News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Ding, dong, the CRC is dead

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sp_redelectric

Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2013, 05:25:48 PMI 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?
Portland would be rather content being a pedestrian, bicycle and streetcar-only city.  So why not let them do that - and use the state highway dollars for the benefit of the entire state.  (As it is, ODOT pays quite a bit for every light rail project anyways.)

Either that, or ODOT needs to grow a backbone, and make it clear to the City that state highways are state highways - and not pawns in the city's crazy transportation chess game.  The city benefits from the state highways whether it wants to acknowledge that or not - we all know 90% of the city's transportation needs are motor vehicles on the roads, only 10% are pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips.  But if the city really wants to claim complete control of everything in its boundaries - let them have it.  If you want to make a statement about my personal beliefs, it's that I don't live in Portland, I do not elect Portland's city council or Mayor, and I do not appreciate the City being given any say in the matters of what happens outside of Portland's city limits.  Portland should not be dictating transportation matters in Vancouver, or Oak Grove, or Tigard.  There's a reason there is a hierarchy of transportation jurisdictions, but if Portland does not want to honor that, then ODOT could really use that money that is spent maintaining Portland's state highways elsewhere.  Oregon 99W through Tigard could sure use some investment, as could Oregon 217.  Or finish the I-5/217 interchange.


sp_redelectric

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 06, 2013, 01:54:26 AM* 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.

SR 14 is a NHS component road that I believe for the most part meets Interstate standards west of Camas, so take SR 14 west of I-205, combine it with I-5 from 14 back to current I-205, and turn it into I-605.  Rebuild the current SR 14/I-5 interchange so that the mainline makes a sweeping curve, and the Interstate Bridge is simply another freeway exit.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 06, 2013, 11:13:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2013, 05:25:48 PMI 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?
Portland would be rather content being a pedestrian, bicycle and streetcar-only city.  So why not let them do that - and use the state highway dollars for the benefit of the entire state.  (As it is, ODOT pays quite a bit for every light rail project anyways.)

Either that, or ODOT needs to grow a backbone, and make it clear to the City that state highways are state highways - and not pawns in the city's crazy transportation chess game.  The city benefits from the state highways whether it wants to acknowledge that or not - we all know 90% of the city's transportation needs are motor vehicles on the roads, only 10% are pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips.  But if the city really wants to claim complete control of everything in its boundaries - let them have it.  If you want to make a statement about my personal beliefs, it's that I don't live in Portland, I do not elect Portland's city council or Mayor, and I do not appreciate the City being given any say in the matters of what happens outside of Portland's city limits.  Portland should not be dictating transportation matters in Vancouver, or Oak Grove, or Tigard.  There's a reason there is a hierarchy of transportation jurisdictions, but if Portland does not want to honor that, then ODOT could really use that money that is spent maintaining Portland's state highways elsewhere.  Oregon 99W through Tigard could sure use some investment, as could Oregon 217.  Or finish the I-5/217 interchange.

Of course, the people in Portland could say the same thing about people in Vancouver and Washington state interfering in their transportation matters, too.

The fact remains that Portlanders pay gas and fuel taxes, too, and their MPO has every right -- the same as Bloomington, Indiana, I would say -- to impart what they see as the majority in their city's view on transportation...whether we like it or not. I think that they are way over the top regarding New Urbanism and their obsession with rail-based transport and hating on freeways and cars, but if that's the majority view of its citizens, then the best we can do is argue with them and offer alternatives that can be acceptable to everyone.

More than likely, since I-5 is an Interstate corridor, the Feds will more than likely intervene with a freeway-only solution of replacing the Columbia River bridge with a modern version without the added baubles, and let Portland find another way to fulfill their light rail obsessions.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 06, 2013, 11:13:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2013, 05:25:48 PMI 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?
Portland would be rather content being a pedestrian, bicycle and streetcar-only city.  So why not let them do that - and use the state highway dollars for the benefit of the entire state.  (As it is, ODOT pays quite a bit for every light rail project anyways.)

Does ODOT help to pay the massive transit operating losses at Tri-Met?

