Columbia Crossing

[Shilo Rune 96]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

IMHO, I think the red-line needs to be extended over the 205.

I totally agree. How would you go about this? Eliminating a lane? Eliminating the pedestrian way (is that even wide enough)?

[bvpcvm]

IIRC the 205 bridge was built to accommodate lanes for transit, like the 205 through east portland.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

"Historical" might be overstating it, but certainly traffic volumes in the Northwest have fallen over the last few years... and started falling before the recession/high oil prices hit. There's a good graph showing actual vs predicted traffic over the Columbia. Page 7 of this pdf:

http://www.plaidpantry.com/CRC_Finan...mpresa_Inc.pdf

This should be required reading for all people living in the Portland Metro Area.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

IMHO, I think the red-line needs to be extended over the 205. It won't happen before the Milwaukie project, but I think it should. I know 5 people in my office downtown that commute, by transit, everyday from Vancouver (5% of our workforce, a small sample, I know.) Before the economic collapse, I knew a lot more Vantuckians at my work that commuted in on transit. They park in Gateway, Parkrose, and on the C-Tran express busses (that cost $4 each way, everyday.)

Parkrose to downtown 3rd Ave is 30 minutes, I take it every morning and afternoon. East Vancouver, the population center, would be 45 minutes on MAX. A large park and ride would be required, but ridership would skyrocket, and help with the congestion on both bridges while spurring high density growth along the new line.

I think we need to improve cross-Columbia transit, but I'm not sure MAX over 205 is the right way to do it. To utilise the Red Line, you would have to do one of the following, none of which are great:

a) Build a new branch off the red line, diverging somewhere before Cascade Station. Half the trains go to the airport, half to Vancouver. This would mean cutting frequency to the airport in half.

b) Or, build that same branch, but double the number of trains on the red line, with half of them going to the airport (to maintain existing frequencies) and half to Vancouver. This would mean more trains over the steel bridge, which probably isn't feasible.

c) Have trains to Vancouver go via the airport. This avoids the problems the above, but means that journey times Vancouver-Gateway would be unacceptably long.

d) Run the new line as a Gateway-Vancouver shuttle (avoiding the airport). Doesn't place any additional pressure on the steel bridge, but means a forced transfer for anyone trying to get downtown.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

....d) Run the new line as a Gateway-Vancouver shuttle (avoiding the airport). Doesn't place any additional pressure on the steel bridge, but means a forced transfer for anyone trying to get downtown.

But you'd have 3 different MAX lines available to get you downtown, plus easy transfers to Gresham and the Airport (at Parkrose) and the possibility of running new trains from Vancouver all the way down I-205 to Clackamas.

[maccoinnich]

But customers hate forced transfers. Just wait to see how people react to the new streetcar line, where you'll have to change in the Pearl.

Because of the way Gateway is set up, you can't run through it north-south without reversing. This means the driver changing ends. I don't know what TriMet's policy on that is (because I can't think of anywhere where they do this), but I don't know if they allow this with passengers on board.

[MarkDaMan]

^I think they do that with the Red Line at Beaverton TC.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

IMHO, I think the red-line needs to be extended over the 205. It won't happen before the Milwaukie project, but I think it should. I know 5 people in my office downtown that commute, by transit, everyday from Vancouver (5% of our workforce, a small sample, I know.) Before the economic collapse, I knew a lot more Vantuckians at my work that commuted in on transit. They park in Gateway, Parkrose, and on the C-Tran express busses (that cost $4 each way, everyday.)

Parkrose to downtown 3rd Ave is 30 minutes, I take it every morning and afternoon. East Vancouver, the population center, would be 45 minutes on MAX. A large park and ride would be required, but ridership would skyrocket, and help with the congestion on both bridges while spurring high density growth along the new line.

One of the planners involved in designing the I-205 bridge explained that it can't safely handle light rail on it. It would be nice, but it's not something that can be done without a lot more construction than is expected.

[tworivers]

Metro approves FEIS for CRC, throws residents of N and NE Portland to the wolves.

Cortright's testimony.

Thanks to Portland Transport and Chris Smith for shining a light.

