CRC Revival?

[Hurricane Rex]

There was a proposal and recommendation to tunnel I-5 under the river when Vera Katz ordered a study to remove the Eastbank Freeway to 'restore' access to the east shore (never was public access; it was industrial buildup prior to I-5's construction). The study concluded that the I-5/405 loop was too integral to Portland's economy, but that it was inadequate, and that the choices boiled down to leaving it as is, turning it into a giant traffic circle, or burying I-5 under the river and the Eastside Industrial District, ripping up the Eastbank (but leaving the Marquam Bridge for local uses).

With sections of 2+2 freeway on both halves of the "loop", inadequate doesn't even begin to describe the scenario here.  Barely enough for local traffic; when through I-5 traffic is added to the mix -- even split between east and west alternates -- it produces congestion even in off-peak hours.  At both a.m. and p.m. commute times, it's gridlock central (injecting I-84 and US 26 traffic sure doesn't help).  At least the former signage on I-5 north down at the I-205 split at Wilsonville tried to persuade through traffic to shift to the east bypass; it seems the current signage doesn't do so, for reasons only known to ODOT (maybe TriMet started getting complaints about traffic noise/exhaust fumes/etc. from West Linn residents and decided to downplay I-205 as the through route of choice!).  

I-205's 2+2 segments on the north and south ends don't help, nor does the continual congestion from Johnson Creek to Airport Way.

I-5 has a 2+2 segment in Vancouver as well, however the traffic on both I-5/205 is generally fine up there, the southern 2+2 on I-205 isn't. At least ODOT is at least studying widening it to 3 lanes each way on I-205.

LG-TP260

[Hurricane Rex]

News: Talks for the CRC are still going, but Kate Brown has proposed a name change to IBR (interstate Bridge Replacement) https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/04/whither-crc-kate-brown-suggests-new-name-for-interstate-bridge-effort.html?outputType=amp

Opinion: I am still opposed to it as it goes. This phase has released no logistics so I'm just going to assume its the same as the CRC plan from 2013. If it is, I'm opposed as are many others.  The change of name is a way to cover up the light rail portion again.

Plus I despise Kate Brown and all lawmakers/education board members who was there in 2005 because they were about to declare me (and people like me) autistic.

LG-TP260

[Bickendan]

My objection isn't the light rail component. It's how they ignored the Coast Guard and failed to factor the river traffic clearance in the design.

[Hurricane Rex]

My objection isn't the light rail component. It's how they ignored the Coast Guard and failed to factor the river traffic clearance in the design.

Bigger objection. How government agencies don't work with each other the FAA had a line, and the Coast Guard has a line.

The main objection I have against light rail here is that Clark County doesn't want it. Heck, even Vancouver wasn't full supportive. I am talking about citizens, not the government.

Regardless, the bridge probably won't look upper tier due to height clearances.

SM-J737T

[sparker]

My objection isn't the light rail component. It's how they ignored the Coast Guard and failed to factor the river traffic clearance in the design.

Bigger objection. How government agencies don't work with each other the FAA had a line, and the Coast Guard has a line.

The main objection I have against light rail here is that Clark County doesn't want it. Heck, even Vancouver wasn't full supportive. I am talking about citizens, not the government.

Regardless, the bridge probably won't look upper tier due to height clearances.

SM-J737T

Back in 1994 there was a particularly nasty election regarding this very subject (LR into Vancouver) in which the authorizing measure was defeated (68%-32%, IIRC) after a campaign that (a) asserted that by doing so, Clark County would be joined at the hip to PDX Metro and would lose its political independence (which technically couldn't happen without the consent of WA state) and (b) Portland gangs would pour over the river and terrorize Vancouver residents.  Essentially a "fear of the other" type of campaign -- but it worked.  It would be interesting to see poll numbers today regarding the issue -- and see if the then-overwhelming negative opinion has shifted measurably. 

A question: has USDOT, Commerce, or the Army Corps of Engineers weighed in regarding any low bridge clearances?  Seeing as how eastern WA locations are publicizing their roles as "inland ports", any restrictions due to downstream obstacles may be problematic.   And would a solution like the Woodrow Wilson Potomac bridge on I-95 be feasible here -- a somewhat higher movable span but one that would require opening only a fraction of the previous facility?   

