Columbia River Crossing Open House
Roland Chlapowski
Anyone who has tried to travel from Oregon to Washington on I-5 during rush hour knows that the I-5 Bridge spanning the Columbia River from Portland to Vancouver, WA acts as a real bottleneck for traffic. In an effort to fix this, officials in Oregon and Washington are working together on ways to reduce congestion and increase the connectivity of the two states, while also improving safety. We urge you to learn more about the project and give your feedback by attending the informational Open Houses that will be held in mid-April.
Mark your calendar for April 12 and 13!
Come see how ideas to reduce congestion and improve safety are taking shape. Tell us what you think, hear stories about Columbia River history and culture, and learn about what is ahead.
We are building on the ideas you shared with us last fall to relieve traffic congestion and improve safety in the five-mile stretch of I-5 surrounding the Interstate Bridge. We received more than 1,000 comments and have used them to develop a range of options. Now we are ready to share these ideas with you and get your feedback on which ones move forward for more consideration.
And if you want to, bring the kids! This will be a fun event with kids’ activities and storyteller Ed Edmo on hand to offer tales of the Northwest and Columbia River history.
Drop in any time between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. Enjoy free refreshments while you tour the exhibits and talk with Columbia River Crossing team members. Storytelling is at 4:45 and again at 6:00 p.m.; project presentations at 5:30 and 6:30 p.m.
We look forward to seeing you.
Vancouver
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Time: 4:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Place: Hudson’s Bay High School
1206 E. Reserve Street
Portland
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2006
Time: 4:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Place: Red Lion Inn - Jantzen Beach
909 N. Hayden Island Drive
For more information, call Columbia River Crossing(CRC) at 1-866-396-2726, e-mail CRC at feedback@columbiarivercrossing.org or visit CRC online at www.columbiarivercrossing.org.
Posted by Roland Chlapowski on March 28, 2006
(21) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, North Portland, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Here is an idea that will save some real dollars for the overall project. Have Max and other vehicles such as cars, trucks & busses share the same right-of-way on a local bridge with a posted speed of approximately 35 MPH that connects Marine Drive, Hayden Island and Vancouver. There is absolutely no need or even a good reason other than Tri-Met’s own ego mindset for light rail to have a separated right-of way river crossing.
Furthermore, since an improved river crossing will benefit the entire region and all users, I will continue to beat the drum that if a toll is to be charged to pay for the project, all users must be charged. This would include not only motor vehicles, but also freight haulers, transit users, bicyclists and pedestrians. Both bicyclists and pedestrians should be charged because they require exclusive facilities and access. Transit users could pay their share with a surcharge on trip fares that cross the river.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 28, 2006 8:09:35 PM
If the issue is congestion, shouldn't we charge users by the square footage they consume going over your new toll bridge? And if a sidewalk is an exclusive facility, then what's an 8-lane freeway?
A local bridge would be a nice addition, but please don't try to pay for it using its future property tax revenues.
Posted by: mykle | Mar 29, 2006 2:08:51 AM
Even though many (most?) of you are too young to remember - the present I-5 bridge was originally a toll bridge. As I remember the toll was ridiculously cheap by the time it was finally retired in 1966 (I think it was 25 cents or something like that). I also remember being told that the toll was how the public was paying for the bridge (paying back bonds or something).
The technology to collect tolls has changed greatly since the days of the first I-5 bridge. If you've ever driven the turnpikes back east you've seen where toll fees are collected there are several lanes to handle electronic collection (they whiz right through) to manual collection - but the traffic keeps moving.
I would back a new bridge with a toll to pay for it. Several restrictions (in my mind):
1) NO LIGHT RAIL - if you want to add light rail, I don't want the bridge. Light rail is a waste of taxpayer dollars and exponentially increases the costs of any transportation project it's added to. I'd support bus lanes running through with a share of passenger fees (tickets) from C-tran and Tri-Met going towards the toll for every bus (every person on the bus) crossing the new toll bridge. The ticket to ride that bus would be higher to cover those costs.
2) This is the one the states will have a problem with, but it could be written in the funding. When the bonds have been retired - the toll goes away. Granted it could take 20+ years (maybe not) but the toll needs to go away when the bonds are paid. The DOT divisions will whine about maintenance and upkeep, sorry, while you presently waste the money, we do fund DOT to a tune to where the bridge (and roads) should be taken care of.
