News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Ding, dong, the CRC is dead

Started by Tarkus, July 01, 2013, 06:22:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tarkus

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/06/columbia_river_crossing_implos.html#incart_river

In all honesty, my response: good riddance.  It was a poorly-managed, poorly-designed project that wouldn't have actually made any real improvements to traffic flow, while costing taxpayers and motorists a ton of money.


agentsteel53

Quote from: Tarkus on July 01, 2013, 06:22:19 PM

In all honesty, my response: good riddance.  It was a poorly-managed, poorly-designed project that wouldn't have actually made any real improvements to traffic flow, while costing taxpayers and motorists a ton of money.

nah, that criticism is too intelligent.  you've gotta talk like this guy.

QuoteWashington Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, an opponent who saw light rail as a conspiracy.

I for one welcome our new light-rail overlords.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

TEG24601

I was really hoping for the MAX connection.  They still need to address the horrible capacities on I-5, and remove those drawbridges.  The CRC would have helped, but it really was over reaching.  Perhaps if SR-500 is finished, someone will resurrect the idea for an SR-500 to US 30 bridge over the Columbia.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Anthony_JK

Something that garnered my interest (other than the usual and typical freeway bashing that is expected from Portlanders) is this "Common Sense Alternative" that is being put forth as an alternative solution.



I like the idea of adding alternative local crossings with access to light rail/peds/trucks, and moving the swing span of the BNSF rail bridge to the center would also be a great idea.

But still, I do think even with that, some modest capacity upgrade of the I-5 bridge is going to be necessary..and the anti-freeway zealotry of the Portland crowd will come back to bite them hard. Maybe if that Western Bypass was built, we wouldn't be here?

myosh_tino

#5
The way I see it, the Interstate Bridge is at the end of it's useful life and needs be replaced before something (earthquake, ship collision, old age) causes that bridge the collapse into the Columbia River.  No doubt that lives will be lost in such a collapse and both WSDOT and ODOT would be blamed and held liable.

The replacement bridge should be just that, a bridge carrying automobile and truck traffic.  Forget about light rail or BRT.  This is an important piece of infrastructure in the transportation network for the entire west coast.

For those anti-freeway people in Portland, think about this.  If something were to happen and the bridge collapses, the federal government will probably step in and provide emergency funding for a replacement and demand that a new bridge be built ASAP because I-5 is an important west coast corridor.  What you'll probably end up with is a 6-8 lane bridge with no "amenities" (i.e. BRT or LRT) being forced down your throats whether you like it or not.

While I like the ideas of the Common Sense Alternative which do provide the BRT and Light Rail options, a new I-5 bridge has to be part of solution.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

NE2

The I-35W bridge replacement has provisions for light rail or busway...
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

nexus73

#7
Too many cooks spoil the broth is what happened.  City, county, state, Federal and special district/agency levels of government all combined together to make a massive FUBAR out of this deal.  Had everything been placed under one man as was done with the Pentagon construction and the Manhattan Project, the project could have been done.  Unlike the Greatest Generation, who knew their survival required a "get it done or else we're sunk" approach, we have become bound by bureacracies, wrangling by all involved over their agendas and no way to get to a focal point that will help in setting a path toward a goal.

Remember folks, only one driver can be behind the wheel if you want the car to move along properly.  Otherwise it is crash and burn time, which is what happened to the CRC.

I-5 from the 99W interchange to Vancouver is an obsolete mess that needs a complete revamping.  It is not just the CRC that was needed on this corridor.  How sad to see Oregon plummet in quality of freeway where I-5 is concerned.  Back in 1965, Oregon completed I-5 and that put them ahead of Washington and California.  Now all our state is good for is to be a bottleneck.  In the meantime Washington proceeds with the 6-laning of I-5 from Seattle to Vancouver while California has made many upgrades to I-5 due to their heavy traffic demands.  As a native Oregonian, it just makes me want to wring necks of all responsible for letting my state fall behind the curve when it comes to our most important road.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Tarkus

Of course, it's worth noting that the particular spot the where the Interstate Bridge crosses the Columbia is rather problematic when it comes to putting in a new bridge, and any Interstate-standard, non-lifting design was going to run into problems. 