[nexus73]

There was a height limitation on the proposed new bridge due to a small airport nearby.  If I was making the call, the airport would have been closed or had its operations modified to allow for ships to navigate the Columbia River thanks to a higher bridge.

As for the MAX line running into Vancouver, the Washingtonians called it "the crime train".  As if criminals do not drive cars...LOL!  IMO, light rail added on means the new bridge would have even more capacity for handling the commute.  Eventually the light rail would go towards Camas (east) and the new casino (north).  Urban areas do like to grow after all!  Might as well plan for the future.

Rick

[Verlanka]

As for the MAX line running into Vancouver, the Washingtonians called it "the crime train".  As if criminals do not drive cars...LOL!

Back in 2010, when Tampa was planning a transit referendum, there were fears that criminals could use the train to commit crimes.
Somehow, I don't think that's true at all.

[Bruce]

Crime train is just a dogwhistle for something else. It's an invalid argument that tries to deprive people of an actual debate, to pander to the lowest form of racism around.

I think Vancouver is ready for light rail service. The city is trying to densify its nodes (look at the new waterfront, for example) and The Vine BRT seems to be relatively successful for a market of its size (and is getting a second line soon). Even a short Yellow Line spur that terminates in Downtown Vancouver would be highly successful as a funnel for I-5 bus service (except for peak-of-peak super-express runs).

[sparker]

Crime train is just a dogwhistle for something else. It's an invalid argument that tries to deprive people of an actual debate, to pander to the lowest form of racism around.

Completely correct; the argument back in '94 was promoted largely by parties supplying campaign funding to the anti-light rail cause.  At that time PDX Metro was only a few years old, but had already amassed a number of adversaries -- with quite a few in the housing development area -- whose plans in the Portland exurbs were dashed by Metro anti-sprawl regulations.  Many of them simply moved north across the river, out of the way of Metro's jurisdiction (which, of course, ended at the state line).  What the negative campaign was about was asserting full independence and/or separation of WA territory from that controlled by Metro; as Bruce avers, the "crime train" shit was simply a rallying point to the more fearful part of the Clark County voting public.  They framed the election as a referendum on Clark County (and the whole of SW WA by extension) not having any political/administrative connection to Portland or Metro -- which were then classified as entities intending to usurp personal and financial freedoms.  And even though the city of Vancouver came out in favor of the LR extension, Clark County government decidedly did not. 

One of the mistakes that was made on the part of the pro-LR activists back then was the impression that the then-new presence of WSU Vancouver would tilt the Clark County voter scales toward a more progressive stance; that hasn't panned out, as most students save those with local ties tended to retain their hometown voter registration -- at least 25 years ago.  Possibly things are a bit different now -- but it would seem that any WSU-based gain would be offset by the sizeable amount of new housing deployed north of the Columbia since Metro was established -- the area's sort of a "pressure valve" for those who develop "traditional" medium-to-large lot housing -- a place to undertake such development relatively free of the limitations imposed by Metro.  Those new residents might provide a countering force to any progressive elements within Vancouver or the university.  It would be informative to actually commission a Clark County poll to see how a measure allowing and funding a similar LR extension to that proposed in the '90's would fare.   Since the election results 25 years ago were overwhelmingly negative, anything positive or even close to even would be an improvement -- and might indicate whether such a proposal would be immediately viable or whether more time needs to pass before success could be anticipated. 

[Bruce]

It would also help if the election is during a presidential year, as higher turnout tends to trend more progressive. Our light rail ballots in Seattle have failed during off-year elections (1995, 2007), but passed the following year when it aligned with a presidential election (1996, 2008, 2016).

[Hurricane Rex]

So there seems to be a proposal for a 3rd bridge, with a kickoff campaign coming up. I ignored it for a while but due to the kickoff campaign, I need to address it.

