HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2007, 5:17 PM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
^^^don't forget the chunnel in france/britain!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2007, 6:01 PM
edgepdx's Avatar
edgepdx edgepdx is offline
No longer PDX
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hood River, OR
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
What is wrong with a tunnel under the river? It is done all the time: Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, Queens Midtown (NY), Ted Williams (Boston), Detroit to Canada to name a few. BART goes under SF bay, Baltimore has a couple under its bay.

I think a tunnel combined with using the existing bridges is a good way to go. It would have to start in Delta Park and end up just past downtown Vancouver, but the majority of traffic on I-5 does doesn't need to stop at Jantzen or Downtown Vancouver, so that traffic would use the existing bridges.
I think the report concluded that the tunnel would have to start too far past downtown Vancouver and Delta Park and that the bottom of the Columbia is very thick silt so it would have to go very deep thus increasing cost.

The bridge upgrade with rail/local replacement seems like by far the best idea. Is anyone on the committee considering it or are they just railroading through (pun intended) the freeway mega-bridge and bulldoze NOPO plan.
__________________
Brawndo - The Thirst Mutilator
"It's got what plants crave!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2007, 6:08 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgepdx View Post
I think the report concluded that the tunnel would have to start too far past downtown Vancouver and Delta Park and that the bottom of the Columbia is very thick silt so it would have to go very deep thus increasing cost.
That is why I was saying to keep and upgrade the existing bridges. Most of the I-5 traffic doesn't go to either Jantzen or Vancouver downtown, let them go all the way through without stopping or interchanges via tunnel. That will substantially lighten the load on the existing bridges, maybe even take one lane out on one of the existing bridges for MAX/bus.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com

Last edited by WonderlandPark; Mar 5, 2007 at 8:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2007, 8:03 PM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
What is wrong with a tunnel under the river? It is done all the time: Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, Queens Midtown (NY), Ted Williams (Boston), Detroit to Canada to name a few. BART goes under SF bay, Baltimore has a couple under its bay.

I think a tunnel combined with using the existing bridges is a good way to go. It would have to start in Delta Park and end up just past downtown Vancouver, but the majority of traffic on I-5 does doesn't need to stop at Jantzen or Downtown Vancouver, so that traffic would use the existing bridges.

Ohh interesting, I just never see a tunnel under the rivers before.
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2007, 10:01 PM
edgepdx's Avatar
edgepdx edgepdx is offline
No longer PDX
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hood River, OR
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
That is why I was saying to keep and upgrade the existing bridges. Most of the I-5 traffic doesn't go to either Jantzen or Vancouver downtown, let them go all the way through without stopping or interchanges via tunnel. That will substantially lighten the load on the existing bridges, maybe even take one lane out on one of the existing bridges for MAX/bus.
Ah, I get it. That's a pretty good idea. I5 and the existing bridge become a local bypass from Delta Park to Downtown Vancouver. Maybe they should narrow that section and put in local intersections (i.e. change that section of I5 from limited access to an arterial type road with the MAX) in Delta Park Jantzen Beach and Downtown Vancouver. That would connect that entire area into a local town center. Just thinking out loud.
__________________
Brawndo - The Thirst Mutilator
"It's got what plants crave!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 1:22 AM
thewack thewack is offline
Bed-Stuy Guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: (Bed-Stuy) Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 64
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what about the I-205 bridge? If the freight companies are whining about Portland traffic on I-5, why don't they use I-205 instead? Is that not part of the point of I-205 avoiding downtown Portland?

Let's stop subsidizing oil. Problem solved...no need for a new bridge as the true cost of oil will be reflected and pressure will mount to make public transit efficient, fast, and appealing. Those who choose to drive can pay for the true costs.

Modify the existing rail bridge and I-5 bridges to accomodate BRT and LRT is my vote.

