The interstate Bridge is several things:

1) peices of it are almost a century old now. It was never intended to be in use this long (originally for horse & cart traffic)

2) The only drawbridge, from Alaska to the Panama Canal.

3) has no shoulder whatsoever. it’s not uncommon to scrape a mirror,during the southbound entrance. When there is an incident (accident, breakdown etc), traffic pretty much stops. The northbound on-ramp from Hayden Island is terribly short, and with the lack of shoulder, very unforgiving. the same goes true for the Southbound entrance from downtown Vancouver.

4) pedestrian/bicycle access, is extremely limited. The pedestrian pathways are on average three-feet wide, with protruding girders that can walkers have to duck into, so a cyclist can pass.

5) patched together. the original 1917 span was level, and had to lanes. years later, a matching second span was created, a new river channel was dredged, and the center of the span raised to an arch, for shipping.

Yes, a new bridge is needed. that being said, the current proposals are:

1) over priced. quite simply, a lot of profiteering is going on.

2) too big/wide. Three lanes each way would be fine, provided an emergancy should was provided, and the on-ramps on both end were lengthened.

3) pedestrain/bicycle access is a secondary concern to the CRC.

4) will light rail installation be significantly delayed? Many of the people that commute over from Vancouver are lower income, and tolls would create a significant hardship.

if you look at the impetus for the twelve lane monster, look to the property developers, that are sitting on hundreds of acres of what once was farmland. They can’t unload these as houses, unless people can get to the jobs easily.

That said, the plan to expand the bridge to 12 lanes–even given Nick’s qualifications, which I appreciate–is disappointing to me. When I was working on my thesis, in 2006, the planning phase was in process, but I never had any idea something this big would be proposed, with such a huge cost, in such a poor fashion. Oregon absolutely must refuse any project that does not include light rail, and the new bridge must be designed in a way that does not encourage more people to drive. That means tolls, ideally variably priced, as well as partnering with businesses in the area to provide other incentives for employees who travel across the river to take transit, carpool, etc. I also agree that additional upgrades need to be made the BNSF railroad bridge, a crucial transit link that is somehow forgotten in these debates, and one that could be even more prominent given the proper policy decisions. Generally I agree with Randy that a toll could be instituted now, perhaps beginning only at rush hour, one that is higher than the price of a C-TRAN or Tri-Met bus ticket. It would also need to be charged on the 205 bridge.

There is a middle ground on the bridge–it’s not 12 lanes or nothing. But it may require additional planning and negotiation, which as I learned in my thesis research, pleases nobody 100% but is generally better for the whole community in the long run.

Put the money first to a light rail bridge. Then see what happens to traffic with the tolls and a commuter option. I bet the 12 lanes bridge would never need to be built.

If you build the big bridge plan the traffic jams move to the other interstate bridges (in town) which are already over capacity, and then have to spend billions to fix those.

Well, I suggest they rennovate the *BNSF BRIDGE*, which could use some upgrades, and ship that stuff by the rail line to Seattle and Vancouver BC. Those upgrades would also fix all the shipping-related issues with the Columbia River bridges. It could also pull trucks off the bridge.

Of course, the Columbia River Crossing folks refused to consider this because it was “out of scope”. This is evidence that the entire megaproject is being conducted in bad faith.

The competing package of improvements:

(1) A pair of local-traffic arterial bridges from Portland to Hayden Island to Vancouver, WA with light rail.
(2) BNSF bridge upgrades
(3) Removal of the local access to the Interstate from Hayden Island, which eliminates the “need” for the absurd number of lanes on the Interstate at the moment by eliminating a lot of conflicting traffic.

Amazingly this package of multiple bridges would cost far, far less than the proposed megaproject. And it would deliver essentially all the same benefits. But noooo, it isn’t 12 lanes, so it must not be considered!

That’s song kept playing in my head as I read this article. Whole thing seems boondogglicious, and given that we don’t know just how long this downturn will last, it’s foolish to plan anything on the assumption that car use will dramatically increase.

Those arguing in favor of using these funds for transit, or at least waiting to see what will actually be necessary in the coming years, are exactly right.

The $8,000 per household sounds high, yet, that household pays more than that on one family vehicle each year!

As a Portlander, a cyclist, a mass transit user, and a homeowner and property tax payer, I support the expansion of the I-5 bridge. Not because I’m a fan of the McMansion dwellers in the Couv, but because the regional economy depends on it. And by “regional economy” I do not mean “Vancouver property bubble,” I mean “our trade with Seattle and Vancouver BC and our continued growth as a hub for green engineering.” I’m afraid even green engineers need to haul turbines and parts across the river from time to time.

This bridge will carry light rail and should provide much improved bike and pedestrian crossings. Folks who make the commute by car will gladly pay the toll if it means they can recover the 1-3 hours a day they spend sitting in gridlock waiting to get the river.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/nj_transit_reports_decline_in.html

Would the author extrapolate from that decrease that transit use will continue to decrease and that expansion projects in the transit area should be shelved?

A) At the north end of the bridge is a major freeway-to-freeway interchange. There’s another one a mile north of the Columbia. Some of those 12 lanes are auxiliary lanes to and from the two Vancouver, Wash., freeways.

B) Politics dictates everyone goes home happy or nothing gets done. If there’s no LRT to Vancouver, Portland will pull out. If there’s no lane expansion on the CRC, Vancouver will pull out.

C) The bridge is the number one source of congestion in the Portland area, and the congestion is abysmal. I-5 northbound, out of Portland, is at LOS D or below most of the day. During the rush hours, the ripple effects cause backups on I-84 eastbound (as commuters try to sneak over to I-205, which has a free-flowing 8 lane bridge — but only *one* freeway-to-freeway interchange at its north end), US 26 westbound heading into Portland, and on I-5 north all the way through downtown Portland.

—-

With cars getting more fuel efficient and Vancouver already having a half million residents living in car-oriented development, it makes no sense to say “the car is going away.” The CRC needs light rail to give Vancouver the spark to start changing the way it approaches development. And it needs 12 lanes of freeway to accommodate traffic for the only north-south interstate in the West, as well as for SR 14 and SR 500, which begin at or near the CRC.

We have a similar situation here in New York with the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80464769@N00/186598462/

Why Do We Get Megaproject Costs Wrong? [via Sightline Daily]

The graph, obviously, is meant to be more illustrative than scientific. But it does a pretty good job of explaining Flyvbjerg’s central thesis: through a combination of over-optimism (delusion) and strategic misrepresentation (deception), planners and boosters tend to low-ball the costs of a big project; and the higher the political stakes, the more likely it is that deception is involved.

As for the above piece, why not suggest a public transportation plan to rival this ridiculousness? I think the progressive thinking people of Portland would likely support a plan that covers a vastly greater area than a plan that builds a bridge in one place. I bet you could even use some of the money to spruce up the current bridges and roads.

JR

I never thought that a public transport advocate would ever use the classic conservative “It wont pay for itself!” argument to slam highway infrastructure.

But now I have seen it all.

If you replaced all references to this highway project with the simple acronym “CHSRA”, I could swear I was reading a Randall O’Toole post.