.

I've long felt something was off with the Rose Quarter scope and budget, and I've finally put my finger on it. I'm in favor of adding auxiliary lanes and capping the freeway. But ODOT is going about it in the most unnecessarily expensive way possible: They're choosing to build a 250 foot wide cover when a 110 foot wide cover would do.

110 feet is a standard width for a six-lane freeway. It allows for six standard 12-foot lanes, two standard 10 foot outer shoulders, two standard 4 foot inner shoulders, and a 10 foot median. For example, I-5 at Alberta St. is 6 lanes and is 110 feet wide. Capping a 110-foot wide freeway would require two fairly standard 55-foot spans. So why 250 feet? Where does the extra 140 feet of width come from?

First there is ODOT's decision to span the main highway lanes with 75-foot spans rather than 55-foot spans. This is a significant decision with huge cost implications. The required depth of a structural beam is proportional to its length squared, so a girder spanning 75 feet must be 1.86 times deeper than a girder spanning 55 feet. The result is that ODOT is planning to install girders that are about 2 feet deeper than the current girders (which have spans in the 50-60 foot range). This requires lowering the entire freeway by about 2 feet--a hugely expensive project. (see: https://www.i5rosequarter.org/media/...tion_final.pdf)

So why 75 foot spans when 55 foot spans would do? The obvious answer is that ODOT is building in flexibility to widen the highway to 8 lanes in the future. (Credit to Joe Cortright for being the first to notice the extra width). But ODOT has never admitted that accommodating 8 lanes is part of the project scope, likely because they have no mandate for widening the highway to 8 lanes. Now, there may be a case to be made for building in some flexibility for future possible configurations. BUT: 1) ODOT should actually explicitly make that case to the public and quantify how much it adds to the project budget, and 2) there are ways to accommodate four lanes without blowing up a project budget. For example, 60-foot spans would allow for a possible future configuration with four standard lanes and nonstandard shoulders. Nonstandard shoulders are commonly used to save money in bridges and tunnels. I-93 through Boston, for example, has no shoulders at all. The Marquam Bridge has four lanes and nonstandard shoulders.

The takeaway is this: ODOT is adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the project budget to ensure the provision of standard shoulders in a future lane configuration for which ODOT has no mandate and that might never be implemented.

What about the extra 100 feet of width? This comes from two 50 foot spans adjacent to the main spans which each cover two exit/entrance lanes. As noted in my previous post, having these lanes split from the highway north of the cover is entirely feasible and would make this extra 100 feet of cover unnecessary. But the ramp locations were set in 2012, prior to the addition of the cover scope. The effect of the ramp locations on the cost of the cover has never (apparently) been considered.

The net result is that ODOT is building a 250-foot wide cover over twelve lanes of traffic when they could be building a 110-foot wide cover over six lanes of traffic. The latter would accomplish the project goal of adding auxiliary lanes, would make lowering the freeway unnecessary, and would massively reduce the cost of the cover.

It's hard to overstate the cumulative effect of these design decisions. They have probably added close to $1B to the project budget. All due to bureaucratic inertia, an inability to reconsider previously made decisions when costs go up, and a questionable (and very expensive) decision made far from the public eye to design for eight lanes instead of six.

I honestly think this should be an Oregonian investigation. $1B is a lot of money.

I'm pretty sure I saw your argument on an anti-freeway website recently... but anyway, you have to realize that 110ft might work in an area where it is only 6 total lanes w/shoulders and no entry/exit lanes for the entire length of the cover. That is definitely not the case here. Most of the on/off ramps in that area need to be 2 lanes wide. Have those at any given point of this capped area on both sides, you're at 10 lanes + shoulders. They aren't through lanes that do it. Go to the link in your post and scroll down to page 17 where you'll see areas that are wider and areas that are narrower.

But ODOT could be building the 6-lane, no-exit configuration of the highway cover if the exit ramps were shifted north, braiding with the I-405 ramps (relatively straightforward) and splitting from the freeway north of the cover. They'd connect to the local street grid around the current intersection of Hancock and Gantenbein. That's the logical way to build a highway cover: Connect the ramps before/after the cover so the cover doesn't have to span over the ramps. I'm not anti-freeway, just against building the project in a stupidly expensive way. And ODOT's lack of forthrightness about the 6/8 lanes and the major cost implications is not cool.

The cost of having buildable caps above the freeway is a big chunk of that $1 billion price tag.

The grain terminal next to Moda Center is up for sale for $6.5 million. It was last sold in 2019 to a company that’s been illegally using it for tire scrap recycling. Sorry I’m on my phone at work and don’t know how to post links without my laptop, haha. But Portland Business Journal and Oregonian both have story. Such potential here, the real estate company is really pushing for a connection to the Albina redevelopment.. fingers crossed! I’ve been wanting to see this thing demolished forever.

