A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
A supplemental I-5 bridge may be added to the Columbia River Crossing planning process as the result of a Tuesday evening vote.
The Columbia River Crossing Task Force voted to create a subcommittee to draft a supplemental bridge proposal for further consideration. If approved by the task force at its March meeting, the supplemental bridge proposal will join two large replacement bridge proposals in the federally-required Draft Environmental Impact Study process.
The supplemental bridge proposal was made by the elected Metro Council, the regional growth management agency that must approve all transportation projects in most of the tri-county area. The council forwarded the proposal to the task force because it wanted a wider range of options studied, including at least one that could less than a large replacement bridge, which is estimated at up to $6 billion, including a new transit line and related freeway interchange improvements.
The motion was made by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, who represents the regional agency on the task force. It was accepted after more than an hour of debate over whether it would extend the planning process past federal funding deadline. The task force required that all work on the proposal be completed within 30 days to keep the project on schedule.
Burkholder will chair the subcommittee, which includes public officials and business representatives from both states.
The project has been underway for approximately 10 years to reduce growing congestion over the Columbia River between Portland and Vancouver. A final decision on the solution is still approximately two years away.
The previous post fails to think forward. Light rail not only addresses current capacities, but is built to solve problems of the future. Rights of way (the land on which light rail is built) are so difficult to obtain, that when given a chance they should be built despite the high price tag. If it is agreed that population will not be shrinking in the future, then we must think of growth now. There is no possibility of new or additional freeways (and if there were they would cost much more than $3-6 billion). So, if you look to the future, then light rail is just smart thinking. What seems like a high price now is not going to seem so big 10, 20, 30 years from now. The bottom line here is that the I-5 bridge is a mess. Sometimes bighting the bullet is hard but necessary if you think smart.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:39 AM
JK,
You are failing to account for the incalculable value of being described as "the city that loves transit" (as the New York Times described Portland when the aerial tram opened) or "where the car is not king" (as the BBC described Portland last August).
Who cares if only 2.2 percent of travel in the Portland area uses transit? Who cares if that percentage has been declining in recent years because Tri-Met had to cut bus and rail service in order to pay for the shiny new light-rail lines that voters refused to pay for? Who cares if the percentage of downtown workers who ride transit to work has declined by more than 20 percent in the last five years?
What counts is image, not reality, when Portland politicians stand up with politicians from other cities. And isn't that image worth a billion dollars or so? Especially when it is someone else's money? (I mean someone other than the politicians.)
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:47 AM
So JK what is your idea to help ease congestion? More freeways? More lanes? Just look at Atlanta....WOW it really works:)
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:59 AM
You are failing to account for the incalculable value of being described as "the city that loves transit" (as the New York Times described Portland when the aerial tram opened) or "where the car is not king" (as the BBC described Portland last August).
They probably wouldn't have much value in Coos Bay - where I believe Mr. O'Toole currently lives. But for all the sarcasm, that image is an important driver of the regional economy. Portland is one of a handful of cities in the country that are attracting highly educated and creative 20-40 year olds. These are kids who have grown up in a technology infused culture and who are highly sought after by employers.
As a result, employers like Intel who rely on the best and brightest for their research operations continue to see Portland as an important location.
Its time for aging curmudgeons like us to notice that the world has changed. The key to Portland's continued economic viability has moved a long way from worrying about the sustainable supply of timber from public lands that people like O'Toole focused on when they were young. It has moved a long way from relying on its natural resources, rivers, port and highways as economic engines. The key to Portland's future is the human capital which its reputation, and reality, as a livable community attracts and keeps.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:44 AM
Max and bus lines can not now or in the future handle the kind of growth that is being talked about. 40% of the traffic coming from either south of Portland or North of Portland does not want to stop at or enter Portland. But they must because we make them do so.
The I5 bridges need replacement, they will only last so long and one of them was in place and used prior to I5 being created, tied in with Interstate and Union Avenues.
The fix for slowing down congestion is to get 6 Amtrak self propelled linkable rail cars that would use existing heavy rail line between Vancouver and Portland. Run them between 4am and 8am and 4pm and 8pm. This will remove four thousand cars and this is doable now, right now. It’s been done in the Midwest and east coast for 20 years now.
The longer fix is to create a bypass, either over land or under it that gets past both Vancouver and Portland and no on ramps, off would interface with 26 west or in going north 26 east. No way to get off the thing once you are on it. Congestion in Portland doing both of these would be aprox 50%. Could be done in a year but that would require round the clock construction and a real construction company like Peter Kiewit. In addition complete the on and off ramps on I5 that currently go nowhere at all.