Finally, while this MIGHT be an idea to research, it won't happen and it won't happen because as Anthony made in the first posting - the entire idea of this is to either MAKE light rail get pushed into Washington - or - appease the citizens until gridlock becomes so severe (which is what Metro wants) that they then can serve up MAX as the cure-all (which it isn't).
Posted by: mmmarvel | Mar 29, 2006 6:05:41 AM
The Governors' I-5 Task Force study set parameters for the current work and was accepted by all jurisdictions on both sides of the river.
It calls for 4 additional lanes for vehicles...arterial and/or freeway; lightrail; and $100 plus in heavy freight rail improvements.
Unless one succeeded in replacing all the elected officals at Metro, City of Portland and Multnomah county with anti-MAX folks, we can assume that any project will include both lightrail and more lanes in some configuration.
We can further assume that tolls will be a significant part of any funding package as that is how interstate bridges between OR and WA have always been funded.
A basic piece of data, as shown in last Sunday's Oregonian, based on origin and destination, suggests that a very significant portion of the vehicles on the current bridges are making local trips, which leads one to believe that what we need across the Columbia is a "Broadway bridge" with, of course, lightrail.
Note: I served on the Governors' I-5 TF.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 29, 2006 11:13:21 AM
I don't know enough about this project to voice my opinion on bridge/lane/light rail configurations, but I'd just like to address the cynicism that's been put forward on this blog, as exemplified by Anthony's post (Anthony, I'm not directing this only at you, I've seen this from a lot of people on this blog and others): IT'S DISGUSTING. I understand if you're frustrated/disenfranchised/pissed off at (fill in the blank), and this is a legitimate forum to voice those feelings, but it's extremely hard to debate an issue when the attitude put forward is one of "the system sucks, so we're all screwed". For instance, read this paragraph: "We already know that, by the time you find enough money to build this bridge that it will need to be studied again. Why even bother? Just build your light rail regardless of what the taxpayers think about the idea and be done with it." What a defeated attitude! I don't care what side of an issue you're on, this kind of opinion does no one any good, in fact it only serves to the detriment of your views because you seem to have given up on them already.
I'm sorry if this post sounds harsh, I'm just sick of reading people's cynical complaints on here. I think there's a lot of things that the governments in the region(Portland/Metro/OR/WA/etc.) could do better, but being cynical is probably the least effective way to enact change.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 29, 2006 11:56:34 AM
I love the way that the big business lobby and the trucking industry have framed this issue and then gotten their servants in the
DOTs and the city to kneel obeisantly.
We need to expand capacity for more people and more vehicles into and out of the states because if we don't, the economy and therefore everyone's quality of life will suffer.
So now it's urgent. Supposedly. Good propaganda job. Everyone buys into it, even the so-called environmental groups.
Why does big business lobby want more capacity? To facilitate more expansion of the built environment onto environmentally and agriculturally productive open lands and to increase the flow of more cheap products from overseas.
What do these two factors represent?
Chewing up land represents less nature so necessary for our survival. It also represents more use of resources from all over to build the garbage buildings, more cars and more pollution.
Shipping more products in means more use of dwindling energy, more global warming, and more consumption of dwindling resources.
Where's the environmental sustainability in any of that?
Are we going to move towards functioning sustainability here in Portland, or aren't we?
More increase of economic activity in the region means more poverty, more unemployment, more homelessness, more increase in housing costs, higher taxes, and more light and noise pollution for everyone.
It does mean more digits racked up in a small elite minority's asset accounts, and that explains why the manufactured urgency among this elite's "public" servants.
By the way, if you like Big Brother, you'll love having new toll roads. RFID chips on your car, allowing corporations and the government to track your movements.
Ignorance reigns supreme.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 30, 2006 10:44:58 AM
As usual Lenny You are conspiring with bureaucrats, public officials and other activists to misrepresent, mislead and force upon the public, against their will and vote, more light rail at all costs.
Your comment over at Portland transport.com said it all.
"Light will be included or no bridge at all"
Really? Quite a declaration Lenny.
Rather threatening.
PSU professor said it best in the Oregonian this week.
TRIMET'S EXPANSION PLANS
Where's the green in the new Green Line?