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 06, 2013, 11:13:54 PM
Either that, or ODOT needs to grow a backbone, and make it clear to the City that state highways are state highways - and not pawns in the city's crazy transportation chess game.

Though Portland is not the only city in the U.S. that plays such a game. 

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 06, 2013, 11:13:54 PM
The city benefits from the state highways whether it wants to acknowledge that or not - we all know 90% of the city's transportation needs are motor vehicles on the roads, only 10% are pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips.  But if the city really wants to claim complete control of everything in its boundaries - let them have it. 

Wonder how Portland will get freight delivered and its trash taken away if they get away with  their anti-auto and anti-highway and pro-rail agenda.

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 06, 2013, 11:13:54 PM
If you want to make a statement about my personal beliefs, it's that I don't live in Portland, I do not elect Portland's city council or Mayor, and I do not appreciate the City being given any say in the matters of what happens outside of Portland's city limits.  Portland should not be dictating transportation matters in Vancouver, or Oak Grove, or Tigard.  There's a reason there is a hierarchy of transportation jurisdictions, but if Portland does not want to honor that, then ODOT could really use that money that is spent maintaining Portland's state highways elsewhere.  Oregon 99W through Tigard could sure use some investment, as could Oregon 217.  Or finish the I-5/217 interchange.

Do not forget the role (and powers) of Portland Metro, the only  metropolitan planning organization in the U.S. with an independently elected board, which extend well beyond the municipal boundaries of Portland (but not across the river into Washington).  I understand from my friends in Oregon that much of the anti-auto (and especially pro-rail transit) ideology comes from that agency and its staff.

And wasn't the whole CRC as much about Metro and Tri-Met trying to find a new "market" to subsidize Portland's transit operating losses generally, and light rail losses in particular?
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 03, 2013, 12:09:08 AM
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.

I also wonder if a train line of any kind would result in a requirement for four towers and sets of stay cables?

Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 03, 2013, 12:09:08 AM
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.

That is indeed a problem.  And the Pacific Northwest has had some pretty strong earthquakes in the past, given the nearby Cascadia subduction zone.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

sp_redelectric

Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 07, 2013, 04:31:33 AM
Of course, the people in Portland could say the same thing about people in Vancouver and Washington state interfering in their transportation matters, too.

I'm pretty sure that Vancouver/Clark County has never dictated to Oregon, or Portland, exactly what kind of road and transit system to build.

Portland is dictating that Clark County build light rail.  Clark County is saying no.  I don't ever recall Clark County telling Portland that it cannot build light rail, or dictating another mode of transport.

Portland/Oregon will be the loser, if it cannot figure out a way to accommodate Clark County residents.  Clark County contributes $160 million a year in Oregon income tax revenues, for services they cannot use (things like schools, universities, public health services, and so on).  Clark County is, IIRC, the sixth largest income tax paying county in all of Oregon plus Clark County - that means Clark County pays more in income taxes than 30 of Oregon's own counties.  And Clark County residents still pay the federal gas tax that gets allocated in part to Oregon.

As for the gas taxes Portland pays, again - they are happily content being an auto-free city.  And Portlanders would still have access to the state highway system - and the highways in Washington state as well.  But if they get rid of the cars, they can't complain that they don't get the missing gas tax revenues that are no longer being paid, either.

Tarkus

Metro is little more than an overblown, imperialistic tentacle that reaches out from the Portland planner-developer complex and tries to guilt Washington and Clackamas Counties (and the cities within them) into compliance, under the guise of "regional cooperation".  When voters passed the measure to create Metro, I think many of them saw it as means to curb population growth, in the wake of Tom McCall's "visit, but don't stay" speech, rather than a mandate for skinny houses, apartment bunkers, and inadequate transportation capacity.  Cut off Metro's abilities to enforce planning (which is more or less contained in one chapter of the charter), and you'd remove a huge obstacle.  Alas, no one's quite found which plug to pull to power down that menace. 

