Well, this seems to be a hot topic here . . . there's a plan to replace the I-5 Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River, separating Portland, OR from Vancouver, WA.
The existing bridge is a 6-lane draw bridge dating from the US-99 days, and is grandfathered into the Interstate system as such. The proposed new "Columbia River Crossing" bridge is supposed to have 12 lanes--apparently 6 main line ones and 6 auxiliary lanes, and there's some talk about running a northern MAX Yellow Line extension down it.
Here's the catch, though . . . it's estimated to cost $4.2 billion, and the City of Portland wants both the new I-5 bridge as well as the Glenn Jackson Bridge on I-205 to be tolled. Maybe some of my fellow roadgeeks know a little more, but even if they are approved under the SAFETEA-LU-authorized Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program, wouldn't they lose federal maintenance funding?
-Alex (Tarkus)
I heard something about this on the local news. It's a bit ironic that they want to build the new bridge to relieve traffic, but putting up tolls would cause more traffic, IMO.
I think something for the "only in Portland" file is that opponents are strongly urging ODOT to add some means of bike transportation on the reconstruction. :spin:
I thought that the design had bike lanes on it already?
Anyways, how would those auxilary lanes work exactly? would they open when traffic is bad just to bring it back down to 6 lanes at the other side? Im not getting it..
QuoteAnyways, how would those auxilary lanes work exactly? would they open when traffic is bad just to bring it back down to 6 lanes at the other side? Im not getting it..
I'm not sure, but you bring up a good point. Even if there are 6 lanes in one direction on the bridge....especially southbound....there will still be that horrible bottleneck at Delta Park and the Rose Garden.
Depending on the placement of toll booths, they can sometimes actually help traffic by acting as metering lights for the bridge. I'm not sure where they would plan to put them though.
I won't like a new bridge...the old one is just fine and really historic!
its a drawbridge thats congested daily and honestly looks like crap. driving across it I kept getting scared that I was gonna hit either the metal poles above me or to the side of me, or hit a car next to me. way too much metal.
I don't care for any Interstate bridge, especially larger ones over navigable bodies of water, without shoulders. The bridge should be replaced, as much as I like spans with superstructure.
BTW, look at the concept image I found:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.oregonlive.com%2Fenvironment_impact%2F2009%2F02%2Fi5bridgerender.JPG&hash=11dee6dff49e9873e1c3d14690ef0323a2750687)
That looks like an incredibly high bridge. I wonder what the vertical clearance is at the highest point.
If it was built, it'd look ugly, very ugly...
Not necassarily, it looks a lot like the new Benicia bridge in California.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2035%2F1628149870_06268c6c1b.jpg&hash=c0ab508d4fc4c7ee8b0d8abe14f0862d34df9f16)
Unfortunately the current bridge is very ugly, though I like the superstructure.
Definitely, I always thought that bridge looked really odd.
Hmmm...I change my mind! I'd like a new bridge...maybe if they added a cable stayed bridge, I'd be happier! :biggrin:
Well the new bridge is boring because it has no "signature" look, but I think in Portland that's probably fine considering all of the other things around.
What would be nice about that project are the improved ramps with Washington 14. Andy and I got to experience the current ones and almost got nailed by another driver in the process. Take a look at the tight configuration (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=45.623695~-122.670336&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5552982&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1).
Ugh..that sure is a mess :ded:
I-5 is not going to get upgraded through North Portland unless there's a dramatic shift in thinking in the city, so there's pretty much always going to be a bottleneck there no matter what. The freeway is woefully substandard through there, and I-5 just north of the I-405/Fremont Bridge interchange is actually the most traveled-on section of highway in all of Oregon (right around 200,000 ADT).
I'd rather see them spend the money building a (badly needed) westside freeway, allowing a more direct connection between Washington County and Washington State. Have it connect to I-205 on the south end and WA-14 on the north end. Perhaps they could piggyback the rail bridge over Hayden Island.
They could probably get a good start on that with the $4.2 billion. It'd get people off that substandard stretch of I-5. Perhaps initially, to save money, it could be built merely to expressway standards over the West Hills.
-Alex (Tarkus)
Great idea, Tarkus, about the westside bypass, but I don't ever see ODOT thinking that far forward. They'll just opt for more mass transit. :no:
The bottleneck on I-5 southbound at Delta Park and the Rose Garden are some of the worst I've seen in all my travels.
I don't think ODOT's so much to blame for the "mass transit-only" option. That's more the doing of the City of Portland and the Metro Council.
If the Metro Council's planning functionality could be taken away--which, in theory, could be done by a charter amendment--that would eliminate some of the obstacles. (Or better yet, Washington County could just disregard them entirely and render them useless.)
The route could be designed so as to completely avoid the Portland City Limits, so the opposition there would, at least in theory, be irrelevant. Washington County and the cities within it might put up a little resistance (Sherwood and Wilsonville have already buffeted the whole I-5/OR-99W connector), but Multnomah County's powerbase outside the city is very limited, and Clark County would welcome the new highway.
Avoiding Portland, though, would possibly preclude the Hayden Island Rail Bridge piggyback, though much of that land up there is industrial or undeveloped there.
-Alex (Tarkus)
I think another big challenge, Tarkus, would be where to build the bypass on the south end of US 26 (future I-84! :-P) Ideally, you could route at least an expressway along Cornelius Pass Rd, as it appears to have a fairly wide ROW on it's eastern side, and most of the new development near Cornell is on the western side. There'd be some challenges upgrading existing crossings to to interchanges, but it could be done. The routing south of TV Highway would be tough...
North of US 26 is a little less developed, and in theory, it'd be possible to keep the freeway routed along Cornelius Pass, with a new alignment being needed to connect with US 30. Then, like you said, across to Hayden Island, and into Clark County.
I agree that keeping the freeway out of Multnomah County would be nice, and would avoid a lot of Tri Met's influence. Dare to dream, right?
The last challenge would be where to have it meet with existing Clark County freeways. If it's possible to extend WA 14 westward, you could piggyback the new freeway along 14 to meet I-5.
Another roadblock for the Columbia River crossing. In my opinion, this is BADLY needed. But, I also know that Portland could swell to 5 million people, and they still wouldn't widen a single highway? Need proof? Read on.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/unusual_allies_protest_columbi.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/unusual_allies_protest_columbi.html)
That'll work itself out. Once freight can't get into or out of Portland and all those activists lose their jobs, they'll realize freight mobility is kind of important.
It just might take a while and be pretty ugly in the middle
Here's an interesting article from the Portland Tribute regarding the future of OR-217. Again, ODOT has managed to screw it up and is only thinking short term.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=123923873919644900 (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=123923873919644900)
If this is any indicator of how they operate, the bridge getting approved will be like pulling teeth.
Attitudes can change. As traffic gets worse, Portland's economy will go into the toilet and that is when change will happen.
Your car equals your freedom no matter what anybody tries to tell you. And this will not change unless the USA becomes a police state. Public infrastructure is too skewed towards public transportation in the Portland area but this will probably be a memory sometime in the next 50 years as the area population increases. I'm not totally against public transportation, but I do believe a good balance is needed.
The I-205 loop idea is valid and allows for future needs of the Portland/Vancouver metro area.
I assume this is the bridge in question. When I visited Portland last summer there was no problem with congestion on the bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_port8.jpg&hash=2b0ece19f7e771986c50de1fb26bb1665e9f8da9) (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/port8.jpg)
Just wait and see what happens when the bridge is closed to build the new bridge... :wow:
QuoteI assume this is the bridge in question. When I visited Portland last summer there was no problem with congestion on the bridge.
I take it you haven't visited during rushhour.
I've been on that sucker when, no car accidents, it's taken me 20 minutes to get from downtown Vancouver to the Lombard Street exit
QuoteJust wait and see what happens when the bridge is closed to build the new bridge...
I'd be curious to see how they're going to work that.
QuoteI'd be curious to see how they're going to work that.
All the more reason to build a third bridge instead. Heck, they could bring the US-830 designation back on SR-14.
-Alex (Tarkus)
The same crap happens in Connecticut, all the bike people and mass transit people come out and complain about road projects. It's not only in Portland.
Howver, these people are the minority, but the press and the DOT cater to these people because it's "politically correct." In fact, I think people have too much say in road projects and that's why most of them are either canceled or scaled down.
People are scared of a 12-lane bridge because of the way it sounds and looks on paper.
I was at a Portland City Council meeting regarding the bridge in March or April. The City approved the 12-lane design with the caveat that it doesn't get striped as such until traffic counts dictated it; much of the testimony delivered was against the design.
Arguments included that it would only move the bottleneck to between the Banfield Freeway and Fremont Bridge; air quality/global warming issues; etc.
There is very much a 'Freeways are bad' mentality here in Portland.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 27, 2009, 10:33:50 PM
air quality/global warming issues; etc.
There is very much a 'Freeways are bad' mentality here in Portland.
Yeah, we all know idling traffic is much better for air quality and the quantity of fuel burned... :rolleyes:
Hammer, meet nail.
Quote from: Chris on June 28, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Yeah, we all know idling traffic is much better for air quality and the quantity of fuel burned... :rolleyes:
Maybe once we switch to hybrids that shut off when idling and use an electric engine to move 10' and sit some more :sombrero:
The crossing bridge would ruin traffic during the construction phases and remove historic value of the bridge. I believe the eastern span is the original. (There's minor differences between the two spans as far as width, rivets, railings, etc.) I think a more practical way to relieve some traffic is to have a loop from OR SR-217 and essentially have another Interstate auxiliary route. It can cut across Swan Island and connect north of Vancouver. I'm not sure how it's going to go over the hills, though.
Tunnel. And NIMBY would murder that before it could even get any sort of official interest -- particularly with your alignment of cutting across Swan Island; this alignment would also be far too close to the Minnesota Ave portion of I-5. The Willamette River crossing would have to be between the St John's Bridge and the Multnomah Channel. You also have the problem of OR 217 being far below Interstate standard, with no money available (and NIMBYs) preventing the mass widening that the Beaverton-Tigard Freeway desperately needs. As of this moment, only the norther end of the freeway is getting widened, from Exit 2 (OR 8 and 10) to 0 (US 26).
So no, even though the Rivergate Freeway was officially part of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan pipedream, and it is on mine (complete with an I-x84 designation), it isn't going to happen.
As for the historic value of the current Interstate Bridge, its days are numbered. Once the new bridge is in place, it's unlikely the twin spans will remain, despite any efforts preservationists may exert. There are several problems that the spans pose: Their proximity to the new span (not that there wouldn't be any precedents; see the I-35W and Cedar Avenue bridges over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis) and the fact that the old spans are draw spans, which would still need to lift for Columbia River shipping. The close proximity to the new span may be a potential hazard for the shipping channel (and bear in mind that this is all off the top of my head without actually researching the issue; I've no interest in wading through the anti-CRC rhetoric).
Another point: Pearson Air Field, which has largely influenced the bland design of the new bridge. Once the new bridge is open, the FAA may use the old spans' height as a lever to bring them down.
As for the historical worth of the bridges, yes, I much prefer them over making a new Glenn L. Jackson Bridge (I-205) (that said, I do really like the Jackson Bridge as it is an imposing structure, particularly from the ground on the Washington side, and is wholly appropriate for its proximity to PDX). But bear in mind that they are draw spans, and as such not appropriate for a freeway, particularly in an urban setting. Vertical lift bridges are few and far between, but Portland still has the Hawthorne Bridge
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 07, 2010, 07:32:47 PM
The crossing bridge would ruin traffic during the construction phases and remove historic value of the bridge. I believe the eastern span is the original. (There's minor differences between the two spans as far as width, rivets, railings, etc.) I think a more practical way to relieve some traffic is to have a loop from OR SR-217 and essentially have another Interstate auxiliary route. It can cut across Swan Island and connect north of Vancouver. I'm not sure how it's going to go over the hills, though.
It's possible they might try to reuse the bridge spans for some non-motorized use. It was proposed to use the old Sauvie Island bridge as a bike/pedestrian crossing over I-405, until public dissent and budget realities nixed the idea.