The current bridge has a maximum non-lifting clearance on the alternate barge channel on the Oregon side (69'), which also requires vessels to make an awkward S-curve to make it under the BNSF Railroad bridge.  The lift spot itself is on the Washington side--the clearance is 40' without lifting, with the lift towers jutting up to 98', and when lifted, it allows 178' clearance. 

The FAA has maximum height restrictions for a new bridge, to prevent interference with the airspace at Pearson Field in Vancouver, which, in addition to still being a functional airport, also happens to be a national historic site.  The Coast Guard also has a minimum clearance restriction, as building a non-lifting bridge that's too low will serve as a roadblock to marine contractors, and the Army Corps of Engineers dredging rig.  The CRC planners blew over $100 million planning a 95' clearance, which they knew in advance was not going to pass muster with the Coast Guard.  Apparently, the Coast Guard wants at least 125'--not unreasonable, considering that the I-205 bridge has 144' clearance, and the Rainier-Longview bridge has a clearance of 210'.  The plan, before the project's demise, was modified this year to 116' clearance, after a few marine contractors filed lawsuits against the CRC planners.  That was likely to draw the FAA's ire for intruding into Pearson airspace, and was going to require paying large lump sums to "mitigate" damages to marine contractors who would be permanently affected by the lower clearance, all while the Coast Guard was still not guaranteed to approve it.  The issues of airspace/max clearance were further exacerbated by the inclusion of light rail/bike paths on a second, lower deck.

Additionally, while the current Interstate Bridge is narrow and has a lift span, it's not actually the biggest impediment to traffic flow on I-5 through Portland and Vancouver.  The stretch just north of the northern I-405 interchange (off the Fremont Bridge) actually has the highest traffic volume of any highway in Oregon, around 191,000 vpd, last I checked.  It cuts right through some North Portland neighborhoods as a sunken freeway on the former alignment of North Minnesota Avenue, and gets jammed up with only 2-3 lanes per direction for most of its length.  Additionally, the stretch of I-5 north of I-84, up to the Fremont Bridge interchange, through the Rose Quarter, is only 2 lanes per direction.  Those are the real bottlenecks.

Furthermore, the CRC was considered an "exciting" opportunity to toll the crap out of motorists by US 3rd District Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a notable car hater, with congestion pricing that could have resulted in tolls as high as $8 each way for passenger autos (consider that the Bay Bridge, during Rush Hour, is only $6 one way).  Some of the car haters also wanted to toll I-205, to prevent shunpiking, though as there were no improvements on I-205 planned to be funded by those tolls, it wouldn't have been legal, so in all likelihood, we'd have built this overpriced bridge, while making traffic worse, and not being able to recoup the money sunk into it.  There were several cost estimates out there that showed that the CRC planners had vastly underestimated the price tag, and it could have run 2-3x that.  In other words, it'd be an above ground Big Dig.

myosh_tino

Has there ever been discussions to reroute I-5 onto I-205 and make the existing I-5 into an I-x05?  That way I-5 will have a more modern (and safer) crossing of the Columbia River.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

nexus73

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2013, 07:05:26 PM
Has there ever been discussions to reroute I-5 onto I-205 and make the existing I-5 into an I-x05?  That way I-5 will have a more modern (and safer) crossing of the Columbia River.

That solves nothing.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2013, 07:05:26 PM
Has there ever been discussions to reroute I-5 onto I-205 and make the existing I-5 into an I-x05?  That way I-5 will have a more modern (and safer) crossing of the Columbia River.

There's already pretty good signage encouraging through traffic to take 205.

sp_redelectric

There are multiple problems with the so-called "Common Sense Alternative":

1.  There is a federal program that will fund ONE bridge replacement, per year, provided Congress will fund it, which is no guarantee and the funding is restricted to resolving navigational hazards only.  BNSF has no need to fund a bridge replacement itself, so phase 1 is already very shaky, and the bridge itself is structurally sound and stable.

2.  The local bridge connecting Marine Drive with Hayden Island is already bloated with the addition of light rail to what is essentially a strip mall.  Not only will the extension of light rail less than a mile not substantially add ridership, and not only will it not improve transit on the island, but the light rail expansion will cost around $75-100 million - by itself.  A simple, two lane bridge, with a single multi-use bike/pedestrian path, will cost a fraction of the cost if you throw in light rail.  Maybe $20 million.