I've long believed a third bridge is the only real option here.  And a more direct connection from Washington County to Washington State would be a huge economic boon, and wouldn't be tied down by the physical constraints on the I-5 Interstate Bridge site.  It also would remove the potential for bottlenecks, should Portland be cut free.

cpzilliacus

N.Y. Times: Washington and Oregon Cities Try to Evade Political Jam to Build a Bridge

QuotePORTLAND, Ore. – The bicycling commuter in pipestem jeans is not just a caricature of nerdy Pacific Northwest cool. Miles driven per year in old-fashioned automobiles – partly through dint of pedal power and pedestrians – are lower now than in 1995 here on Multnomah County's major thoroughfares, according to state figures, even as the population has grown by more than 21 percent.

QuoteBut follow the bike lanes and greenways north to the Columbia River, where the spidery steel trusses of the Interstate 5 bridge clutch the banks, and Portland looks like any typical American city, choked by traffic. The oldest elements of the bridge date from 1917.

QuoteThese intertwined, competing identities are central to what comes next for the Columbia River Crossing, a $3.4 billion bridge-replacement project of new highway ramps, traffic lanes and light rail linking Portland to Vancouver, Wash., that was supposed to resolve a traffic choke point. The old plan, after more than 20 years and tens of millions of dollars' worth of studies, was killed last month by the Washington State Senate after the Republican-dominated majority coalition declined to vote on financing it.

QuoteThe governors of Oregon and Washington, both Democrats, immediately ordered further planning work halted.

QuoteThen, almost without missing a beat, local leaders picked up the ball. If political paralysis in Olympia, the capital of Washington, had killed the old proposal, they said, then cooperation on the ground, by people who have witnessed the region's transportation changes firsthand, would find the way.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

andy3175

As an update, I stumbled across this article "Columbia River bridge proponents push for another special session" from KATU dated 10/4/2013:

http://www.katu.com/politics/Columbia-River-bridge-proponents-pushing-for-another-special-session-226556051.html

QuoteProponents of building a new Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River are still pushing for another special session to get that project going. Lawmakers who finished a three-day special session this week say they'll turn their attention to the bridge next week. No session has been scheduled, and steps such as a financial analysis and contract with Washington are still to be completed. Business and labor groups are pushing to see the bridge built, even after the Senate in Washington declined to help pay for it. Project boosters are promoting an alternate plan that wouldn't require money from Washington and would scrap most of the interchanges planned north of the river. By Tuesday, lawmakers should have a good reading on whether there's a collective will to approve funding for the project, said Ryan Deckert, president of the Oregon Business Association, a lobbying group that strongly backs the project.

QuotePlans call for a new, wider bridge and interchanges leading up to it. It also would extend Portland's light rail system into Vancouver, Wash. Original plans called for $450 million contributions from Oregon and Washington, along federal highway and transit funds and toll revenue to pay off the project. Oregon lawmakers approved funding earlier this year, but their approval was contingent on Washington following suit by Sept. 30, which didn't happen amid staunch opposition to light rail. A scaled-back project would stop at the State Route 14 interchange in Vancouver. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a strong proponent of the project, has said it can't move forward without an agreement from Washington allowing Oregon to collect all toll revenue and to manage construction north of the state line. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is supportive of the project. "The CRC's important to me, I think it's important to Oregon, I want to make that happen," Kitzhaber told reporters on Wednesday. Oregon State Treasurer Ted Wheeler has warned that an Oregon-only project would increase risks for his state's taxpayers. In a letter dated Sept. 26, he said "it is premature to conclude that the project can work, financially." The project cleared a key hurdle last week when the U.S. Coast Guard issued a building permit. Permission from the Coast Guard had been in doubt because the new bridge would be lower than the existing one, restricting river traffic on the Columbia.

Regards,
Andy
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

andy3175

An editorial on the I-5 CRC from Oregon Live "After a brief rest, it's time for another special session -- and hearings -- on the CRC: Agenda 2013": http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/10/after_a_quick_breather_its_tim.html

QuoteBut the CRC looms now as a candidate for another special session, because everything but political consensus has lined up:

--  The U.S. Coast Guard approved the long-contested height of the bridge, with adequate remediation measures in place for those riverfront industries unable to get sufficient water-to-span clearance for passage.

