BLOG: Third Columbia River Crossing Instead of Replacing I-5 Bridge?
Sam Adams
The I-5 bridge is a major lifeline for our community, linking Portland and Washington and carrying the freight, commuters, and traffic that support the economy and vitality of the region and the entire West Coast.
While it has served us well over 88 years, the bridge has been stretched far beyond capacity; the hours of stop-and-go traffic grow every year. Expected growth will only make congestion worse, causing longer and longer delays.
Transportation agencies in the bi-state region have joined together to lead development of an improved crossing. I represent the City of Portland on the steering committee for this project known as the Columbia River Crossing.
How hard should it be to simply replace the I-5 bridge?
Harder than it should be: The federal rules require a four-year-plus study of options. The in ital federal study criteria does not allow us to screen-out river crossing options based on cost. We will not see bridge design options of years... But staff on both sides of the Columbia River are working well together.
Last week, Clark County Commission Chair Marc Boldt, proposed the construction of a third
What do you think?
Posted by Sam Adams on February 22, 2006
(39) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
A third bridge is a very good idea, but a better idea would be to connect the two Ports and industrial areas with a truly dedicated freight corridor and let mass transit and commuters have their own space. We need to have PDOT, Metro, ODOT and Federal DOT get serious about our freight concerns and starts plans to build a freight corridor that would include a new bridge over the Willamette River and freight connection from beyond the Westside into the industrial areas. Let's look at the bigger safety picture and economical needs of each community and the whole of the NW. What would happen right now if we had a terrible chemical spill or a terrorist attack at the I5 bridge?
We keep trying to accomodate freight, commuters, mass transit, pedestrian and bicyclists all in the same corridors, fighting over rights and space, with the common comment "there is no funding to do it any other way." When will we realize that we need to start thinking different?
An alarmist or realist? Or perhaps in-between.
Posted by: Robin | Feb 22, 2006 12:51:08 PM
Sam,
There is a group that would like to see development of the corridor presently used by Amtrak and Union Pacific. They are proposing a bridge that could be used for all modes of transportation and would provide easy access to the Terminals near Kelly Point. They also suggest a second bridge linking N. Columbia Blvd. to Hwy 30 near Sauvies Island. The group is chaired by a realtor from St. Johns. I will try to find their info.
This route would make a great shortcut for freight and traffic headed from Washington to: St Johns, Hwy. 30, Northwest Portland, and even to Swan Island. And it would relieve traffic on the I-5. While it is true that the present I-5 bridge could have problems in a massive earthquake, that would be such a rare experience-- and perhaps someone will come up with a solution to that, in the meantime. (The counterweights are cited as a concern.)
I suppose people in Washington would become concerned with traffic being diverted off I-5 and the development of a new route, but most of the route is already there.
The rail corridor, which also crosses the Willamette, could provide, eventually, a route which would connect growing areas: NW Front Ave, U of Portland and West Vancouver. I believe Riverfront property, over the next few decades, will continue to climb sharply in value and will become prime for development.
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 22, 2006 1:00:52 PM
Sam,
I'd have to be mostly in agreement with ron swaren.
There are a few other concerns that I'd like to voice.
In this day and age there is this big push for cleaner transportation. The biggest problem is it is so easy for people to use their cars because most of the infrastructure and other costs are taken care of by taxes. Why are we even continuing to support this method of transportation so extensively if it is truly the problem it is.
I'd like to state that the fastest way now is to take the train between Union Station and Vancouver Station. NOTHING beats this route and it goes completely out of the way to get there. Of course - if someone is breaking the speed limit all bets are off - and maybe 30% of people are at or under 55mph on the interstate.
I would suggest the two best methods of transit to reinforce transit across the river would be to double the rail bridge. If done properly light rail, freight, passenger rail, and if enough $$ is available add tractor trailer only traffic in some lanes on the sides. This would be the most intelligent and environmentally sound method of crossing the river.
Needless to say if the rail bridges are increased we have many choices. If the road bridges are increased than all we have is more pollution, more traffic, and generally more people perturbed that all of a sudden instead of one main bridge being jammed packed there are two bridges that are jammed packed.
If the area (Portland, Vancouver, etc.) is serious about environmental concerns, and truly moving a LOT of people across the bridge, then adding roadways is out period. There has to be cleaner and better choices to be made.
Posted by: adron | Feb 22, 2006 1:13:49 PM
Sam,
some basic data from the Governors' I-5 Task Force...
1. 1/3 to 1/2 of the traffic on I-5 is local...it should be on an arterial bridge, not on a freeway. We need a "Broadway Bridge."
2. 1/2 of all congestion is due to incidents, so we should do a lot better job in managing the lanes we have.
3. 1/10 of the peak hour traffic is freight on I-5...the rest is commuter traffic. We need to key on options for those trips that can shift mode...transit, rideshare, etc.
4. The four additional lanes recommended by the TF, has the potential to bring 40K more vehicles per day into Portland's existing arterial and freeway network...a recipe for disaster.
The I-5 Task Force on an 11-11 vote, did NOT put a "6-2-2" option into its recommendation for a DEIS. I think it is in there anyway, but it calls for retaining the existing freeway (6) and adding two 2-lane arterial bridges (2-2). A two lane arterial bridge with lightrail and bike/ped facilities would be adjacent to the existing bridges, and a two lane arterial bridge would be adjacent to or part of an expanded heavy rail bridge to the west. Some on/off ramps could be closed on I-5 to improve its functionality and local traffic would not even need to use the freeway, but could chose one of the other two bridges.
The 6-2-2 option spreads the 40K vehicles around rather than dumping them all onto I-5 in North Portland. These two bridges could be built sequentially, would not shut down the existing roadway, and could bring high capacity transit to many points not now served by C-Tran express buses to Downtown.
Another way to get arterial capacity and lightrail into the mix from the get go, is to put through freeway traffic, 4 or maybe 6 lanes, in a tunnel between Columbia Blvd and Mill Plain, and convert the existing bridges to arterial bridges with lightrail...two lanes each way with the third for MAX.