Your auxiliary route proposal sounds an awful lot like the pipe-dream Westside Bypass, yet another casualty of the Freeway Revolt. It would've been farther west than OR 217, and crossed the Columbia near St Johns or the southern tip of Sauvie Island.
Lastly: KEK Inc, why do I always get the weather report with your posts? And is there any way you could make it a better forecast than 5 days of showers?
Quote from: xonhulu
Lastly: KEK Inc, why do I always get the weather report with your posts? And is there any way you could make it a better forecast than 5 days of showers?
If you don't like rainy and crappy in March, you're living in the wrong place. :-P
--Andy
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
Quote from: xonhulu on March 10, 2010, 01:56:50 AM
It's possible they might try to reuse the bridge spans for some non-motorized use. It was proposed to use the old Sauvie Island bridge as a bike/pedestrian crossing over I-405, until public dissent and budget realities nixed the idea.
Your auxiliary route proposal sounds an awful lot like the pipe-dream Westside Bypass, yet another casualty of the Freeway Revolt. It would've been farther west than OR 217, and crossed the Columbia near St Johns or the southern tip of Sauvie Island.
Lastly: KEK Inc, why do I always get the weather report with your posts? And is there any way you could make it a better forecast than 5 days of showers?
I suppose it is similar to that bypass theory. I'm new to this community, and I don't really know anyone to talk about roads with, so I didn't know of all of the pipe-dream theories out there. :P Out of curiousity, how would the freeway cut through the Forest Park area?
I used a signature. It's a dynamic signature I designed with another forum buddy on a Nintendo community. He is very familiar with pHp scripting and was able to use a user's IP address and run a script that will geoprofile it to a specific location and display the weather forecast for that location. Your IP address depends on your ISP, so it may or may not be accurate. And yeah, this area isn't really known for its fantastic weather.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
I-95/I-495 crossing the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. is also a drawbridge.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 11, 2010, 08:58:04 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
I-95/I-495 crossing the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. is also a drawbridge.
There used to be one on I-280 in Toledo but it was replaced many years ago. (I'm not sure exactly how many.)
Quote from: mightyace on March 11, 2010, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 11, 2010, 08:58:04 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
I-95/I-495 crossing the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. is also a drawbridge.
There used to be one on I-280 in Toledo but it was replaced many years ago. (I'm not sure exactly how many.)
There was also another one on I-95, but in Jacksonville, FL over the St. John's River. However it's been replaced by a much taller bridge as a prerequisite for the reconstruction of the I-10/I-95 interchange.
Quote from: mightyace on March 11, 2010, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 11, 2010, 08:58:04 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
I-95/I-495 crossing the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. is also a drawbridge.
There used to be one on I-280 in Toledo but it was replaced many years ago. (I'm not sure exactly how many.)
Not many. Last time I was there it was torn out and, I assume, getting rebuilt for local traffic. Someone more local to Toledo will have to update us on what's going on.
Also, in I-280 news, there's very much still a drawbridge in NJ. It was due to be replaced right around now but due to budget issues, the bridge was rehabbed and still has no definite replacement date. Due to cultural icons on the Newark side and need to serve Harrison, it's entirely possible that the replacement will just be a higher drawbridge like the Wilson Bridge did to its predecessor.
Quote from: mightyace on March 11, 2010, 09:01:51 PM
There used to be one on I-280 in Toledo but it was replaced many years ago. (I'm not sure exactly how many.)
Construction on the cable stayed replacement bridge started in 1999, but the bridge did not open to traffic until 2007. Early in construction, one of the two giant bridge building machines fell off the bridge, stopping construction for a few months. Construction resumed but at a slower rate with the remaining machine.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
We have two here in Hampton Roads alone: I-64's High-Rise Bridge over the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake, and I-264's Berkeley Bridge in Downtown Norfolk adjacent to the Downtown Tunnel.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 13, 2010, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 11, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
@Bickendan: You do bring up a very valid point about the drawbridge. It's the only drawbridge I know of on an Interstate route, and it probably doesn't meet federal requirements.
We have two here in Hampton Roads alone: I-64's High-Rise Bridge over the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake, and I-264's Berkeley Bridge in Downtown Norfolk adjacent to the Downtown Tunnel.
Add in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge(I-95/I-495) near(and partially in) DC
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 13, 2010, 10:37:43 AM
Add in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge(I-95/I-495) near(and partially in) DC
I mentioned that back in post #40 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=552.msg56346#msg56346). :P
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 13, 2010, 12:24:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 13, 2010, 10:37:43 AM
Add in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge(I-95/I-495) near(and partially in) DC
I mentioned that back in post #40 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=552.msg56346#msg56346). :P
That's interesting. I thought that they built a new bridge to replace the old one for that purpose. I didn't know the new span still has a drawbridge.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 13, 2010, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 13, 2010, 12:24:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 13, 2010, 10:37:43 AM
Add in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge(I-95/I-495) near(and partially in) DC
I mentioned that back in post #40 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=552.msg56346#msg56346). :P
That's interesting. I thought that they built a new bridge to replace the old one for that purpose. I didn't know the new span still has a drawbridge.
They had to keep it as a drawbridge because they didn't have the space to make it even higher because of interchanges that were too close. But at least now that it's at least a little bit higher, they don't have to open it as much as they had to open the old bridge.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:59 PM
They had to keep it as a drawbridge because they didn't have the space to make it even higher because of interchanges that were too close. But at least now that it's at least a little bit higher, they don't have to open it as much as they had to open the old bridge.
Isn't there a similar problem with the Columbia River crossing? The Jantzen Beach exit and SR-14 are practically at the end of each span. I know for the Columbia River crossing, judging by the concept images, they plan to have the elevation change on the span as it's over the river.
And can't they alter the intersections and still have a grade-separated bridge over the Potomac?[/font]
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 14, 2010, 08:24:07 PM
Isn't there a similar problem with the Columbia River crossing? The Jantzen Beach exit and SR-14 are practically at the end of each span. I know for the Columbia River crossing, judging by the concept images, they plan to have the elevation change on the span as it's over the river.
I think the shipping channel is to the north side of the river, where the lift spans are currently, so the freeway will probably still be at ground level at Jantzen Beach. In Vancouver, most designs I've seen have I-5 crossing over SR-14 with the ramps all to the north elevating to the bridge approaches.
Quote from: xonhulu on March 14, 2010, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 14, 2010, 08:24:07 PM
Isn't there a similar problem with the Columbia River crossing? The Jantzen Beach exit and SR-14 are practically at the end of each span. I know for the Columbia River crossing, judging by the concept images, they plan to have the elevation change on the span as it's over the river.
I think the shipping channel is to the north side of the river, where the lift spans are currently, so the freeway will probably still be at ground level at Jantzen Beach. In Vancouver, most designs I've seen have I-5 crossing over SR-14 with the ramps all to the north elevating to the bridge approaches.
They could still dredge a channel through the middle of the river. The middle of the river is pretty deep as well. Any approach of this project is going to be massively expensive. I hate to see some of the businesses like the Red Lion at the Quay go away, but I guess it's inevitable.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2010, 12:46:42 AM
They could still dredge a channel through the middle of the river. The middle of the river is pretty deep as well. Any approach of this project is going to be massively expensive. I hate to see some of the businesses like the Red Lion at the Quay go away, but I guess it's inevitable.
There used to be 3 Red Lions flanking the Interstate Bridge. Is that still the case?
I wouldn't shed a tear for any of those businesses. I actually think they're eyesores on the river bank. Parks would be far better in those locations, and I hope that is a side effect of this project.
Quote from: xonhulu on March 15, 2010, 02:07:53 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2010, 12:46:42 AM
They could still dredge a channel through the middle of the river. The middle of the river is pretty deep as well. Any approach of this project is going to be massively expensive. I hate to see some of the businesses like the Red Lion at the Quay go away, but I guess it's inevitable.
There used to be 3 Red Lions flanking the Interstate Bridge. Is that still the case?
I wouldn't shed a tear for any of those businesses. I actually think they're eyesores on the river bank. Parks would be far better in those locations, and I hope that is a side effect of this project.
There's only two now. The one on the western side was closed down quite a while ago, but nothing has happened to it. The one on the Vancouver side has a cool restaurant with an awesome view of the bridge. I'm not a big fan of Joe's
Crap Crab Shack, either. :P
The city of Vancouver just bought the Boise plant and tore down the complex. I think they're planning to build a park there, but I'm not sure how they're going to fund it now.
Perhaps we should revive this thread to keep together all of the new Columbia River talk.
For context: The Interstate Bridge Replacement was rebooted in 2018 with a goal of starting construction around 2025 to avoid repaying the planning money to the feds.
The current holdup is about funding from the Clark County side (but they don't really have much power in this): https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/22/clark-county-leaders-object-prospect-tolls-i5-bridge-replacement/
The new plan faces the same challenges as the old plan. Maybe even worse challenges.
- The anti-toll, anti-transit contingent in Vancouver is a little bit more marginalized by the last round, but the potential for backlash is still there.
- The anti-bridge contingent in Vancouver is still pushing for new bridges to Oregon, which are still non-starters (because nobody on the Oregon side wants to build a new bridge from Camas to Troutdale and because nothing downstream of Vancouver makes sense from a development perspective
- The anti-bridge contingent in Portland is still active, because they don't want any new bridge that has more than 3 lanes in each direction, despite the safety issues created by the SR 14 interchange
- We might be closer to a breakthrough on transit, with Vancouver's BRT program working pretty well, but I think the light rail folks in Oregon are still pretty adamant that it's got to be included in the new project. (Also, the federal light rail match pays for a huge portion of the new bridge itself).
- And the light rail needs have changed on the Vancouver side of the river. The Vancouver waterfront has blown up in the last couple of years, but the light rail stop is a half-mile-plus away.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 06, 2021, 02:28:11 PM
The anti-bridge contingent in Vancouver is still pushing for new bridges
I understand what you're saying, but I still gotta ask... is Vancouver in Alanland?
There's an open house going on now with some basic options for the Interstate Bridge replacement: https://www.interstatebridge.org/get-involved-folder/getting-to-the-ibr-solution/
The river crossing options come in three flavors, and there are additional maps for how connections to and from the bridge would be designed.
(https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Screen-Shot-2021-10-25-at-10.30.08-AM.jpg)
And the descriptions of the crossing options:
Quote
The 2013 LPA Option has two bridges and a curved alignment, with highway lanes on the top level and dedicated transit guideway and a shared-use path on the bottom level.
Technical considerations: This option provides a narrowed footprint, with the transit and shared-use path under the highway (in comparison with all modes on one level). The curved alignment connects the new bridge to the existing North Portland Harbor bridge and the existing highway corridor in Vancouver.
The Stacked Highway Option consolidates all elements into one bridge, with southbound highway lanes on top of northbound highway lanes. Transit and the shared-use path would be on the lower level on each side of the bridge.
Technical considerations: This one-bridge solution would have a smaller footprint over the river and reduce the number of foundations in the water compared to the other options, thus minimizing impacts to the natural environment and surrounding areas.
(https://www.interstatebridge.org/media/flbhu1oj/one_bridge_sym_stack.jpg)
The Straight Alignment Option removes the curve as much as possible while maintaining the two bridge/two-level highway over the transit/shared-use path.
Technical considerations: The straight alignment is west of the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor on Hayden Island. This alignment makes the likely North Portland Harbor Bridge replacement less complex. A straight alignment is less complex to construct than a curving structure.
(https://www.interstatebridge.org/media/e13ftfad/two_bridge.jpg)
Also a quick realization: If the current bridges are tolled ahead of the replacement project (as was the case for WA 520), then the Interstate Bridge will have been tolled three times in its history: from opening in 1917 to 1928, from the second span's opening in 1952 to 1966, and then whatever happens for the replacement.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2010, 12:46:42 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on March 14, 2010, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 14, 2010, 08:24:07 PM
Isn't there a similar problem with the Columbia River crossing? The Jantzen Beach exit and SR-14 are practically at the end of each span. I know for the Columbia River crossing, judging by the concept images, they plan to have the elevation change on the span as it's over the river.