--  Clark County's mass transit agency, C-Tran, decided it would shoulder operating costs of a MAX light rail line connecting Portland and Vancouver via a new I-5 bridge, effectively making itself a partner with Portland-based transit agency TriMet.

--  Washington state's attorney general declared he found "no fatal flaws" in a plan in which Oregon would lead financing and construction of the bridge, with Washington's Department of Transportation and others in Washington stepping up to work with Oregon counterparts.

--  Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler declared Oregon could lead and finance the project if several conditions were met, among them that the Coast Guard said okay and that Washington state would allow Oregon to control tolling levels — this because Oregon would be on the hook for bonding and thus need to set tolls at sufficient levels to service longterm debt.

It's the last part that could make things tricky.

QuoteWhat's required this time, however, are public hearings that precede a late-October special session devoted exclusively to the CRC. Political and even civic bile has built up around the project, an essential replacement for inadequate I-5 spans over the Columbia River and the cause of chronic congestion. People from every corner of the state should have a full say in whether Oregon can afford to take on a $2.6 billion version of the project that, after 10 years of planning, became mired in design and cost controversies.

The stakes are higher than ever. Oregon would need to re-up its $450 million commitment but assume an estimated $1.3 billion in toll-backed bonds — all the while securing $850 million from the U.S. for the rail line portion of the project. And yet the economic losses associated with waiting further for a new bridge would be severe, as the region's ports, and commuter and truck flows, continue to suffer.

Regards,
Andy
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Grzrd

Quote from: doorknob60 on October 17, 2013, 01:52:26 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 16, 2013, 04:08:48 PM
I think this is the most recent and relevant thread about the I-5 Columbia River crossing.  If not, apologies (and mods do whatever works best) .....
Tired when you went looking? 4th thread down: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9808.0 To be fair, the CRC isn't a widely known acronym, but oh well.
Also, your article links to here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8530.0
Yep, tired  :sleep:

Thank you. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/16/2777883/inslee-no-bridge-in-transportation.html

You're right; I am not familiar with the CRC acronym and zipped right over the thread.  I saw the article on the AASHTO home page and simply wanted to share the info.

Here's my snip from the post:

Quote
Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee says he still wants to call a special session of the Legislature to pass a transportation revenue package this November, but a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River won't be part of the deal.
Inslee has championed the Columbia River Crossing but said Tuesday he won't try to include the bridge in a tax plan to fund statewide road improvements, and would be content having Oregon take the lead on replacing the connection between Vancouver, Wash., and Portland ....
The Democrat-controlled state House in June approved a 101/2-cent gas tax increase that
along with various fees would have raised more than $9 billion over a dozen years, including $175 million slated for the Lewis-McChord area and $1.4 billion for expansions of state Route 167 to the Port of Tacoma and of state Route 509 near Sea-Tac International Airport.
It also included more than $400 million to match Oregon's contribution to the replacement Columbia River bridge, which was one reason the funding plan faltered in the more conservative Senate.
This week, The Oregonian reported that Oregon officials might convene a special session to try and fund the bridge on their own using a combination of state and federal funds.
Inslee said Tuesday that by Washington choosing to not fund half of the bridge project, "we've removed an excuse"  to not come up with a broader transportation package.
But Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Medina Democrat who leads a coalition of mostly Republicans, said the Columbia River Crossing could still hold up a vote on a transportation package even if it is not explicitly included in a tax proposal.
Tom said members of his caucus oppose letting Oregon set toll rates on the bridge, as well as allowing another state to build light rail on Washington's side of the river.
"Why would we cede control to Oregon, when it's our citizens who (make up) the vast majority of traffic going between Washington and Oregon?"
Tom asked Tuesday. "Does (Inslee) want to give up his governorship?"
Jaime Smith, spokeswoman for Inslee, said even if the Oregon-led bridge project proceeds, the Washington State Transportation Commission – which sets tolls on Washington state highways – would have input on toll rates.
But that assurance might not be enough. State Sen. Curtis King, a Yakima Republican who co-chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said Senate Republicans are still looking for a bridge design that excludes light rail, which he said would cost too much for local transportation agencies to operate.