This proposal would add a 3rd bridge in a Fritzowl style way. It would construct I-305 as they call it either as a viaduct or a tunnel through N Portland, then cross over the Columbia near the RR crossing. There would also be a connector to US 30 via surface road. It connects back up to I-5 at Mill Plain blvd, with a near 90 degree turn near it.

Disclaimer: This is coming from someone who has supported freeway expansion in Portland, and a 3rd bridge.

I have many problems with this proposal:

1. Cost. I'm estimating about $300 million a mile not including the bridge as a low estimate. That would equate to at least $3 billion.
2. Design. Its not a bypass although its marketed as such, its just an I-5 alternate. Also why the 90 degree curve at the Northern end? Seems like too much hassle in an area where it can't support it. And why Mill Plain? Thats too close to downtown for comfort. And why does it go INTO Smith Lake?
3. Ignorance of Interstate bridge failure: It is getting more expensive to maintain, and would fall in a Cascadia earthquake if it happens. Unlike the common sense plan, which at least addresses it, there is no addressing of this problem.
4. Credibility: I'm for citizens making proposals, but the "rendering" looks like the Yaquina bay bridge almost to the exact specs, and the water looks like the Yaquina bay, but mirrored at the arch, and its impossible to post this as I-305 as it would start and end at I-5 for the main project. That tanks this group's credibility rating. Also, they claim that no neighborhood disruption will take place. Fat chance, your building a tunnel under a neighbor.
5. Failure to address problem for a bypass: All traffic that wants to get to Seattle would normally have to funnel into downtown Portland one way or another, then cross the Columbia. This is a reason why I support a westside bypass. Plus it leaves the Rose Quarter bottleneck, and the Tigard and Wilsonville bottlenecks as a "haha, skrew you frieght."

The only thing I feel like they got right: I-5 is full. Its capacity is about 144,000 (48,000 VPM, and thats more than generous) for rush hour traffic, non-rush free-flow with no bridge lifts, and its about at 140,000. Free flow you can shave 30% off of that capacity.

Analyze it for your self. I'd like all of your feedback if you have anything else to add or want to strengthen or refute anything I put in here. I might be sending them a constructive criticism email about this. https://thirdbridgenow.org/benefits-impacts/

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
The "blurb" provided gives short shrift to the section that apparently tunnels under the St. John bluff; at present there already is a tunnel there connecting the UP freight yard along the east bank of the Willamette with both the present Columbia River rail bridge and the E-W UP freight line paralleling Columbia Blvd. (the one that goes right up the Gorge).  It'll be interesting to see how a multi-lane road facility (a) avoids the RR tunnel, which is about a mile long and straight as an arrow N-S, and (b) deals with tunnel ventilation, seeing as how a residential neighborhood -- and the University of Portland -- sit atop the bluff, limiting vertical shafts.  The tunnel would have to be quite an engineering feat -- likely twin tunnels, with one supplying ventilation for the main bore. 

Also -- while I do like the physical design of the main river span, a double-deck causeway across west-central Vancouver might be a hard sell; the alignment may have to be altered to more closely follow the RR tracks northward before cutting over to I-5 somewhere near the I-205 merge.  The plans as pictured look preliminary at best; a lot of details will need to be modified or otherwise negotiated before such a plan could and would be approved by all parties.  And it can't and won't be able to be done "on the cheap" by any means!

[Bickendan]

Sparker beat me to the RR tunnel point, and the location they put their 'I-305' is smack down the existing tunnel, which is not an abandoned line.
They project an ADT of 195,000, and that it will take traffic off "I-5, I-205, I-405, I-84 freeway [sic], HWY-26, HWY-30, SR14, SR-500, and adjacent arterioles [sic], relieving congestion." Ok, how the hell would it relieve the East Portland, Stadium, and Banfield Freeways, and how does it relate at all to the Sunset, Lewis and Clark, and the 500 Freeways, aside as they being start point and end points for trips?
The tunnel routing feeds directly into the Fremont Stack via Greeley, which would exacerbate the Rose Quarter chokepoint, or onto Interstate Ave, which couldn't handle any influx of traffic because of the Yellow Line, and there's no physical way to connect any such facility onto the Fremont Bridge itself, as it would cause bigger weaving issues on the bridge than it already has with the western US 30 Wye.