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Gerard Mildner
The escalating $55 million price tag of the OHSU aerial tram has alarmed Portland citizens and city officials. But an even greater financial debacle is unfolding in TriMet's $550 million Green Line, which promises further damage to the region's bus network and disruption to downtown livability.
TriMet's proposed Green Line will extend the light-rail system from Gateway Transit Center to Clackamas Town Center and create a new route down the Portland bus mall. Most of the attention so far has focused on the significant disruption of construction in downtown Portland. City transportation engineers were politically pressured to agree to this plan despite the impending traffic chaos.
But an equally significant impact will be the financial waste.
While inner-city bus trips cost about $2 per rider, TriMet's proposed Green Line will cost nearly $16 per rider. Taxpayers will get practically no benefit for the extra $14. Despite carrying less than 1 percent of all mass-transit trips in the region, TriMet's light-rail system claims 30 percent of the region's transportation capital grants.
The Green Line also will bring enormous environmental waste, requiring as much energy to construct as four years of TriMet's entire bus and train operations. A much better environmental impact would be achieved by expanding TriMet's bus fleet and converting it to natural gas.
Instead, TriMet has steadily reduced its bus fleet and inner-city service. In the last six years, TriMet reduced its fleet from 700 to 606 buses. The remaining inner-city buses have become more crowded, leaving some riders waiting at stops during rush hour.
One explanation for these changes is that TriMet receives only one-fifth of its revenue from transit customers, with the rest provided by taxpayers.
As a result, the agency feels compelled to subsidize costly suburban service even when inner-city service is the better investment. In fact, many city routes are so heavily patronized that they receive no effective subsidy.
TriMet needs to solve its democracy deficit, starting with a politically accountable board. How many citizens know that the governor appoints the TriMet board? How many would recognize the names of its board members? Rarely are TriMet policies debated during statewide gubernatorial elections.
Since losing the last two public votes on light rail in 1996 and 1998, TriMet has operated without direct public consent, seeking taxpayer dollars from urban renewal agencies, the Port of Portland and local government.
Moreover, TriMet relies upon a public participation process -- dominated by public employees and advocacy groups -- that is rarely viewed as an attempt to find the truth. Downtown business owners and residents are only now waking up to the future disruption of shifting 200 buses per hour from the bus mall to Third and Fourth Avenues.
TriMet's excessive spending on high-cost rail transit has contributed to the declining willingness of taxpayers to fund local government. If the city of Portland can find $30 million for North Portland light rail, $30 million for Airport MAX, $38 million for the Portland streetcar, still unknown millions for the OHSU tram and now $62 million for light rail to Clackamas Town Center, it's no wonder city officials have a hard time finding political support for an income tax for schools.
Many justify Portland's investment in light rail as our symbol to the rest of the world, much like the Eiffel Tower is the symbol of Paris. But Paris only built one Eiffel Tower. We should learn from Paris' example, cancel the Green Line boondoggle, and make TriMet return to the business of providing effective, efficient and environmentally friendly transportation.
Gerard Mildner is an associate professor and director of the Center for Real Estate at the Nohad Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 31, 2006 9:12:22 AM
Information coming from the CRC Task Force spin doctors is distorting the facts. People are being told that orginations and distinations studies show a significant amount of the congestion in the I-5 corridor can be eliminated by replacing the Interstate bridges. In the AM and PM rush hours is where the majority of the congestion can be found in the I-5 corridor. The rest of the story is that during these periods it is not trucks and vehciles/people going to or shopping at Hayden Island between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM. A lot of the stores are not even open, we all know that. It is not trucks, because they are doing everything to stay out of the mess/congestion, it just would cost them too much money to be trapped. What the CRC Task Force is not telling you is that this congestion is 90% caused by people and vehicles not going to a designation in the Bridge Influence Area (BIA). They are passing through. So if that is true and common sense tells me that it is true what is happening with this CRC Task Force and those who support the spin or lack of providing all of the information that they know. In this AM rush hour if I replace the bridges will this change this current level of congestion in the I-5 corridor, the answer is NO. In fact it may be worse. With a new 5 or 6-lane or more replacement bridge more vehicles will be drawn into the this broken I-5 corridor. How do you funnel 6-lanes into a 2 & 3-lane corridor the rest of the way through