Tear out the existing freeway between Columbia and Mill Plain and replace it with boulevard like arterials, and redevelop the adjacent property on both sides of the river. Downtown Vancouver could reconnect with the Historic Reserve, and valuable property on the Oregon side...Portland Meadows, Bridgeton, etc. could be redeveloped and land now under I-5 returned to the tax rolls.
Tunnels are expensive, but tolls can raise a lot of money and the existing freeway sits on a lot of valuable land.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Feb 22, 2006 2:11:26 PM
I am very much for a new bridge at the RR Columbia and Willamette crossings instead of completely rebuilding the I-5 bridge for several reasons. I would stress the importance of 2 heavy rail, 2 light rail and 2 North/2 South truck only lanes connecting I-5 through Western Vancouver over to Hayden Island and North Portland to US 30 in Northwest. This setup would allow for a major bypass for truck traffic connecting most of the major port and industrial areas of Portland regardless of traffic conditions elsewhere. The rail parts would allow an extention of LRT across the Columbia from its current terminus, and upgrade the heavy rail lines for freight, high-speed rail and possibly commuter rail to Vancouver, Camas and Battle Ground. The existing bridge, hopefully, can be retrofitted for earthquake safety. A reorganization of the off and onramps to Jantzen Beach will greatly help the traffic congestion there.
Posted by: NJD | Feb 22, 2006 3:52:32 PM
I think simply, with just these few comments. It's obvious what everyone wants and what NEEDS to be built. Now it's just a matter of the hard part, getting it done. I'm sure Portland has another 2-10 years of figuring out how to do this but at least it seems people here tend to know what SHOULD be built.
Posted by: adron | Feb 22, 2006 5:51:19 PM
Are you asking the transportation/freight companies directly? Take for instance the scales that trucks must stop at to weigh their load. in recent years they have developed a way for the trucking companies to pay for some sort of device that allows the scales to weigh their load as they pass through on the highway rather than stopping at the scales. Some of the large trucking companies got on board and paid the fees for this technology because in the long run they save time, gase and money by not having to slow down, and be congested at the scales, have their load weighed and then bring their truck up to speed.
Weird example I know. My point is perhaps having a discussion with some of these private companies. They have a vested interest in moving their good quickly as well. There may be some options that can be financed with private money vs. more tax payer dollars.
Posted by: Patrick | Feb 22, 2006 9:54:18 PM
No More Light Rail. The only people who want it only want it because they hope other people will use it!
An idea I have had for years:
*The current I-5 should be 3 lanes in each direction. This should not be studied, it should be done.
*A new alignment of I-5 should be built between US-30 and vancouver along the current heavy rail lines.
*I-405 and US-30 should be upgraded and/or modified to accomidate this change including interchanges.
*The new I-5 should be AT LEAST 4 general purpose lanes in each direction, even through downtown.
*Express busses and HOV lanes should be the transit option, not light rail.
*The most expensive area of this project would be a new bridge over both rivers. A toll could pay for this.
*The second most expensive area would be widening through downtown and re-routing the interchanges. This could be paid for by the same urban renewal that brought us the street car, tram, and MAX. This would also be an oppertunity to "cap" much of the freeway and sell the overpass rights.
*The "old" I-5 could be re-signed as "SR-99" and be a historic route or something of that nature.
I know the enviromental-whackos would never have it but cars are here to stay and its time you guys do something to help us.
Posted by: Anthony | Feb 22, 2006 11:06:05 PM
Having attended the majority of the public forums and hearings related to the I-5 partnership process, it appears to me the need for additional Columbia crossing lanes is a local access need, and not an I-5 freeway need. When the Delta Park widening process is done, there will be three lanes in each direction from the Fremont Bridge area to north of the City of Vancouver. To have the highest potential of vehicle capacity, none of these lanes should be restricted as HOV lanes. With just three lanes at either end, only the three lanes that currently exist in each direction are needed to carry I-5 through traffic. Furthermore, over the years development has taken place on both sides of the twin bridges that is right up next to the freeway. Some of these properties would have to be bought out if a new bridge replaces what is currently there. Therefore, I agree with the concept of building an additional bridge or bridges for local traffic that would connect Vancouver and Hayden Island with Columbia Boulevard. Having that bridge located just west of the current railroad bridge also seems to make good sense.
It also seems to me the expense of a third bridge would be far less than replacing the existing I-5 bridges. As for funding, the cost must be spread out and charged to all users, that being transit users, bicyclists with a tax or toll and freight, not just personal cars and trucks and/or gas taxes from the same.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Feb 22, 2006 11:10:08 PM
Mr. Commissioner,
I have spoken at two of the CRC Meetings and written in the Portland Tribune (Now is the Time to Think Big). I recommended to an CRC engineer at the Jantzen Beach Mall Open House a configuration to support safety, Light Rail, Local traffic, High Speed Rail, and bikes.
First is to build a suspension bridge just East of the current dual bridges with a center tower located on Hayden Island with a possible observation deck that could help with bridge maintenance. One smaller tower is located just off shore from Washington and low enough to allow continued operations at Pearson Airpark. The second smaller tower is located just South of the Columbia Channel shoreline. Keep the lane count at six lanes but build the deck out for future possible expansion to eight lanes. No access to Hayden Island would be from the new bridge.
The main advantage to the suspension bridge is the opening of the land under the bridge at both sides of the main channel. The second advantage for the suspension bridge is architecturally, we would have a structure that said "Thats Portland!" or "Thats Ecotopia!" And billing the bridges as the Gateway to Ecotopia would work and work well if the Three Bridge Configuration included the following modes of transport.
The current bridge over the Columbia Channel would be retained for Oregon access to Hayden Island for auto/freight, bikes, and High Speed Rail. Light Right would have to be follow a separate bridge to the West since the MAX stop at the Expo Center is too far West and North to have a straight run at the current Channel bridge.
The two current Columbia River crossings can be used for local access to Hayden Island from Washington state; for bike and foot traffic; for Light Rail; and for a High Speed Rail corridor. New larger spans using half the pilings creates more safe routes for barges and pleasure craft. Light Rail (two tracks) and High Speed Rail (one track) could be on the current East Span. Four lanes of local traffic and one path on the West side would be designed for the current West Span. High Speed Rail is then separated physically from foot traffic by four lanes of traffic; being on a separate bridge; and then two Light Rail tracks.