[NJD]

Blue Oregon article

All the CRC Megaproject News Fit to Print
Evan Manvel Blue Oregon 9/14/11

Time for another round-up of recent news about the most expensive public works project in the region’s history – the extremely risky and costly CRC highway mega-project (previous round-up here). Without further ado, here are some excerpts from the past seven weeks of news:

...

[tworivers]

State land-use panel hits new I-5 bridge approval process
LUBA rules that portion outside urban growth boundary is not subject to Metro approval

By Jim Redden

The Portland Tribune, Oct 27, 2011, Updated 3.9 hours ago

The Columbia River Crossing approval process just got a little more complicated.

On Thursday, the state Land Use Board of Appeals ruled that the Metro Council could not approve the portion of the project outside the region's urban growth boundary it administers to control development.

Metro had approved a final land-use order authorizing the project under a state law governing Portland-area transit projects. The $3.6 billion Interstate 5 replacement bridge and freeway project includes a new light-rail line between Portland and Vancouver.

The approval was appealed to LUBA on several issues by a number of groups opposed to the project. The only grounds LUBA upheld related to Metro's authority outside the urban growth boundary.

Metro could extend the boundary to include a portion of the project that stretches from the north shore of Hayden Island to the Washington border. That would be subject to a LUBA appeal, however.

The project is expected to reduce congestion and improve safety in a five-mile stretch of I-5 that includes the bridge and a number of freeway interchanges. It is supported by business and labor groups but opposed by environmental and livability organizations.

[Okstate]

Is anyone else sick of hearing about the CRC?

[2oh1]

Raising my hand to say "Aye." This project is a disaster. And a money pit.

[MarkDaMan]

[NJD]

can't get enough CRC news?!

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says President Barack Obama's jobs plan would include money for a new bridge to carry Interstate 5 across the Columbia River.

LaHood told Portland's KGW-TV on Tuesday that "we support it, the money will be there."

From KGW.

I think we can expect the same 'fast track' plan as the Tappen Zee Bridge; AKA throw out 10 years of planning, remove the transit components, and only build the highway...

[tworivers]

Neighbors appeal Metro’s CRC decision to state Supreme Court
POSTED: Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 09:38 AM PT
BY: Angela Webber, DJC

A neighborhood group has appealed a land-use decision about the Columbia River Crossing. If successful, the appeal would require Metro to enter a lengthy land-use approval process on the highway, bridge and light rail project over the Columbia River.

Last month, the state Land Use Board of Appeals upheld Metro’s approval of the land-use portions of the project and the process the regional government used to come to that decision, in all but one minor aspect. Metro is using a 1996 law that allows the government to use an accelerated “Land Use Final Order” process to consolidate land-use appeals to one agency and one document.

The Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods and the Coalition for a Livable Future filed an appeal of the LUBA decision to the Oregon Supreme Court via a brief on Wednesday.

“Our argument is that it’s inappropriate for Metro to be using the LUFO on the CRC, which is not a light-rail project,” said coalition Vice President Steven Cole.

Cole contents that the house bill that enacted the LUFO process in 1996 was never intended to be used 15 years later, but was only supposed to be used on a North-South light-rail line project during the 1990s. His group has argued that the LUFO can only include a light-rail project and related highway improvements—but that the CRC involves many more highway improvements than light-rail aspects.

“This is a highway project with light-rail tacked onto it, not a light-rail project with accompanying highway improvements,” Cole said.

The neighborhood representatives are just one of four partners that initially appealed Metro’s decision to the board of appeals. The other parties decided not to appeal LUBA’s decision, and included Plaid Pantries, Weber Coastal Bells Limited Partners and Jantzen/Angel LLC.

Plaid Pantries President and CEO Chris Girard told the DJC at the time of the LUBA decision that his group was satisfied with the one issue LUBA sided with his group on, specifically that Metro had no authority to approve land-use issues beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. Metro attorney Dick Benenr said, at that time, that the UGB issue could be resolved easily by Metro by either expanded the UGB slightly or running a small land-use process for the portion of the CRC bridge that extends beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, which ends at the north boundary of Hayden Island.