I think the shipping channel is to the north side of the river, where the lift spans are currently, so the freeway will probably still be at ground level at Jantzen Beach. In Vancouver, most designs I've seen have I-5 crossing over SR-14 with the ramps all to the north elevating to the bridge approaches.
They could still dredge a channel through the middle of the river. The middle of the river is pretty deep as well. Any approach of this project is going to be massively expensive. I hate to see some of the businesses like the Red Lion at the Quay go away, but I guess it's inevitable.
Moving the main channel is probably a non-starter because just downstream is a railroad bridge with a bascule span just off the north bank. Moving the main channel would also require a new railroad bridge to avoid a severe S-turn in the channel.
No tolls. I will vocally send in my displeasure with any plan that proposes tolls. Washington and Oregon are not poor states.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 04:34:46 PM
No tolls. I will vocally send in my displeasure with any plan that proposes tolls. Washington and Oregon are not poor states.
Feel free to lobby your representatives on Capitol Hill to fully fund the replacement from their coffers, then.
At least for Washington, the bridge project would take up too much out of the state transportation package, which is needed to fund quite a few major projects elsewhere. Tolling the direct users is fairer.
^^^ wrong
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 07:38:45 PM
^^^ wrong
The 2020 Conceptual Financial Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020/12/01/IBRP-report-Conceptual-Financial-Plan-Dec1-2020.pdf) estimates that the replacement will cost between $3.2 and 4.8 billion dollars with inflation. The plan assumes up to $930 million in federal funding and up to $1.3 billion in toll revenue, with up to $300 million in other funds.
So even with the tolls, there's still $2 billion that needs to be raised by each state. Washington's share will presumably be half, which would be equivalent to several of the big ticket items in the 2015 package. A new package would have to be approved for the IBR and some of the other major unfunded projects left in the Seattle area, such as the US 2 reconstruction in Everett and the looming threat of having to rebuild I-5 in Seattle.
Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2021, 08:05:43 PM
The 2020 Conceptual Financial Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020/12/01/IBRP-report-Conceptual-Financial-Plan-Dec1-2020.pdf) estimates that the replacement will cost between $3.2 and 4.8 billion dollars with inflation. The plan assumes up to $930 million in federal funding and up to $1.3 billion in toll revenue, with up to $300 million in other funds.
So even with the tolls, there's still $2 billion that needs to be raised by each state. Washington's share will presumably be half, which would be equivalent to several of the big ticket items in the 2015 package. A new package would have to be approved for the IBR and some of the other major unfunded projects left in the Seattle area, such as the US 2 reconstruction in Everett and the looming threat of having to rebuild I-5 in Seattle.
The money can be found. Tolling isn't the only way. I'm not completely opposed to tolling this bridge at least if they don't toll 205 I'll be more open to this but if a rolling component is added it should be short term until the bridge is paid off and public funds apart should be used to reduce the debt.
Quote from: Bruce on October 27, 2021, 01:28:13 AM
The river crossing options come in three flavors, and there are additional maps for how connections to and from the bridge would be designed.
(https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Screen-Shot-2021-10-25-at-10.30.08-AM.jpg)
I'm having trouble imagining how this would be sequenced. Would they build a new bridge next to the existing one? The drawings don't seem to show a completely new adjacent alignment. Or would they build, say, the new SB side W of the existing bridge, temporarily run all the traffic on it with a zipper lane in the middle, then tear down the existing bridge and build the new NB side in its place? Or would they try to squeeze all the traffic into the east side, perhaps building a temporary bridge with another lane or two like the emergency bridges the Army Corps of Engineers builds, then tear down the old west side and build the new west side, then route all the traffic onto that with a zipper lane in the middle, and finally tear down the old east side and temporary bridge and build the new east side? The last of these would at least have the new bridge occupy the same basic alignment as the existing bridge.
The I-5 and WA 14 interchange in the first two options are the same layout as it currently is, and the Straight Alignment follows the current bridge alignment. The interchange on Hayden Island is different in all three options, which makes it slightly harder to determine how it compares to what's there now.
Quote from: pderocco on October 30, 2021, 03:00:15 AM
I'm having trouble imagining how this would be sequenced. Would they build a new bridge next to the existing one? The drawings don't seem to show a completely new adjacent alignment. Or would they build, say, the new SB side W of the existing bridge, temporarily run all the traffic on it with a zipper lane in the middle, then tear down the existing bridge and build the new NB side in its place? Or would they try to squeeze all the traffic into the east side, perhaps building a temporary bridge with another lane or two like the emergency bridges the Army Corps of Engineers builds, then tear down the old west side and build the new west side, then route all the traffic onto that with a zipper lane in the middle, and finally tear down the old east side and temporary bridge and build the new east side? The last of these would at least have the new bridge occupy the same basic alignment as the existing bridge.
They would likely go with the second option: "build, say, the new SB side W of the existing bridge, temporarily run all the traffic on it with a zipper lane in the middle, then tear down the existing bridge and build the new NB side in its place".
However, since the new bridge is showing shoulders, there should be plenty of room to keep the existing 3 lanes per direction without a zipper lane, similar to what has been done on the I-5 Puyallup River bridge in Tacoma.
Quote from: vdeane on October 06, 2021, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 06, 2021, 02:28:11 PM
The anti-bridge contingent in Vancouver is still pushing for new bridges
I understand what you're saying, but I still gotta ask... is Vancouver in Alanland?
Yes, I think it is :)
Great report last night on the maintenance of the existing bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Q5S6cmIXI
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 04, 2021, 12:11:38 PM
Great report last night on the maintenance of the existing bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Q5S6cmIXI
It's funny to see an ODOT employee standing in Washington State.
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
Hopefully, and hopefully will apply to the Abernethy Bridge as well.
So, does the infrastructure law let each state decide what to fund, or is it up to the DOT?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 09, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.
Lol
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 09, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.
How is that any different?
Quote from: compdude787 on November 09, 2021, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 09, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.
How is that any different?
Tolls are set to pay down bridge debt. Congestion pricing is set to encourage people to use the road at different times.
Put another way, a toll is by nature designed to encourage more driving. More cars, more revenue. Congestion pricing is aimed at leveling out usage of the highway but not necessarily encourage more use of it.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 09, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:31:29 PM
Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There's your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.
There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.
to-may-to, to-mah-to.
"It's all the same from the bottom of the river." - Eeyore
A toll does not encourage more driving. A toll discourages more driving. It's the same thing, just whether it varies or not.
A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.
Quote from: Bruce on November 10, 2021, 12:33:29 AM
A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.
Congestion pricing is already coming to 205, at least down at the Abernethy Bridge to start with.
Quote from: Bruce on November 10, 2021, 12:33:29 AM
A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.
Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2021, 12:57:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 10, 2021, 12:33:29 AM
A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.
Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.
This would be more of a concern if there weren't already a huge diversion. Lots of diversion already. The congestion pricing is happening at the same time as a road widening, so this will probably end up being a wash as far as people paying on the freeway vs. using the local streets.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 10, 2021, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2021, 12:57:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 10, 2021, 12:33:29 AM
A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.
Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.
This would be more of a concern if there weren't already a huge diversion. Lots of diversion already. The congestion pricing is happening at the same time as a road widening, so this will probably end up being a wash as far as people paying on the freeway vs. using the local streets.
Tell that to the traveler forced into a mandatory shunpike. And if the bridges themselves are tolled, that could be quite a long diversion indeed.
Oregon and Washington are not poor states. Hopefully people stand up against this insanity. I know lots of people have spoken out against the 205 tolling scheme. Congestion pricing and tolling are the exact same thing. You have to pay to use the road.
Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 04:14:56 PM
Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?
I mean Trimet is a planning agency and rail needs to be a part of any major functional transit network. I support rail or BRT lanes on this bridge. The better question is why is Vancouver so against it and I'd suspect they want as less to do with Portland as possible though I'm talking out of my ass there so perhaps it's something else.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 04:14:56 PM
Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?
Vancouver isn't against it. In fact, their city council endorsed the 2011 version as well as the modern incarnation, alongside C-TRAN and SWRTC. The only holdup is the Clark County Council, which is gerrymandered in favor of the outlying suburbs that wouldn't be served by light rail service anyway.
Having light rail is a huge no-brainer, especially if it's part of the federal requirements for the project. Building a dedicated BRT guideway only to force a third transfer on people coming from areas other than Downtown Vancouver is pointless and would cost
more than simply extending the MAX Yellow Line.
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Quote from: Bruce on February 19, 2022, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 04:14:56 PM
Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?
Vancouver isn't against it. In fact, their city council endorsed the 2011 version as well as the modern incarnation, alongside C-TRAN and SWRTC. The only holdup is the Clark County Council, which is gerrymandered in favor of the outlying suburbs that wouldn't be served by light rail service anyway.
Having light rail is a huge no-brainer, especially if it's part of the federal requirements for the project. Building a dedicated BRT guideway only to force a third transfer on people coming from areas other than Downtown Vancouver is pointless and would cost more than simply extending the MAX Yellow Line.
Thanks for the insight. Haven't been up there yet but will soon. From what I know or remember there was pushback from Vancouver on some level? That's been resolved? LRT absolutely seems like a no brainer.
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2022, 05:26:24 PM
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.
Pushback notably happened back in 1996 with original 'North-South' proposal.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 11:28:53 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2022, 05:26:24 PM
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.
Wrong and wrong.
Portland's public garages range from $12/15 at the city-owned garages to $40+ for some garages in downtown. The only free garages shown on Parkopedia (https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/portland/?arriving=202202192230&leaving=202202200030) and ParkingKitty (https://parkingkitty.ppprk.com/park/) are those at MAX stations.
While I can't find exact numbers, we can make some assumptions based on published data from Metro: 50% of Clark County's workers (https://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/you-are-here-snapshot-how-portland-region-gets-around) (about 87,500 commuters) leave the county for work, and the bulk head to Multnomah County. Seeing as 3/4 of all jobs in the Portland metro area (https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2017/11/14/BROOKINGS_PortlandEVA_MarketScan_Revised.pdf) (p. 25) are in Downtown Portland or the 3-mile radius around it (all within the light rail and streetcar catchment area), one can assume that most of those Multnomah-bound Clark commuters are indeed heading to Downtown Portland.
It's not all of the bridge traffic, but makes up a relatively large percentage of drivers during peak periods.
A bonus fun fact: 10 to 20 percent of pre-pandemic traffic (https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2019/03/14/does-125m-worth-oftax-evasion-clog-portlands.html) over both Columbia River bridges were attributed to people living in Washington and shopping in Oregon to avoid sales tax. Simply tolling the crossings would cut this traffic significantly and even encourage retailers to open on the other side of the river, thus providing greater economic opportunity.
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2022, 05:26:24 PM
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Anyone going anywhere that's not near a train stop. Since it's Portland, it's probably raining.
Quote from: pderocco on February 22, 2022, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2022, 05:26:24 PM
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Anyone going anywhere that's not near a train stop. Since it's Portland, it's probably raining.
Since it's Portland, they have parkas and hats and boots.
Quote from: Bruce on February 20, 2022, 01:38:46 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 19, 2022, 11:28:53 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2022, 05:26:24 PM
Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge. Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?
Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.
Wrong and wrong.
Portland's public garages range from $12/15 at the city-owned garages to $40+ for some garages in downtown. The only free garages shown on Parkopedia (https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/portland/?arriving=202202192230&leaving=202202200030) and ParkingKitty (https://parkingkitty.ppprk.com/park/) are those at MAX stations.
While I can't find exact numbers, we can make some assumptions based on published data from Metro: 50% of Clark County's workers (https://www.oregonmetro.gov/news/you-are-here-snapshot-how-portland-region-gets-around) (about 87,500 commuters) leave the county for work, and the bulk head to Multnomah County. Seeing as 3/4 of all jobs in the Portland metro area (https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2017/11/14/BROOKINGS_PortlandEVA_MarketScan_Revised.pdf) (p. 25) are in Downtown Portland or the 3-mile radius around it (all within the light rail and streetcar catchment area), one can assume that most of those Multnomah-bound Clark commuters are indeed heading to Downtown Portland.
