AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CRC Revival?  (Read 27289 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:17:44 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2018, 05:51:35 PM »

Regarding transit and land use and how somehow dense development is desirable, planners also seem to forget that families with children in America prefer yard to living over a store and that single people would rather not share a wall with a family with small kids. :D

What are we supposed to do? Increase urban sprawl? That's just going to make more people dependent on cars and make traffic congestion worse.

Personally I would use infill to solve this problem and if people want more single-family homes we can fill land in already-existing suburbs instead of building outwards. That way we can increase density while also providing for families who want backyards. And accommodate transit in those areas, of course! :D
Infill already is happening. Yes, we keep expanding it outwards to provide cheaper living and suburban lifestyles for those who want it. Massive freeways are going to be a vital part of the infrastructure and mass transit will play a role to a degree, but it won’t be like what you’d expect in major urban centers primarily because it won’t see the ridership. Major freeways will be needed in urban centers to move people from the suburbs to the cities.

Other solutions such as decentralized job centers, telecommuting, and rethinking job hours so everyone is coming and going at the same time are also solutions to be looked at.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4891
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:52:14 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2018, 07:56:01 PM »

I hope the CRC is rebuilt with additional lanes, as well as full shoulders. As for the light rail element, they can take it and dump it at the bottom of the Columbia River. It would be more useful down there.

Yes, then we can have a new bottleneck in a new location while thousands of bus commuters are stuck trying to get to the nearest MAX station. A very short extension to the already robust MAX network is a no-brainer.

Exactamundo Bruce!  The snarl will be moved back from the Interstate Bridge to I-5/I-84 and I-5/I-405.  Until the progressives against progress are willing to pony up for a complete redo of the PDX freeway system to make it more akin to what I saw on the Wasatch Front where traffic flowed at 70 MPH on a busy day, the Rose City will suffer from congestion until the end of the world. 

Rick

The Salt Lake City metro has half the population and is much more spread out. It's definitely been proven that you can't build more lanes in general to relieve congestion...you have to build alternatives. Light rail is one, as is better land use within Portland proper.

The Wasatch Front represents the seventh most urbanized area in America.  It is akin to Seattle in being a thin N/S oriented area, flanked by mountains to the east with lakes and desert to the west.  I-15 gets one heck of a load placed upon it!  Unlike SoCal, an extensive spread out network of freeways will not be doable. 

A major light rail transit system is being built and figured to run from south Utah County to Ogden as I recall.  There's you complementing public transit to go with the already present bus system.  Utahns like to build things, more so than Oregonians sad to say.

Anyways, many more lanes and freeways are needed to bring PDX up to snuff.  'nuff said!

The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is only 1.1 million people. But the census bureau counts the Ogden and Provo metropolitan areas separately, and all three really make up one continuous urban corridor with a population of around 2.4 million -- comparable to Portland.

There is a light rail system, but that's currently only within Salt Lake County. There are plans to extend it south to at least Lehi along the old UP right-of-way, but there is no plan to extend it north. That was shot down by south Davis County residents; other alternatives like BRT are now being considered.

Speaking of which, there's a BRT line along 3500 South in West Valley, and they're currently building another one along University Parkway and University Avenue in Provo. They are also studying a BRT line which would be placed on 5600 West in the future.

What you may be thinking of is the FrontRunner commuter rail line. That currently extends from Pleasant View (north of Ogden) all the way down to Provo, with plans to extend it south to Payson.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2018, 08:17:59 PM »

Neighborhood parks are generally seen as a good solution to the "yard" problem. Kids love actual playgrounds where they can be social and run around...most yards (especially in modern/compact suburban developments) are hardly large enough for a small barbecue. My own yard, way out in exurban Seattle, is smaller than a standard bus pullout...but it takes time and energy to maintain under the threat of HOA fines.

