alternative. It will, members decided previously, use the existing Interstate 5 Bridge, offer high capacity transit, improve truck and shipping mobility, offer bike and pedestrian access and minimize the impact on Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver.

But the new alternative also will study reversible lanes, tolling lanes, high capacity lanes and other options.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/03192007news117117.cfm

[PuyoPiyo]

Good, they are still holding the light rail.

[NJD]

Edit

[CouvScott]

Friday, 16 March 2007
Surface street connectors, overpasses, and interchanges contribute to cost
By Neil Zawicki
VBJ Staff Reporter

Last week, the Columbia River Crossing task force proposed options to the public for building a transportation system to better handle traffic and cargo through the roadways from Columbia Boulevard in Portland to State Route 500 in Vancouver.

The conversation continues to be contentious.

"Keeping those bridges in place has not been demonstrated to be a less expensive option," said CRC subcommittee member Scot Walstra. "But whatever it is, there’s going to be a big ticket."

The ticket will certainly be big, but some in the engineering community say the scope of the project is not thoroughly understood.

"I’ve tried to explain the magnitude of the project," said CRC Assistant Design Engineering Manager Frank Green. "This region has not seen a project of this size, I feel pretty comfortable saying ever."

Green said the size of the project gets lost in the talk around the bridge, while neglecting the many interchange and road widening needs along the entire stretch of roadway.

"The disconnect in thinking is that this is a bridge project," said Green. "But that is just one element of the larger picture."

To be sure, the bridge is antiquated in light of modern traffic and projected population numbers. But Green maintains the road system also is not up to speed, and that it is the chief area of concern.

"A big problem is with the interchanges," he said. "People getting on and off the freeway are finding more and more congestion."

To this end, a subcommittee has been formed at the direction of Portland Metro Council Director Rex Burkholder to generate a fourth idea for the project, but engineers at the CRC say any idea they offer will likely be one they have already considered over the past two years.

From their research, the task force has offered three options: doing nothing (an option required by law), replacing the existing bridge with a span that would allow Bus Rapid Transit, or building a supplemental bridge that would allow the existing light rail line to travel to Vancouver.

"Maybe there will be a creative alternative with one more look," said CRC communications director Danielle Cogan, "but I don’t think they’ll come up with anything we haven’t considered in making our recommendations."

Further, Cogan said the notion of the cost of the project is a liquid one that has been cast in stone by the media.

"It kind of burns my buttons, because I say the entire project could cost between $2 billion and $6 billion and the papers write about a $6 billion bridge," said Cogan.

Green also said the cost is a variable that has yet to be determined.

"There is not an option on the table that would cost $6 billion," he said. "Any option we end up with, the cost would be determined by the elements of the project."

The options presented by the subcommittee at the March 12 public hearing are two-fold. Option A provides for improving the interchanges at SR 500, Fourth Plain and Mill Plain Boulevards, as well as the interchanges at Hayden Island and Marine Drive in Portland. As far as the new bridge component is concerned, it would involve adding a high capacity transit lane in addition to three north and three southbound lanes, as well as a bicycle and pedestrian lane. Option B would provide the same configuration, but would have a Bus Rapid Transit lane rather than light rail. Additionally, this option would include interchange improvements at Marine Drive, Hayden Island, SR 14 (to provide I-5 access), Mill Plain and Fourth Plain as well as SR 500. Both options involve removing the existing bridge once the new project is at full capacity.

Both subcommittee options are geared toward reducing congestion, but some say an odd component is the idea to relocate the swing span on the BNSF railroad bridge in order to allow better channel navigation of passing ships.

"The thing about that is, the BNSF line is privately owned," said Cogan. "So even if that was a part of the plan, they could just say no."

Subcommittee members maintain they are trying to put every option on the table, while attempting to avoid interfering with the technical process.

"I’m concerned that what we’re doing here is acting as the engineers," said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart. "Again, we’re not engineers. It’s our job to come up with a positive alternative that would be workable."

[edgepdx]

It seems like this is the old freeway men problem all over again. "We need more capacity" they yell. So they widen this section or that and then improve some of the interchanges. Of course that just dumps more cars onto another section of the freeway. In this case it will be the 405/I5 split and down by the Rose Garden neither of which can ever be widened. In reality Vancouver needs serious light rail and to think differently about growth management (the real problem over there). They need to think differently, freeway projects are just a Sisyphean task that never really archives anything in the long run.

[Symi81]

Sending billions to add freeway lanes into PDX is a horrible idea. Obviously its not a sustainable or long-term solution. Portland should do everything in its power to stop the freeway expansion from happening. While its important to remember that PDX and Vancouver are metro neighbors/partners, its not Portland's problem if Vancouver suburbanites have to sit in traffic; if Vancouverites dont like the traffic they should sell their car and move into PDX or get a job at Best Buy in Vancouver. Publicly subsidizing a mega project that rewards suburban home owners developers is bad public policy and flyies in the face of values (sustaibability, environmental stewardship, long-term planning) the Pacific Northwest supposedly values. Let Vancouver come up with the money for this project, its primarly their problem.

As for freight, how about giving them a dedicated right-of-way a certain number of hours of the day, whatever they need to keep goods moving efficiently.

[pdxman]

^^^My thoughts exactly Symi81...

[CouvScott]

Sending billions to add freeway lanes into PDX is a horrible idea. Obviously its not a sustainable or long-term solution. Portland should do everything in its power to stop the freeway expansion from happening. While its important to remember that PDX and Vancouver are metro neighbors/partners, its not Portland's problem if Vancouver suburbanites have to sit in traffic; if Vancouverites dont like the traffic they should sell their car and move into PDX or get a job at Best Buy in Vancouver. Publicly subsidizing a mega project that rewards suburban home owners developers is bad public policy and flyies in the face of values (sustaibability, environmental stewardship, long-term planning) the Pacific Northwest supposedly values. Let Vancouver come up with the money for this project, its primarly their problem.

As for freight, how about giving them a dedicated right-of-way a certain number of hours of the day, whatever they need to keep goods moving efficiently.


I agree. I don't think we should add more lanes unless specifically for freight. This is why I have always supported the bridge to connect through North Portland to HWY 30. This would connect the ports. We also need the light rail connection on both I-5 and I-205. I think/hope congestion and higher gas prices will pry people out of their cars.

[MarkDaMan]

what about a carbon tax? Not only could it be applied per gallon of gasoline purchased, but other heavy carbon producers could be taxed as well. Money collected from the carbon tax can be used to mitigate the effects of polluted air...additional emission free mass transit, additional park land purchased, additional TOD's funded, etc.etc.

[CouvScott]

what about a carbon tax? Not only could it be applied per gallon of gasoline purchased, but other heavy carbon producers could be taxed as well. Money collected from the carbon tax can be used to mitigate the effects of polluted air...additional emission free mass transit, additional park land purchased, additional TOD's funded, etc.etc.

Great idea. Maybe it would stop some people from buying a 10 MPG piece of bling or only taking it out when it is full of people going the same direction. One could only hope.