It's not all of the bridge traffic, but makes up a relatively large percentage of drivers during peak periods.
A bonus fun fact: 10 to 20 percent of pre-pandemic traffic (https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2019/03/14/does-125m-worth-oftax-evasion-clog-portlands.html) over both Columbia River bridges were attributed to people living in Washington and shopping in Oregon to avoid sales tax. Simply tolling the crossings would cut this traffic significantly and even encourage retailers to open on the other side of the river, thus providing greater economic opportunity.
These are all good points. A good percentage of commuters crossing the Columbia River are going to Central Portland (Downtown or other areas that are accessible to the light rail). Some of those headed to Downtown will take the light rail, largely because of the gasoline and parking expense, but some of those headed to Downtown will still drive anyway. Those who drive into Downtown are likely those who prefer the convenience of driving and don't mind the expense or those whose employers are covering their parking costs. Nonetheless, there is still a significant number who would take transit if it were avaiable.
A water crossing (and in some cases mountain passes) provide a great transit market, generally. Everyone from Clark County has to cross a bridge in order to go to Portland. This means that there are very few paths of travel. If everyone heading toward Downtown Portland has to take I-5 anyway, why not provide a large park and ride on the WA side of the river so that the drivers, coming from several different directions in WA, can avoid clogging up the bridge if they are headed to transit anyway.
I think the river crossing would certainly be expesnive, but it is likely to serve a significant number of riders, who can take light rail to avoid bridge delays and high Downtown parking costs.
It seems if they do build LRT on the new bridge it should be extended to Hazel Dell with a large park and ride facility there and downtown Vancouver.
The only spot in Portland that has free parking that I know of is Reed College. Their neighborhood is nice but a long way from downtown.
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.
Good!
Quote from: Bruce on March 11, 2022, 06:53:35 PM
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!
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 20, 2022, 06:05:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 11, 2022, 06:53:35 PM
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 :(
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/
I'm in support just as long as there is 10+ car lanes for it too. Both modes of transit should be properly served.
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2022, 07:23:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2022, 09:35:25 PM
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.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 21, 2022, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2022, 09:35:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2022, 02:28:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Bruce on April 22, 2022, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2022, 02:28:38 PM
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.
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
Nothing like objective journalism, eh?
Wouldn't it help the city meet its climate goals if the average MPG goes up due to less congestion?
Probably. Then again, they likely would meet their climate goals if everyone in Portland went back to riding horses.
Then, the streets would be filled with "horse emissions."
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 23, 2022, 10:32:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AMthen 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.
Quote from: 1 on April 25, 2022, 10:47:50 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AMthen 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Algorithm on April 25, 2022, 10:01:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 25, 2022, 10:04:25 PM
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.
You're going off on your preferred tangent and you're wrong. You invest in roads to maintain the infrastructure. Yes, it's nice to add capacity through improvements when feasible, but sometimes your choice is repairing a bridge or... well, you have no other realistic choice and it needs repair. So you repair it. Only if you think there's a shot at widening would you rebuild it completely, and that takes money from other needed projects. But I actually know the industry and I will bet a wooden nickel you don't.
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2022, 12:00:06 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 25, 2022, 10:04:25 PM
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.
You're going off on your preferred tangent and you're wrong. You invest in roads to maintain the infrastructure. Yes, it's nice to add capacity through improvements when feasible, but sometimes your choice is repairing a bridge or... well, you have no other realistic choice and it needs repair. So you repair it. Only if you think there's a shot at widening would you rebuild it completely, and that takes money from other needed projects. But I actually know the industry and I will bet a wooden nickel you don't.
Okay so what. I don't know the industry but as an outsider what's your proposal? Not add a single lane? What else? Mass transit?
My proposal is add GP lanes, aux lanes, and add new transit connections as I've stated in this thread to increase and encourage transit usage.
Regarding highway capacity this is an interesting read: https://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/blog/evaluating-the-quality-of-traffic-operations
The committee has recommended an 8-lane bridge (no HOV lanes, just "auxiliary" lanes tacked on) with light rail. The alternative would also remove some ramps from the Hayden Island interchange, effectively turning it into a half-diamond with access only to/from Vancouver.
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2022/05/interstate-bridge-planners-advance-new-design-with-2-more-lanes-light-rail-to-vancouver.html
Sigh. Another under built bridge that will be overrun when traffic when it opens. So I'm assuming this is basically what we're going get then?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 09, 2022, 10:43:19 PM
Sigh. Another under built bridge that will be overrun when traffic when it opens. So I'm assuming this is basically what we're going get then?
There's a lot that could happen between now and construction:
- Washington could elect people who say an 8-lane bridge isn't big enough, and try to undercut WSDOT funding the project
- Oregon could say an 8-lane bridge is too big, and try to undercut ODOT funding the project
So, yeah, this might be the best possible outcome given the alternatives
^^^ was it Washington that made that decision or those in Oregon because it sounds like to me it's the Portland side advocating for the 8 lanes. Really it's just 6 lanes because the added lane is only an aux lane. It'd be nice if they could build it wide enough to be striped for another lane in the future.
I'm sure that there are some in Portland who are advocating for no increase in lanes, thus making the new bridge just be a total of 6 lanes like the existing bridge. So eight lanes is a compromise between those who want the bridge to be wider and those who don't. An auxiliary lane is nice to have given the amount of traffic entering and exiting the freeway at the interchange with WA 14 in Vancouver.
Making the bridge 10 lanes would just result in a chokepoint south of the bridge where it narrows back down to six lanes through north Portland. Unless there are plans to widen that stretch, (which I doubt will ever happen because this is Portland) it just doesn't really make sense to make the new bridge be 10 lanes wide. So I'm personally okay with eight lanes, and I doubt it will be overrun with traffic.
Yeah I think 8 lanes will be adequate. Any more and the usefulness would be limited due to dropping to 6 lanes through North Portland. 8 lanes lessens the main choke points, the on ramp from Hayden Island (and hopefully helping with MLK depending on how the lanes are configured).
Basically puts it on par with I-205, where it's 6 lanes south and north of the bridge, and 8 lanes on the bridge itself, but with a lot of traffic exiting right away, so that "lane drop" on the far side of the bridge isn't much of a bottleneck. I-205 is far from perfect traffic wise (I-205's main issues are farther south, kinda between I-84 and Sandy, plus backups on surface streets at the on-ramps from Airport Way), but it's way better than I-5 today.
And for what it's worth, I'm definitely pro light rail on the bridge. Building a new bridge without it (or without a reasonable future plan) would be shortsighted and wasteful.
8 lanes is adequate for the foreseeable future. Portland doesn't want to become LA and will fight against anything wider, so this compromise will work.
A big issue will be upgrading the Yellow Line to handle Vancouver commuters. It's quite slow through North Portland and could use some grade separations to speed it up, but that would be an expensive and disruptive project.
"Portland doesn't want become LA"
What does that even mean? That having wide freeways makes you like LA?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 09:54:54 PM
"Portland doesn't want become LA"
What does that even mean? That having wide freeways makes you like LA?
Trying to build your way out of congestion makes you like LA.
Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2022, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 09:54:54 PM
"Portland doesn't want become LA"
What does that even mean? That having wide freeways makes you like LA?
Trying to build your way out of congestion makes you like LA.
Again what the hell does that mean? So by that definition then any city widening their highway is trying to build their way out of congestion thus wants to become LA?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2022, 02:04:00 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2022, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 09:54:54 PM
"Portland doesn't want become LA"
What does that even mean? That having wide freeways makes you like LA?
Trying to build your way out of congestion makes you like LA.
Again what the hell does that mean? So by that definition then any city widening their highway is trying to build their way out of congestion thus wants to become LA?
Complaining about building out of congestion is also LA.
Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qgj2AB8TUoy8x4BHA). So...too late.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 13, 2022, 11:36:20 AM
Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qgj2AB8TUoy8x4BHA). So...too late.
Just because there's a congested freeway? I don't think there's a freeway in any American city over 50,000 population that's never congested, whether they build a few or a lot. What LA proves is that they WILL be congested even if you build 8 lane freeways in a grid 3-5 miles apart.
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2022, 03:03:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 13, 2022, 11:36:20 AM
Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qgj2AB8TUoy8x4BHA). So...too late.
Just because there's a congested freeway? I don't think there's a freeway in any American city over 50,000 population that's never congested, whether they build a few or a lot. What LA proves is that they WILL be congested even if you build 8 lane freeways in a grid 3-5 miles apart.
Sorry, being more facetious there. Portland is more than just a widening away from being Los Angeles. If Portland built their entire original freeway network
and continued to widen freeways, improve the interchanges, etc ... maybe they could claim to be a mini-LA. But that's not at all reality: most of Portland's freeway network is pretty-well unchanged from when it opened, apart from some widening here and there, some interchange reconfiguration, but nothing to the level of the Harry Pregerson interchange, or building anything like the Century Freeway, widening to the level of the 5 through Orange County...LA is sort of in a class of its own, and it would take a lot for Portland to get to that. Like, ODOT would have to basically double I-5's capacity through North Portland to reach LA-levels of car-centricity. Anything short of that just strikes me as your standard-fare widening project you could see in any major city.
Portland doesn't seem that much different than LA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
In my opinion, new freeways free up pent-up demand on surface roads previously serving traffic before the freeway became operational.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2022, 10:04:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
It really is. Especially in a city where the vast majority already drive.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2022, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2022, 10:04:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
It really is. Especially in a city where the vast majority already drive.
Disagree here. Induced demand is real and documentable, especially in a city vs. a rural area.
Where the argument flies off the rails is the disingenuous nature of the stated impacts. Yes, the road will clog probably clog up again (although that's debatable in the case of aux lanes). The question is, are the benefits of the increased capacity — increased economic access for people — worth the environmental and fiscal costs of a wider road?
Nobody in Portland is having that honest debate. That's the real question. Is there a societal benefit to allowing more cars and trucks to travel between Portland and Vancouver? And if so, does it outweigh the pollution, carbon and economic impacts of building a wider bridge?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2022, 05:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2022, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2022, 10:04:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
It really is. Especially in a city where the vast majority already drive.
Disagree here. Induced demand is real and documentable, especially in a city vs. a rural area.
Where the argument flies off the rails is the disingenuous nature of the stated impacts. Yes, the road will clog probably clog up again (although that's debatable in the case of aux lanes). The question is, are the benefits of the increased capacity — increased economic access for people — worth the environmental and fiscal costs of a wider road?
Nobody in Portland is having that honest debate. That's the real question. Is there a societal benefit to allowing more cars and trucks to travel between Portland and Vancouver? And if so, does it outweigh the pollution, carbon and economic impacts of building a wider bridge?
Arguing against anyone here who doesn't believe in induced demand is a lost cause. You'll have better luck changing their opinion of our most recent president (regardless of starting opinion).
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2022, 05:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2022, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2022, 10:04:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
It really is. Especially in a city where the vast majority already drive.
Disagree here. Induced demand is real and documentable, especially in a city vs. a rural area.
Where the argument flies off the rails is the disingenuous nature of the stated impacts. Yes, the road will clog probably clog up again (although that's debatable in the case of aux lanes). The question is, are the benefits of the increased capacity — increased economic access for people — worth the environmental and fiscal costs of a wider road?
Nobody in Portland is having that honest debate. That's the real question. Is there a societal benefit to allowing more cars and trucks to travel between Portland and Vancouver? And if so, does it outweigh the pollution, carbon and economic impacts of building a wider bridge?
That's all subjective. You just end up with two factions staring each other down.
Quote from: skluth on May 17, 2022, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2022, 05:49:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2022, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2022, 10:04:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2022, 02:37:43 AM
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.
But induced demand is bullshit.
It really is. Especially in a city where the vast majority already drive.