Cole hopes that, if his group wins, the CRC project’s land-use aspects will get remanded back to Metro.

“We hope that they’ll use regular (land-use) procedures, instead of this house bill that circumvents public opinion and makes it more difficult to appeal,” Cole said.

The LUFO process requires that the state supreme court have the neighborhood group’s appeal under advisement within 119 days.

[tworivers]

Blue Oregon piece on the CRC by Evan Manvel

[MarkDaMan]

Columbia River Crossing gets critical OK from federal transportation to proceed
Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2011, 5:32 PM Updated: Wednesday, December 07, 2011, 7:54 PM
Jeff Manning, The Oregonian

The Columbia River Crossing took a crucial step forward Wednesday when two federal agencies granted the controversial bridge-freeway project a federal "record of decision."

The "ROD," as it's known in the parlance of transportation bureaucrats, allows the $3 billion-plus CRC to tap into the federal piggy bank. The 5-mile-long bridge and freeway expansion, which will run from North Portland to northern Vancouver, is reliant on federal coffers for about half of the construction cost.

The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration signed the ROD, which finalizes the environmental review process and formally recognizes the project's preferred alternative – a replacement Interstate 5 bridge with light rail.

Project Director Nancy Boyd said getting the ROD is a "major milestone." It is a validation, she said, of the project's massive effort to comply with federal environmental rules. The CRC's planning and preliminary engineering has cost more than $130 million to date.

Oregon and Washington officials have argued for years that the existing Interstate-5 crossing from Portland to Vancouver is out of date, too small and dangerous. The relatively low bridges back up marine cargo traffic and periodic bridge lifts turn the area's already chronic congestion into monumental traffic jams.

Critics say the project is too expensive and won't significantly improve traffic flows along Interstate 5.

While the debate rages, CRC officials were counting on getting the ROD by the end of 2011, which is crucial if the project is to reach its goal of breaking ground by late 2013.

Funding for the project remains uncertain due to financial constraints at both the state and federal level. The project is also still scrambling to find replacement revenue after outside consultants determined that the CRC's tolling plan was badly flawed. Among other things, the CRC's initial projections that tolling could raise more than $1 billion were based on inaccurate, inflated traffic projections.

State leaders cheered the new development. "The record of decision is the final step in a planning process that extends back to my first term as governor," said Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber. "It's time to move forward for the region and our state and on to what's needed to deliver a project we know will have far-reaching benefits."

"This decision moves us closer to fixing a significant economic bottleneck and getting people back to work," said Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire.

-- Jeff Manning
Related topics: columbia river crossing, crc money, john kitzhaber

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ng_gets_c.html

[Shilo Rune 96]

Columbia River Crossing officials suggest significant downsizing to trim $650 million from the controversial project
By Jeff Manning, The Oregonian

Recognizing the difficult economic times, officials of the Columbia River Crossing unveiled plans Thursday for a significantly downsized first-phase of the controversial bridge and freeway expansion that would pare the price tag by about $650 million.

In the face of mounting financial questions and public skepticism, the CRC said it was time for "a reality check."

By eliminating most planned improvements to the Marine Drive interchange and three interchanges in Vancouver, the CRC told an Oregon Legislative committee that it can cut the estimated cost of the project from $3.1 billion to $2.45 billion. Oregon's needed contribution to the project could be reduced as well from $450 million to $300 million.

The CRC leadership dropped the bombshell at a hearing of a joint CRC oversight committee of Oregon legislators.

More
The Oregonian’s continuing coverage of Columbia River Crossing"We hope you'll go forward with the $450 million and the full build," CRC lobbyist Patricia McCaig told the assembled committee. "But the reality is, we've clearly been directed by the Governor, the public and conversations with you to go for a smaller project. That's the reality of these times."


Read the full article here.

[cab]

So, the project was supposed to be for moving freight and they eliminate the only positive for freight movement, fixing Marine drive??? This project is BS right from the beginning. This was built on Clark County real estate bubble. It was a way to avoid the growth boundary in Oregon. Totally BS about Freight. If Freight was the issue, a separate freight only bypass bridge would have been on the table. It just awes me that this garbage might still get built.