Induced demand only applies to a certain concentration of people and jobs, and is often dependent on geographic constraints (which, coincidentally, most cities are built around). By all means, we could solve congestion by building a 20-lane highway through Portland and relocating those people further out, but it wouldn't make city livability better and certainly wouldn't help the pollution problem.

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: February 14, 2022, 08:04:37 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2018, 11:13:08 PM »



Neighborhood parks are generally seen as a good solution to the "yard" problem. Kids love actual playgrounds where they can be social and run around...most yards (especially in modern/compact suburban developments) are hardly large enough for a small barbecue. My own yard, way out in exurban Seattle, is smaller than a standard bus pullout...but it takes time and energy to maintain under the threat of HOA fines.

Induced demand only applies to a certain concentration of people and jobs, and is often dependent on geographic constraints (which, coincidentally, most cities are built around). By all means, we could solve congestion by building a 20-lane highway through Portland and relocating those people further out, but it wouldn't make city livability better and certainly wouldn't help the pollution problem.

A 20 lane highway through Portland is something even I think is ridiculous. The widest I have any interstate in my reccomended plan (tier 2) is 14 lanes (7 each way). This reduces to 10 lanes in the posted tier 1. I don't think most people with a sane mind would put a 20 lane freeway through Portland, even if it is double/tripled decked. This is a draft and it could change. I actually agree that parks are needed over yards, as it provides a larger playing space for kids. I also hate to upkeep my 7500 sq ft. yard (but I don't have to anymore after I move to college), but small yards are something I'm fine with.

Plus my yard is my running routes :bigass:

LG-TP260

Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:31 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2018, 11:12:15 AM »

I hope the CRC is rebuilt with additional lanes, as well as full shoulders. As for the light rail element, they can take it and dump it at the bottom of the Columbia River. It would be more useful down there.

Yes, then we can have a new bottleneck in a new location while thousands of bus commuters are stuck trying to get to the nearest MAX station. A very short extension to the already robust MAX network is a no-brainer.

Exactamundo Bruce!  The snarl will be moved back from the Interstate Bridge to I-5/I-84 and I-5/I-405.  Until the progressives against progress are willing to pony up for a complete redo of the PDX freeway system to make it more akin to what I saw on the Wasatch Front where traffic flowed at 70 MPH on a busy day, the Rose City will suffer from congestion until the end of the world. 

Rick

The Salt Lake City metro has half the population and is much more spread out. It's definitely been proven that you can't build more lanes in general to relieve congestion...you have to build alternatives. Light rail is one, as is better land use within Portland proper.

The Wasatch Front represents the seventh most urbanized area in America.  It is akin to Seattle in being a thin N/S oriented area, flanked by mountains to the east with lakes and desert to the west.  I-15 gets one heck of a load placed upon it!  Unlike SoCal, an extensive spread out network of freeways will not be doable. 

A major light rail transit system is being built and figured to run from south Utah County to Ogden as I recall.  There's you complementing public transit to go with the already present bus system.  Utahns like to build things, more so than Oregonians sad to say.

Anyways, many more lanes and freeways are needed to bring PDX up to snuff.  'nuff said!

The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is only 1.1 million people. But the census bureau counts the Ogden and Provo metropolitan areas separately, and all three really make up one continuous urban corridor with a population of around 2.4 million -- comparable to Portland.

There is a light rail system, but that's currently only within Salt Lake County. There are plans to extend it south to at least Lehi along the old UP right-of-way, but there is no plan to extend it north. That was shot down by south Davis County residents; other alternatives like BRT are now being considered.

Speaking of which, there's a BRT line along 3500 South in West Valley, and they're currently building another one along University Parkway and University Avenue in Provo. They are also studying a BRT line which would be placed on 5600 West in the future.

What you may be thinking of is the FrontRunner commuter rail line. That currently extends from Pleasant View (north of Ogden) all the way down to Provo, with plans to extend it south to Payson.