Disagree here. Induced demand is real and documentable, especially in a city vs. a rural area.
Where the argument flies off the rails is the disingenuous nature of the stated impacts. Yes, the road will clog probably clog up again (although that's debatable in the case of aux lanes). The question is, are the benefits of the increased capacity — increased economic access for people — worth the environmental and fiscal costs of a wider road?
Nobody in Portland is having that honest debate. That's the real question. Is there a societal benefit to allowing more cars and trucks to travel between Portland and Vancouver? And if so, does it outweigh the pollution, carbon and economic impacts of building a wider bridge?
Arguing against anyone here who doesn't believe in induced demand is a lost cause. You'll have better luck changing their opinion of our most recent president (regardless of starting opinion).
Arguing against someone who thinks transit is a replacement for roads is also likewise futile.
Induced demand happens but it never accounts for 100% of demand. But it's part new trips, splitting existing trips, or rerouting existing vehicles. And is a red herring if it comes up in every discussion so let's please focus on the bridge (:
One of the blogs I frequent (The Antiplanner) had a post about induced demand on roads: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20084#more-20084. Let me know what all of you think of the post. Ironically, the Antiplanner (Randal O'Toole) is a life-long resident of the state of Oregon.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:43:20 PM
One of the blogs I frequent (The Antiplanner) had a post about induced demand on roads: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20084#more-20084. Let me know what all of you think of the post. Ironically, the Antiplanner (Randal O'Toole) is a life-long resident of the state of Oregon.
That guy redpilled me. He does an epic job of debunking urbanists
Quote from: kernals12 on May 18, 2022, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:43:20 PM
One of the blogs I frequent (The Antiplanner) had a post about induced demand on roads: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20084#more-20084. Let me know what all of you think of the post. Ironically, the Antiplanner (Randal O'Toole) is a life-long resident of the state of Oregon.
That guy redpilled me. He does an epic job of debunking urbanists
Sometimes. Sometimes he's nuts, like when he blames the price of housing in Portland on the urban growth boundary despite, you know, the fact that lots of cities without UGBs cost more and others like Phoenix have seen prices just soar.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 19, 2022, 05:15:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 18, 2022, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2022, 09:43:20 PM
One of the blogs I frequent (The Antiplanner) had a post about induced demand on roads: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20084#more-20084. Let me know what all of you think of the post. Ironically, the Antiplanner (Randal O'Toole) is a life-long resident of the state of Oregon.
That guy redpilled me. He does an epic job of debunking urbanists
Sometimes. Sometimes he's nuts, like when he blames the price of housing in Portland on the urban growth boundary despite, you know, the fact that lots of cities without UGBs cost more and others like Phoenix have seen prices just soar.
Portlands housing prices absolutely has to do with the urban growth boundary. Has Phoenix even grown into its urban growth boundaries? I don't think it's fair to compare the two cities anyways but Phoenix has much more land available for development than Portland metro does.
Right, so the question is not why housing prices in Portland have soared, the question is why in a pro-growth state like Arizona Phoenix housing prices have soared. Is something else preventing lots of new housing from being built in Phoenix to meet demand?
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2022, 07:04:45 PM
Right, so the question is not why housing prices in Portland have soared, the question is why in a pro-growth state like Arizona Phoenix housing prices have soared. Is something else preventing lots of new housing from being built in Phoenix to meet demand?
Prices are soaring everywhere now. Even in Oklahoma City it's starting to get bad. This isn't just happening in major cities like Phoenix. Phoenix was blessed to have such low housing prices as long as it did. Austin only recently got batshit insane in the 2010s.
Honest question: when did portlands housing prices start to skyrocket? Did it coincide with the gentrification of the city and growth as did Austin's?
For the devils advocate argument, I've always been skeptical that geographical boundaries are solely to blame for housing prices. But Portland metro seems to be more strict. It also doesn't help they are so anti freeway traffic literally starts to choke out growth further out. People are only willing to spend so much time commuting.
Then you have cities like Denver that people think has little room to grow but has a near unlimited amount of land to the east. All they'd have to do is build freeways and expand existing ones or build HSR or a little of both. But the city and state leaders seem to have no desire to support anymore sprawl. You also have developers that only seem to be interested in build luxury units and charging an arm and a leg for any new housing built in urban areas.
The government needs to subsidize the cost of housing through new infrastructure like large freeways or directly to the people through payments. The other alternative is growing housing prices. New land isn't going to be made. Climate change is only making this issue worse.
Urban growth boundaries on their own don't contribute to higher real estate prices. But combined with restrictive zoning, there's not enough supply to keep up with demand. Loosening the absurd amount of SFH-only zoning in Portland proper and the suburbs would help, though there's other factors preventing the construction of affordable housing from being desirable for developers.
Adding more sprawl that requires more driving would not help anyone. Homes would be just as expensive, commutes would be longer, more forestland would be forever gone, and the effects of extreme weather would be intensified.
Quote from: Bruce on May 19, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
Urban growth boundaries on their own don't contribute to higher real estate prices. But combined with restrictive zoning, there's not enough supply to keep up with demand. Loosening the absurd amount of SFH-only zoning in Portland proper and the suburbs would help, though there's other factors preventing the construction of affordable housing from being desirable for developers.
Adding more sprawl that requires more driving would not help anyone. Homes would be just as expensive, commutes would be longer, more forestland would be forever gone, and the effects of extreme weather would be intensified.
More outward sprawl means less congestion, noise, and pollution in existing neighborhoods. And I don't know what you mean about extreme weather, less density reduces the urban heat island effect.
Quote from: Bruce on May 19, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
Adding more sprawl that requires more driving would not help anyone. Homes would be just as expensive, commutes would be longer, more forestland would be forever gone, and the effects of extreme weather would be intensified.
But yet housing in cities like OKC that are more sprawled out than most cities are the cheapest.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 19, 2022, 08:23:15 PM
And I don't know what you mean about extreme weather, less density reduces the urban heat island effect.
Generally speaking, impervious surfaces are not helpful in extreme rainfall events. This goes for both urban and suburban areas, of course.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2022, 08:54:59 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 19, 2022, 08:23:15 PM
And I don't know what you mean about extreme weather, less density reduces the urban heat island effect.
Generally speaking, impervious surfaces are not helpful in extreme rainfall events. This goes for both urban and suburban areas, of course.
Denser areas have a larger impervious percentage of land area.
A lot of pavement is parking lots. These are found more in suburbs.
That said, the back rows don't get used often – maybe use a different material that isn't impervious but isn't a problem if it doesn't last as long in terms of number of vehicles used?
Here's a really bad example of three adjacent (and unconnected!) parking lots with that are empty in Google Satellite View – four if you include the Home Depot.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3954114,-71.26583,299m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2022, 08:33:17 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 19, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
Adding more sprawl that requires more driving would not help anyone. Homes would be just as expensive, commutes would be longer, more forestland would be forever gone, and the effects of extreme weather would be intensified.
But yet housing in cities like OKC that are more sprawled out than most cities are the cheapest.
Housing (and everything) in OKC is cheap because of low demand relative to other cities.
Update:
QuoteThe final design is scheduled for mid-2025, with construction beginning by the end of 2025. Construction is expected to take five to seven years to complete.
- https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/jul/14/initial-i-5-bridge-plan-earns-final-votes-of-endorsement/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2022, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2022, 07:04:45 PM
Right, so the question is not why housing prices in Portland have soared, the question is why in a pro-growth state like Arizona Phoenix housing prices have soared. Is something else preventing lots of new housing from being built in Phoenix to meet demand?
Prices are soaring everywhere now. Even in Oklahoma City it's starting to get bad. This isn't just happening in major cities like Phoenix. Phoenix was blessed to have such low housing prices as long as it did. Austin only recently got batshit insane in the 2010s.
Honest question: when did portlands housing prices start to skyrocket? Did it coincide with the gentrification of the city and growth as did Austin's?
For the devils advocate argument, I've always been skeptical that geographical boundaries are solely to blame for housing prices. But Portland metro seems to be more strict. It also doesn't help they are so anti freeway traffic literally starts to choke out growth further out. People are only willing to spend so much time commuting.
Then you have cities like Denver that people think has little room to grow but has a near unlimited amount of land to the east. All they'd have to do is build freeways and expand existing ones or build HSR or a little of both. But the city and state leaders seem to have no desire to support anymore sprawl. You also have developers that only seem to be interested in build luxury units and charging an arm and a leg for any new housing built in urban areas.
The government needs to subsidize the cost of housing through new infrastructure like large freeways or directly to the people through payments. The other alternative is growing housing prices. New land isn't going to be made. Climate change is only making this issue worse.
The notion that city and state leaders in Denver and Colorado have no desire to support sprawl is not even close to accurate. The city of Aurora is happily supporting sprawl development along the E-470 corridor from at least 64th Avenue to Smoky Hill Road. There's so much available land along that corridor that it's going to be well into the 2040s before it looks like I-225.
^^^^ but they don't seem to be keen on planning for any road meaningful freeway expansion to keep up with it or facilitate its growth. If the Denver area were really building so many new houses then when are the home prices absolutely nuts?
Quote from: brad2971 on July 15, 2022, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2022, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2022, 07:04:45 PM
Right, so the question is not why housing prices in Portland have soared, the question is why in a pro-growth state like Arizona Phoenix housing prices have soared. Is something else preventing lots of new housing from being built in Phoenix to meet demand?
Prices are soaring everywhere now. Even in Oklahoma City it's starting to get bad. This isn't just happening in major cities like Phoenix. Phoenix was blessed to have such low housing prices as long as it did. Austin only recently got batshit insane in the 2010s.
Honest question: when did portlands housing prices start to skyrocket? Did it coincide with the gentrification of the city and growth as did Austin's?
For the devils advocate argument, I've always been skeptical that geographical boundaries are solely to blame for housing prices. But Portland metro seems to be more strict. It also doesn't help they are so anti freeway traffic literally starts to choke out growth further out. People are only willing to spend so much time commuting.
Then you have cities like Denver that people think has little room to grow but has a near unlimited amount of land to the east. All they'd have to do is build freeways and expand existing ones or build HSR or a little of both. But the city and state leaders seem to have no desire to support anymore sprawl. You also have developers that only seem to be interested in build luxury units and charging an arm and a leg for any new housing built in urban areas.
The government needs to subsidize the cost of housing through new infrastructure like large freeways or directly to the people through payments. The other alternative is growing housing prices. New land isn't going to be made. Climate change is only making this issue worse.
The notion that city and state leaders in Denver and Colorado have no desire to support sprawl is not even close to accurate. The city of Aurora is happily supporting sprawl development along the E-470 corridor from at least 64th Avenue to Smoky Hill Road. There's so much available land along that corridor that it's going to be well into the 2040s before it looks like I-225.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 15, 2022, 12:36:21 PM
^^^^ but they don't seem to be keen on planning for any road meaningful freeway expansion to keep up with it or facilitate its growth. If the Denver area were really building so many new houses then when are the home prices absolutely nuts?
Supply and demand is one reason, although it may be slowing slightly, we still have a housing deficit from when builders stopped building in the 2008 downturn.
Another is that condos cannot be built due to our attorney-friendly construction defects laws. So no starter homes, just expensive apartments being constructed.
While some "sprawl" can happen within Aurora, most places within the 470 beltway are near buildout. Density will be the only way out, but there's a lot of good single-family properties that people aren't going to sell and redevelop into apartments. More like the Denver infill where they scrape a Denver square house and build two or three 16-foot wide townhomes on the lot.
Then, there's the water issue. We live in a high-plains desert. Much of our water comes from the western slope, and water rights are mostly spoken for. Places like Parker built new reservoirs to support their growth. Aurora did the same. Denver water fought for years just to get a minor expansion of Gross Reservoir. To have the dense future many dream of, we need a new water source and new reservoirs and there is little to no political capital to be spent for that.
I also acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with Portland which is the subject of the thread.
^^^^ thanks for the info. It just seems like Denver, or rather the metro, has tons of land even though that may sound ridiculous given the Rocky Mountains being in the backyard. All it takes is infrastructure to access it.
