I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

[Alps]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Regarding highway capacity this is an interesting read: https://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/blog/evaluating-the-quality-of-traffic-operations

[Bruce]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Sub-Urbanite]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ 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.

[compdude787]

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.

[doorknob60]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

"Portland doesn't want become LA"

What does that even mean? That having wide freeways makes you like LA?

[kkt]

"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.

[Plutonic Panda]

"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?

[Rothman]

"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.

[jakeroot]

Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA. So...too late.

[kkt]

Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA. 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.

[jakeroot]

Driving I-5 through Portland, you'd think you were in LA. 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Portland doesn't seem that much different than LA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share

[Scott5114]

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.

[Concrete Bob]

In my opinion, new freeways free up pent-up demand on surface roads previously serving traffic before the freeway became operational.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Sub-Urbanite]

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?

[skluth]

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).

[Rothman]

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.

[Rothman]

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.