Thank you for the information on Wasatch Front public transit US 89.  I just get dribs and drabs of information about that subject.  Now I know there are two rail transit systems with one chopped off by Davis County, which strikes me as a bad move on their part.  Every large corridor needs all the alternatives it can get!  Who wants to wind up in the kind of traffic quagmire Seattle is in these days?

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2018, 07:00:41 PM »

Alternatives are good. Supporting the status quo of driving during peak periods is not.

Seattle has demonstrated an American model for coping with population/job growth without increasing traffic at the same rate.

Over the last seven years, vehicles miles traveled has increased far slower than population, employment, and transit boardings. A big reason why is that buses are given their own lanes, a simpler fare system, and are generally treated as a serious commuting mode for people from all walks of life, not just the poor.



(Note that this data covers the entire King-Pierce-Snohomish-Kitsap region, so there's a lot of extra vehicle trips thrown in)

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11201
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 09:12:05 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2018, 10:47:45 PM »

Alternatives are good. Supporting the status quo of driving during peak periods is not.

As long as people live in different areas and workplaces are scattered, the status quo will remain.  The former won't change.  The latter might.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

I identify as a vaccinated attack helicopter.

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: February 14, 2022, 08:04:37 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2018, 10:48:07 AM »

Oregon's Governor has pulled a Khitzhaber: at the final debate she said "no light rail, no project." Take that how you will.

LG-TP260

Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2018, 12:00:16 PM »

Oregon's Governor has pulled a Khitzhaber: at the final debate she said "no light rail, no project." Take that how you will.

LG-TP260



Wow -- someone just hit the wayback machine to 1994!  That was the gist of the LR controversy back then -- whether Vancouver and the north/WA side of the river in general was to be effectively (if not jurisdictionally) integrated with PDX Metro.  It came up for a vote in Clark County that year and was shot down decisively (68-32 IIRC) -- and that was with a dedicated LR bridge next to the BNSF RR bridge, not integrated with the CRC.  It seems counterproductive for an OR governor (or anyone else in an official capacity) to insist that WA extend LR into its jurisdiction -- on its own dime past the bridge -- as a condition for fixing a crossing that has been obsolete for decades.  It's just PDX Metro, channeled through the Gov, flexing their contention that no new facility specifically designed for automotive use be built -- period; even though Vancouver and environs don't particularly want a LR extension, PDX is insisting on it.  And even if LR is deployed over the new bridge, the chances are that it'll end at a station right alongside I-5 just north of that bridge and no farther -- no mall access, no Battle Ground extension, etc. -- unless Metro ponies up funds to do so.  Clark County, as demonstrated 24 years ago, has no intention of inexorably tying themselves to an entity across the river that they see as largely contrary to their interests -- particularly since frustrated PDX housing developers have largely hied themselves over the river to site their development in WA, where they have more of a "green light" to do so.  The state line down the Columbia has always frustrated Metro -- but to folks north of the river, it's viewed as a bulwark against intrusion.  An Oregon governor unilaterally threatening that condition won't get much traction northward!  Unless walked back, that statement will likely set any CRC progress (if there is much to speak of!) back by years!   
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2018, 07:35:28 PM »

It's completely reasonable to require the new bridge to at least have light rail designed for future retrofitting. Vancouver is going to keep growing and without light rail, those new residents will strain the new bridge and feeder roads, requiring the state to shell out more money for widenings and pointless upgrades.

The Vancouver government wants light rail, and I bet a good chunk of the citizens within the city do too. It's the surrounding county yokels who believe falsehoods about "crime trains" (which come up because a certain demographic uses the trains...and existing buses) that keep shutting things down.

Extending light rail further than Vancouver only makes sense for the Old 99 corridor, to a point. Battle Ground is too far and too small, the mall already has BRT, and there's not much point in building across to Fisher's Landing.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2018, 02:28:05 AM »

It's completely reasonable to require the new bridge to at least have light rail designed for future retrofitting. Vancouver is going to keep growing and without light rail, those new residents will strain the new bridge and feeder roads, requiring the state to shell out more money for widenings and pointless upgrades.