Portland. This AM rush hour will expand with a new replacement bridge to where it starts a little further to the south but it could extend all the way across this new bridge back into Vancouver because they are not fixing the real problems of the I-5 corridor. Soem think that with a new replacement bridge the AM rush hours might run from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM to start with when they introduce more tarffic into corridor with a new wide bridge. In the PM Rush hour I-5 starts backing up south of the Marquam bridge about 2:00 PM. It just gets worse from then to where the whole corridor along the 2-lane east bank section of I-5 is a parking lot by 3:00 PM right now. It is 2-lanes all the way to where it opens up a little where the Freemont Bridge come to play. However they are full of traffic in this PM rush hours and in fact these cars, trucks and buses make this section of the I-5 corridor all the way to the Interstate Bridge even worse. Add to the problem is the HOV lane that goes into effect and that squeezes all General Purpose (GP) into two lanes with the free lane for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). The problem is that replacing the Interstate Bridge does not solve this problem. That is not what the CRC Task Force spin doctors are telling you, but they have a bridge to sell. They are not telling you that this section of town is now experiencing the 3rd worse air quality problems in the nation. It is killing the people and businesses by exposing everyone to intolerable congestion that is playing a major part in this bad air. Simply the solution is to get people and vehicles out of the I-5 corridor not put more into it. They will not study extending Light Rail Transit (LRT) into Vancouver, why not. It will reduce by elinminating maybe 2% of the vehicles out of the I-5 corridor. That is good and in the future it will help more. But that is not enough if we are all going to survive. What we need is common sense too. It is a new corridors and expanding of current corridors. We need to move as much traffic out of and off on this un-fixable I-5 corridor as soon as possible. We cannot continue to through good money towards project that do not fix the problem. I am tired to having half cocked solutions that spend to much money and do not provide results. We do not need another Tram Story which is pocket money to what it would take to make the I-5 corridor worth investing into.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Edgar | Apr 6, 2006 12:18:59 PM
It is obvious a new bridge is needed. Put it west of the Interstate Bridge (saving the pioneer cemetery) on land not currently built on (the same in Vancouver) that way you can connect the light rail to it from Jantzen Beach. Make the bridge 2 story like the Fremont is and run the light rail on the lower part along with local cars the top being express lanes to outlying off ramps out of Vancouver itself. Its proper placement would drain traffic off the current bridge and off 405. There, problem settled!
Posted by: Barbara Cole | Apr 9, 2006 3:06:46 PM
Lightrail as part of the I-5 solution was central to the Governors' I-5 Task Force recommendation which was approved by City of Portland (elected), Metro (elected), Multnomah county (elected), City of Vancouver (elected), Clark county (elected). So the votes are in on this matter. Last time an anti-lightrail candidate took the plunge...against Charlie Hales for commissioner...it wasn't even close. My saying that no bridge will be built without lightrail was hardly a threat...more a statement of political reality.
But what's so wrong with giving Clark county commuters a choice? drive, rideshare, bike, ride MAX, take your pick!
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Apr 10, 2006 1:19:21 PM
Max light rail will only cross the Columbia and go to Vancouver if Vancouver wants it to. No rubber stamp Oregon citizen committee, the Governor of Oregon, Portland City Council, Metro or Multnomah County can force the trains through on unwilling Washingtonians who must help pay for it. Furthermore, it does not make sense to create separated right-of-way on a river crossing for light rail when a train will be running only at timed intervals. It is far more cost effective and capacity effective to have the light rail tracks share bridge deck lanes with motor vehicles on a pair of local traffic bridges that connect Hayden Island to both Oregon and Washington. Tri-Met’s ego for an exclusive track crossing must be stifled if common sense and cost efficiency is to prevail.
Finally, the take your pick approach should not just be “given” to Clark County. If tolls are involved, all users of the Columbia crossing and not just motorists must help pay for it. That includes, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, rideshare and freight users who carry the heaviest payloads and do the most wear and tear per vehicle on any bridge structure.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 11, 2006 8:58:32 PM
Portland Oregon...
Where to start...
I moved here from Boulder/Denver and I am heading back this month.
This place is a disaster.
I have never seen more 1 lane, built in 1920 roads in my life.
More stop lights then any place I have ever driven.
55 MPH speed limits. (is this 1980??)
The drivers are the worst in the country.
The civil engineers who planned out the road system need to be beaten.
