News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

Started by Tarkus, March 14, 2009, 04:18:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

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).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


Bruce

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.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

Bruce

$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".
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

Bruce

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.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

Plutonic Panda

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.

Bruce

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.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

Plutonic Panda

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.

kkt

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.

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Sub-Urbanite

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.

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

ErmineNotyours

It ends abruptly.  Maybe there will be a part 2.


Plutonic Panda

I had no clue they were going to toll the existing bridge while they construct the new bridge. Has that ever been done before?

https://mltnews.com/tolls-on-existing-i-5-bridge-will-help-pay-for-the-new-span-linking-oregon-and-washington/

Bruce

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 17, 2024, 02:13:19 PMI had no clue they were going to toll the existing bridge while they construct the new bridge. Has that ever been done before?

https://mltnews.com/tolls-on-existing-i-5-bridge-will-help-pay-for-the-new-span-linking-oregon-and-washington/

Tolling on the SR 520 bridge began in 2011 and the new bridge opened in 2016. It's not without precedent here and is a decent way of discouraging some use during construction (when capacity is strained anyway).
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

The Ghostbuster

Implementation of tolls in places where tolling has not been used before is genuinely a hard sell. That is probably the case with the proposed tolling of the new Interstate Bridge. If there were better ways to fund the Interstate Bridge Replacement other than charging tolls (about $6 billion), I'm sure it would have been implemented by now. There, of course, is always the issue of shunpiking. However, with the lack of alternative bridges in the vicinity, shunpiking might not be an option. Aside from the Interstate 205 Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge, the next closest road bridges are the OR 433 Lewis and Clark Bridge in Rainer, and the Bridge of the Gods in Cascade Locks.

Bruce

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2024, 03:39:03 PMImplementation of tolls in places where tolling has not been used before is genuinely a hard sell. That is probably the case with the proposed tolling of the new Interstate Bridge. If there were better ways to fund the Interstate Bridge Replacement other than charging tolls (about $6 billion), I'm sure it would have been implemented by now. There, of course, is always the issue of shunpiking. However, with the lack of alternative bridges in the vicinity, shunpiking might not be an option. Aside from the Interstate 205 Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge, the next closest road bridges are the OR 433 Lewis and Clark Bridge in Rainer, and the Bridge of the Gods in Cascade Locks.

The Interstate Bridge was tolled twice before: from 1915 to 1929 on the original span and from 1960 to 1966 to pay for the second bridge. The bridge itself is only one piece of the funding for this project, since a lot of the costs are going towards rebuilding the approach interchanges and other infrastructure, which could always be reduced in scope or shelved until later.

Also, the Bridge of the Gods is tolled, as is the next closest bridge to the east at Hood River (itself due for replacement by 2031).
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

kkt

If they're going to need to collect tolls, might as well start now and reduce the amount of interest that will have to be paid on the bonds.

pderocco

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2024, 03:39:03 PMImplementation of tolls in places where tolling has not been used before is genuinely a hard sell. That is probably the case with the proposed tolling of the new Interstate Bridge. If there were better ways to fund the Interstate Bridge Replacement other than charging tolls (about $6 billion), I'm sure it would have been implemented by now. There, of course, is always the issue of shunpiking. However, with the lack of alternative bridges in the vicinity, shunpiking might not be an option. Aside from the Interstate 205 Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge, the next closest road bridges are the OR 433 Lewis and Clark Bridge in Rainer, and the Bridge of the Gods in Cascade Locks.
When I used to drive up to Seattle from the Portland area on weekends, and I wasn't in a hurry, I'd usually go up US-30 to Rainier. That's a really nice ride. So I'm sure some modest fraction of the traffic will end up doing that.

Sub-Urbanite

No kidding. It also would give a sense of inevitability to the project (and, frankly, public demand – if the public is paying tolls, they're going to damn well want their bridge)

Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2024, 09:24:32 PMIf they're going to need to collect tolls, might as well start now and reduce the amount of interest that will have to be paid on the bonds.


jakeroot

Couple [hypothetical] questions about tolling, after spending lots of time in Japan where tollbooths with cash payment are still very much the norm...

Would there be a cash tolling option? Something like the Narrows Bridge, where the mainlines continue straight-on with an electronic or pay-by-mail option, and a tollbooth off to the side for those wanting to pay by cash. I worry an interstate bridge would have so much more non-local traffic, having all of those people getting tolls in the mail would get exhausting. Alternatively, they need to institute an Illinois-style system where you can pay online after passing through.

Also, who will manage the tolling system, WSDOT or ODOT? I assume WSDOT since they have so much more experience with tolling.