Addressing the Linnton crossing. A Willamette crossing there isn't bad; it's actually where I'd put it to avoid any facilities on Sauvie Island (because that's a whole level of NIMBY not worth risking). But, if they're projecting 195k ADT (again, what?), US 30 cannot handle that -- even if I-505 had been fully built out to Clatskanie (incidentally, had that one happened, I-505 WOULD have been a true I-5 alternate/relief route, because of WA 433 and 432 between Rainier and Longview, though the Lewis and Clark Bridge might have needed a twin span)! A facility between Columbia Blvd and Smith Lake *could* be useful if trying to avoid ROW along the few neighborhoods along Columbia, but I'd rather upgrade Columbia and Lombard (out to I-205) and make Bypass 30 worthy of its banner again. Since that's not the focus here, the proposed segment along ORH 120 (Portland Rd) and the RR and crossing the mid-section of Haydn Island and skirting the western edge of downtown Vancouver and wrapping in to I-5 along 501 is, frankly, nuts. I realize the Portland Rd segment is to allow a connection to the tunnel segment, but I've already mentioned that I think that's a bad idea.

Instead, the route should be north along Lombard, and from the point where Lombard turns into Marine Dr at the entrance to Kelly Point Park, northeast across the Columbia River and meet up with I-5 at SR 500. And I'd bury the freeway under 39th St.
And frankly, this routing's best served if it punches through the Tualatin Moutains out toward the fabled Westside Bypass or a nothern extension of OR 217. And we can count on one hand the percentage of that happening.

Costs: Better off building the replacement Interstate spans and tearing down the old ones.
Traffic relief: They're kidding, right? This doesn't relieve I-205, I-84, WA 14, WA 500, I-405, US 26 or US 30.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
I can't see UP giving up their tunnel (which is single-track and would have to be bored out in any instance to accommodate a multilane freeway); it's their main freight egress from the classification yard to their lines heading north & east (the line along the Banfield, formerly used to route now-nonexistent passenger traffic to Union Station, has a heavy eastbound gradient and, as such, doesn't see much use except for running "baretable" (empty container frames) cars WB).  Besides, as Dan avers, merging onto I-5 at or near the north I-405 interchange is, well, a faulty idea, considering the issues with widening I-5 south of there.  Overall, while the location of the Columbia crossing isn't the worst I've seen, routing traffic over to it -- from both directions -- is something that seems to have been pulled from wishful thinking -- and a dearth of common sense.  At this point it's unlikely this proposal will get any farther than prior efforts in this regard.   

[Thunderbyrd316]

   I heard a lady call in to Lars about this yesterday and almost posted about it last night. Quite simply, in freeway averse Portland I see ZERO chance of anything like this EVER getting built, no matter HOW bad I-5 gets. And this is entirely aside from the multitude of things wrong with this proposal.

   I think I posted this before but what I would do (also VERY unlikely in freeway averse Portland) is 8 new elevated express lanes over I-5 from I-405 to Columbia Blvd. Then new 8 lane alignment east of existing freeway through East Delta Park and across new 8 lane bridge east of existing bridge, rejoining I-5 near SR 500. existing freeway north of Columbia would provide local access to existing exits to down town Vancouver but through traffic would default to SR 14 and NOT reconnect with I-5 to the north. Expensive and not very likely but more realistic than this train wreck. (And yes, I know that this will not fix the Rose Quarter bottle neck but should improve evening commute northbound.) 

   Any thoughts about this?

[Bruce]

There were previous proposals for a third bridge, but they would have been built further east of I-205 at Camas or some other crossing. This one looks really, really stupid just for trying to propose a new viaduct through a populated area, which should be a red flag in any city let alone one in the Northwest.

[Hurricane Rex]

There were previous proposals for a third bridge, but they would have been built further east of I-205 at Camas or some other crossing. This one looks really, really stupid just for trying to propose a new viaduct through a populated area, which should be a red flag in any city let alone one in the Northwest.