Bike paths are a waste of time, money and space, North Portland has a few and I have yet to see a bike rider actually use them. Then do ride down the middle of the road blocking traffic though.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:03 AM
Who is the world is going to cross the Columbia on a bike?? Get real. MAX trains and bike paths are waste of money and a waste of space.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:22 AM
The bridge needs to go, we can all agree on that. But to not include MAX and pedestrian lanes would be shortsighted. True, the cost is high upfront but this does not include the additional benefits now and in the future that a top notch transit system provides.
The future of transit and living is not cars and suburbs, it is mass transit and urban living. This is not the 70's, the answer is not a mega-freeway with ever expanding suburbs. If you want more pollution, more freeways, and more suburbs there is a wonderful oasis in Southern California that is gladly awaiting you. This is a city of progress not regression.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:08 AM
We cannot afford to continue to support those who want to put more vehicles and resulting congestion into the I-5 corridor. It is not just a 3rd bridge and new multi-mode corridors but it is a combination of a new 3rd bridge, new corridors, expanded transit, light rail, new land use, TDM, addressing emission problems, addressing lack of freight mobility (you know that we need trucks to move if we want jobs), addressing all alternatives that get people and businesse to not have to use the I-5 corridor.
Just affordably expanding I-205 and making it the primary north/south interstate frieght corridor through our area and that move can bleed off up to 11% of the trucks/tractor and trailors in the I-5 corridor. If you make I-205 4-lanes for its full circumference (5-lanes where its 4-lanes now) from I-5 to I-5 and it will bleed of another 15% to 20% of the cars that would be on I-5 too.
We do not have to replace the I-5 Interstate Bridges with 6-lanes in each direction going into a 2 and 3-lane I-5 corridor. Some say that the new bridge is only going to have 3-through lanes, well so does the current I-5 bridges.
The big thing the CRC Task Force has been pushing is that the bridges will fall down in the next earth quake. Well 11-years ago we had the bridge painted and basically rebuilt. They had a very good and complete survey done of the bridge after the approximate $25M was spent on this rehab and they said that the bridges were in great shape and could have an additional maybe 50-years of service. Someone is lying to us now about these bridges or to say it more PC they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:47 AM
My, oh my! What a lot of myopic Utopians!
To I-5 bridge, or not to I-5 is NOT a local issue.
Like it or not, Portland sits astride THE major arterial trade route between Western Canada, the Puget Sound, the Asian Pacific Rim trading partner nations and the bulk of the western U.S. marketplace.
And, as such, it is rapidly becoming a globally despised chokepoint along that route.
While we peacock around our paddock, crowing about the livability of our fine little community, commercial traffic is being re-routed through less-obstructive locales.
Congratulatioins on planning the most-livable backwater around. I guess we'll all enjoy growing our own food, weaving our own clothing and making our sandals from the tires of abandoned cars and trucks.
Thanks for killing off the Regional economy through your provincial chauvinism. Those huge payrolls that filtered through every level (10x ?) of our local economy will be sorely missed by all.
Ironically, I find I'm grateful these kinds of decisions are already settled before they're ever brought out for the dog & pony show of public discussion. I guessing that the large-bridge plan is already set, otherwise, it wouldn't have been brought up without being soundly rejected. Since transportation and commerce are inextricably linked, I'm putting my mouth where the money is.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:16 AM
One of the more interesting points that was brought out at the Columbia River Crossing Task Force meeting was that the Federal Government is still paying 90% of Interstate Highway projects while usually covering only 60% of transit projects. The Feds will also help pay for infrastructure that is part of the Interstate system such as interchanges. This should help drive the decision for a supplemental bridge option.
Also at the meeting, Fred Hansen of TriMet spoke of building a new six through lane freeway bridge with high a high speed transit component, and using the existing bridges for local traffic, bike and pedestrians. That would mean the Feds would pay for 90% of the new highway lanes but only 60% of the transit portion of the new structure. The rest would require local match money. Funding for any upgrades or changes to the existing bridges was left somewhat up in the air.
A far better and less expensive but similar option would be a new full service six through lane freeway bridge that would eliminate some of the safety issues associated with freeway travel on the existing bridges, but with a combined highway and rail transit option using one lane in each direction on the existing bridges. The other two lanes in each direction on the existing bridges would be retained for slower speed local traffic, and for the SR14 and northbound I-5 interchanges to and from Hayden Island. The latter would keep federal funds flowing into the existing structures because the bridges would be become part of the I-5 northbound interchange to the Interstate system. Lastly, the existing pedestrian sidewalks could be widened similar to what was done on the Hawthorne Bridge.
The need for high speed transit on a structure that is 4400 feet long and would have station stops at both ends on Hayden Island and Vancouver should be questioned. In addition, by only adding a new six full service through lane freeway bridge, a bridge with no new freeway lanes added just moved, the foot print on the landscape, including the existing bridges, would be about the same as the staff proposed big new bridge.