Another option...do they really need to use so many trucks when there is a rail network for freight along I-5? Is it that crowded?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 2:03 AM
South-by-West South-by-West is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: KPDX
Posts: 62
Yes, I think a tunnel option, opening from just south of Delta Park to just north of downtown Vancouver would be a good option.

My take: Through traffic would use the tunnel to bypass Delta Park and downtown Vancouver. Keep the existing bridges for traffic between the length of the tunnel, and extend light rail over the bridges. I-5 would split at both ends of the tunnel into 'tunnel thru lanes' and 'bridge local lanes.'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 2:25 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,474
Note: not all tunnels need to be bored. The bay bridge tunnel is a series of metal tubes connected together, sunk in a narrow trench. It's supposed to be a really inexpensive way of doing things.

==

There are only three reasons for replacing the existing bridge, however:

-can't see very far ahead to allow high speeds safely
-no emergency lane
-lifting for boats causes delays

The bridge is actually considered one of the most structurally sound in Oregon.

I would like to see a brand new rail bridge with 4+ rail lines running on it.
Throw in a new 4 lane + lightrail local bridge to connect to downtown Vancouver, and we're done! It'll probably cost 1/4 of the proposed $6 Billion one from the CRC group.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 2:28 AM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
Weather, ships also don't affect a tunnel-which is a plus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 7:55 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,075
Transit routes studied

Tuesday, March 06, 2007
By JEFFREY MIZE Columbian staff writer

Transportation officials are honing two options for routing high-capacity transit through Vancouver as part of the Columbia River Crossing project.

Both assume that either light rail or bus rapid transit would cross the Columbia River and head north on Washington Street through downtown to Mill Plain Boulevard. The options will be studied as part of a formal environmental impact statement.

One option calls for the transit line to veer east, under Interstate 5 on McLoughlin Boulevard or 16th Street, to serve Clark College before heading north along the east side of the freeway. From there, what is being called the I-5 alignment would cross over state Highway 500 and I-5 before ending at a planned Park & Ride lot just north of Kiggins Bowl.

Instead of veering east, the second option would continue north on Main Street or Broadway until the two streets merge just north of Fourth Plain Boulevard. The transit line would continue north on Main Street to the proposed Park & Ride lot near Kiggins Bowl.

Each alignment has advantages. Preliminary analysis indicates the Main Street/Broadway option would be cheaper to build and operate, with construction costs 15 percent lower and operating costs 7 percent lower than the other alignment.

The difference is primarily because the Main/Broadway line doesn't head east to Clark College and therefore covers a shorter distance. Bridges spanning state Highway 500 and I-5 also would not be necessary, thereby reducing construction costs.

The Main/Broadway option would provide direct service to more residents who live within a half-mile of transit stations. The option also has the potential to spur urban redevelopment, such as what north Portland is experiencing along the Interstate Avenue light-rail line.

Advantages to the I-5 alignment include direct service to Clark College, with a Park & Ride lot planned near the college, and to the Vancouver Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Because a large stretch of the route would be confined to the existing I-5 corridor, trains or buses could move passengers faster, possibly at 55 mph, than the other option and slightly improve commuting times for workers heading into Portland.

The I-5 alignment also has less potential to affect properties along the route. Officials believe they could squeeze a transit corridor between I-5 and K Street, which lines the east side of the freeway north of Fourth Plain Boulevard.

Jay Lyman, consultant team project manager for Columbia River Crossing, said officials do not believe either alignment would requiring taking large pieces of private property.

Officials say ridership potential along the two routes is comparable, less than a 3 percent difference. The potential for future expansion of a light-rail system to head east and then south across the Interstate 205 Bridge, creating a transit loop in Vancouver, is not considered a significant factor in evaluating the two transit alignments.

Officials intend to work closely with city government and residents on transit routes.

"We want to start a discussion with the city and particularly with the neighborhoods about how best to serve this part of Vancouver with high-capacity transit," Lyman said following a city council meeting Monday evening. "At the heart of the issue is what the city and neighborhoods want to do."