All bridges over the Columbia River (I205 Bridge, new Hayden Island Bridge, new I5 Suspension Bridge) would be tolled to help pay for the new bridge construction. If a third bridge is supported, it should be for very restricted access from US26 in Washington County up to the I5/I205 Interchange or a bridge from the Camas area to the Troutdale area. I would say this bridge alignment would be only after improvements at I5 and a Western Bypass are done first.
High Speed Rail is my real hope for the CRC because we need to consider the Portland/Vancouver area the bottleneck for true High Speed Rail down the road. Moving our main transit center to the East Side of the Willamette River makes so much sense. It eliminates the need to cross two bridges. Getting through Portland/Vancouver in 10 minutes compared to 45 minutes would make High Speed Rail more attractive to commuters and tourists.
I call the new transit center the "Trails End Transit Station". I would locate it where the current I5/I84 Interchange is now located. Placing I5 underground or below grade from the West side through the Eastside along the 8th/10th alignment and continuing through tunnels under the Lloyd District is aligned perfectly to I5 just North of the Rose Quarter (check it out on a map).
All these changes are long term BUT require a major commitment now at the Columbia River Crossing for all modes of modern and future transportation. With Peak Oil and its ramifications being acknowledged in our local decisions, we can plan and act in everyones best interest.
Are we Ecotopia or not? Do we want good jobs, good transportation options; and a clean environment in the 21st and 22nd Century or not?
Ray Whitford
Posted by: Ray Whitford | Feb 22, 2006 11:25:25 PM
Terry Parker: I think that is a good, fair and logical idea to have all users pay to cross the bridge including pedestrians, bikes and transit users. A little toll booth for bikes and pedestrians and a surcharge added on transit tickets crossing the bridge that goes to pay a share of the bridge (BART in SF has a surcharge, I believe of 66 cents/one way, added onto the fare of all passengers going thru the Transbay Tube as did the predessor Key System trains running over the Bay Bridge).
I would advocate light rail going as far as downtown Vancouver, I dont think a Vancouver LRT loop is necessary. A well built downtown Vancouver C-Trans transit center could allow a good transfer to downtown Portland via light rail yet the C-trans transit center would also allow a good vancouver oriented bus system to function independently of LRT.
Posted by: J | Feb 23, 2006 9:40:36 AM
An opportunity has been placed before the stakeholders of the Bi-State transportation corridors to pragmatically evaluate what is best for our region. A key word is the need to everyone to put on thier pragmatic and common sense hat. I think what Clark Commissioner Marc Boldt was telling us is that the I-5 corridor through Portland is broke. That piece meal investments like replacing the Interstate Bridges does not solve inherent and planned congestion that exists in the I-5 corridor. The I-5 corridor through portland is a mix of 2 and 3-lane capabilities which dictates the amount of capacity it is capable of acheiving. This has resulting in levels of congestion that has created the highest levels emissions associated with the I-5 corridor for any place in the State of Oregon. It has resulted in people getting caught in congestion with no way out. This has resulted in freight mobility brought to a level where businesses and jobs will be forced to leve this state. If we were to build a new wide replacement Interstate Bridge it would bring more vehciles into this terrible congestion and only make it worse. That is just common sense. What Commissioner Boldt is telling us is that we must find a way to get people, cars, buses and trucks out of the corridor. We cannot continue to try to put more pressure on a corridor that probably cannot get fixed. To remake the I-5 corridor to where it works it could take $6 to $8-Billion Dollars and there would still be NO guarantees that they can make it happen. What Commissioner Boldt is tell us is that we have to stop killing the people and business that depend on our transportation system. On the Washington side of the river has ponied up more then their share of money to try to find solutions to this problem found mostly in Oregon. I applaude City Commissioner Sam Adams for being the first pragmatic politician in Oregon to say just a moment Commissioner Boldt from Clark County Washington maybe right. Simply this recommendation that we need a new 3rd bridge and corridor is Right-On. It has the potential to re-direct 75% of the trucks off of I-5. It would completely eliminate truck traffic out of the St. Johns Town Center and save the Historic St. Johns Bridge. This is the only proposal will reduce the emission that are silently killing people in north Portland and St. Johns. It is the proposal that has the greatest opportunity to spur economic development and the creation of new family wage jobs. This opens up the Rivergate industrial areas and put the jobs and deevelopment where it should be. It opens up the Port-of-Portland and the Port-of-Vancouver equally and that makes this equally important to both sides of the river. This brings together partners where if this bridge also replaces the old and limited capacity railroad bridge new and critically needed capacity can be added to our heavy, commuter and light rail needs. On the same deck of this new bridge that crosses the Columbia River there would be the ability to put a light rail extension into Clark County. This prevent extending light rail through and displacing families and businesses on Hayden Island/Janzen Beach. All they have to do is loop Light Rail to the left of the EXPO Center around to this new bridge and do approximately the same thing in Vancouver. It is common sense because it displaces the least amount of land, families and businesses. This imporvement to rail capacity is a big thing and helps all facities of the Bi-State communities. Both of the Ports have told us that this is critical to them. Having the option of putting commuter rail across the Columbia River could be equally as important as putting Light Rail into Vancouver. This new 3rd Bridge and corridor maybe the best chance of making that happen. On the top of this new 3rd Bridge that replaces the current Rail Bridge would be this deck that is far enough away from the Portland Internation and Pearson Airports to where it can be built with less problems then being right in their paths. Again it is smarter to move this bridge way these problems that restrict what we can do and what it will cost to mitigate these problems. This upper deck of the bridge that would cross the Columbia River would have "Freight Specific Lanes". These lanes are important to the big picture. We need to get these trucks out of and off the I-5 corridor. We can do this by creating an unobstructed corridor that caditors to their needs. This will create an economic boom on both sides of the river. That means jobs, taxes and a better quality of life for a lot of people. Most people envision that on the top deck of this bridge we will also have capabilities for rapid high capacity transit like rubber tired buses that would allow people and workers to get to their jobs. There buy-in to this with all of the other constituencies dramitically opens the door of the partners that directly benefit from this new 3rd bridge and corridor. Just to give you an example of what happens is that this new bridge also solves current navigation problems for river freight and river safety in the Columbia River. What does this mean and that is that they would want to become partner is this project too. So Clark County is telling that they want to become partner in a new 3rd Bridge and corridor and that is to represent the people getting caught in this terrible I-5 congestion. With their entry into this plan and project they will be asking for communter capacity on this deck for the people as an option to where many communters would not have to get into the mess of congestion in the I-5 corridor. With all of the natural constituencies that would become partners in a new 3rd bridge and corridor to burden on all of the stakeholder that live in Oregon and Washington that have to use the I-5 corridor and to commute back and forth across the Columbia Rivers a new Bridge and corridor can be built in less time and less dollars with continigencies and actually solve a problem.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | Feb 23, 2006 10:46:01 AM
Is a New Freeway Bridge Across the Columbia River Needed?
