Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[brownpelican]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Columbia-River-Crossing-plan-narrowed-to-10-lanes-100286799.html

Columbia River Crossing plan down to 10 lanes
by Randy Neves, KGW Staff
kgw.com
Posted on August 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Updated today at 2:47 PM

PORTLAND – The controversial I-5 bridge will not be 12 lanes after all, according to the latest proposal, and the impact to Hayden Island will be much smaller.

Those two important decisions were made by key stakeholders in the project who met Monday morning.

The federal government, the State of Oregon, the State of Washington, metro and transit agencies and leaders from several cities have been working for quite some time on deciding how to build a potential $4 billion replacement bridge over the Columbia River that will connect the two states.

Monday, after months of debate, the planners decided a 12-lane bridge would be too wide and not necessary to accomplish the transportation goals set forth in this project.

So for now, the focus will be on a 10-lane bridge.

“There's still conversation in the community. I hear that we're making political and biased decisions and I think it's important to underscore that we've arrived today at this point because the data shows us that indeed this works,” explained Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt.

In another significant development, a small arterial bridge was proposed between the Expo Center in North Portland and Jantzen Beach. This would allow drivers to travel between those two locations without having to enter I-5 and it would also narrow the I-5 interchange at Hayden Island.

Early next year after an environmental impact statement is complete, the federal government will likely sign off on the project.

[Bickendan]

Ugh. This process is taking too long. Build or scrap the project already

[Zmapper]

8 lanes is more than enough. More than 8 will just move the bottleneck downstream.

[Scott5114]

8 lanes is more than enough. More than 8 will just move the bottleneck downstream.

...which is probably exactly what one of the DOTs wants. Move the bottleneck off the state line and into the other state. Not our problem anymore! Genius.

[andytom]

8 lanes is more than enough. More than 8 will just move the bottleneck downstream.

6 lanes is obviously nowhere near enough, so 8 lanes cannot be more than enough (there are actually 8 lanes across the south channel already).  Since it costs so much to build bridges and they tend to be the traffic chokepoints, you don't build them for what you need today.  You build them so that they are still usable in 20, 30, 40 years.

--Andy

[Zmapper]

Ok, let me clarify my position. When I mean 8 lanes, I mean 8 vehicular lanes, in addition to a ped/bike crossing and light rail. Also, and even if we build a 20 lane bridge, the extra space will mean that people will move up into Washington State and the 20 lane bridge will be just as congested as before. Visit http://smarterbridge.com/?q=node/19 for more information about what I'm talking about. Even though they want an 6 lane bridge, I'll acknowledge going to 8 lanes isn't a bad idea because of the congestion. But no more than 8!

[agentsteel53]

the extra space will mean that people will move up into Washington State and the 20 lane bridge will be just as congested as before.

"hey Mabel, let's move to Washington!"
"what the Hell for, Arnold?"
"the bridge to there is wider!"
"are the houses cheaper?"
"dunno"
"the job markets better?"
"no idea"
"the taxes lower?"
"couldn't tell ya"
"then what the Hell for?"
"I just told you, Mabel!  The bridge is wider!"

[Zmapper]

I can't find the kml file with the animations about what I'm saying right now but I'll throw this Youtube video out there;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEvsSLOd0oM&feature=related

And this is the sequel which is a Portland City Council meeting;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDdDKtScgXI&feature=related

[Brandon]

the extra space will mean that people will move up into Washington State and the 20 lane bridge will be just as congested as before.

Sounds more like NIMBYism that we hear out of Long Grove, Illinois whenever IDOT, ISHTA, Lake County, mostly everyone else, etc, pushes for the Illinois 53 extension.

[Tarkus]

Ugh. This process is taking too long. Build or scrap the project already

Exactly.  And I'd actually lean toward scrap.  I can think of many better highway projects on which to spend $4 billion (or whatever the heck it's up to now) than to replace a deprecated-but-still-functioning bridge with toll bridge that won't have that much more capacity.   For that kind of money, you have to wonder if a third bridge may be a cheaper option.  Especially if it could be routed entirely outside Portland city limits, if you know what I mean.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[Bickendan]

With that in mind... A couple opinion articles from the Oregonian!