Bickendan

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2024, 03:39:03 PMImplementation of tolls in places where tolling has not been used before is genuinely a hard sell. That is probably the case with the proposed tolling of the new Interstate Bridge. If there were better ways to fund the Interstate Bridge Replacement other than charging tolls (about $6 billion), I'm sure it would have been implemented by now. There, of course, is always the issue of shunpiking. However, with the lack of alternative bridges in the vicinity, shunpiking might not be an option. Aside from the Interstate 205 Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge, the next closest road bridges are the OR 433 Lewis and Clark Bridge in Rainer, and the Bridge of the Gods in Cascade Locks.
Nitpick: The Lewis and Clark Bridge is WA 433, not OR 433, on both sides of the river. The roadway on the berm between the bridgedeck itself and US 30 is not WA 433 but is part of the ORH 92 ramp/connector system, however.

Bruce

Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2024, 10:45:52 PMCouple [hypothetical] questions about tolling, after spending lots of time in Japan where tollbooths with cash payment are still very much the norm...

Would there be a cash tolling option? Something like the Narrows Bridge, where the mainlines continue straight-on with an electronic or pay-by-mail option, and a tollbooth off to the side for those wanting to pay by cash. I worry an interstate bridge would have so much more non-local traffic, having all of those people getting tolls in the mail would get exhausting. Alternatively, they need to institute an Illinois-style system where you can pay online after passing through.

Also, who will manage the tolling system, WSDOT or ODOT? I assume WSDOT since they have so much more experience with tolling.

The current plan according to this article is to treat it similar to SR 520: electronic tolling with Good to Go and a mail option, no tollbooths.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on May 19, 2024, 03:14:21 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2024, 10:45:52 PMCouple [hypothetical] questions about tolling, after spending lots of time in Japan where tollbooths with cash payment are still very much the norm...

Would there be a cash tolling option? Something like the Narrows Bridge, where the mainlines continue straight-on with an electronic or pay-by-mail option, and a tollbooth off to the side for those wanting to pay by cash. I worry an interstate bridge would have so much more non-local traffic, having all of those people getting tolls in the mail would get exhausting. Alternatively, they need to institute an Illinois-style system where you can pay online after passing through.

Also, who will manage the tolling system, WSDOT or ODOT? I assume WSDOT since they have so much more experience with tolling.

The current plan according to this article is to treat it similar to SR 520: electronic tolling with Good to Go and a mail option, no tollbooths.

Cool, thank you for the information, Bruce.

I did some more research and it seems like mainline Interstate tolling is increasingly all-electronic, so I guess there is some precedent. Would love to see pay-by-internet, still.

doorknob60

#273
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2024, 02:09:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 19, 2024, 03:14:21 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2024, 10:45:52 PMCouple [hypothetical] questions about tolling, after spending lots of time in Japan where tollbooths with cash payment are still very much the norm...

Would there be a cash tolling option? Something like the Narrows Bridge, where the mainlines continue straight-on with an electronic or pay-by-mail option, and a tollbooth off to the side for those wanting to pay by cash. I worry an interstate bridge would have so much more non-local traffic, having all of those people getting tolls in the mail would get exhausting. Alternatively, they need to institute an Illinois-style system where you can pay online after passing through.

Also, who will manage the tolling system, WSDOT or ODOT? I assume WSDOT since they have so much more experience with tolling.

The current plan according to this article is to treat it similar to SR 520: electronic tolling with Good to Go and a mail option, no tollbooths.

Cool, thank you for the information, Bruce.

I did some more research and it seems like mainline Interstate tolling is increasingly all-electronic, so I guess there is some precedent. Would love to see pay-by-internet, still.

You can create a Good To Go account with pay as you go and just a license plate, no transponder or sticker needed, and no fees to set it up. I did that last year before driving on the 405 Express Lanes, and they just billed my credit card after the fact (only ended up being $1.00, I was driving from BC to Oregon and wasn't sure what my route would be), didn't have to think about it.

The pay by plate rate is only $0.25 more than the transponder rate ($1.75 less than pay by mail). Seems like a good enough solution for occasional regional traffic. I have the same thing setup for Fastrak in California, which also works well (though for the express lanes in CA you need the transponder, unlike WA).

That said, all of this would be much less of an issue if the US could decide on one standard. As of now, I have accounts set up in WA, CA, and FL (for all of EZ-Pass), and it still doesn't cover every toll road or even every 2di (for example Kansas Turnpike). And my WA Goodtogo account isn't even valid on the Hood River Bridge/Bridge of the Gods between OR and WA, they have their own transponder for some reason.

vdeane

Maybe this situation will encourage Fastrak and Good to Go to become interoperable.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



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.