The conventional wisdom is that a new $billion-plus eight to ten lane freeway bridge is needed to fix congestion problems on the Columbia River crossing.
Is this assumption valid?
The existing bridge, which is actually two parallel bridges, has six lanes but only four of them function as through lanes. The two outside lanes function as merge lanes from the on-ramps located at each end of the bridge. If these on-ramps were relocated away from the bridge area, the existing lanes on the bridge would accommodate all of I-5’s through traffic.
Building multi-modal bridges across the Columbia River and the Portland Harbor, immediately downstream from the existing freeway, should be considered first. The bridges should be wide enough for two to four lanes of local traffic, light rail, a southbound freeway auxiliary lane, bicycles and sidewalks.
This option would accommodate local traffic and many commuters now on
I-5. It would negate the need for a wider freeway bridge and should be analyzed before huge expenditures of up to $80 million are incurred studying a multitude of freeway bridge options. Furthermore, this proposal would provide non-freeway access to Hayden Island.
The southbound on-ramp from SR14 and downtown Vancouver could be relocated to Hayden Island by providing a connecting lane on the new Columbia River Multi-modal Bridge.
The need for a northbound Hayden Island on-ramp would be eliminated because this access is provided at the existing Marine Drive Interchange. By converting the bike/pedestrian lane on the existing Portland Harbor Bridge to another northbound lane, the current on-ramp bottleneck would be averted. Bikes and pedestrians would be accommodated on the new Portland Harbor Multi-modal Bridge.
Barge navigation would be easier and safer if the main river channel were shifted to the south under the existing long spans and the lift spans were decommissioned. This aligns with the proposed wider lift span that would replace the narrow unsafe swing span on the Railroad Bridge. I suspect that the Federal Government might now be more amenable to improving unsafe infrastructure.
In the future, multi-modal bridges for motor freight and passenger rail over the Columbia River and the Portland Harbor adjacent to the Railroad Bridge should also be considered. A crossing in this corridor would greatly reduce truck traffic on I-5 and provide access to West Hayden Island. A separate passenger rail bridge would remove Amtrak trains from the freight traffic in this congested rail corridor. It would expedite development of a commuter rail system between Clark County and Portland, further reducing peak demand on I-5.
Instead of a massive freeway project, this comprehensive approach for the Columbia River Crossing could save hundreds of millions of dollars. This option would avoid years of construction headaches, ensure better local and freight access and enhance freight rail operation. It would provide the infrastructure necessary for effective and efficient public transportation, while maintaining I-5 as a six- lane freeway.
Posted by: Jim Howell | Feb 23, 2006 12:00:27 PM
Some data that is missing...
The I-5 Task Force never saw any data about freight movement over the Interstate Bridge...how much, where it is coming from, going to, local, through, etc. The only piece of data we got was that its about 10% in the peaks...most of the congestion is commuters getting to jobs in Portland.
The Port of Portland T-6 may be seeing an additional shipping line or two, but it just isn't that big a deal, so what is all this need for freight movement between the two Ports?
The existing rail bridge (BNSF/UPRR) is, according to a very thorough study done for the TF, not the source of rail congestion; the pinch points are elsewhere and do not require more capacity. Someday another track would be nice for passenger rail, but its not urgent.
The simple fact is that ODOT never built a freeway across the Columbia. They built the 2nd bridge, co-opted the original arterial bridge and called it a freeway. This substandard stretch has too many on and off ramps and must accommodate local trips as well as longer "freeway" trips.
We need an arterial bridge for local trips with transportation options to further reduce freeway demand...lightrail, bike/ped facility.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Feb 23, 2006 1:51:59 PM
Lenny,
The purpose of a bridge along the West Arterial Route is not just for "the movement of freight between the two Ports." It to provide a shorter connection to other routes and points in the North and Northwest districts and at the same time alleviate a fair amount of traffic from the I-5. From the posts I have seen above it seems that this idea has fairly broad support, although I am sure the details, especially in Vancouver, will require a lot of public input. Many people feel that if traffic can be reduced on the I-5 by a combination of strategies,which would in themselves be useful, rebuilding those bridges would not be required.
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 24, 2006 9:05:37 AM
With leadership coming from City Commissioner Sam Adams and Clark County Commission Chair Marc Boldt and concerned citizens from both sides of the Columbia River we may have a chance to solve the problems of the I-5 corridor that may not otherwise happen. Currently a Task Force is spending approximately $1.4 Million Dollars per month to design, engineer and sell bridge (I also know of a Brooklyn Bridge that is For Sale too) the need to just replace the Interstate Bridge. To some they tell people that it is going to fall down. However a few years ago before they put $22 Million into painting it they found it to be as good or better then most bridges in Oregon. Now out of the other side of their mouths they are now telling us that it will fall down. The fact is that they have not done a detailed seismic analysis of the bridges and that other bridges in the I-5 corridor maybe even worse like the Marquam Bridge. It is all just speculation and hype to sell the replacing the Interstate Bridges. We need less selling and more real problem solving coming out of this $1.4 Million Dollars per month that could well be more wheel spinning of tax-payer money.