From a regional financial stand point, and getting the most for the money the Federal Government can supply, the most prudent option the new subcommittee could propose would be to build a new freeway only bridge with the existing bridges used as part the Hayden Island Interchange and for local traffic, transit, pedestrians and bicycles.
What the region does not need from this new subcommittee is a yet another socially engineered pipe dream that targets motorists, and expects them to pay for infrastructure that subsidizes the other modes of transport. Such a move would not balance the benefits with the costs as it relates to who pays the bill. If the freeway lanes are tolled, so should the other modes of transport, each mode paying only for and in proportion of the cost of the infrastructure being used.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Cars are not going anywhere, so get used to roads and bridges being built to accompany the growth. To think otherwise is simply a hippie pipe dream at best.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:14 AM
The local jurisdictions are very worried about peeling off HRT/ ped bike lanes from the new bridge and placing them on another bridge (old or new)...as the fed's rules would make them operate and maintain them. Perhaps unfairly...but this is the model we have now. Perhaps our new local political strength can fix this (and other) transportation inequity in DC.
Remember that no regional or federal agency would build the first Interstate Bridge in 1915. Nor would private enterprise do it either...Sam Hill fought the local option to add a second level (wagon traffic) to the Columbia rail bridge in 1907 - back when there was the ferry. It took Vancouver and Multnomah County to bond it with tolls. They then talked the states into taking it over in the 1920's.
And for the earlier post that said no one bikes across the bridge...I challenge that statement. The number of bicyclists crossing this bridge is growing by about 50% a year...from about 30 to 60 to 120 per commute period over the last 3 years.
[The region's growth in bicycling is likley outstriping transit growth along key corridors: ~2000 bikes per day along Vancouver couplet (100% increase in a year), 12000 bikes crossing the city center bridges/ 6000 across the Hawthorne, etc.)]
This is even with a very poorly designed I-5 route and narrow (40 inches at its narrowest) and vertigo inspiring views from the bridge walkways. What drives this small number of commuters to cross this bridge by bike [during fair weather] is a mixture of traffic congestion, desire for health, avoidence of a split transit fare system without transfers (C-TRAN express fares $6 + Trimet fares), independence, bike travel time = local bus travel time, C-TRAN express buses stuck in grid lock, and the MAX now being a 10 minute bike ride from Vancouver's city center.
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM
As far as getting people out of their cars to ride the train, I just don't see that happening anytime soon in this region. I live in East County, max is a failure. It is also questionably safe, I've talked to many people who don't want their families to ride the max with all the drug addicts, etc. It takes me at least twice as long to get where I want to get, assuming where I want to go is on the max line. Why would I use it to waste time?
(email verified)
Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:58 PM
120 people a day cross the bridge on a bike? If it costs $125 million to build that bike lane, don't you think that's a poor return on investment?
(email verified)
Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 02:33 AM
I live in Vancouver, work in downtown Portland, and commute everyday on the Max. It takes me 20-35 min every day to get from the start of the I-5 backup to just get to the expo center. If the Max went to Vancouver I know I would be using it as well as several other people from Vancouver. The whole backup issue is because Metro will not pull there heads out of there rears and see that I-5 is just not able to handle the traffic. It doesn't help either that it goes down to 2 lanes of traffic. Something needs to be done. A bridge is not the only answer. We need more.
(email verified)
Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:30 AM
Browse archive
The Portland Tribune
News feed
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Our Portland website design and marketing company created custom websites for these top providers of Portland pest control services, Portland cleaning services and Portland florists.
Search engine marketing, website templates, portland web design and website promotion by Webfu // 503.381.5553
New down and fleece north face jackets. The largest selection of North Face Jackets available online. Free shipping on orders over $40.00
See the latest styles of ski jackets and backpacks from The North Face.
Bastyr University Open House, Spring 2010. Discover a career in natural health, Tour campus & clinic, meet faculty & students. Check the dates & RSVP >>
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Smaller I-5 bridge option moves forward
Interestingly, the bike/pedestrian part of the current proposal occupies about 1/8 of the total width, and if built to the same standards as the road, would account for 1/8 of the cost. 1/8 of one billion is about $125 million. For a bike lane! On that will carry maybe 200 pedestrian and 200 bikers per day!
And we must keep in mind Trimet’s statement that MAX carries the equivalent of only 1.2 lanes of traffic (trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf). When you discount this for the fact that 2/3, or more, of those MAX riders would be on a bus, if MAX had not been built, then discount for the average auto passenger loading , MAX turns out to carry about 1/3 of one lane of traffic. That is simply not worth $1-2 billion. It is time to admint that light rail costs too much and does too little.
See DebunkingPortland.com
Thanks
JK
"jim karlock"
(email verified)
Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:08 PM