The Vancouver government wants light rail, and I bet a good chunk of the citizens within the city do too. It's the surrounding county yokels who believe falsehoods about "crime trains" (which come up because a certain demographic uses the trains...and existing buses) that keep shutting things down.

Extending light rail further than Vancouver only makes sense for the Old 99 corridor, to a point. Battle Ground is too far and too small, the mall already has BRT, and there's not much point in building across to Fisher's Landing.

I was involved in documenting the aftermath of the 1994 election, and the fears of Clark County residents -- and yes, that includes those living in Battle Ground, Woodland, and other outlying areas -- of being functionally coerced into an alliance dominated by PDX Metro, has not dissipated with time.  WA residents require reassurance that if LR is extended into Clark beyond a token riverside station that they'll have input as to location of the route and stations and not have such dictated from across the river;  they also need to be assured that acceptance of LR doesn't automatically reflect acceptance of the general PDX Metro agenda.   On another note, the chances are that WSU Vancouver will be one of the termini to be considered, which makes sense from a ridership standpoint.   

Back in '94 the city of Vancouver was the only portion of Clark County to come close to a majority "yes" vote on LR; and since the university was opened a bit later, it's likely that if it came to a vote it would likely pass within the city itself.  And the most vehement opponents will almost certainly dredge up the "criminal element riding on trains" screed as they did two dozen years ago -- but with that era's "war on drugs" (directed mainly toward minorities as it was) having functionally wound down, the effectiveness of that argument would likely be less potent these days.  My take on it is that if it came to a vote today, it'd be a tossup.   But if the reassurances cited above were to be proffered, there's a good chance that the developers who financially underwrote the '94 anti-rail campaign might elect to sit this one out -- a LR line out to at least WSUV might actually be a selling point for new housing in the vicinity -- for better or worse!
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:56:41 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2018, 07:19:20 PM »

So I have a question: is there any reason, other than a political desire to chain the two together to ensure one does not happen without the other, why a MAX extension into Vancouver should use the same bridge as a widened I-5?

It seems to me, from a network reliability perspective, that it would be preferable for them to be on different structures, to avoid cases where an incident on one forces the partial or full closure of the other.

Do the MAX extension first if there are concerns that widening I-5 without it will result in it never happening.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2018, 08:43:29 PM »

It keeps costs down by having a single contracting team work on the project, one environmental review process (though that's not always the case), and reduces the strain on local businesses/commuters during construction. Simultaneous construction would be very difficult and taxing...there's a shortage of specialized contractors that is raising prices in Seattle and I imagine it would be similar in Portland.

Even if MAX was built first, the I-5 bridges would still need replacement due to their seismic vulnerability and general deterioration over time. If the MAX bridge is built too close, a collapsed I-5 bridge could pose a huge threat and likely shut down service in the critical post-earthquake days until a full inspection is made.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2018, 11:58:07 AM »

^^^^^^^^
The original LR bridge that was the subject of the 1994 Clark County measure was about 3/4 mile downstream from the present I-5 structures; it was actually quite close to the BNSF rail drawbridge.  Since it was voted down, no final bridge design was ever presented; speculative preliminary plans showed a high-rise prestressed concrete structure arching well above the navigable channel.  IIRC, it was single-track for the sake of economy.   
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2018, 10:23:17 PM »

A single-track bridge would eliminate any possibility of expanding past downtown Vancouver. It would have so many awful effects on service that would negate the cost savings.

Off-topic, but whatever new Willamette crossing of MAX that gets built next (hopefully part of a downtown tunnel) needs to be triple-tracked for redundancy and future capacity.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2018, 02:16:02 AM »

A single-track bridge would eliminate any possibility of expanding past downtown Vancouver. It would have so many awful effects on service that would negate the cost savings.

Off-topic, but whatever new Willamette crossing of MAX that gets built next (hopefully part of a downtown tunnel) needs to be triple-tracked for redundancy and future capacity.

