http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/06/columbia_river_crossing_implos.html#incart_river (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.
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.
holy crap agenda 21
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.
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?
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.
The I-35W bridge replacement has provisions for light rail or busway...
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
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.
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: 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone).
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.
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.
N.Y. Times: Washington and Oregon Cities Try to Evade Political Jam to Build a Bridge (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/us/Washington-and-Oregon-Cities-Try-to-Sidestep-Political-Gridlock-to-Build-a-Bridge.html)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Civic Stadium and Civic Auditorium ftw
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/pages/i5partnership/rosequarter.aspx
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/415777
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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!"
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:34 AM
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!"
Sure, but it would be nice if the I-5 bridge didn't fall down in the next earthquake. I can't believe they just gave up completely.
The failure to take the Coast Guard and the clearances needed didn't help at all.
I've the impression that part of the reason Washington nuked their support had something to do with MAX, annoyingly.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:34 AM
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!"
Which is why I'm in favor of routing I-5 onto I-205 and let the city of Portland do whatever the hell they want with the existing I-5 freeway and the bridge.
Which would probably be converting the entire highway into a four lane boulevard with sidewalks and bike lanes....and maybe a light rail line (south of downtown at least.) :)
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 08, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:34 AM
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!"
Which is why I'm in favor of routing I-5 onto I-205 and let the city of Portland do whatever the hell they want with the existing I-5 freeway and the bridge.
Seems like an easy fix, but economically unwise as it bypasses two major city centers in the region.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
Or it may be ... "just take I-205 to the east of Portland. It's actually faster!"
There is, at least, the big diagrammatic that says "either 5 or 205 is fine with us":
http://goo.gl/maps/rnOs2
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F42kiOcv.png&hash=ee72cb35232f69dfa63b20e218a756dc6b2360c0)
Quote from: Kniwt on January 10, 2015, 12:58:41 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
Or it may be ... "just take I-205 to the east of Portland. It's actually faster!"
There is, at least, the big diagrammatic that says "either 5 or 205 is fine with us":
http://goo.gl/maps/rnOs2
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F42kiOcv.png&hash=ee72cb35232f69dfa63b20e218a756dc6b2360c0)
Contrastly, here's the other side. I guess it informs drivers how the split is, but it's a pretty big waste of metal.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.740952,-122.659845,3a,41.8y,166.38h,91.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sh4g72pAlHzCiG8WufWgK_g!2e0
Before I lived 3 blocks from I-205, I was a fan of that sign — really helped demonstrate that either freeway worked for through traffic.
I'm less of a fan now that I have to listen to the traffic at night...
Speaking of PDX freeways, here is an article loaded with lots of pix showing how the Rose City's freeway network developed.
http://www.oregonlive.com/history/2015/01/throwback_thursday_portland_fr.html
There is also a map showing the original idea for how to lay out a freeway system there.
Rick
That map sucks. I have a much better one hosted I'll link to when I get home. It's CRAG's official map from 1970 projected for 1990.