I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

[Bruce]

Washington has passed $1 billion in funding for its share of the bridge replacement (part of the larger Move Ahead WA package).

The ball is now in Oregon's court.

[kkt]

Good!

[Sub-Urbanite]

Washington has passed $1 billion in funding for its share of the bridge replacement (part of the larger Move Ahead WA package).

The ball is now in Oregon's court.

We'll figure it out a way to screw it up, don't you worry!

[Bickendan]

Washington has passed $1 billion in funding for its share of the bridge replacement (part of the larger Move Ahead WA package).

The ball is now in Oregon's court.

We'll figure it out a way to screw it up, don't you worry!

...yeah we probably will

[Bruce]

The consensus is to extending light rail to Vancouver as part of the bridge project.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/21/i-5-bridge-project-lands-on-light-rail-for-replacement-bridge/

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm in support just as long as there is 10+ car lanes for it too. Both modes of transit should be properly served.

[SkyPesos]

The consensus is to extending light rail to Vancouver as part of the bridge project.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/21/i-5-bridge-project-lands-on-light-rail-for-replacement-bridge/

That's nice to see. Was really hoping that it would be chosen over BRT for the new bridge, for the various reasons stated in the article.

Anyways, is it mentioned yet how many lanes the new bridge would have. Personally, I think 10 is a good number looking at AADT and for future-proofing.

[Bruce]

Considering that I-5 has six total thru lanes through North Portland, ten lanes on the bridge would be overkill. The bottleneck would just move a bit south and be backfilled by more traffic anyway.

[kernals12]

Considering that I-5 has six total thru lanes through North Portland, ten lanes on the bridge would be overkill. The bottleneck would just move a bit south and be backfilled by more traffic anyway.

You're right, they should widen the rest of it. Joe Cortright has pointed out the planned Rose Quarter widening has enough space for 8 lanes.

[Plutonic Panda]

Considering that I-5 has six total thru lanes through North Portland, ten lanes on the bridge would be overkill. The bottleneck would just move a bit south and be backfilled by more traffic anyway.

You're right, they should widen the rest of it. Joe Cortright has pointed out the planned Rose Quarter widening has enough space for 8 lanes.

Right. Even if it just has 8 through lanes to match other portions of the road which should be widened as well there should still be auxiliary lanes. Though if it were up to me the freeways would be 5 lanes each way. That obviously is not happening anytime soon.

[The Ghostbuster]

Widen the roads and the rebuilt bridge? Definitely! Add light rail? No thanks! I heavily prefer buses to trains. Buses are cheaper, more flexible when determining potential routings (and can be rerouted in ways that trains can't) and can access more places than rail can. Yes, buses can get stuck in traffic, but I'd choose a bus over a train any day.

[Bruce]

Widen the roads and the rebuilt bridge? Definitely! Add light rail? No thanks! I heavily prefer buses to trains. Buses are cheaper, more flexible when determining potential routings (and can be rerouted in ways that trains can't) and can access more places than rail can. Yes, buses can get stuck in traffic, but I'd choose a bus over a train any day.

It's a fixed chokepoint and the light rail line is only a short distance from the river. Adding an extra bus transfer would be pointless. Open BRT this ain't.

The light rail component probably costs only slightly more than the BRT option, for a much greater benefit.

[Plutonic Panda]

Widen the roads and the rebuilt bridge? Definitely! Add light rail? No thanks! I heavily prefer buses to trains. Buses are cheaper, more flexible when determining potential routings (and can be rerouted in ways that trains can't) and can access more places than rail can. Yes, buses can get stuck in traffic, but I'd choose a bus over a train any day.

It's a fixed chokepoint and the light rail line is only a short distance from the river. Adding an extra bus transfer would be pointless. Open BRT this ain't.

The light rail component probably costs only slightly more than the BRT option, for a much greater benefit.

There should be both LRT and BRT. This is once in a century thing do it right.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh no the horror... we need to mobilize, arm ourselves, get ready, a "wave of of highway expansions"  are coming to the Portland metro

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1517344969761120257?s=21&t=V0MUH9JuZ7AU3fjd-WJ3Ug

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/21/climate/portland-emissions-infrastructure-environment.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

[Concrete Bob]

Nothing like objective journalism, eh? 

[Scott5114]

Wouldn't it help the city meet its climate goals if the average MPG goes up due to less congestion?

[The Ghostbuster]

Probably. Then again, they likely would meet their climate goals if everyone in Portland went back to riding horses.

[Concrete Bob]

Then, the streets would be filled with "horse emissions." 