3.  The "Rail and Truck" bridge seems to be a solution looking for a problem.  How would building another heavy rail track solve any problem, when the commuter trains otherwise will have to use the exact same rails as on the existing bridge?  The trains will end up using the same tracks so there is no improvement in track capacity.  There is not very much Port of Portland to Port of Vancouver traffic, so the trucks will just end up on I-5 anyways.  It'll basically be a convenient "back road" for a couple years, and then a major headache.

4.  "Seismic Upgrades" to the existing Interstate Bridge does not address the functional obsolescence of the bridge; the bridge still lacks suitable shoulders and overhead height.  And it'll still be congested.

5.  The "local bridge to Vancouver" is basically a stripped down CRC, offering no real cost benefit from the CRC except that it doesn't have the rest of the freeway improvements tied into it...but it still has the light rail component.

All in all, I fail to see any improvement, just more spending.  If the pro-rail folks truly want to push rail, BNSF is generally amenable to commuter rail operations, and it would not take much effort to run a handful of commuter trains each day between Kelso and Portland, and Washougal and Portland.  Just eliminate the "art" requirements and keep the stations simple - a concrete platform, some inexpensive lighting, a few off-the-shelf park benches, and some minor signage.  Parking lots can be barebones - heck they could even be gravel (save for a small paved parking area next to the platform to comply with ADA requirements).  Start-up costs would be around $100 million for the locomotives and cars and station construction.  Voila.

TEG24601

I for one would like to see something done about Interstate Bridge and the BNSF Bridge.  Whatever is built to replace Interstate Bridge MUST be designed to connect to I-5 on the Washington End, and not, as it is currently built, to connect to old US 99/Main St. Elimination of that S-curve on the road would solve so many problems.  The addition of 1 or 2 non-freeway crossings between Portland and Vancouver would also be nice.  The CSA's idea of a truck bridge would be nice, but only if they connected it to I-5 up near the connection with I-205.

Due to space constraints because of the two airports in the vicinity, would not a tunnel be a better solution, either bored, or, like between Detroit and Windsor, simply embed it in the river bed?  If you did that, you'd keep the newest of the two Interstate Bridges for local traffic, and perhaps light rail (or as a Bus Way).

Alternatively, building the bridge so is has sufficient height closer to the shore would simply require a viaduct through Vancouver, which might allow for some creative redevelopment, like in Japan.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Lytton

Why couldn't they just replace the bridge with a tunnel instead?

Also, I don't see the reason why they need light rail into the Vancouver area. After all, the city itself is only home to around 160,000 people. Not to mention that most people prefer to move to Portland than Vancouver because people think Portland is the "city" and that it has all the amenities while Vancouver is just that, simply a suburb for families and people who prefer the quieter city.
Fuck GPS. I rather use my brain and common sense.

TEG24601

Some people live in Vancouver for tax reasons, not to mention that it is home to a lot of businesses.  C-Tran also currently runs a lot of full busses to downtown PDX, and a light rail would be nice for the commuters, as well as those trying to get to the Airport.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Brandon

Quote from: TEG24601 on July 05, 2013, 03:08:12 PM
Some people live in Vancouver for tax reasons, not to mention that it is home to a lot of businesses.  C-Tran also currently runs a lot of full busses to downtown PDX, and a light rail would be nice for the commuters, as well as those trying to get to the Airport.

Maybe more of a stub with a park and ride lot on the Vancouver side?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Lytton

Quote from: Brandon on July 05, 2013, 03:39:13 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 05, 2013, 03:08:12 PM
Some people live in Vancouver for tax reasons, not to mention that it is home to a lot of businesses.  C-Tran also currently runs a lot of full busses to downtown PDX, and a light rail would be nice for the commuters, as well as those trying to get to the Airport.

Maybe more of a stub with a park and ride lot on the Vancouver side?

How about extending the MAX Yellow Line over Hayden Island and have at-ground tracks in Downtown Vancouver. Its better than just mixing light rail with cars on a new replacement bridge.
Fuck GPS. I rather use my brain and common sense.

TEG24601

Quote from: Brandon on July 05, 2013, 03:39:13 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 05, 2013, 03:08:12 PM
Some people live in Vancouver for tax reasons, not to mention that it is home to a lot of businesses.  C-Tran also currently runs a lot of full busses to downtown PDX, and a light rail would be nice for the commuters, as well as those trying to get to the Airport.

Maybe more of a stub with a park and ride lot on the Vancouver side?