The thing about the East County bridge is that it was approved by Clark County voters, then shut down by the city council of Vancover. The current proposed location is by Camas for that one, and its stuck in the bureaucracy right now and for the last 3 years. That bridge was well planned though.

SM-J737T

[Sub-Urbanite]

OK, Third Bridge Now has been around for *ever* and doesn't get any traction because it's not real.

I mean, red flag #1: Their rendering is a poorly-photoshopped double-arch, double-decker copy of the Yaquina Bay Bridge. It's laughable.

Red flag #2: It crosses wetlands. Plenty of other posters can talk about how easy it is to construct a new interstate highway across wetlands.

As for the East County bridge — the biggest issue with that is that there is no compatible "landing" infrastructure on the south side of the Columbia, nor would there be. The East County cities won't be interested in seeing transportation money (especially on a "toll-free" bridge!) go to make it easier to commute to Washington, not when they have their own projects they want. Putting Camas / Washougal commuters onto Airport Way won't address any existing bottlenecks, and may make the current bottleneck on I-84 at 205 even worse. Then there's the general current millieu in Oregon — that Rose Quarter project is on life support and it's just to add a humble exit-only lane between 405 and 84.

For my money, the only way you get a third bridge over the Columbia in the Portland metro area is to have it go generally NW-to-SE somewhere near Troutdale and Camas, with enough of a "back-track" that commuter traffic going to Portland wouldn't find it useful, but freight coming out of the Gorge on 84 would be able to use it to connect to SR 14, and commuters going from Camas to Gresham would save some time.

[sparker]

At present there just isn't a location or design for a 3rd bridge and its requisite approaches that would be able to gather support from all the parties who would have to sign off on it -- or even those who would be most directly affected by it.  The sole common ground is that Sauvie Island is "sacred ground" that must be avoided.  It seems that the bridge itself (the plans for reconstructing the I-5 bridges within the existing ROW notwithstanding) is the least of the problems; how to configure or even locate the approaches, particularly to proposals west of I-5, is the major issue of discord.  Obviously, anything tunneling under St. John, as the latest proposal does, is dead in the water not only because of costs and/or displacement of current facilities (ask UP about that!) but because it doesn't take into consideration the current issues with traffic flow within the I-5/east bank - I-405/west bank "loop", including issues that have to date stood in the way of even minimal expansion of the freeways.  So far no one's come up with a solution acceptable to the City of Portland and Metro, who would rather not even consider new freeway mileage, or Vancouver and/or Clark County, who would absolutely love a new crossing as long as it didn't change much on their side of the river.   The "out of sight/out of mind" Camas-area concepts are too much of a physical outlier to be of any practical value; downriver would seem the most rational location to place a crossing -- but that would involve 15-20 miles of upgrading US 30, including some urban (e.g., Yeon) mileage -- which might give Metro pause.  And since no one outside of the real world's version of our Fictional section has seriously brought up a westside bypass -- even a 217 extension -- for years (likely because it would get shot down in short order!), not snaking a freeway along US 30 wouldn't be an option.  It's no wonder folks frustrated at the lack of progress formulate unworkable plans such as this most recent proposal -- they've been reduced to simply grasping at straws!  I lived up there for several years in the '90's -- and dealing with transportation issues in that region is an exercise in self-flagellation or even outright masochism! 

[The Ghostbuster]

If they need to revive the CRC, revive it! But if there is any part of the proposal that includes light rail, dump the proposal in the Columbia or the Williamette River. NO LIGHT RAIL!

[Bruce]

If they need to revive the CRC, revive it! But if there is any part of the proposal that includes light rail, dump the proposal in the Columbia or the Williamette River. NO LIGHT RAIL!

And for what reason is light rail so utterly detestable as to taint the entire project?

If anything, a third bridge should be a light rail and bus bridge like Tillikum Crossing, which also doubles as an EMS bypass. It would be cheaper to build and would be in line with the region's long-term transportation goals (namely to reduce carbon emissions before we all burn to a crisp at the end of human civilization).

[sparker]

If they need to revive the CRC, revive it! But if there is any part of the proposal that includes light rail, dump the proposal in the Columbia or the Williamette River. NO LIGHT RAIL!