The water issue is understandable I don't known what the solution is there other than more water runoff collection facilities and those can run into the billions of dollars. The attorney thing is interesting but is that not a problem everywhere? It's the same thing in LA it seems like. They keep denying large scale single family home developments(claiming fire reasons which is a cop out) but constantly approving urban apartments costing well north of 3k per month at minimum. It does nothing to solve the housing problem no matter how many units they build.
I'd imagine Portland has the same issues given their urban growth boundaries.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 15, 2022, 12:36:21 PM
^^^^ but they don't seem to be keen on planning for any road meaningful freeway expansion to keep up with it or facilitate its growth. If the Denver area were really building so many new houses then when are the home prices absolutely nuts?
The E-470 Public Highway Authority just completed, last year, an expansion to six lanes of the tollway from Quincy Ave to I-70. This summer, the authority's contractor will begin expansion to six lanes of the tollway from I-70 north to 104th Ave. This includes the interchange with Pena Blvd.
Housing prices are nuts for mostly the same reasons housing prices are nuts in nearly every major or medium sized metro area: People with significant amounts of cash/equity+heavy millenial demand+Baby Boomers hanging onto their homes by their fingernails.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 15, 2022, 11:05:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 15, 2022, 12:36:21 PM
^^^^ but they don't seem to be keen on planning for any road meaningful freeway expansion to keep up with it or facilitate its growth. If the Denver area were really building so many new houses then when are the home prices absolutely nuts?
The E-470 Public Highway Authority just completed, last year, an expansion to six lanes of the tollway from Quincy Ave to I-70. This summer, the authority's contractor will begin expansion to six lanes of the tollway from I-70 north to 104th Ave. This includes the interchange with Pena Blvd.
Right but at minimum it should have been 8 lanes. Personally I'd prefer 10, 3 free and 2 toll each way. I'd still be more than happy with 3GP+1HOV or HO/T making it 8 lanes. Almost every time I'm one that road it is bumper to bumper traffic. I'm sure 6 will help with off peak traffic but it'll still be the same parking lot just with another lane. Induced and latent demand need to be factored in which when completed might bring new traffic onto that road which currently uses other routes to avoid it. Same thing with I-270 which I've been meaning to make a thread about.
Can we stay on-topic here?
Update:
QuoteThe Center Square) — The pursuit of federal funding continues for a planned multi-billion dollar bistate project to replace the aging Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River between Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon.
According to the Washington State Department of Transportation, the current span is to be replaced "with a modern, seismically resilient, multimodal structure that provides improved mobility for people, goods and services" in Washington and Oregon.
The project has an estimated price tag between $3.2 billion and $4.8 billion that is to be funded by Washington, Oregon, and the federal government.
Washington and Oregon's state governments are each expected to contribute $1 billion to the project.
The Washington State Legislature this year passed the nearly $17 billion, 16-year transportation packaged dubbed "Move Ahead Washington," which includes said funding for a new I-5 bridge. Roughly another third of the project cost would come from tolling revenue.
Ray Mabey, assistant program administrator for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and a state bridge engineer for the Oregon Department of Transportation, updated the Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee on efforts to secure federal funding for the mega project during a Monday morning virtual work session.
"Federal funding is one those key pieces," he told the committee.
Mabey pointed to a recent success in acquiring federal dollars in the form of being awarded a $1 million Bridge Investment Program Planning Grant to carry out a planned ground-improvement study in the program area.
The ODOT and WSDOT submitted a joint application for the grant request, Mabey explained, with ODOT leading the process.
Both agencies have jointly applied for a $750 million construction grant for the project, Mabey added, and expect to hear back from the federal government at the end of next year or early next year.
Federal money is also being pursued via the U.S. Department of Transportation's Mega Program in support of large, complex projects, as well as the Federal Transit Authority's Capital Investment Grants Program to fund transit capital projects.
"All told, these three grants could reach $2.5 billion, and so we'll be pursuing as much as we can out of those grants," Mabey said.
Other federal grant opportunities are being explored as well.
"We'll be looking to see if we can expand the federal dollars in the program as much as possible," he said.
Mabey is confident the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program is a good match for federal funding.
"As these programs were developed, it does seem that they are well suited for a program of our size and attributes," he said.
Mabey cited the fact the project is multi-modal, connects communities, and is a dual state endeavor.
"The attributes of our program seem to match these fairly well and seem well aligned," he said.
In 2013, the Columbia River Crossing, as the project was known at the time, was done in by the Washington State Senate's failure to advance a $450 million transportation package that was expected to contribute to the project. Oregon had already signed off on the project, but Washington's support was required to make it happen.
Earlier this year, eight government boards endorsed a project concept that includes a bridge over the river with three through-traffic lanes, an additional auxiliary merge lane in each direction, a light-rail link to Vancouver, and a separate bridge for local traffic from North Portland to Hayden Island, one of four major islands in the Portland metro area.
- https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/billions-in-federal-funds-sought-for-columbia-river-bridge-replacement-mega-project/article_37356d5e-5a38-11ed-912d-a77063955f71.html
- https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/billions-in-federal-funds-sought-for-columbia-river-bridge-replacement-mega-project/article_37356d5e-5a38-11ed-912d-a77063955f71.html
So 3 lanes each way with an auxiliary lane, a two way LRT track, and an additional small bridge somewhere I know nothing about as it isn't my area. So next steps are to secure funding, EIS/public hearings, and then groundbreaking? It would be nice to see it get underway by 2026/27.
This is the latest version of the Locally Preferred Alternative (forwarded in July): https://www.interstatebridge.org/about-folder/modified-lpa-next-steps/
The light rail option they chose (hugging I-5) was the less costly but also less appealing of the three presented. I think Vancouver is going to fight for a better alignment that actually serves their downtown, so expect a planning delay there.
The "additional bridge" is basically the southern approach that connects Hayden Island (where the Interstate Bridge ends) to the rest of Portland. It's in good shape, having been rebuilt in 1987, but I guess ODOT really wants to suck up as much federal funding as possible to fit more lanes in. The new design would also eliminate half the ramps to Hayden Island and its very popular shopping center (where Washingtonians go to shop for sales tax-free items) and replace it with a local crossing to reach the southern ramps, so that might cause controversy (and delays).
Quote from: Bruce on November 02, 2022, 06:49:02 PM
The "additional bridge" is basically the southern approach that connects Hayden Island (where the Interstate Bridge ends) to the rest of Portland. It's in good shape, having been rebuilt in 1987, but I guess ODOT really wants to suck up as much federal funding as possible to fit more lanes in. The new design would also eliminate half the ramps to Hayden Island and its very popular shopping center (where Washingtonians go to shop for sales tax-free items) and replace it with a local crossing to reach the southern ramps, so that might cause controversy (and delays).
Actually I believe the additional bridge being referred to here is a local street connection to Hayden Island from North Portland. This is being added so Oregonians can still access Hayden Island, as the partial interchange to be built there includes only the ramps to/from Washington, probably for the reasons you state above.
It does look like the I-5 southern approach will be rebuilt also, but if I had to guess, it looks like the actual reason is that the existing bridge can't be properly tied into the new main bridge at its higher elevation (and besides, that bridge already has auxiliary lanes!).
Shame to see that paperclip interchange with 99E disappearing, though I know the geometry of cramming that in with a wider roadway would result in some very awkward geometry (uneven loops, mainly). Can't say I didn't see it coming, though.
The loop ramp coming in from Pier 99 St is super unusual. It looks like something from Cities Skylines, where players love to use loops on loops to get to higher evelations.
The politics on this thing are getting gnarlier and gnarlier, though.
On the Oregon side, Rep. Khanh Pham, who represents the 82nd Avenue area of Portland, is seeing her influence increase in the Oregon Legislature. She's beholden to the bike lobby and climate activists and has been pretty vocal that she wants this bridge dead. Why she wants to continue to encourage trucks to bypass the Interstate Bridge and use I-205 in her district, I don't really know, but nobody ever said the bike lobby was terribly logical. The project would need funding from the Oregon Legislature to get done, so Pham's opposition is going to be a problem unless the rest of the state (including Republicans) to prioritize it over the objection of Portland liberals.
On the Washington side, Joe Kent seems to be cruising to victory in the congressional district that represents Vancouver, and he recently said the bridge (maybe just the light rail component? Not quite sure?) would "Be an antifa superhighway into our district."
And then there's the tolling component. Heretofore tolling has been a huge part of the equation, but with WSDOT lowering tolls on Tacoma Narrows and facing calls to drop tolls on the Seattle tunnel, there are bound to be questions about whether to implement tolling here. Oregon is facing huge headwinds in its effort to toll I-205 to pay for the Abernethy Bridge replacement and widening, including a proposed ballot measure that would let anyone who lives in a county within 15 miles of the proposed toll to vote on a proposed toll. Conveniently for anti-toll interests, Marion County and Yamhill County (which are both fairly conservative counties) are both within 15 miles of the proposed tolls.
A lot of good work being done but having a hard time seeing the stars aligning to get the funding for this project unless the bridge just falls into the river.
Nice to know both parties will be to blame when a hundred people die as I-5 falls into the river during the next Cascadia earthquake. :P
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2022, 12:54:37 PM
Nice to know both parties will be to blame when a hundred people die as I-5 falls into the river during the next Cascadia earthquake. :P
Everyone who has meddled in this and delayed it needs to be named and held responsible.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2022, 12:54:37 PM
Nice to know both parties will be to blame when a hundred people die as I-5 falls into the river during the next Cascadia earthquake. :P
"It's nothing compared to the thousands who will die from climate change-induced weather patterns caused by emissions on this massive bridge" - the far left
"It's nothing compared to the carnage that will happen when Antifa crosses the River on their riot trains" - the far right
"Shit. This water is cold." - everyone in the middle
And the Columbia will be cold.
Though politics in this kind of project is unavoidable, do try to avoid turning this into a political discussion, though the characterization above tracks.
More facts than politics: The "antifa train" angle has sputtered out, as (despite polling indicating the contrary) Joe Kent lost to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in the race for Congress. So there's one fewer papercut on this project.
That's good. What is the new politicians opinion of it?
The Columbian (https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/oct/19/kent-perez-differ-on-i-5-bridge-project/) recapped an October debate: Kent opposed a replacement (and especially the light rail element) and wants a western bypass (which has a 0.0000000000000000001% chance of ever happening). Gluesenkamp Perez supports a replacement with light rail and calls tolling an inevitable part of funding the project, with hopes of reducing the burden by securing additional federal funding.
Project costs have risen. New estimate between 5.5-7.5 billion dollars.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/09/interstate-5-bridge-replacement-inflation-adds-billions-cost/
https://www.roadsbridges.com/funding/news/21438775/interstate-bridge-replacement-program-announces-new-6-billion-estimate
Every time they fail to rebuild the crossing they come back in 5-10 years, it still needs to be done, and the price has doubled.
If we don't build it soon it will exceed the national debt.
Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2022, 03:26:48 PM
Every time they fail to rebuild the crossing they come back in 5-10 years, it still needs to be done, and the price has doubled.
If we don't build it soon it will exceed the national debt.
"But next time, we'll build it without (light rail / more than 6 lanes / bike lanes / unsightly concrete pillars / any carbon emissions / name some other thing people find to hate about it) and it'll actually cost
less!" - The predictable bleating when this iteration falls apart
The light rail and lanes are pretty much settled among the stakeholders who actually matter (states, counties, Metro, TriMet, C-Tran, RTC). The big hangup is with the Coast Guard over the bridge clearance and Pearson Field over its height. The latter two aren't leaving a lot of overlap.
Would probably be easier to just close Pearson and turn it into an extension of the Fort Vancouver National Historical Park. Could keep the hangars and redevelop it into a dense neighborhood with transit connections to the new bridge as well, which would fund the construction of a new general airport further out from Vancouver.
Update:
QuoteThe Interstate Bridge Replacement Program released a cost breakdown for its $5 billion-$7.5 billion project and, with it, a clearer image of what the project will look like and how it could affect Vancouver.