I have been told by the Co-Project Director of the CRC Task Force that they are not going to look at or examine a 3rd bridge and corridor. They are not going to provide reasonable analysis if a 3rd Bridge and corridor is a better option and real solution to solving the problems that create the congestion that is killing the people, businesses and stakeholders in the I-5 Corridor. It may be time for all of us to pull the plug on this hemorrhaging of money on a I-5 replacement of the Interstate Bridge that probably will not get built. I for one want to investment our money into projects and solutions that truely solve the problems that this planned congestion is having on everyone of us. Now is the time to tell this CRC Task Force to look at an effort that equally expend the same energy and money on the other options or that they face getting shut down right now, immediately.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | Feb 24, 2006 9:34:04 AM
The problem may be that the DOTs...WSDOT and ODOT...are in the business of building interstate freeway type projects, not arterial/rail projects.
It was reported to the I-5 TF that a 8-2 solution worked very well...that's a new 8 lane freeway bridge and a 2 lane arterial bridge. This fueled the TF's interest in the 6-2-2 option which saves the cost of a new freeway bridge all together. see above.
But the DOTs really want to do their thing and the $ is mostly federal which probably does not pay for non-freeway projects between states.
Hence, my tunnel suggestion. (see above) Let them build a big bi-state roadway under the river and then just give us back the old bridges for arterial and lightrail. The original Interstate Bridge had tracks for the Vancouver line. Back to the future.
Unless the leadership for this project is taken over by Clark county & Metro or the Cities of Vancouver & Portland, I think it will be hard to get any option other than a big freeway crossing funded and built. Maybe No Build is the best option in the end.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Feb 24, 2006 11:26:03 AM
Lanny maybe right we need to turn this over to Clark County and Metro because these are the two planning entities. I think that we also need to get the Ports and the railroads into this picture ASAP. The CRC Task Force has been at this for 18 months and now has approximately 50 staff and are churning approximately $1.4M a month. When asked if they had plans of this new bridge they said NO. That means to me that maybe its time to shut off the money, we need results and a fair treatment to solving a serious problem that is not going to go away and that is congestion in the I-5 Corridor. If they do not want or can't address this problem shut it down.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | Feb 24, 2006 12:02:05 PM
I like Lenny's suggestion! Tunnels. No one has been even willing to consider tunnelling. There is good rock below the Columbia. But the discussion has been all about bridges from the beginning. How do you pay for the tunnelwork? One way is to restore property above the tunnels to the tax rolls. Tolls of course. Also private-public partnership on construction, ala Bechtel and others.
The comments pinpointing the traffic bottlenecks are right on. They aren't all at the Columbia bridges. How about the I-5/I-84 intertie? What a mess.
Posted by: fenian | Feb 24, 2006 12:04:54 PM
Re: I-5 bottlenecks:
It doesn't take a great deal of reduction in traffic load to eliminate a bottleneck. There is a "tipping point" at which traffic goes from moderately reduced speed, (due to heavy traffic) to congestion.
I think the congestion on the present I-5 Columbia crossing can be reduced enough that remaining traffic moves at a reasonable pace. Eliminating big trucks that need to get to Terminals 5 and 6 or to Linnton, Scapoose and St. Helens, plus private cars to the same, and providing some express bus sevice (or other transit)that people in Vancouver would actually want to use would help a lot. The interchange is another story; and it may never change.
I understand that there are some regions of the nation that actually have some very nice commuter buses. Why not have something with air conditioning, sound proofing and plush seats if it will get people out of their cars? Here is an example from Winnipeg: http://www.beaverbus.com/
Also, is there any reason why park and ride stations cannot have decent waiting areas? The commuter ferries in Puget Sound have them--who wants to wait in the rain or wait in your car and possibly miss the departure? When one considers the monthly parking fees and other costs it should not be too hard to lure people out of their cars--but I can understand why many people would look askance at the typical city bus.
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 24, 2006 12:50:52 PM
At first, a third bridge might sound like a good idea...but let's see... how would people and trucks get to and from that bridge? Just taking freight from one port to another doesn't seem to accomplish much. If that's all that's needed, why not just put it on a barge. So, to make a third bridge really work it would need to be connected to a major highway and, if we expect it to take traffic off of I-5, then it should have both a northern and a southern connection to I-5. Where would these connections be routed? At a minimum, each connecting roadway would have to be a mile or two long. How much land would they take, how many homes and businesses would they displace, how much would it cost just to build these connecting roadways? A third bridge doesn't really work without these connections and this discussion is not complete without considering how this bridge would connect to the existing highway system.
Posted by: Dan | Feb 24, 2006 3:13:15 PM
Dan,
To try to answer your questions on how a new 3rd Bridge and corridor is going to work I guess from what you said you are wondering how it is going to connect to I-5. I personally do not have all of the knowledge but let me try. We do not have make this bridge the catch all to the problem. I have seen what they call orgination and destination reports of truck traffic in the I-5 corridor. A lot of traffic stays very close within the industrial areas. Some of the truck traffic is considered through traffic. A big issue is that these trucks with trailors take the space of a lot of vehicles. If they are caught up in grid lock congestion like we know exists in the I-5 corridor for about 6-hours per day, this cost has to be past on in more expensive products and services or these businesses move away to places where they do not face this congestion. Approximately 60% of the truck traffic in the I-5 corridor could easily get redirected to this new bridge and corridor. Maybe 50% of this truck traffic would have no need to get on to the I-5 corridor. This is a big deal because this can mean a 40% reduction in congestion right there. A lot of the local truck traffic is prime time or just-in-time traffic. Some of this triffic is referred as LTL or Less then a Truck load friehgt movement. These are the trucks that delivery goods that mean jobs in all sectors of employment. Many of us see in addition to this 3rd bridge a place where a I-205 is widened out where it has 4-lanes minimum in each direct for its full circumference. It would become the primary north/south truck corridor for through truck traffic. This approach will redirect another 10 to 12% of the truck off of and out of the I-5 corridor. Widening I-205 is real smart money because but not the total solution to I-5. It is like putting light rail into Vancouver. You know in the long run it will help but initially it might eliminate only 1 to 2% of the vehicles out of the I-5 corridor. On the north end in Vancouver the Port-of-Vancouver and the City of Vancouver are trying to develop some new ways to