I-5 Bridge Replacement - Formerly Columbia River Crossing | Proposed

[bvpcvm]

I hate to say it, but I doubt this is really the end. How many times has the convention center headquarters hotel been declared 'dead'? There is a constituency for this project and they won't just let it drop.

[RainDog]

F*CK YEAH!

Best news I have heard in a while.

[2oh1]

I agree. This thing isn't dead yet, but I'm hoping.

[philopdx]

I ain't gonna shed any tears over this one. I admit getting MAX across the river is an integral part of the metro area's transit strategy, but the cost grew WAY too high in my opinion.

In the end, this interstate expansion would have served the interests of suburban and exurban commuters in Clark County much more than anyone south of the river.

Come to think of it, recalling the traffic studies, it wouldn't have benefited them very much either. It would have shaved, what, six minutes off their commute?

On top of that, there is no easy way to resolve the I-5 bottleneck around the rose quarter, which is where all the additional traffic would have ended up. It's bad enough now.

[bvpcvm]

ok, what about this hypothetical scenario: the cascadia megathrust hits (all forum members survive of course), but the bridge collapses, and now it has to be replaced, pronto. given the urgency, how much time would be given to making sure we replaced it with something even as basic as a bike/ped facility, to say nothing of light rail? i wouldn't be surprised if the pressure to build something - anything - would be so great that the people making the decisions would just default to moses-style plans that they "know" "work" and know how to build and we end up with the monster we've been worried about all through the life of the CRC project.

[tworivers]

^^^ Thought-provoking and somewhat plausible scenario. Still ecstatic that the monstrosity that was planned is (most likely) not going to happen. Post-megathrust, who the F knows...

Interesting Bikeportland.org coverage and commentary here.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

ok, what about this hypothetical scenario: the cascadia megathrust hits (all forum members survive of course), but the bridge collapses

Just the bridge?

[bvpcvm]

well, not just the bridge of course.

though no one expected it, bonneville dam failed as well, and a massive flood swept down the columbia gorge, taking out 84 in several places.

on the other hand, the brand-new sellwood bridge held fast.

but unfortunately, a heretofore-undiscovered fault running south from gresham, directly through estacada, was triggered by the megathrust quake and much of that area disappeared into the earth, taking the majority of clackamas county's —, trucks, and republican votes with it. (the rest were left to live out their lives in the resulting liberal tyranny).

in portland, i-5 on the eastbank sank into the river, and the bluff that the rose quarter sits on collapsed.

despite all this destruction, all the regulars on this forum managed to survive - a few were riding their bicycles, one in particular had just lit up a massive doobie in his local park, a few were performing trek in the park, others were drinking beer on outdoor patios - in short, no one here was in a place that would have been threatening.

[tworivers]

but unfortunately, a heretofore-undiscovered fault running south from gresham, directly through estacada, was triggered by the megathrust quake and much of that area disappeared into the earth, taking the majority of clackamas county's —, trucks, and republican votes with it. (the rest were left to live out their lives in the resulting liberal tyranny).

Is it inappropriate to tell a fellow forum member that you love them?

one in particular had just lit up a massive doobie in his local park

And who might this be?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Is it inappropriate to tell a fellow forum member that you love them?

Son, you had your chance on mothers' day.

And who might this be?

It wasn't you; I tactfully left out what you were up to when the earthquake hit.

[tworivers]

Son, you had your chance on mothers' day.

Wait... DAD????

It wasn't you; I tactfully left out what you were up to when the earthquake hit.

OK, now you're just getting creepy.

[CouvScott]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Is it inappropriate to tell a fellow forum member that you love them?



And who might this be?

I learned it by watching you, Dad. I learned it by watching you

[mcbaby]

http://youtu.be/sPB1jtmHVkk

I really like this alternative :-)

[Grantenfuego]

Originally Posted by mcbaby

http://youtu.be/sPB1jtmHVkk

I really like this alternative :-)

Yeah, that one has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. I do question his numbers a bit though, considering all the miles of rail that would need to be built on both sides of the river on top of everything else. It probably would still be cheaper than the 3.6 billion that they were trying to spend.

[zilfondel]

I like that alternative as well. Especially as you can stage the projects. In fact, it would only cost $800 million w/out the high speed rail bridge, which adds $1 billion to the cost.

So $800 million would get an upgraded rail bridge with reduced lifts on the I-5 bridge, a new bridge from NoPo to Hayden Island, and a new bridge from Hayden Island to Vancouver. Those new bridges would carry MAX, busses, passenger cars, trucks, pedestrians and cyclists.