The biggest chunk, with an estimated price tag of between $1.64 billion and $2.45 billion, will go toward the replacement of the bridge itself.
The remaining money will be spent on transit investments, scheduled to cost between $1.32 billion and $1.99 billion; on Oregon and Washington interchanges, roadways and shared use path, estimated at $1.05 billion to $1.57 billion for work in Oregon and $990 million to $1.49 billion for work in Washington.
Although the cost breakdown did not identify which funding source will cover each aspect of the project, Assistant Program Administrator Frank Green said that most of the $1.32 billion to $1.99 billion in transit investments will be covered by federal funds.
- https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/feb/27/up-to-2-45-billion-of-i-5-bridge-project-budget-will-go-to-actual-replacement/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 04:37:50 PM
Update:
QuoteThe Interstate Bridge Replacement Program released a cost breakdown for its $5 billion-$7.5 billion project and, with it, a clearer image of what the project will look like and how it could affect Vancouver.
The biggest chunk, with an estimated price tag of between $1.64 billion and $2.45 billion, will go toward the replacement of the bridge itself.
The remaining money will be spent on transit investments, scheduled to cost between $1.32 billion and $1.99 billion; on Oregon and Washington interchanges, roadways and shared use path, estimated at $1.05 billion to $1.57 billion for work in Oregon and $990 million to $1.49 billion for work in Washington.
Although the cost breakdown did not identify which funding source will cover each aspect of the project, Assistant Program Administrator Frank Green said that most of the $1.32 billion to $1.99 billion in transit investments will be covered by federal funds.
- https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/feb/27/up-to-2-45-billion-of-i-5-bridge-project-budget-will-go-to-actual-replacement/
"BuT iT's A $7 BiLLiOn FrEeWay ExPanSioN prOjeCt!!!"
The road elements add up to $3.68 billion on the low end and $5.51 billion on the high end. It is also an expansion of lanes, so that part isn't inaccurate.
Oregon wants to borrow 1 billion dollars for this project:
QuoteLawmakers in Oregon are looking to borrow $1 billion to replace the Interstate 5 bridge, a move that would match Washington's pledge last year.
State legislators propose issuing bonds backed against Oregon's general fund and the highway user tax program used by the Oregon Department of Transportation.
The details came in a policy draft sent out Wednesday to members of the state's Joint Transportation Committee. Some aspects of the document are still not final, according to lawmakers.
Rep. Susan McLain, D-Hillsboro, said the borrowing plan is a "very simple package." The general fund bond would amount to about $300 million, and the ODOT dollars would amount to $700 million.
Read more here: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/24/interstate-5-bridge-bonds-oregon/
Maybe they should ask a 1%er to give them the money, such as Elon Musk. Then again, he might insist on adding a hyperloop route to the bridge.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 27, 2023, 08:32:18 PM
Maybe they should ask a 1%er to give them the money, such as Elon Musk. Then again, he might insist on adding a hyperloop route to the bridge.
Let him do that then when the rest of route isn't built turn it into a bike/ped path lol
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 27, 2023, 08:32:18 PM
Maybe they should ask a 1%er to give them the money, such as Elon Musk. Then again, he might insist on adding a hyperloop route to the bridge.
Given how 1%ers projects turn out, I'd rather pay for the bridge with tolls or taxes.
"Consensus support for I-5 bridge tolling at Washington hearing"
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/31/interstate-5-bridge-toll-washington-oregon-tolls-drivers-vancouver-transportation/
Work to begin at the end of 2025. Hopefully they make good on that promise:
QuoteConstruction for the new crossing is expected to cost from $4.8-6.5 billion and should take 10 years, with work intended to commence at the end of 2025.
- https://www.worldhighways.com/wh8/news/oregon-washington-interstate-bridge-replacement
Good, I was afraid for a while our strategy would be to wait until it fell down in the next big earthquake and killed a bunch of people before doing anything.
I think "end of 2025" has been a goal for a while now, but there are still budget and design issues to work out.
Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
I think "end of 2025" has been a goal for a while now, but there are still budget and design issues to work out.
Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
Totally agree. I don't know what the long-term plans are for that stretch between 5 and 205, but I don't see why
178 feet would ever be necessary.
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
I think "end of 2025" has been a goal for a while now, but there are still budget and design issues to work out.
Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
There is a shipyard at Ryans Point.
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2023, 03:15:24 AM
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
There is a shipyard at Ryans Point.
I don't think that serves anything higher than the barges and tugs which go under I-205.
Let us not forget that one of the main litigants for a higher bridge in the last round (CRC) was a replica wooden sloop that takes people on pleasure cruises up the Columbia.
Theater of the absurd, this is.
So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/
So the new Columbia River Crossing is being delayed again. I am so NOT surprised! Maybe they should rename the Interstate Bridge as the "Not-In-My-State" Bridge?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 11:06:04 AM
So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/
1. It's a new governor.
2. The homelessness crisis is worsening by the day and is already a huge issue, arguably bigger than the immediate need for a bridge replacement.
3. The bridge replacement's cost (most of it for the interchange rebuilds) is getting more and more absurd.
4. Oregon can't do both at once, so they are going to prioritize the bigger issue that requires more attention.
Quote from: Bruce on April 17, 2023, 04:36:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 11:06:04 AM
So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/
1. It's a new governor.
2. The homelessness crisis is worsening by the day and is already a huge issue, arguably bigger than the immediate need for a bridge replacement.
3. The bridge replacement's cost (most of it for the interchange rebuilds) is getting more and more absurd.
4. Oregon can't do both at once, so they are going to prioritize the bigger issue that requires more attention.
Yeah there's always these amazing excuses.
Yes, the homeless issue has been bad and all the sudden they magically found the money from a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario. They don't give a shit.
Fact is, this is one of the most critical infrastructure projects on the west coast. It needs to be replaced. Both projects can be done at once and have business competing.
This doesn't read like the governor doesn't want to fund this. Just that she doesn't want to pay for it with that bucket of money.
You can reduce the housing shortage by reducing regulations on building, of which there are many in the Portland area. You can't build a bridge by reducing regs, you actually have to pay for it.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 17, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
This doesn't read like the governor doesn't want to fund this. Just that she doesn't want to pay for it with that bucket of money.
That's not really how I read it.
I don't think Kotek will single-handedly sink this project.
I agree with Sub-Urbanite above that it's not an issue committing money in general, Oregon can budget to do both things. It's just the source of the money that seems to be an issue.
That said, I do also agree with Bruce above that the price-tag is getting a little out-of-hand. WSDOT will have constructed the 167 freeway extension, 509 freeway extension, and the entirety of the 395 freeway around Spokane, for less than half what this project could ultimately cost. Adjusted for inflation, this project could also cost more than the Akashi-Kaikyo Suspension Bridge in Japan, engineering-wise a much more impressive project IMO.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2023, 09:22:01 PM
I don't think Kotek will single-handedly sink this project.
I agree with Sub-Urbanite above that it's not an issue committing money in general, Oregon can budget to do both things. It's just the source of the money that seems to be an issue.
That said, I do also agree with Bruce above that the price-tag is getting a little out-of-hand. WSDOT will have constructed the 167 freeway extension, 509 freeway extension, and the entirety of the 395 freeway around Spokane, for less than half what this project could ultimately cost. Adjusted for inflation, this project could also cost more than the Akashi-Kaikyo Suspension Bridge in Japan, engineering-wise a much more impressive project IMO.
Daddy's bridge (also known as Tappan Zee) is laughing at the price tag.
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
Never underestimate the Coast Guard's need to throw its weight around. In the 1980s, the state wanted to build a short freeway section of 516 around the west end of the Kent Valley, including a new Green River bridge. The bridge is elevated to rise above a road along side the river, and is thus probably 20 feet higher than the old 516 bridge downstream, and the 181 bridge upstream. There is no industry or boat launches between the three bridges, but the Coast Guard put up a fight for putting a bridge over a "navigable" river. Eventually they gave in, and quickly someone (Kent Parks?) built a pedestrian bridge under the new bridge, lowering the clearance again to that of the nearby bridges.
The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):
https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
Is there any project on FHWA plate where more than 4 senators are involved? I bet 4 is much more than for most other projects, where only 2 would care..
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2023, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...
And who sets its budget?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 29, 2023, 07:42:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2023, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?
If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.
Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....
And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...
And who sets its budget?
Congress, but I'm not sure of the logic behind how you see this playing out.
Apportionments of core funding have simply been based upon previous bills rather than congressional whims.
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 27, 2023, 12:13:58 AM
The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):
https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)
Figures that they'd only show what the bridge looks like from land, not what it looks like while you're driving on it. The latter is what most people are going to see.
I think only the first cable-stayed version looks appealing.
Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2023, 08:25:39 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 27, 2023, 12:13:58 AM
The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):
https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)
Figures that they'd only show what the bridge looks like from land, not what it looks like while you're driving on it. The latter is what most people are going to see.
I think only the first cable-stayed version looks appealing.
The view while driving is the least important for stakeholders. Who cares if it looks a bit funky for a few minutes while you're behind a windshield if it looks good from the Vancouver waterfront.
Is anyone else getting a little bit bored with Cable stayed bridges?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 01, 2023, 09:30:18 AM
Is anyone else getting a little bit bored with Cable stayed bridges?
YES.
Gimme some good lookin' steel again...
The U.S. side of the Northwest doesn't have many of them, despite Cable Bridge in the Tri-Cities being the first significant one built in the country. Tacoma's SR 509 Bridge and Tilikum Crossing in Portland are pretty much it until you get to the Vancouver area and see a half-dozen major cable-stayed or extradosed bridges.
I'd personally love to see a suspension bridge, though I doubt the crossing is long enough to justify it.
Unfortunately, most policymakers aren't roadgeeks, so to them cable-stayed is still "a signature bridge" and not "the exact same design used everywhere else". And suspension bridges, despite being very beautiful, are more expensive.
Cheapest way to span a long distance over a navigable waterway. The days of the old school suspension bridge are pretty much over.
For this bridge, design isn't going to play much of a factor, I don't think.
It has to be high enough for boats and low enough for Pearson Field and PDX.
And, fingers crossed, there's a design that fits within that Venn diagram...
Oregon legislature approved $1 billion, Oregon's share of the bridge:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/20/oregon-washington-interstate-5-i5-bridge-replacement-salem-politics-funding/
$6.3 Billion?? Might as well go for the gusto and build a bridge-tunnel at this point.
Quote from: plain on June 21, 2023, 07:08:48 PM
$6.3 Billion?? Might as well go for the gusto and build a bridge-tunnel at this point.
Tunnel for $6B? Where do you think Oregon is, in Sweden or China?
With a $6.3 billion price tag, it may be a long time before the new CRC crossing is constructed. 2025 seems to be awfully optimistic with that kind of hefty price tag.
Where are they going to get all that gold leaf?
Quote from: plain on June 21, 2023, 07:08:48 PM
$6.3 Billion?? Might as well go for the gusto and build a bridge-tunnel at this point.
Oh, by all means, let's spend another $100 million on a study. /s
Tolling on the existing Interstate Bridge is projected to begin in 2025 or 2026 and would be handled by Oregon DOT, according to KGW. Variable price of $1.50 to $3.55 with electronic collection, with an extra charge for photo-plate drivers. Nothing totally confirmed yet due to the uncertainty about the project.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/interstate-bridge-tolling-timeline/283-6fbeff0f-5392-4b31-a723-8c7105b56670
Quote from: Bruce on October 21, 2023, 01:23:12 AM
Tolling on the existing Interstate Bridge is projected to begin in 2025 or 2026 and would be handled by Oregon DOT, according to KGW. Variable price of $1.50 to $3.55 with electronic collection, with an extra charge for photo-plate drivers. Nothing totally confirmed yet due to the uncertainty about the project.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/interstate-bridge-tolling-timeline/283-6fbeff0f-5392-4b31-a723-8c7105b56670
Why would this be handled by ODOT? Just add this to the Good to Go system and call it... good to go?