Build new freeways

A new 12-lane bridge between Portland and Vancouver will not solve the current congestion on I-5, I-405, I-205, I-84 [US 26] and Oregon 217. These freeways will continue to have serious congestion on a daily basis, and attracting new traffic to a new 12-lave bridge will only clog up our current freeway system.

We need two new freeways to travel around the metro area to help relieve the system: one freeway parallel to Oregon 217 to the west and one freeway parallel to I-205 to the east. The two freeways would start south of Wilsonville area around the Donald area, with one going east and one going west to finish north of Vancouver.

The new west freeway would take traffic off Oregon 217 and I-5 within the urban growth boundary, going north with a new six-lane bridge west of Vancouver. The east freeway would flow just west of Damascus north and meet I-84.

Let's look at other cities that have built surrounding freeways to help relieve Portland's congestion. Building this new freeway system would provide thousands more jobs than a 12-lane bridge that will only lead to more congestion on our current freeway system.

Don Perman
Canby

Yes to freeways

Don Perman's letter ("Build new freeways," Aug. 2) is spot on. In fact, I saw a similar plan detailed on a map in the mid-1970's at the old Metro Service District office. The map was dated late 1930's or early 1940's. That plan had three freeways circling Portland and should have been completed years ago.

Consider that traffic west of Portland wishing to drive into Washington: All vehicles must drive the the U.S. 26 tunnel and across the Fremont Bridge, creating traffic in Portland. I have yet to see a light-rail system capable of moving Silicon Forest goods, agricultural and forest crops, yet people-moving with a single downtown Portland destination point seems to have taken priority in the traffic-congestion debate. It's way past the time for a reality check.

Dick Courter
Northwest Portland

[Zmapper]

Here is my attempt to add another bridge to the Columbia River. There, now if only we can encourage thru traffic to use it! If this is done, the current bridge can remain 6 lanes.
http://goo.gl/maps/p81S

[Bickendan]

Crosses Sauvie Island. Your proposal has just been NIMBY'ed to death. Also, through traffic has no incentive whatsoever to use that, save if they're going from Hillsboro to Washington. If it connected to OR 217, it make a stronger case*.

*OR 217's in bad shape as it is.

[KEK Inc.]

I wouldn't mind a Sauvie Island crossing.  I go to Beaverton from Vancouver quite a bit, and I hate having to go through Downtown Portland.  I also know a lot of people who work in Hillsboro.

[xonhulu]

I definitely would like to see the Sauvie Island crossing, especially as part of a West-Side Bypass not using 217.  Sadly, it has the proverbial snowball's chance of happening.

[andytom]

Ok, let me clarify my position. When I mean 8 lanes, I mean 8 vehicular lanes, in addition to a ped/bike crossing and light rail. Also, and even if we build a 20 lane bridge, the extra space will mean that people will move up into Washington State and the 20 lane bridge will be just as congested as before. Visit http://smarterbridge.com/?q=node/19 for more information about what I'm talking about. Even though they want an 6 lane bridge, I'll acknowledge going to 8 lanes isn't a bad idea because of the congestion. But no more than 8!

None of this changes the fact that, when building bridges, you don't build for what you need now; you build for what you need in 20-30 years.  Over time, it's massively less expensive to build for the future every 50 yrs than to build for current conditions every 20, particularly at chokepoints like bridges.

People are moving into the Portland area and some of that will move into Vancouver.  A small bridge isn't going to change that.

Note that the change from 12 to 10 lanes is reducing the cost by only 1-2% and probably removing auxilliary lanes on the bridge itself.

--Andy

[andytom]

Here is my attempt to add another bridge to the Columbia River. There, now if only we can encourage thru traffic to use it! If this is done, the current bridge can remain 6 lanes.
http://goo.gl/maps/p81S

This does not address the fact that 75% of the trips that cross the current bridge begin or end within 5 miles of the bridge.  It doesn't address the fact that OR-217 has the highest per-lane traffic counts of any highway in the state (has been that way for a long time) and is hit-or-miss as to whether it's clogged or not at any time of day right now.  It does not address the fact that US-26 west of OR-217 is often in bad shape even with the continued extension of the six lane portion (which just moves the problem farther out, currently in the process of moving it from Cornell to 185th).

--Andy

[ShawnP]

If you guys want to scrap it..........send the money to the Louisville Bridges Project (new I-65 bridge and new east end bridge and roadways connecting two unconnected sections of I-265).