Portland will build many more light rails, and you will pay a lot more tax as well.
Get out while you can.
I can't wait to go home.
Posted by: MO | Apr 12, 2006 9:53:06 AM
hello
I have only recently entered the fray of what needs to be done to relieve the congestion and loss of revenue caused by it. I am campaign secretary of the Elect Sharon Nasset Campaign and would urge all to go to her website www.NewInterstateBridge.com. The proposal put forth makes a ton of sense to me and certainly would open up some of our industrial land to development. I know that some of that land is environmentally sensitive, but with new green technologies, it could be done. I certainly am not using this forum to stump for my candidate, Sharon has been involved with transportation in the Pacific Northwest for much longer than she has run for office. Her proposal is under consideration and seems to me, Josephine six-pack, to be a viable one. After all, it is we the people who ultimately pay for our infrastructure and we will get what we pay for.
Posted by: ses | Apr 12, 2006 11:30:19 AM
Lenny Anderson But what's so wrong with giving Clark county commuters a choice? drive, rideshare, bike, ride MAX, take your pick!
JK: Hey, Lenny you left out bus! Or are they planning on cancelling the bus if they build the toy train. That would not be another choice, rather it would be FORCING people from the bus to the toy train.
BTW the cost of the alleged added ridership due to the toy train is around 1/3 million per daily rider. I'll bet we could get more riders with a better bus system if we spent 1/10 of the toy train money on better buses.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 12, 2006 5:03:33 PM
I'll put buses in there if you give them HOV lanes in both directions. The key is having an exclusive or almost exclusive (HOV lanes) ROW for transit, whether bus or train. Since MAX already has this to Expo, the simplest option is to extend it into Clark county.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Apr 13, 2006 11:09:49 AM
Lenny Anderson I'll put buses in there if you give them HOV lanes in both directions.
JK: Nice to see you finally come clean on the “adding choices” fraud. This is to be NO ADDED CHOICE, only herding people from bus to toy trains.
Lenny Anderson The key is having an exclusive or almost exclusive (HOV lanes) ROW for transit, whether bus or train.
JK: A better choice is get traffic moving so that everyone benefits. Then you don’t need HOV lanes for the politically correct AND we can quit wasting MILLIONS (Billions?) On congestion..
Lenny Anderson Since MAX already has this to Expo, the simplest option is to extend it into Clark county.
JK: Just $1.4 BILLION compared to $40million for a good bus system. YOU sure like spending other people’s money on you pet projects.
Here is a comparison of bus to rail using data from the i-5 task force web site:
Express Bus-Short
LRT cost: $1,222 million for 13,000 riders
Bus cost: $14 million for 9,000 riders
subtracting the two:
cost: $1,208 million for 4,000 more riders
Cost per increased rider:
($1,208,000,000 ÷ 4000)
$302,000 per increased rider
Bus cost per person: $1,556
Rail cost per person:$94,000
Cost ratio: 60:1
Express Bus-Long
Rail cost: $1,222 million for 13,000 riders
Bus cost: $32 million for 10,600 riders
subtracting the two:
cost: $1,190 million for 2,400 more riders
Cost per increased rider:
($1,190,000,000 ÷ 2400)
$495,000 per increased rider
Bus cost per person: $3,018
Rail cost per person:$94,000
Cost ratio: 31:1
It would literally be cheaper to buy a Pearl district condo for each of those riders that would not ride the bus.
Here is the question that should have been asked:
How much must we spend on a deluxe bus system to match the ridership of light rail?
Date source:
http://www.i-5partnership.com/reports/q3.html
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 14, 2006 3:03:18 AM
The diamond lanes on I-5 must go away for good for the following reasons:
1. DISCRIMINATION: The diamond lanes are lanes of discrimination. ARTICLE I Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution is titled “Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens” and states: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.— “All motorists pay fuel taxes under the same terms to local , state and federal governments for the construction of highways. Requiring an additional passenger to use one of the lanes is a condition that is outweighed by the payment of fuel taxes. Any government entity in Oregon that signifies support for diamond lanes accepts discrimination.