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.
Maybe the aerial photos are outdated but there appears to be some sort of commercial operation on the river about 1.5 miles east of I-5 bridge.
KGW has a report on the 7 interchange redesigns that are part of this megaproject: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/freeway-upgrades-interstate-bridge-replacement/283-4e883222-3674-4c75-b34d-bdfb8b2dc366
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cZZkxu_Faw
The two videos, direct from the IBR channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjREpn1VLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0ci8ebkH_8
I'm glad they're keeping the LRT plan. This will be one hell of a project. I can't wait to see it break ground!
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
The narrator on that first IBR video sounded like she was singing a song. Each description of a path through the interchange had the same melody as every other, just the rhythm varied a little depending on the number of syllables.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
This bridge is the wrong location for HSR and there's definitely not enough available funding to cover plans to accommodate it. The focus would be on building a replacement for the downstream BNSF crossing or finding a different route into Portland given the constraints.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Keep in mind, getting new ROW seems impossible in US.
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Keep in mind, getting new ROW seems impossible in US.
Too general a statement. DOTs and even local entities acquire ROW all the time.
That said, whether an entity has either or both 1) access to eminent domain procedures and 2) the resources to purchase the ROW are the main factors, given the significant expense.
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2023, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Keep in mind, getting new ROW seems impossible in US.
Too general a statement. DOTs and even local entities acquire ROW all the time.
That said, whether an entity has either or both 1) access to eminent domain procedures and 2) the resources to purchase the ROW are the main factors, given the significant expense.
Genuine question - do you have a story of actually building a new road/rail on a new ROW corridor in NY?
(sorry for taking this too far out of northwest, mods - please feel free to move/separate as you see fit)
I am not thinking about a new road in a new development or cutting someone's lawn by 2 feet for a smoother curve or a new ramp, but a really new corridor?
I assume Round lake bypass near me is a relatively recent, but pretty short one...
I've seen a proposed corridor map for high speed rail from Albany to Buffalo, but my impression it was presented with a tongue in a cheek.
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2023, 02:31:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
This bridge is the wrong location for HSR and there's definitely not enough available funding to cover plans to accommodate it. The focus would be on building a replacement for the downstream BNSF crossing or finding a different route into Portland given the constraints.
Not sure about the routing of the HSR just thought about it because ODOT did that in Tulsa with the I-244 bridge. It allows for a pair of future HSR tracks to be built in the future. I'm not sure about Japan but we aren't built anything like they are so I wouldn't use them as a good comparison though I would like to have their trains here.
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 12:09:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2023, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Keep in mind, getting new ROW seems impossible in US.
Too general a statement. DOTs and even local entities acquire ROW all the time.
That said, whether an entity has either or both 1) access to eminent domain procedures and 2) the resources to purchase the ROW are the main factors, given the significant expense.
Genuine question - do you have a story of actually building a new road/rail on a new ROW corridor in NY?
(sorry for taking this too far out of northwest, mods - please feel free to move/separate as you see fit)
I am not thinking about a new road in a new development or cutting someone's lawn by 2 feet for a smoother curve or a new ramp, but a really new corridor?
I assume Round lake bypass near me is a relatively recent, but pretty short one...
I've seen a proposed corridor map for high speed rail from Albany to Buffalo, but my impression it was presented with a tongue in a cheek.
Yep, Round Lake Bypass is the most recent upstate example.
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2023, 06:18:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 12:09:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2023, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 08, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
Keep in mind, getting new ROW seems impossible in US.
Too general a statement. DOTs and even local entities acquire ROW all the time.
That said, whether an entity has either or both 1) access to eminent domain procedures and 2) the resources to purchase the ROW are the main factors, given the significant expense.
Genuine question - do you have a story of actually building a new road/rail on a new ROW corridor in NY?
(sorry for taking this too far out of northwest, mods - please feel free to move/separate as you see fit)
I am not thinking about a new road in a new development or cutting someone's lawn by 2 feet for a smoother curve or a new ramp, but a really new corridor?
I assume Round lake bypass near me is a relatively recent, but pretty short one...
I've seen a proposed corridor map for high speed rail from Albany to Buffalo, but my impression it was presented with a tongue in a cheek.
Yep, Round Lake Bypass is the most recent upstate example.
Don't forget I-781...
Or I-99 and the Parksville Bypass (future I-86).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 08, 2023, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2023, 02:31:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 10:57:07 PM
It would be nice though if they would build it with a future bullet train in mind. Not track work or anything just designed where it can be added in the future if one ever happens.
Has this been talked about in any capacity?
All my exploring in Japan, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Shinkansen share any right of way with an expressway. The two need completely different levels of engineering, it just doesn't make sense for them to come near each other except when physically necessary, which seems to be almost never.
This bridge is the wrong location for HSR and there's definitely not enough available funding to cover plans to accommodate it. The focus would be on building a replacement for the downstream BNSF crossing or finding a different route into Portland given the constraints.
Not sure about the routing of the HSR just thought about it because ODOT did that in Tulsa with the I-244 bridge. It allows for a pair of future HSR tracks to be built in the future. I'm not sure about Japan but we aren't built anything like they are so I wouldn't use them as a good comparison though I would like to have their trains here.
WSDOT has experience building bridges with future rail use in mind, namely the Homer M. Hadley Floating Bridge for I-90 westbound and the express lanes until they were turned over to Sound Transit for light rail use. That bridge's design, all the way back to the 1960s, always intended for the center lanes to be switched over to rapid transit when the time was right. In 2025, we'll be able to ride trains on a floating bridge for the first time in U.S. history, assuming the plinth issue is sorted out.
The new SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge is also theoretically designed with future light rail expansion in mind, but would require extra pontoons and other work that would shut down the bridge for long stretches of time. Since the corridor has far less utility than I-90, it was not chosen.
HSR is a different beast from light rail or rapid transit/metro, though. It needs far smoother grades and curves and its stations need to be hubs in their own right, requiring more room. Downtown Vancouver probably doesn't want to be sliced up by a HSR vidauct.
$600 million federal grant for the project, which covers about 10% of the expected cost: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/feds-pledge-600m-for-new-i-5-bridge-linking-washington-and-oregon/
Probably time to rename this thread since the program is just called the "Interstate Bridge Replacement Program".
New cost estimate expected this year, and will be larger than the current $5 billion to $7.5 billion range. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/03/oregon-washington-transportation-bridge-interstate-five-i5-replacement-project/
At this point, WSDOT and ODOT should consider dividing the project up into two pieces: the bridge replacement and the approach widening/rebuilds. Let everyone argue about the latter (which is the major sticking point) while the most critical part (rebuilding the bridge before it crumbles in an earthquake) is done with little fuss. Light rail would be a given now that it's non-controversial with the sane people on both sides of the river.
No what they need to do is get off their asses and pass a tax to get this thing fully funded and tell people if you don't pass this tax enjoy using the 205 from now on. This is beyond ridiculous.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2024, 09:45:32 PM
No what they need to do is get off their asses and pass a tax to get this thing fully funded and tell people if you don't pass this tax enjoy using the 205 from now on. This is beyond ridiculous.
1. Washington already passed its "tax".
2. The big holdup is federal funding once an EIS is completed, not the state contributions.
3. It's not "the 205". That is a bus route.
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2024, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2024, 09:45:32 PM
No what they need to do is get off their asses and pass a tax to get this thing fully funded and tell people if you don't pass this tax enjoy using the 205 from now on. This is beyond ridiculous.
1. Washington already passed its "tax".
2. The big holdup is federal funding once an EIS is completed, not the state contributions.
3. It's not "the 205". That is a bus route.
They're going to have to pass another one or people are going to have to use the 205 to cross the river. Otherwise I guess we'll sit and enjoy this stupid thread discussing a project that needs to get underway much like the conversation over at the ICC Shreveport thread.
Every time we turn around the Columbia River Crossing suddently costs a lot more. We'd better get it done soon before it becomes completely unaffordable and they have to shrink the project in some undesirable way.
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2024, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2024, 09:45:32 PM
No what they need to do is get off their asses and pass a tax to get this thing fully funded and tell people if you don't pass this tax enjoy using the 205 from now on. This is beyond ridiculous.
1. Washington already passed its "tax".
2. The big holdup is federal funding once an EIS is completed, not the state contributions.
3. It's not "the 205". That is a bus route.
Heh. Saying the big holdup is federal funding is deceitful if that's the official statement from WSDOT or ODOT whomever. States have their standing federal apportionments. To say that they're waiting around for some windfall from the feds would mean they're not really doing anything. Earmarks rarely cover anything but a small percentage of projects. Despite the proliferation of federal grant programs, FHWA was still reluctant to grant large amounts to a lot of megaprojects around the country. So, what are they waiting for, exactly, when it comes to federal funding? Other states carve out the bulk of highway megaproject funding out of their standing apportionments.
Still, if they're in the middle of developing an EIS, that tells me that this party line of federal funding not being secured is bunk. You don't devote that kind of money without a plan in mind -- even one you may not being fully sharing with the public. One reason you'd be reluctant to do so? All the other cities and towns and whatnot thinking they're getting gypped because of the megaproject sucking up funding.
There's another option besides raising taxes, though: Borrow the money through bonding to increase the state's contribution. Rather popular option due to people not liking taxes raised.
Have to say I find the lack of movement on this bridge weirdly inefficient. NY and its surrounding states have all sorts of standing agreements regarding funding of interstate (lower-case intentional) bridges. If finding the funding really is an outstanding issue here, Washington and Oregon are simply incompetent...which tells me some sort of funding scheme is already in the works and they're just figuring out when and how to tell the public about it -- especially if the EIS is truly set to be completed.
They're not in the middle of developing an EIS. They're developing a Supplemental EIS to add to the prior EIS. Much simpler, thankfully.
Yes, there is still an expectation of further federal funding, but a lot of that is, say, FTA match for light rail. If that EIS gets approved, this thing is going.
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2024, 07:05:41 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2024, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 04, 2024, 09:45:32 PM
No what they need to do is get off their asses and pass a tax to get this thing fully funded and tell people if you don't pass this tax enjoy using the 205 from now on. This is beyond ridiculous.
1. Washington already passed its "tax".
2. The big holdup is federal funding once an EIS is completed, not the state contributions.
3. It's not "the 205". That is a bus route.
Heh. Saying the big holdup is federal funding is deceitful if that's the official statement from WSDOT or ODOT whomever. States have their standing federal apportionments. To say that they're waiting around for some windfall from the feds would mean they're not really doing anything. Earmarks rarely cover anything but a small percentage of projects. Despite the proliferation of federal grant programs, FHWA was still reluctant to grant large amounts to a lot of megaprojects around the country. So, what are they waiting for, exactly, when it comes to federal funding? Other states carve out the bulk of highway megaproject funding out of their standing apportionments.
Still, if they're in the middle of developing an EIS, that tells me that this party line of federal funding not being secured is bunk. You don't devote that kind of money without a plan in mind -- even one you may not being fully sharing with the public. One reason you'd be reluctant to do so? All the other cities and towns and whatnot thinking they're getting gypped because of the megaproject sucking up funding.
There's another option besides raising taxes, though: Borrow the money through bonding to increase the state's contribution. Rather popular option due to people not liking taxes raised.
Have to say I find the lack of movement on this bridge weirdly inefficient. NY and its surrounding states have all sorts of standing agreements regarding funding of interstate (lower-case intentional) bridges. If finding the funding really is an outstanding issue here, Washington and Oregon are simply incompetent...which tells me some sort of funding scheme is already in the works and they're just figuring out when and how to tell the public about it -- especially if the EIS is truly set to be completed.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 05, 2024, 04:14:40 PM
They're not in the middle of developing an EIS. They're developing a Supplemental EIS to add to the prior EIS. Much simpler, thankfully.
Yes, there is still an expectation of further federal funding, but a lot of that is, say, FTA match for light rail. If that EIS gets approved, this thing is going.
Then federal funding is not the holdup.
It ends abruptly. Maybe there will be a part 2.