The 1994 Clark County ballot measure that was voted down wasn't just to grant PDX Metro permission to build a line across the Columbia River, but to raise the sales tax countywide to pay for the bridge, trackage, and the Vancouver stations.  A "minimalist" facility was projected in order to keep the projected developmental costs -- and the level of revenues that needed to be raised to actually get the work done -- as small as possible.  The plans were for double track on either side of the bridge itself, but single track across the bridge, to be optimized by scheduling as well as "platooning" commute-hours trains so that several could cross southbound in the morning hours before any return trip was scheduled -- and the inverse during the northbound evening commute.  Hardly optimal, but that format was deemed necessary to increase the chances of the measure's passage.   
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 05:09:44 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2018, 12:26:16 PM »

It's important to remember for CRC that federal matching funds are a key part of transit considerations. Think of it this way, just throwing numbers out theoretically:

Expenses with MAX:

MAX line - $750 million
Bridge itself - $750 million
WA interchanges - $750 million
OR interchanges - $1 billion
Total cost: $3.25 billion

Funding with MAX:

Tolls - $1.25 billion, partly counted as local share
Federal match - $750 million
Local remainder - $1.25 billion
Total local discretionary spending - $1.25 billion

Expenses without MAX:

Bridge itself - $750 million
WA interchanges - $750 million
OR interchanges - $1 billion
Total cost: $2.5 billion

Funding without MAX:

Tolls - $1.25 billion
Local remainder - $1.25 billion

Because of the layered projects, you basically get light rail for free. Now, if people want to have a philosophical debate about not wanting light rail in Vancouver, that's fine, but the project doesn't get any cheaper by dropping MAX.
Logged

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: February 14, 2022, 08:04:37 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2018, 12:40:16 PM »



It's important to remember for CRC that federal matching funds are a key part of transit considerations. Think of it this way, just throwing numbers out theoretically:

Expenses with MAX:

MAX line - $750 million
Bridge itself - $750 million
WA interchanges - $750 million
OR interchanges - $1 billion
Total cost: $3.25 billion

Funding with MAX:

Tolls - $1.25 billion, partly counted as local share
Federal match - $750 million
Local remainder - $1.25 billion
Total local discretionary spending - $1.25 billion

Expenses without MAX:

Bridge itself - $750 million
WA interchanges - $750 million
OR interchanges - $1 billion
Total cost: $2.5 billion

Funding without MAX:

Tolls - $1.25 billion
Local remainder - $1.25 billion

Because of the layered projects, you basically get light rail for free. Now, if people want to have a philosophical debate about not wanting light rail in Vancouver, that's fine, but the project doesn't get any cheaper by dropping MAX.

Not to nag (although I'm sorry if it comes across that way), the orange line cost $1.49 billion, and the SW corridor is expected to be over $2.5 billion, granted a lot of the Orange line was the tillicum crossing, but the $750 million seems a little low to me. Also the feds last time only committed to replacing the bridge itself. I think Max would be closer to $1billion, because it doesn't have the ROW before Vancouver.

Honestly, this is easily the most expensive freeway project in Oregon/Washington.

LG-TP260

Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 05:09:44 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2018, 12:54:46 PM »

Not to nag (although I'm sorry if it comes across that way), the orange line cost $1.49 billion, and the SW corridor is expected to be over $2.5 billion, granted a lot of the Orange line was the tillicum crossing, but the $750 million seems a little low to me. Also the feds last time only committed to replacing the bridge itself. I think Max would be closer to $1billion, because it doesn't have the ROW before Vancouver.

Honestly, this is easily the most expensive freeway project in Oregon/Washington.

LG-TP260

When all was said and done, the Orange Line "only" cost about a billion to build, including the bridge (about $150 million), new trains ($90 million), bike/ped improvements ($60 million) and ROW ($250 million). Most of the ROW for MAX on CRC was included with the CRC itself – i.e., you have to buy the I-5-adjacent properties on Hayden Island anyway, so those costs get rolled into the project regardless.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4249
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:00 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2018, 11:20:29 PM »

The distinction of most expensive freeway project in the Northwest goes to the SR 520 Floating Bridge Replacement and Expansion Program, which will cost $4.51 billion when the "Rest of the West" section is completed in the 2020s.