2. NON-EFFICIENT USE. There are times during the period of operation the diamond lanes are almost empty. Stop and go congestion is created in the other two regular travel lanes because the diamond lanes create a bottle neck from four regular traffic lanes whittled down to two regular traffic lanes. Semi-trucks in the regular travel lanes also have a significant negative impact the congestion because they start up much slower after stopping in traffic. Stop and go traffic adds to the fuel consumption of motorists. The stop and go traffic created by reserving by one restricted lane of operation also has a larger negative impact on air quality than if all three lanes on I-5 were for regular traffic. If the diamond lanes are to remain on I-5, semi-trucks should be banned on the highway during the times the restricted diamond lanes are in operation. The diamond lanes on I-5 are unhealthy, a non-efficient use of all resources and a non-efficient use of the pavement laid down for the highway.
3 UNSAFE. Because there are multiple exits and entrances to I-5 between their start of operation and the Columbia River crossing, the diamond lanes are unsafe. Vehicles are cutting in and out and across the regular travel lanes to make their way between the diamond lane and the on and off ramps. Undoubtedly this creates a greater number of freeway crashes. Most engineers who have a true knowledge in the operation of diamond lanes will tell you I-5 in North Portland is not the place to have HOV lanes unless they are completely separated with barriers from the rest of traffic. The only reason the diamond lane is even there is purely political, not operational. The diamond lanes are just another example of Portlanders paying a high (and unsafe) price tag for politicians tinkering with social engineering.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 14, 2006 3:29:11 PM
There should be NO controversy on the need to get more I-5 north/south capacity. We have about 55,000 commuter going to work in the corridor each day. We have approximately 12,000 trucks in the I-5 corridor between where I-84 joins with I-5 on the south and Vancouver Washington on the north. Air quality in this area of the I-5 corridor is the 3rd worse in the nation. The CRC Task Force seems to want to take out/eliminate all considerations of anything and everything that will reduce emmissions by redirecting people, vehicles (cars, trucks and buses) out of the corridor. They (CRC Task Force) want to bring more traffic into this broken I-5 corridor and it is only going to make the problems worse. I think Light Rail, expanded Express Bus Service, new freight specific corridors, expanding of I-205 out to 4-lanes and designating it as the primay north/south freight corridor for interstate trucking should all be on the table. If the same creativity was used by the CRC Task Force to sell this interstate bridge replacement project to looking at how we can create more options and additional capacity to the I-5 corridor we would be moving in a better direction. The CRC Task Force knows that a Bi-State Rail study identified $181M of improvements that need to be made in this adjoining north/south frieght rail that are critical to our economy. This knowledge has been hidden from most everyone because it might mean that there is a need to replace the Columbia River Rail Bridge and with it create a new corridor in its place that would include more then rail raod tracks. Everyone has suggested that it should be a multi-mode corridor and that means that it would have the ability for cars, trucks, buses, bicyles and just people who want an option to being caught up in the I-5 congestion. Please everyone tell the leaders and everyone on the CRC Task Force that we want all options considered equally. Failure to consider all options that physically reduce congestion outside of just the Bridge Influence Area is myopic. It does not solve that problem.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Edgar | Apr 17, 2006 10:21:16 AM
If you have three full service travel lanes in each direction at both ends, the current Columbia River Bridges themselves which have a total of six lanes, excluding an occasional lift of the lift spans, is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck occurs because I-5 is the only way to for local traffic to cross the Columbia in North Portland and the only access to Hayden Island. The focus of the partnership committee should be to reroute local traffic and make the freeway more free flowing. This would be far less of an expanse than replacing the bridges.
At the public open house last week I made the following suggestions:
Remove the HOV lanes and make them regular travel lanes. Retain the current I-5 bridges
Build a new four lane bridge West of the current I -5 bridges. The bridge would connect both Oregon and Washington with Hayden Island for local traffic. One motor vehicle lane in each direction would be shared with light rail tracks. Light rail would have a stop somewhere with access to Jantzen Beach Shopping Center, where most of the jobs on Hayden Island are, but would only serve Vancouver when Washingtonians are ready to pay for light rail infrastructure North of the river.
I also had one relatively new suggestion. Build a truck trailer-container/rail transfer facility in Vancouver. If constructed, all truck/rail transfers with points of origin and destination in Washington would take place at this new facility. All truck/rail transfers with points of origin and destination in Oregon would continue to take place in Portland such as at Brooklyn and Albina rail yards. This suggestion should reduce the amount of freight/truck traffic on I-5 crossing the Columbia and rerouting it to the BNSF railroad bridge.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 17, 2006 11:15:24 AM
It's great to see this issue is being so actively talked about. There are solutions out there, all of them far from perfect but collaboratively, hopefully we will come up with one.