$200 million then seismically upgrades the existing I-5 bridges, plus any additional work to beef up the foundations to fix the erosion problems.

$800 million split between OR, WA and the feds would be pretty affordable.



Then, sometime in the future after OR and WA get more serious about regional rail in the I-5 PDX-SEA corridor, we can talk about a new passenger rail/freight truck bridge from NoPo to Vancouver. But its not at all needed now.

[2oh1]

The alternative makes a lot of sense. The CRC does not. Sadly, I think it would be harder to get less money over time for multiple projects than it would be (would have been?) to get one huge sum for one huge project.

I really hope everyone involved with the CRC is as embarrassed as they should be. The idea of relieving congestion by funneling more traffic through a single point is foolish to the point of absurdity. Would the CRC have eased congestion? Probably, but not definitely, since more lanes would draw even more traffic which would eventually end up as congested as before, but on a larger scale. Would the CRC have caused more congestion elsewhere along I-5? Absofrigginglutely. Come on. I'm not advocating for freeway choke points, but they do have a benefit. They discourage even more traffic from flowing through that point and elsewhere. Imagine a large increase in traffic through I-5 downtown Portland, or dumping into the Freemont Bridge. That mentality is decades out of date.

Like I said, I understand the idea of hyping up a problem in order to get a lump sum high dollar fix. It's easier to throw more money at one thing than it is to plan responsibly with a multiple phase, multi-bridge long term solution, even if that solution costs less.

I hate everything about the CRC except for the acronym. I don't want it to rest in peace. I want it to die painfully enough to serve as a warning for anyone foolish enough to think it can be revived.

I agree that the alternative seems like a no-brainer, but then again, there were a lot of no-brain decisions that led to the CRC as we knew it.

Please, oh please, let the CRC be dead.

[dubu]

have the orange line and green line go to vancouver or nothing imo

[bvpcvm]

Petitioners sue city of Vancouver in effort to get anti-light rail initiative on the ballot

According to the city though, this issue does not fall under the power of initiative specified by the city charter, which says a local initiative cannot dictate how the city spends its money. By Washington state law, the city budget is the sole responsibility of the city.

"The initiative attempts to tell the county how to spend its money," City Attorney Linda Marousek said. "It has held over and over again in courts that appropriating funds is not allowed as a subject of local initiative. "

The initiative also requests that the city return all money already spent on light rail planning connected with the bridge project. According to Marousek, though, this would be considered a violation of the Constitution because it would result in an impairment of contract and the "deprivation of another's property without due process of law."

I'll add some wisdom from selected OLive commenters, just for fun:

Originally Posted by mercurus

We live here to escape the intrusive nature of Portland government, and this was a victory toward that end. Light rail would have been a tax revenue sucking failure that would have had the same deadly results as its had in Portland.

Originally Posted by kedsokedso

Fred Hansen ain't gone. His ghost lingers. In his zeal to leave a legacy to himself, he succeeded in jamming light rail down neighborhoods' throats whether anyone wanted it or not. Looky at the expo line. It goes to nowhere. The new milwaukie line is a billion dollar unnecessary addition. It will ferry 20-30 riders from milwaukie to downtown portland daily. The wilsonville fiasco is...well. Some unbrights say, look at all the commuters max carries. Well, duh, Hansen abolished buses in a two mile strip next to his rail lines. Vancouver is probably — shy.

Originally Posted by tombdragon

Let Vancouver vote on Light Rail. Marin County California did - voted against BART, and they prospered, without that investment. Clark County doesn't need it. We penalize Washington, Idaho, abd California residents who cross the boarder already by charging them income pax - give it a rest.

Originally Posted by CityofMisfitToys

What? The people of Vancouver don't want a crime riddled, less than stellar multi-billion dollar choo choo??? Amazing. How will their coffee shop employees and unemployed get around town???

Originally Posted by CrazedSexPoodle

Staying far, far away from inept TriMet's progressive spiral into bankruptcy just shows how intelligent the voters of Clark County are...

[CouvScott]

http://www.thirdbridgenow.com/contact.html

[zilfondel]

The "3rd bridge" concept seems to be a solution in search of a problem: what exactly does a bridge and new highway add that the existing highway 30, St. Johns Bridge, Lombard and N Columbia blvd doesn't already provide?

Not that I would be against another bridge over the Willamette or Columbia river, but this plan seems to be very similar to the "Common Sense Alternative" local bridge portion, except more limited in scope.

Anyway, these concepts are ironically trying to sell mobility plans for the northern portion of the Metro area, while using graphics of shiny bridges to distract people. Not very helpful, as they do not frame a helpful public planning dialogue.