move trucks out of the Port. They re-built Mill Plain and put a lot of stop light and intersections in this path to where it truly does not work at an adequate level to meet its needs now and in the future. So they have come up with an idea to develop a new 26th Street that circles around Fruit Valley and Fruit Valley Road. This will allow trucks heading north to bypass Mill Plain and find alternate routes out to I-5 like 78th or 99th both of which are not optimum. But with increased traffic there is NO way that Mill Plain will meet the now and in the future. So what choice do they have? One choice is to take the north half of Mill Plain and trench it down like I-5 is as it cut through north Portland and make this a 4-lane through route from the Port all the way to I-5. The other one-way street becomes the local two-way street. Makes sense to me but I am not a P.E. or a certified transportation planner, I am just a citizen with with some common sense. What people have told me about what this 3rd Bridge and corridor could be is a corridor that connects up a back door to Hayden Island and Janzen Beech. Remember on the bottom deck is Light Rail, Communter Rail and double the current Heavy Rail. This capability also would connect to Hayden Island and Janzen Beech. It would cross that portion of Columbia Rvier that loops Hayden Island with connections to the Rivergate rail and Marine Drive. Then it follows the BNSF tracks and Portland Street to Columbia Blvd. This route takes NO significant properties and/or does not negatively affect many businesses when compared to what happens with replacing the Interstate Bridges. One proposal calls for this route to follow an imporved Columbia Blvd at this juncture to where it connects to the main route south out of Rivergate where a new bridge would be built that crosses the Willamette River to connect to highway 30 that connects to I-405. 90% of any vehicles taking this route will not work their way to I-405. Another choice is where this dorridor more closely follows the BNSF rail lines straight side by side or on top of these tracks through the cut (They go under Lombard) with a new combination rail and vehicle that crosses to highway 30 at that point. There is a reason to believe that with this new 3rd Bridge and corridor congestion can be eliminated to such a degree that with reasonable improvements/investments (Tunning) to the I-5 corridor emission levels can be reduced without replacing the Interstate Bridges and placing regressive tolls on both the I-5 and I-205 bridge to pay for this replacement effort.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | Feb 24, 2006 9:21:35 PM
It’s the Economy sweetie, it always has been, it always is, and always shall be. When there is food on the table there is more peace on the planet.
Good morning,
The conversation is about our transportation corridors, there strategic location, accessibility, and capacity. Transportation corridors are not about the vehicles that currently use them but safety, reliability and freedom of movement. The lovely lady that walked American explores out here used Native American Transportation Corridors. Walking out here the vehicle was the body, then horse, wagon, steam engine, automobiles, trucks and next. If for the last 30 years we had been focusing on our corridors and not on what vehicle use them, we would not be in traffic jam now. It is, not being able to see the forest, because of the trees illness that grips us. Wake up, step back and smell the coffee. Even if we all rode bikes, I would need a wagon, it takes up room, and we would still have congestion from not enough capacity. Transportation corridors strategically located helps the traffic flow and keeps the pollution down. Our freeways have been turned into parking lots and our neighborhood streets into freeways. It is unrealistic to think you can stop growth. Being green in does not mean being immature.
We have less bridges between Vancouver and Portland than another other cities of similar size in the United States. If we built two additional bridges we would be tied for last place for number of bridges for cities of similar size. The I-5 corridor in this area has been continually studied since 1977. It is a lack of understanding about what transportation corridors are and what they are needed for that has people confused. It is not about in what we move, it is that we can and must move.
The transportation is freight, truck, commerce, customers, commuters and lookey lou’s.
Because of our abundant resource in Portland, we have not had to pick an economy and invest in it. When settlers came here this area had been a trade center for centuries. The settlers traded fur, trees, and salmon they lived off of what was already here. Now we need to pick our economy, tilting the ground, sowing the seed, and weeding the garden to have a harvest. It’s a blessing to choose transportation a friendly economy not coal or strip mining, or other unpleasant and hazardous work.
Trade and transportation is renewable, unlimited, and environmentally friendly. It currently provides approximately 30% family wage jobs with benefits. Location, location, location Canada to the north, California, Mexico, South America to the south, United State to the east and the world to our west. These countries continually producing, consuming and Portland in the middle of these markets, making money on all sides of the transaction as goods flow through our area.
Freedom of movement creates tolerant, diversity, knowledge, compassion, and wealth.
Vehicles are large part of a healthy economy. It is how they are propelled through space that causes the problem. It is appalling that we burn fossil fuel to propel our selves though space ruining our environment. Fossil fuel can make a heart valve, how wasteful we are with it.
If for the last 30 years we had been working alternative fuels source we would be independent today. As for hatred of cars nothing good ever comes from hate. However love of travel has taken us to the moon.
Sharon Nasset please visit www.newinterstatebridge.com Let’s talk about the economy and how we build a 21st century world-class transportation economy. Portland has the ability to attract enough trade and transportation to put food on every table in Oregon.
Ps. Thank you for the Phone calls to tell me about this conversation, Hard to believe I've been working on this for over 5 years.
Posted by: sharon nasset | Feb 25, 2006 3:14:43 PM
Lenny, A tunnel for I-5 is great idea except that it would cost billions and take decades to finance and build. The following plan would be in the sub-billion dollar range and could be started within five years.
A Low Cost Solution for the Columbia River Crossing
The existing bridge is actually two parallel bridges. It has six lanes but only four of them function as through lanes. The two outside lanes function as merge lanes from the on-ramps that are located at each end of the bridge. If these on-ramps were relocated away from the bridge area, the existing lanes on the bridge could accommodate all six lanes of freeway through traffic.
A multi-modal bridge across the Columbia River, adjacent and downstream from the existing freeway bridges, should be constructed. It should be wide enough for two to four lanes of local traffic, light rail, a southbound freeway auxiliary lane, bicycles and sidewalks, and it should be high enough to clear river traffic without a lift span.
The southbound on-ramp from SR14 and downtown Vancouver now occupies the outside lane of the existing bridge. This on-ramp could be aligned onto the new bridge and connect to the main stem of the freeway on Hayden Island.
The northbound Hayden Island on-ramp could be moved south and combined with the existing northbound on-ramp from Marine Drive. This frees the northbound outside lane for through traffic.