[kernals12]

Isn't it funny how adding 2 lanes to a 4 lane highway in Portland leads to mass hysteria about climate change but adding 6 lanes to a 10 lane highway in Phoenix doesn't?

I think the difference is Portland has a lot more homes and businesses without air conditioning.

[Bruce]

Wouldn't it help the city meet its climate goals if the average MPG goes up due to less congestion?

The gains in average MPG would be lost in additional vehicle trips from induced demand. And unless the toll is high enough to really deter those extra trips (e.g. Washingtonians shopping in Portland to avoid the sales tax), then there will be extra traffic filling those extra lanes.

Isn't it funny how adding 2 lanes to a 4 lane highway in Portland leads to mass hysteria about climate change but adding 6 lanes to a 10 lane highway in Phoenix doesn't?

I think the difference is Portland has a lot more homes and businesses without air conditioning.

One city has been slapped hard in the face with the harsh realities of human-caused climate change, in the form of the 2021 heat dome. Thousands of Northwesterners died, and people are rightly being woken up to the need to do something tangible to avoid all-out climate disaster.

The other is just twiddling its thumbs and waiting for the drought to get even worse.

[hotdogPi]

then there will be extra traffic filling those extra lanes.

From 4 to 6 lanes means a 1.5× increase in vehicles is needed to get back to where it was before. I can't see induced demand doing anywhere near a 1.5× increase. (Population growth, yes, but that will happen whether it's widened or not.)

I think one of the best ways to cut down on congestion and emissions is to make people aware that the cost of driving is 59¢ per mile (this includes gasoline, maintenance, and the cost of the car itself, and was before the war drove gas prices up). This means that paying a $3 ATM fee at the nearest convenience store is often cheaper than going to your own bank, going a mile or two out of the way for cheaper gas generally isn't worth it, and a more expensive restaurant (e.g. $15 per entree instead of $12) could be cheaper if it's within a mile and the other one is several miles away.

[Alps]

then there will be extra traffic filling those extra lanes.

From 4 to 6 lanes means a 1.5× increase in vehicles is needed to get back to where it was before. I can't see induced demand doing anywhere near a 1.5× increase. (Population growth, yes, but that will happen whether it's widened or not.)

I think one of the best ways to cut down on congestion and emissions is to make people aware that the cost of driving is 59¢ per mile (this includes gasoline, maintenance, and the cost of the car itself, and was before the war drove gas prices up). This means that paying a $3 ATM fee at the nearest convenience store is often cheaper than going to your own bank, going a mile or two out of the way for cheaper gas generally isn't worth it, and a more expensive restaurant (e.g. $15 per entree instead of $12) could be cheaper if it's within a mile and the other one is several miles away.

The actual cost of driving is about 30-35 cents per mile for most cars. 50+ is what government reimburses but is a worst case for a car with some issues and not-great gas mileage. I will also note that if you go from 4-6 lanes, and you have existing congestion, your demand is ALREADY higher than 1x. Let's say you have demand of 4800 veh/hr but your four-lane will only process 4400 (speed limit, geometry, ramp merges, etc. will reduce it). So without doing a THING you're already 10% above where you were before, plus you have some people avoiding those congested lanes on parallel streets or using the next exit ramp to bypass some of it. That's probably another few hundred vehicles per hour, so you're actually more like 20-25 percent higher WITHOUT induced demand. It'll fill up quickly.

[Algorithm]

The major advantage of extra lanes isn't increased speeds, since induced demand tends to cancel that out.  The advantage is a higher threshold for blocking the roadway.

On a two-lane road (one lane in each direction), one slow-moving truck is enough to bring all traffic on that road to a crawl.  On a four-lane highway, one truck passing another can cause similar problems.  Highways with six or more lanes require a much higher number of slow-moving vehicles before their overall maximum speed is significantly reduced.

Now of course, above a certain number of lanes this effect runs into diminishing returns, but it's clear that that certain number is not four.  Increasing lanes from four to six in an urban environment will clearly provide measurable benefits.

[Plutonic Panda]

Either remove the road entirely or implement congestion management measures which don't include pricing the poor out so the rich can have the privilege. This includes but is it limited to adding more lanes. Latent demand is a culprit worth taking into consideration so the adequate amount of lanes are added. I just don't see the point in investing in roads that don't operate with acceptable levels of service. I can forgive backups during peak hours but it's becoming almost all the time which isn't acceptable.

[SkyPesos]

Increasing lanes from four to six in an urban environment will clearly provide measurable benefits.

Not just in urban areas, its effects are noticeable on truck-heavy rural freeways as well. It's why 6-laning rural freeways is a common discussion on this forum.