I am going to delete my post in the other thread.  If you do likewise, we should be back "on thread" here.

OCGuy81

I'm really surprised this was axed.  I-5 is a major artery of the west coast, and having a drawbridge seems a recipe for bottlenecks.

Speaking of which, is I-5 in North Portland, especially southbound, still a major choke point in the Portland commute?  I remember my last trip there it narrowed to 2 lanes at one part.

xonhulu

Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 24, 2014, 12:19:27 AM
I'm really surprised this was axed.  I-5 is a major artery of the west coast, and having a drawbridge seems a recipe for bottlenecks.

In the papers last week, officials down here were still wrangling with Oregon building it on its own.  Make of that what you will.  And they would still need Washington's cooperation to build the northern approach and reconfigure the WA 14 interchange.

QuoteSpeaking of which, is I-5 in North Portland, especially southbound, still a major choke point in the Portland commute?  I remember my last trip there it narrowed to 2 lanes at one part.

They widened it to 3 lanes a few years back.   I-5 still narrows to 2 lanes each way south in the I-405/I-84 vicinity, though, and there are no plans to widen down there, AFAIK.  It would be a pretty mean feat to pull off, anyway.

OCGuy81

QuoteIn the papers last week, officials down here were still wrangling with Oregon building it on its own.  Make of that what you will.  And they would still need Washington's cooperation to build the northern approach and reconfigure the WA 14 interchange.

Yeah! NB 5 to EB 14 is a really crappily (I know that's not a word, but you get the point) designed interchange, IMO! Love to see that improved.

Bickendan

Quote from: xonhulu on January 24, 2014, 09:38:26 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 24, 2014, 12:19:27 AM
I'm really surprised this was axed.  I-5 is a major artery of the west coast, and having a drawbridge seems a recipe for bottlenecks.

In the papers last week, officials down here were still wrangling with Oregon building it on its own.  Make of that what you will.  And they would still need Washington's cooperation to build the northern approach and reconfigure the WA 14 interchange.

QuoteSpeaking of which, is I-5 in North Portland, especially southbound, still a major choke point in the Portland commute?  I remember my last trip there it narrowed to 2 lanes at one part.

They widened it to 3 lanes a few years back.   I-5 still narrows to 2 lanes each way south in the I-405/I-84 vicinity, though, and there are no plans to widen down there, AFAIK.  It would be a pretty mean feat to pull off, anyway.

Not quite: ODOT's finally got some idea how they would rebuild I-5 through Rose Quarter (I *refuse* to call it Moda Center). Now they just need money.

doorknob60

Quote from: Bickendan on January 28, 2014, 01:46:39 AM
Not quite: ODOT's finally got some idea how they would rebuild I-5 through Rose Quarter (I *refuse* to call it Moda Center). Now they just need money.

Interesting, have a link to an article about that? Not that ODOT will ever have money at this point haha.

I thought the area where the former Rose Garden is is still called the Rose Quarter, and they only changed the actual name of the arena. Is this correct, or was my assumption wrong? (I haven't been to Portland since they renamed it). Oh, and Go Blazers!

xonhulu

Quote from: Bickendan on January 28, 2014, 01:46:39 AM
Not quite: ODOT's finally got some idea how they would rebuild I-5 through Rose Quarter (I *refuse* to call it Moda Center). Now they just need money.

I would definitely welcome that.  I know they've talked about it before, but the biggest obstacle they mention has always been cost.

BTW, I also refuse to call it Moda Center.  And I'm two name changes obsolete on Jeld-Wen Field -- I still call that Civic Stadium!

Bickendan


xonhulu

Thanks for providing those links.  Very interesting concepts.  I will still not be holding my breath waiting for it, but it is an interchange/street situation screaming for improvement, more so than the Woodburn interchange project now underway.  Given that, I'm a little more optimistic that this project might see the light of day.

Anthony_JK

Bump for an update: it seems that the CRC is REALLY, REALLY dead now:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/mar/07/crc-shut-down-begin-oregon-legislature-adjourns/

Quote
The Columbia River Crossing is dead, and it just might be for good this time.