That was all the original CRC was supposed to have, then someone decided that an extension up old 99 to Mill Plain then East was a good idea.  I think if there was light rail in Vancouver that connected to PDX it might help spur development in Vancouver, but wouldn't really be needed, except as an alternative to driving or waiting for the Amtrak.

Running the MAX on the bridge is a WSDOT idea, as they are doing that for the Link in Seattle.  A separate bridge, with a road would be nice from Hayden Island, just to get local traffic off of I-5.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

sp_redelectric

The problem with light rail is there is a very large contingent of people in Vancouver who plainly do not want it.  They do pay for the Interstate Highway and want it improved.  Portland and Metro (not ODOT) are trying to bully their own solution and are playing the angry child who stomps away if they don't get their way.

Frankly at this point, I think ODOT ought to just say that I-5 and I-84 (along with I-405) within Portland city limits should be abandoned to city jurisdiction (along with every remaining state highway in city limits), through I-5's markers on I-205, and let Portland do what they want - and pay for it themselves.  As a resident of a south-of-Portland suburb Portland is trying to force light rail down south (although they are doing so less subtlely as with Vancouver, and are claiming to "look at alternatives" although we all know that's just a show, the ultimate end will be light rail).

TEG24601

I for one like the MAX in Portland, but hate the streetcar (it goes to slow and is in traffic too much).  If Portland was smart, all the rails would be underground or elevated, it would eliminate so many conflicts and fix so many issues.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Avalanchez71

Quote from: NE2 on July 01, 2013, 07:31:43 PM
holy crap agenda 21

It figures that Agenda 21 would pan out in Portland.  Who would have figured?

kkt

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 05, 2013, 04:00:29 PM
The problem with light rail is there is a very large contingent of people in Vancouver who plainly do not want it.  They do pay for the Interstate Highway and want it improved.  Portland and Metro (not ODOT) are trying to bully their own solution and are playing the angry child who stomps away if they don't get their way.

Frankly at this point, I think ODOT ought to just say that I-5 and I-84 (along with I-405) within Portland city limits should be abandoned to city jurisdiction (along with every remaining state highway in city limits), through I-5's markers on I-205, and let Portland do what they want - and pay for it themselves.  As a resident of a south-of-Portland suburb Portland is trying to force light rail down south (although they are doing so less subtlely as with Vancouver, and are claiming to "look at alternatives" although we all know that's just a show, the ultimate end will be light rail).

I am getting that you hate Portland and all, but are you really suggesting Portland not get any value at all from the gas and income taxes it pays the state?

myosh_tino

#23
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 05, 2013, 04:00:29 PM
The problem with light rail is there is a very large contingent of people in Vancouver who plainly do not want it.  They do pay for the Interstate Highway and want it improved.  Portland and Metro (not ODOT) are trying to bully their own solution and are playing the angry child who stomps away if they don't get their way.

Frankly at this point, I think ODOT ought to just say that I-5 and I-84 (along with I-405) within Portland city limits should be abandoned to city jurisdiction (along with every remaining state highway in city limits), through I-5's markers on I-205, and let Portland do what they want - and pay for it themselves.  As a resident of a south-of-Portland suburb Portland is trying to force light rail down south (although they are doing so less subtlely as with Vancouver, and are claiming to "look at alternatives" although we all know that's just a show, the ultimate end will be light rail).
So I take it the anti-freeway sentiment is still pretty strong in Portland?  If that's the case and there is little to no desire to invest in freeway maintenance, then I agree with you 100%.  Turn over those segments of I-5, I-405 and I-84 to the city so they can do whatever they want with those alignments.  Then...

* Reroute I-5 onto I-205 to keep I-5 continuous
* Terminate I-84 at the current I-84/I-205 interchange
* Renumber the existing I-5 freeway south of the 5/205 interchange in Vancouver as a 3DI and have that designation end at the Interstate Bridge (if it's still standing) if WSDOT desires.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

KEK Inc.

Having lived in Vancouver, I can say that not many people actually are too excited about light rail. 

The problem I see with the CSA are height clearances for the non-variable bridges.  The cable stay span in the video didn't seem to be any higher than the crown of the I-5 bridge.  Many boats, including sail boats, can't clear the crown of the I-5 bridge and resort to using the draw bridge as well.  And of course, this all depends on the time of year.  Water levels in March can definitely cause clearance issues. 
Take the road less traveled.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.