And for what reason is light rail so utterly detestable as to taint the entire project?

If anything, a third bridge should be a light rail and bus bridge like Tillikum Crossing, which also doubles as an EMS bypass. It would be cheaper to build and would be in line with the region's long-term transportation goals (namely to reduce carbon emissions before we all burn to a crisp at the end of human civilization).

Although quite likely to gain favor with Metro, a strictly transit (rail/bus) bridge on its own wouldn't have much popular support on the north side of the river.  Seeing as how the present north end of LR is at Janszen Beach (and close to the I-5 crossing), it may as well be incorporated into the design of that project, if such ever gets off the ground.  Looks like there's enough ROW width to accommodate 6 GP lanes, 2 transit lanes, and an LR track (2 might be stretching it!).   Since it'll probably come full circle back to I-5 in the long haul, squeezing as much as possible into the project seems like the way to go -- if any plans actually gel, it just might well be the one chance to finally address the cross-river situation.   

[Bruce]

A single-track bridge would be phenomenally dumb. Vancouver will need quite a few trains per hour to handle rush hour loads (especially since MAX uses two-car trainsets) and it has to be double tracked. Does the bridge need to be 10 lanes across? If the approaches to the north and south can't handle that much traffic, then it shouldn't be built to that width.

[jakeroot]

A single-track bridge would be phenomenally dumb. Vancouver will need quite a few trains per hour to handle rush hour loads (especially since MAX uses two-car trainsets) and it has to be double tracked. Does the bridge need to be 10 lanes across? If the approaches to the north and south can't handle that much traffic, then it shouldn't be built to that width.

I agree. Single-track sections only work if the time-tables allow it, and they're usually too restrictive for a well-used LRT network.

Tacoma has a long single-track section of light rail between Union Station and the Tacoma Dome, but it works because it can do that route (and back) within 12 minutes. If the city wants to increase that frequency (perhaps when the Central Link trains arrive in Tacoma), some serious construction work would be required (probably to build a bypass in the middle of the route).

I would be cool with this setup (160' width...no idea what the actual width would be). There would be barriers where applicable, of course (such are not an option within the Streetmix website):

[Hurricane Rex]

A single-track bridge would be phenomenally dumb. Vancouver will need quite a few trains per hour to handle rush hour loads (especially since MAX uses two-car trainsets) and it has to be double tracked. Does the bridge need to be 10 lanes across? If the approaches to the north and south can't handle that much traffic, then it shouldn't be built to that width.

I agree. Single-track sections only work if the time-tables allow it, and they're usually too restrictive for a well-used LRT network.

Tacoma has a long single-track section of light rail between Union Station and the Tacoma Dome, but it works because it can do that route (and back) within 12 minutes. If the city wants to increase that frequency (perhaps when the Central Link trains arrive in Tacoma), some serious construction work would be required (probably to build a bypass in the middle of the route).

I would be cool with this setup (160' width...no idea what the actual width would be). There would be barriers where applicable, of course (such are not an option within the Streetmix website):

The problem I have with that is that there is no increase in freeway capacity. Light rail and busses may take 10% off as an estimate but that 10% will come back in 12 years even with a recession. And 3 lanes is full as it is if there was no bridge lifts (overcapacity with the lifts). I know space is a concern but no capacity increase, even just an auxiliary lane between 99E and WA 14 is not good planning.

This isn't to say I don't support a bus only lane or light rail on the bridge. I don't consider transit a capacity increase though because of the 10-12% relief vs 33% with one extra lane.

I will not answer any questions about my proposed solution (which isn't the former CRC for the record) but I will/have put them on my fictional page (depending on tier) for users who are curious.

Edit: Portland transit ridership is declining as well despite increase in service and the Orange Line. https://trimet.org/about/performance.htm

I'm not 100% sure but I think Corvallis is the only system in Oregon that is sustaining and possibly growing its passengers count, and we will go through a 25% service expansion next year at the cost of 3 underperforming routes (that's called smart planning). Correct me if I'm wrong.