The Oregon Legislature adjourned Friday without any action on the proposed Interstate 5 Bridge replacement, prompting state leaders to say they'll close down the controversial megaproject this spring.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber had vowed to pull the plug on the CRC unless lawmakers recommitted money to the project this session. That didn't happen. The Oregon Department of Transportation announced Friday, minutes after the final gavel fell in Salem, that the $2.9 billion CRC will "shut down completely"  by May 31.

That's a process that began last summer when Washington pulled out of the project. A last-ditch effort brought the CRC back from the grave by last fall. But Kitzhaber spokeswoman Rachel Wray appeared to close the door on a revival this time around.

"No equivocation,"  Wray said. "It's over."

Of course, the usual suspects (the "No Freeways" lobby in Portland and their polar opposite mirrors in Washington state) will applaud this and prance about how superior their arguments are. I wonder how they will feel when the I-5 bridge falls into the Columbia River.

Build an adequate modern 6-8 lane freeway bridge without tolls or rail; then back it up with a second rail bridge and local transit improvements. Problem solved.

OCGuy81

QuoteOf course, the usual suspects (the "No Freeways" lobby in Portland and their polar opposite mirrors in Washington state) will applaud this and prance about how superior their arguments are. I wonder how they will feel when the I-5 bridge falls into the Columbia River.

Build an adequate modern 6-8 lane freeway bridge without tolls or rail; then back it up with a second rail bridge and local transit improvements. Problem solved.

Probably never happen, and you're right about the No Freeways sentiment in Portland.  It's very noticeable with their horribly dated system. I think we'd see the 5 and 84 freeways turned into bikes and mass transit only before we'd ever see any project over the Columbia.

Great city to visit, but I'd rather drive here in southern California traffic ANY day.  Why? Because even if there is a jam, there are LOTS of alternative freeways and arterial streets. Portland? Not so much.

Tarkus

Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 08, 2014, 02:35:56 AM
Of course, the usual suspects (the "No Freeways" lobby in Portland and their polar opposite mirrors in Washington state) will applaud this and prance about how superior their arguments are. I wonder how they will feel when the I-5 bridge falls into the Columbia River.

Build an adequate modern 6-8 lane freeway bridge without tolls or rail; then back it up with a second rail bridge and local transit improvements. Problem solved.

Actually, the "No Freeways" folks were often joined by the "No Tollways" element of the pro-freeway crowd (I belong within the latter grouping).  The opposition to the CRC really made for some strange bedfellows.  It was an incomprehensibly bad project once you really looked at it in any detail, and I'm glad The Walking Dead Bridge is finally actually dead.

If there's going to be another crossing, it's going to have to be in a different corridor, and somewhere where Portland gets no piece of it.  In all likelihood, that'd entail going up through Washington and Columbia Counties, likely converting portions of US-30 to freeway (which would make sense, with the portage and potential for expansion up that way).

andy3175

A year-end take on the death (for now) of the Columbia River Crossing:

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20141220/NEWS03/141229905

QuoteAs the story behind one of the greatest engineering non- achievements of the 21st century shows, the unbuilding of bridges just might be America's last great collective undertaking.
Oregon and Washington had spent more than a decade devising a compromise to replace the steel-girded mess on Interstate 5. The structure dates to 1917 during Woodrow Wilson's presidency and is too low for the tallest river-going derricks and dredges, so operators frequently have to raise part of the span, halting traffic. Rush hour starts every weekday at 2 p.m., and congestion multiplies odds of a crash as much as fourfold around the bridge, Oregon transportation planners say.

A wider, modern span might reduce accidents 70 percent, boost annual economic output by more than $600 million and add $230 million to local wages, they estimate. Construction of the $3.2 billion Columbia River Crossing was supposed to begin this year, with backing from the federal government, governors of both states, the local chambers of commerce, and more than a dozen government agencies.

And then, gridlock. Washington state lawmakers spurned $1.25 billion in federal funding, at one point publicly rebuking Obama's Republican transportation secretary when he flew to Olympia to court them.