The Hayden Island southbound on-ramp and northbound off-ramp would be moved north to Hayden Drive for longer access and exiting distances.
To accommodate the high traffic load on the northbound Marine Drive on-ramp, an additional merge lane could be obtained by using the existing bicycle and pedestrian lane on the I-5 Portland Harbor Bridge. Bikes and pedestrians could then be accommodated on a new Portland Harbor Bridge needed for local traffic and the extension of the Yellow Line.
An arterial road connection between North Portland and Hayden Island could then be established by connecting this bridge to Marine Drive, Marine Drive to Expo Road and Expo Road to Denver Avenue.
The lift spans on the Columbia River Bridges could be decommissioned and the freeway grades and sight lines improved if the trusses were raised to accommodate current commercial river traffic. In the 1950’s, when the second bridge was constructed, the original bridge was raised to match the new one with a hump for the passage of smaller river craft without raising the lift span. Barge traffic now uses this hump whenever possible but, if it were raised and widened as suggested here, the lift span would not be needed.
This project could be carried out in phases, with the first phase constructed within the next five years. The Portland Harbor Bridge should be built first. It would provide an arterial road and light rail access to Hayden Island, both of which will reduce congestion on I-5. This phase would probably cost no more than the current ongoing study.
Posted by: Jim Howell | Feb 27, 2006 7:37:17 AM
A question:
Could trucks just going through Portland-Vancouver (and not stopping) be somehow required to use I-205?
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 27, 2006 10:39:10 AM
Ron, it would be worthwhile to know how many trucks could use I-205 that are now on I-5. But I've yet to see or hear of any freight data. Before any decisions are made, the CRC group should demand real data on freight and other non-descretionary trips in the I-5 Corridor. As Sam knows, the Governors' TF never saw any.
Jim, yes a tunnel would cost a lot, but at $5 per round trip (collected one way only as per the GG Bridge), the funds would roll in. Again, with the DOTs driving this, they need to recommend a "freeway" solution. I think it would be easier to build a tunnel than to wrest this process from their control and have Metro/Clark build the arterial bridge that the data calls for.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Feb 27, 2006 11:47:32 AM
Re: tunnels
I am of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school. The problem is not an "outdated" I-5 bridge; after all, how old is the Golden Gate Bridge? The problem is too much traffic, so send it elsewhere! That way two problems are solved, for the cost of one (or less).
Swan Island could easily be served by the third corridor plan. I see there is presently a Union Pacific line going below the bluff on which U of Portland sits. If it was impossible to build a two lane truck route above this, then, maybe, a tunnel under North Portland would be needed. This could surface to the West Arterial Route near Columbia Bv. But only as a last resort. Another tunnel route? Yes, perhaps in Vancouver--to keep the increased traffic from spoiling their urban renewal efforts, which inevitably would proximate any route from Hazel Dell to Rivergate; maybe something like Vera Katz's "cover I-405" plan. But I don't think it would be fair to charge a toll.
Posted by: ron swaren | Feb 27, 2006 1:05:52 PM
Ron,
You are right that a connection could be built that would connect Swan Island industrial area to a new West Side (Port-to-Port) arterial/corridor. This arterial/corridor should have a primary focus on being the best freight corridor possible that connects most all of these major industrial areas. I have had this option explained to me with the detail of how it could be done and it sure looked to me. It also did not look like it would cost that much to make happen. A back door out of Swan Island would be a big thing with innumerable advantages to all of those businesses located there. It would provide enormous advantages in reducing congestion in the I-5 corridor and with it reduce emissions.
Posted by: Paul | Mar 1, 2006 11:32:21 AM
I thougt you should see these findings of a workshop's professor (Will Macht) from PSU...
"These are the conclusions of an urban development workshop I taught at PSU on development planning for the downtown Vancouver waterfront and the Columbia Crossing(s) intended to expand bridge transportation planning with that for land use, urban and economic development.
The focus of the workshop was on the 90 acres between the I-5 and rail bridges south of the rail berm in downtown Vancouver. However, the twin arterial/rail Columbia Crossing in the rail corridor would also stimulate mixed-use development of the 1,106-acre Columbia Gateway project owned by the Port of Vancouver, the 741-acre west end of Hayden Island owned by the Port of Portland and the 350-acre center portion of Hayden Island.
Earlier I-5 Partnership research showed that more than a third of all bridge traffic both entered and exited I-5 between SR-500 and Columbia Boulevard, so that two of the six current lanes serve arterial functions. Moreover, a principal source of congestion is not the capacity of the freeway bridge, but rather its location. All traffic from the MLK, I-5, Interstate, and N. Portland Road corridors must funnel to a single point to cross the only river bridge.
Downtown Vancouver [I-5 to BNSF rail; 4 th Plain to the Columbia] and downtown Portland [I405 to the Willamette] are the same size, about 380 blocks, yet downtown Portland has seven bridges serving it in that span alone, plus four more nearby. How vital would it be if the Fremont, Broadway, Steel, Burnside, Morrison and Hawthorne bridges were eliminated and all traffic must traverse the Marquam Bridge alone?
Portland-Vancouver is a single urban entity and its economic health suffers from a single clogged artery. Replacing that with a single artery, no matter how wide or high or beautiful, will not restore its health. Imposing tariff barriers at its heart in the form of tolls at both I-5 and I-205 bridges, as contemplated, will reduce needed circulation, raising the costs of its goods and services. Congestive economic heart failure will return.
A twin arterial/rail Columbia Crossing in the rail corridor could have 4 arterial/freight lanes connecting Mill Plain Extension with N. Portland Road, Marine Drive and Columbia Boulevard, a third heavy rail track for intercity passenger rail and commuter rail and two light rail tracks connecting the Yellow Line MAX with downtown Vancouver. Commuter rail could make the Vancouver-Portland trip in 15 minutes while the light rail would stop close to the historic Vancouver intercity rail station and stimulate dense urban development on the west side of downtown Vancouver and its waterfront.