I agree that this could be a golden opportunity to move ahead with an active riverfront development that connects to the Rose Quarter and the Eastbank Esplanade. Here is a link to The Oregonian article:

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/...2-4c0764459f87

One hand you have a development opportunity, on the other, where would you place all those giant billboards with Dame on them? :)

I do kind like the look of the existing structure, especially next to the Steel Bridge. I grew up in Buffalo and have an affinity for giant grain silos as part of a city's historic backdrop. Not great for adaptive reuse though....

A few quotes from the PBJ article:

High-profile Portland waterfront property with complex history listed for $6.5M

By Christopher Bjorke – Digital Producer/Associate Editor, Portland Business Journal
Jul 26, 2024

img1231 by Ryan Miller, on Flickr

https://www.bizjournals.com/portland...-for-sale.html

This shot is 10 years old -- does anyone know if this lot is still there and is part of the property?

Screen Shot 2024-07-28 at 9.10.17 AM by Ryan Miller, on Flickr

It will be very interesting to see what can be done with this site with it's location being isolated across the freight railways.

What we are talking about here is the vision of a riverfront site spanning from the Steel Bridge to the Broadway Bridge. It comprises a stretch of surface parking lots, rail tracks, and the massive Louis Dreyfus grain facility. It cries out for a grand vision, a master plan for an active riverfront that connects to the Rose Quarter.

Some time ago I recall a proposal to make that connection over N. Interstate Avenue from the Coliseum, taking advantage of its relative high elevation over the roadway. The wide spanning structure would start at grade at the Coliseum and ramp or step down to grade at the parking lots along the riverfront. Think of Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park that spans over Elliott Avenue and a set of rail tracks.

Our stretch of riverfront land should be in the hands of Portland Prosper or one visionary development company rather than multiple property owners who might develop each parcel with no particular overall vision.

Has anyone proposed this before? Like are their concept drawings I can see? That would be amazing if something like that happened.

Agreed that Portland Prosper should take the lead. Portland needs to secure the opportunities both above and below the ground. TriMet is considering a tunnel under the river. Oregon and Washington are considering a high speed rail line connecting Portland to Vancouver BC. Max Yellow, Red, Blue and Green lines converge here. Portland should control the property with an eye toward a major, underground rail station which allows connections between our Max lines and our neighbors to the north. One central station below ground developed by Tri-Met and ODOT with Portland Prosper in the lead to usher regional development above.

...continues at the Portland Business Journal ($).

That parking lot is technically public right-of-way, where the Right 2 Dream Too village is currently located.

I believe that the streetcar tracks leading to the original Steel Bridge are partially exposed in –or possibly next to– that parking lot/public ROW. I've long thought that it would make a nice history-illuminating parklet if they fully uncovered the tracks and added a plaque. Nice vantage point, too. I wouldn't do it until we've (cough) fixed the homeless crisis, though.

A Coalition for Redevelopment
 

Now we have confirmation of a great coalition to redevelop lower Albina, Rose Quarter, and the riverfront. What a great opportunity to repair the damage of past mistakes.

https://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/2...9-45191c7ee51d.

I'm thrilled that they outlined the 94 acres of prime waterfront as part of the vision. Joining Albina over the freeway cap and the Rose Quarter into a live-work-play district, will be huge. The Rose Quarter can mean so much more and really amplify as an entertainment district blended with the cultural significant Albina district. I'm excited to see this come to fruition.

...continues at KOIN.

“Parcel of land located within the Moda Center”? :shrug:

What is the back story, why would Allen sell it? Almost seems like a way to make it easier to sell the franchise (to a different city?).

I can't link directly, but if you go to Portland Maps aerial imagery zoom in on the Moda center and turn back to 1990, you can see that most of the land the Moda center was built on was surface parking lots for VMC that were owned by the city. Before it was realigned, N Williams used to run directly south from Ramsay Way. The parcel now being sold to the city looks to have been a warehouse, east of the old N Williams alignment.

Placing it all in public ownership allows for a property tax exemption.

Seems like other teams would do the same thing but my understanding is most pro sports stadiums/arenas are privately owned. It's the sweet spot, publicly financed, privately owned, owner reaps benefits for all events (not just their team; concerts, etc). And as for tax exempt, lots of owners don't even pay that. I recall stories that the Eagles in Philly owed the city tens of millions of back property taxes but they never collect because the owner would just threaten to leave town.

So then I guess, why here? Why now? If Allen sells Moda, they get nothing for non-Blazers activities, correct? Doesn't seems to make sense to save a little property tax money, if they even pay it. Especially when any renovation costs could likely be extorted from the public.

...continues at Rose Garden Report.

Also: last week's Planning Commission meeting includes a sneak peak at what the Moda Center's new signage and displays might look like. Staff presentation starts about 11 minutes in and the RIP City Management presentation starts about 26 minutes in:

• Video Link

Seasons tickets now available at https://www.wnba.com/portland

...continues at the Portland Business Journal ($).

...continues at the Oregonian.

On Facebook, there was a post about suggestions for a name for the team.

One suggestion was "The Portland Swifts."

I doubt that's what the name will be, but I thought it was a great idea.