As a result, drivers on the busiest West Coast trucking corridor encounter this white-knuckle ride just north of Portland: Three 10-foot-wide lanes squeeze into a space fit for two. A humped midsection blocks sight lines. There are no shoulders. One winding on-ramp merges directly with car and truck traffic blowing past at 50 miles an hour.

QuoteMoney isn't the only obstacle, as the protracted fight in the Northwest demonstrates. Disagreements over growth, and the related concerns of pollution, greenhouse gases and density, touch on essential questions of how and where people live. It's hard to build a road when a strong constituency really wants a bike path instead.

Planners in the Northwest tried to please everyone. For drivers, they designed a new bridge with 10 car lanes and wide shoulders linking Portland and Vancouver, Washington, the city on the Columbia's opposite bank. Public transit fans would get their own deck in the double-deck structure, with room for bicycles, pedestrians and light rail. Five new interchanges would smooth traffic.

By this year, $200 million of state and federal money had been spent on design work alone, employing scores of engineers, geologists and architects.

The bridge erected here a century ago, still in use as the northbound part of the span, cost $1.75 million and initially had a 15 mile-an-hour speed limit. It was known as simply the Interstate Bridge.

Workers pounded Douglas firs 60 feet into the sandy riverbed and topped them with 10 linked steel sections that today have the look of cages from an old-time circus. A five- cent toll for vehicles and "each person riding on an animal" paid for construction.

A matching span went up next to the original in 1958, part of President Dwight Eisenhower's interstate highway system - the 40,000-mile network that ultimately cost $129 billion, the equivalent of $1.1 trillion today. The nationwide project was so uncontroversial that it passed the Senate on a voice vote.

QuoteIn assessments from the National Bridge Inventory, the older, northbound part of the span has one of the lowest ratings of any U.S. highway bridge carrying at least 50,000 vehicles daily. Its sufficiency rating, which takes in such factors as structural condition, average traffic and road width, was 28th- lowest among 18,984 such bridges in 2013, data show.

While Oregon chief bridge engineer Bruce Johnson says the span isn't in imminent danger, he adds that it's vulnerable in an earthquake and might cost $600 million to bring up to present seismic standards. The trunnion shafts and rollers need replacing, cracks in the deck have to be patched, and the bearings are rusting. Fixing all that might cost more than $12 million, and at some point, the 25-year-old road decks must be replaced, for $150 million. Just repainting the bridge might cost $75 million.

November's election of a divided government - in both Washingtons - reinforces the political standoff that's led only to patching, talking and waiting. Yet there's rarely been a better time to think big. Average interest rates are hovering close to their lowest since the 1960s. "If you're ever going to make investments in infrastructure, now is the time to do it,"  says Frankel, the former Bush administration official.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

OCGuy81

It's really sad this can't get done.  I drove across in both directions this past summer, and it could really use an upgrade.  The approaches to it from both sides give you very little room to accelerate and merge (I'd gotten onto I-5 NB from Exit 308 after stopping at a Starbucks.  It was a curved, short ramp that ended right before the start of the bridge), and it's narrow, especially with the truck traffic.

Given that I-5 is the artery of the entire west coast, having this proverbial clogged artery in Portland isn't helping anyone, if anything it's creating more problems.

Portland's mentality seems to be "oh, this will just get more people onto bikes or mass transit."

andy3175

Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 07, 2015, 10:18:04 AM
It's really sad this can't get done.  I drove across in both directions this past summer, and it could really use an upgrade.  The approaches to it from both sides give you very little room to accelerate and merge (I'd gotten onto I-5 NB from Exit 308 after stopping at a Starbucks.  It was a curved, short ramp that ended right before the start of the bridge), and it's narrow, especially with the truck traffic.

Given that I-5 is the artery of the entire west coast, having this proverbial clogged artery in Portland isn't helping anyone, if anything it's creating more problems.

Portland's mentality seems to be "oh, this will just get more people onto bikes or mass transit."

Or it may be ... "just take I-205 to the east of Portland. It's actually faster!"
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com



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.