Because it carries rail, it could not be an expensive high bridge, but rather would be built as a twin to the BNSF rail bridge. However, it would solve the major navigation problem of I-5 bridge lifts, which are not caused by the height of that bridge but by the fact that navigation spans in the two bridges are not aligned. Barges must now use the 267’ high span south of the 531’ long I-5 span then turn rapidly to the north near shore in a reverse “S” movement to align with the narrow, half-open swing span of the rail bridge. That is dangerous, cannot be used in higher wind, water or current periods and puts both bridges at risk of catastrophic losses. The swing span opening of about 175’ would be replaced with a 300’ long lift span aligned with the 531’ long I-5 span.
Nor is the high 10-lane overhead bridge necessary or cost effective to reach the I-5 Partnership goal of 6 through lanes. Currently there are 6 lanes but the 2 outer lanes function as merge lanes for the northbound Hayden Island and southbound Vancouver on-ramps. The 38’ between the two existing bridges [documented by ABAM Engineers in 1984] could be used to add two center, through lanes, matching Slough bridge capacity. The existing east span of the bridge is 38 feet wide and carries 3 lanes, while the existing west bridge is 40 feet wide and also carries 3 lanes, with no shoulders. However, even if 38 feet is deemed insufficient for two opposing through lanes, they could be two reversible lanes. Increased clearance, lift elimination and seismic reinforcement can be included.
Using Washington DOT bridge design estimates, the order of magnitude cost estimate for these four projects is approximately $200 million, or about $1 billion less than the $1.2 billion 10-lane, long, high overhead replacement toll bridge with multiple additional benefits. It:
• Opens a second corridor to disperse freight and local traffic;
• Preserves existing infrastructure and reduces system disturbances;
• Phases sub-projects more quickly than alternatives;
• Improves freight rail and commuter rail mobility;
• Improves navigation safety and homeland security;
• Stimulates mixed-use, transit-oriented development on over 2,200 acres;
• Opens additional financing methods through Ports of Portland and Vancouver;
• Eliminates need, delay, opposition, space, negative impacts and costs of tolling. "
Posted by: Scott of Vancouver working in Portland | Mar 8, 2006 10:26:47 AM
Hey Sam! I think one would be hard pressed to find two such large bodies of people as hamstrung, by so few bridges, a we are between Portland and Vancouver. Just imagine if all downtown Portland had were two bridges across the Willamette.
In addition to the volume of local traffic our two bridges have to handle the through traffic of one of the Nations busiest arterials.
We don't just need one new bridge, we need several local bridges. That would greatly reduce the traffic on the interstate bridges.
As far as funding, if all of the affected governments would limit their spending to the items that we rightfully need governments for, there would be plenty of money to do what is necessary.
Posted by: John Beyea | Mar 8, 2006 12:38:29 PM
I think a third bridge is a good idea. Extend highway 14 to east, and build a bridge and another highway connected to HW 26 directly. This will solve the congestions on both I-5 and HW26 since many commuters are crossing the bridge and going to Beaverton to work.
Posted by: Jane | Mar 8, 2006 2:50:15 PM
I highly support the idea of building a third bridge to alleviate the traffic difficulties before we destroy change the I-5 bridge. It may be difficult for Portland to develop a new corridor to handle the traffic but it is a good step towards solving a long term problem. Rebuilding the I-5 bridge is a band-aid. Let's look far into the future not just in to the near distance.
Posted by: Hyak | Mar 9, 2006 8:04:52 AM
As a life long resident of Vancouver I have watched the traffic snarls building up both directions on the I-5 bridge. I would support a new bridge if it's sole purpose to was take freight and other commercial trucks off of I-5 and send them directly to the industrial regions of Portland/Vancouver. I do believe that getting this traffic out of the bridge corridor (roughly 4th Plain south) would ease much of the traffic woes. I would like to see light rail in Clark County and I would use it to ride into Portland. But I'm not sure it is a fiscally sound option right now.
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 9, 2006 8:08:07 AM
Hi Sam,
Finally you guys are on the right track. Yes, build a third bridge and then start planning for a fourth crossing. Bringing in more bridge capacity into the current bottlenecked corridor will not work. I also thought it was interesting that we have spent the last six years removing lead-based paint, repainting, building new control rooms and safe walkways, upgrading operating mechanisms, etc on a bridge that is to be replaced in the near future.
I think the obvious choice for the next crossing point is near the current train bridge. This new bridge would handle light rail, freight, all local access to Hayden Island and provide North Portland / Rivergate commuters with an alternate route.
I have been commuting from Vancouver to Portland daily for 16 years and can tell you that the influx of traffic merging on to I-5 North at Columbia Blvd and Jantzen Beach is ultimately responsible for creating the nightly backup. The new crossing would divert much of this traffic allowing the Interstate Bridge many more years of adequate capacity.
Thanks for stepping up with some new ideas.
Posted by: rb | Mar 9, 2006 8:25:07 AM
Sam,
Put the through traffic in a tunnel and convert the existing bridges to arterial/lightrail. Redevelop the adjacent land. No problems for airplanes, for shipping, for fish. Its done all over the world. Pay for it with tolls and property sales.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 9, 2006 11:44:05 AM
Couldn't have said it better myself Lenny. Grade separation is the key to these transportation problems. More bridges downstream will mean more highway, more urban spread. Tunneling has never been studied, so no one knows how much it will cost. Current tunneling methods, large boring machines developed in Europe are quicker and cheaper than the old drill and shoot methods. In addition to tolls as a payment method their is also the option of inviting private investment in. Similar to Bechtel's involvment with the Airport Max extension, or what is likely to suface as a method to pay for the Dundee bypass. Also, when you tunnel you open up the surface for either local arterial traffic or other purposes.
Posted by: Fenian | Mar 11, 2006 12:58:54 PM
It seems that the primary problems are intra-state freight mobility and SOV commuting.
Solutions:
1. Make 1-205 the primary freight route. From Oregon City to the Clark County I-5/I-205 split reserve the left lane for trucks with 3 or more axles.
2. Add light rail from the Gateway transit center to SR-500.
Posted by: Jack Mason | Mar 23, 2006 10:12:11 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
I'm a fan of the idea of leaving the freeway pretty much as is and building an arterial/light rail bridge that would bring MAX to Clark County and connect freight traffic between the two ports and the industrial areas.
Posted by: Chris Smith | Feb 22, 2006 11:57:03 AM