Heck, that $2.5 billion figure is about equal to old estimates for re-paving/surfacing I-5 through the Seattle area by 2040. That does not even include seismic retrofits for the bridges and overpasses, along with whatever expansion will get rammed in haphazardly.

For good measure, a few more of Washington's megaproject costs:

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement (not including city's park project or associated mitigation) - $3.3 billion; the tunnel alone was $2.1 billion

Puget Sound Gateway (extensions of SR 509 and SR 167 freeways) - $1.88 billion

North Spokane Corridor (US 395) - $1.492 billion

Rebuilding I-90 across Snoqualmie Pass - $1.085 billion

MantyMadTown

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 612
  • UW-Madison

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 06:54:22 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2018, 12:16:51 AM »

The distinction of most expensive freeway project in the Northwest goes to the SR 520 Floating Bridge Replacement and Expansion Program, which will cost $4.51 billion when the "Rest of the West" section is completed in the 2020s.

Heck, that $2.5 billion figure is about equal to old estimates for re-paving/surfacing I-5 through the Seattle area by 2040. That does not even include seismic retrofits for the bridges and overpasses, along with whatever expansion will get rammed in haphazardly.

For good measure, a few more of Washington's megaproject costs:

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement (not including city's park project or associated mitigation) - $3.3 billion; the tunnel alone was $2.1 billion

Puget Sound Gateway (extensions of SR 509 and SR 167 freeways) - $1.88 billion

North Spokane Corridor (US 395) - $1.492 billion

Rebuilding I-90 across Snoqualmie Pass - $1.085 billion

So it won't be unbelievably expensive compared to Washington's other projects then, right?
Logged
Forget the I-41 haters

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 05:09:44 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2018, 11:16:32 PM »

Roads are expensive.

Bridges are expensive.

Try as we might, we can’t make concrete, steel, safe workplaces and skilled labor cheaper.
Logged

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: February 14, 2022, 08:04:37 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2018, 11:36:21 PM »



Roads are expensive.

Bridges are expensive.

Try as we might, we can’t make concrete, steel, safe workplaces and skilled labor cheaper.

Privatize it, make it an estimated 15-40% cheaper due to not having it be union costs and state gov environmental stiff fees.

Yet I have a feeling this won't work in many cases.

LG-TP260

Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 05:09:44 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2018, 02:42:08 PM »



Roads are expensive.

Bridges are expensive.

Try as we might, we can’t make concrete, steel, safe workplaces and skilled labor cheaper.

Privatize it, make it an estimated 15-40% cheaper due to not having it be union costs and state gov environmental stiff fees.

Yet I have a feeling this won't work in many cases.

LG-TP260

Privatization has its benefits if carefully managed, but you have to be open-eyed about the costs. Specific to union costs, there certainly are some prevailing wage issues in Oregon but we still should pay more than just “the cheapest labor” for a bridge that we need to stand for 100+ years.
Logged

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: February 14, 2022, 08:04:37 PM
Re: CRC Revival?
« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2018, 02:38:04 AM »



Roads are expensive.

Bridges are expensive.

Try as we might, we can’t make concrete, steel, safe workplaces and skilled labor cheaper.

Privatize it, make it an estimated 15-40% cheaper due to not having it be union costs and state gov environmental stiff fees.

Yet I have a feeling this won't work in many cases.

LG-TP260

Privatization has its benefits if carefully managed, but you have to be open-eyed about the costs. Specific to union costs, there certainly are some prevailing wage issues in Oregon but we still should pay more than just “the cheapest labor” for a bridge that we need to stand for 100+ years.

Why do you think I have "yet I have a feeling this won't work in many cases," here?
Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.