So far, almost all of the buzz surrounding the multibillion-dollar Columbia River Crossing project has been focused on which bridge options should be studied in a draft environmental impact statement.

Three options definitely will be part of the study: a no-build alternative, a replacement bridge with light rail and a replacement bridge with bus rapid transit, a system of frequent buses with limited stops and dedicated lanes. A fourth option also is being prepared that could include retaining the existing I-5 Bridge or adding a third bridge.

Officials wanted to present the two transit alignments to the city council Monday, but council members were focused on other issues related to the Columbia River Crossing. The council will resume its review of the project, including transit alignments, at a March 26 meeting.

Gregg Snyder, consultant team transit manager, said crossing officials have looked at a variety of transit alignments and zeroed in on the two best options, which means it's unlikely additional transit alignments will be evaluated in the draft environmental impact­ statement.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2007, 7:59 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
Note: not all tunnels need to be bored. The bay bridge tunnel is a series of metal tubes connected together, sunk in a narrow trench. It's supposed to be a really inexpensive way of doing things.
This is what I want to see. If they had to, they could trench it in to retain depths for ships. Kind of a cut-and-cover on the river bed.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 4:04 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,149
Residents get say on bridge over I-5
Pedestrian span - Sam Adams wants neighbors to slice the $11 million pie

...crap wrong I-5 Bridge...

see this thread...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=82240&page=28
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 7:47 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouvScott View Post
This is what I want to see. If they had to, they could trench it in to retain depths for ships. Kind of a cut-and-cover on the river bed.
Dude, I have images of this glass tube on the bottom of the Willamette with neon lights illuminating the river-bed. THERE'S YOUR FUCKING ICON!!!!!

NOTE: that's excitement, not anger. Just thought I'd point that out, because the expression on my face isn't carried over broadband cables.

Last edited by Snowden352; Mar 9, 2007 at 7:49 PM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 5:01 AM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowden352 View Post
Dude, I have images of this glass tube on the bottom of the Willamette with neon lights illuminating the river-bed. THERE'S YOUR FUCKING ICON!!!!!

NOTE: that's excitement, not anger. Just thought I'd point that out, because the expression on my face isn't carried over broadband cables.
Kinda like the shark exhibit at the Oregon Coast Aquarium.... great idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 11:56 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,474
Hmm, I think San Fran lost their opportunity for it... but they have a couple of SWEET bridges instead. =\
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 2:49 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,149
I saw a flick in 'couver this weekend and driving through some neighborhoods on the way there saw signs in people's yards saying 'No Loot Rail over our Columbia Crossing'. Looks like opposition is already forming.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 3:41 PM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
Oh, so its their columbia crossing? Good, then they can pay for it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 4:00 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
I saw a flick in 'couver this weekend and driving through some neighborhoods on the way there saw signs in people's yards saying 'No Loot Rail over our Columbia Crossing'. Looks like opposition is already forming.
As with any cause, it's the people who are unhappy that are the loudest. Hopefully, we will get more than equal support to extend light rail into Vancouver.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 7:16 PM
mcbaby mcbaby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 587
i supported light rail when i lived in vancouver but got tired of waiting so now i've lived in portland for the last 11 years. this is a joint effort between two cities and two states and a major arterial along the west coast. vancouver nearly has 200,000 people in it's city limits and can no longer ignore mass transit particulary a link with one of the country's most successful light rail systems. it could be a seamless link if people could look towards the future and not just the price tag. the numbers always seem bigger with inflation anyway. downtown vancouver is becoming more dense and conjestion and gas prices are increasing too. to complain about "loot rail" now seems ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2007, 8:53 PM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbaby View Post
to complain about "loot rail" now seems ridiculous.
Rock on! I agree. I wouldn't drive now if there's a "loot rail". I definitely support the "loot rail" cuz it can reduce the pollution and traffic.
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.