This is not an easy or fun process but it is necessary.
What is most necessary is to receive the very best information so we can make the best choice. In everyone's view it will have to be a compromise. Breathing air filled with diesel particulates and NOx is a compromise community residents have had to endure and historically they have also lost their homes due to displacement. Don't shout me down when I'm preachin' good. There is an effort to bring fairness into the arena. The goal is not to give everyone a car and believe that will solve their problem. We need to move people,goods and services not more automobiles across that brige in a way that minimzes the damages it has to the communities it drives through. What sickens me about this process is how much money we are spending on it. $83 million when the Delta to Lombard and I-5 partnership discussion cost around $2 mil.
Where are our dollars for health care? Do folks understand if I'm sick, no car in the world will heal me?
As our unemployment rates go higher and our rent and gas prices increase the gap between the rich and poor gets larger? People who would be willing to make it to a job via any means of transportation are going without the opportunity.That's why alternate ways of moving around are necessary.I've heard that the DOT's are spending anywhere between a miilion and a half to 2.5 million a month, on what? Truly what price is the future of our community worth. Should we start with community enhancement funds and mitigation measures first and decide what we can build after that? And if the community is constantly given the information in a format that expresses it is a done deal, why on earth will anyone participate? Throughout the nearly seven years I have worked on this project as a community person who lives in Northeast Portland, whose members live all along the i-5 Freeway from Columbia to Fremont, when does the issue of who benefits come for us? Efforts to educate people on Environmental Justice have been asked for for over a year, we have recruited one of the most knowlegeable men on EJ in the country and the DOT's refuse to have the training. They recently stated they would have a training in August, one of the most unattended months of the year. I'm ending with saying one hopeful thing, don't give up and thank everyone who has hung in there, without struggle there is no justice.(FD)
Posted by: Jeri Sundvall-Williams | May 1, 2006 4:04:37 PM
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.
Goodie.. Another “study.” I wonder how much this is costing us?
I thought a “bi-state taskforce” already determined the fate of this area. A 2+ year “study” that begun shortly after Portland and Vancouver voters turned down the north-south light rail for the second time. I remember this well because I wrote a paper on it in high school. The goal of the study was to make recommendations on how to modernize and reduce congestion on the freeway between I-84 and SR-500. Part of this “study” was to determine the feasibility and configuration of a new interstate bridge. They concluded that widening the freeway to 8-10 lanes couldn’t be done because of cost (something like $600K) but recommended an even longer light-rail loop then the voters previously turned down (for something like $1.5Billion) and a maximum of a 6 lane freeway that would be further restricted by making 2 of those lanes “HOV” or carpool lanes.
Here we are studying the same thing again, except on a smaller scale. The purpose statement should go something like this; “to build a light rail line over the Columbia river, regardless of cost or voter approval.”
It is interesting how proposals for roadway improvements or new roadways go in the metro area:
1. Acknowledge the taxpayers when they complain something must be done.
2. Form a “taskforce” whose members include: liberal politicians, trimet officials, various environmental groups, 1000 friends of Oregon goons, and “concerned citizens.” In order for this taskforce to fit the typical Portland Metro model, all members must not live or work anywhere close to the project being proposed.
3. Spend millions of “studying” ideas to fix the problem.
4. A completely different and scaled back project is “recommended,” usually with an enormous and unrealistic price tag. (This really happens, when it was proposed to turn 99E and 224 into a continuous freeway, the cost estimate included rebuilding the entire I-5/405 loop, quadrupling the cost).
5. With no way to fund the project, it gets put on hold for many years (Look at the sunrise corridor project).
6. Taxpayers keep complaining. So another “taskforce” is created to “study” the same problem as before. Instead of just building the project that had been proposed, a new “study” must take place because of new data. The cycle repeats itself (Sunrise corridor again).
We already know that, by the time you find enough money to build this bridge that it will need to be studied again. Why even bother? Just build your light rail regardless of what the taxpayers think about the idea and be done with it.
Posted by: Anthony | Mar 28, 2006 4:25:31 PM