HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2007, 4:24 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
This is getting good!

I will take an ugly bridge with light rail over a pretty bridge without it.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2007, 6:17 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexjon View Post
This is getting good!

I will take an ugly bridge with light rail over a pretty bridge without it.
Agree in half, I would like to have a pretty bridge WITH light rail, but if the ugly bridge wins, I would just stick with it because that bridge will give us a nice view of downtown Vancouver and Fort Vancouer, the Barracks, and many of stuff around west of Vancouver which always disappeared from viewing while driving on the bridge..
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2007, 7:27 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Just to re-cap, the total-replacement got a ringing endorsment at the meeting last night.

It was on the news here in Seattle
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2007, 8:23 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
Task force studies I-5 bridge options

Wednesday, November 28, 2007
BY DON HAMILTON, Columbian staff writer

It was only a coincidence that northbound traffic came to a virtual stop across the Columbia River on Interstate 5 Tuesday just as the task force planning a new bridge started meeting in Vancouver.

The day's extreme congestion problems only underscored the importance of the project by the bistate Columbia River Crossing Task Force. Several Oregon members made their way into the meeting 30, 45 and 60 minutes late.

The group met Tuesday for the first time since June and the first time since receiving new findings last week by the group's technical staff. The findings, which are preliminary, point to light rail through downtown Vancouver and a new Interstate 5 bridge to replace the old one as the best alternatives for a new way across the Columbia River.

The group has been studying a new river crossing since its first meeting in February 2005. It's planning a new bridge, a mass transit mode and interchange improvements on both the Washington and Oregon sides. The price tag could reach $4.2 billion; no final decisions are expected u ntil spring.

"We need to be able to fund a project that works with a budget that works," said task force member Fred Hansen, TriMet's general manager. "It's a balancing act."

Looking on Tuesday was Paula Hammond, Washington's new transportation secretary. She's been serving as a member of the project executive committee.

The meeting Tuesday involved no decisions or choices, but presentations by the staff members of how and why they arrived at their findings. There were questions from task force members but little objection from the 39 members to the major elements in the preliminary findings.

Much of the discussion centered on tolls, the bridge's impact on traffic and ways to ease other I-5 choke points, an issue that concerns Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart. He was especially concerned about the bottleneck southbound where I-5 and Interstate 405 meet.

"People aren't just paying to get across the bridge," he said, "they're paying to get to work."

Walter Valenta, a task force representative from Portland's Bridgeton Neighborhood Association, agreed. He said the public will ask why they're spending so much money without resolving other bottlenecks.

"We're all going to hear it," he said. "It's the Achilles tendon on this."

Hal Dengerink, Washington State University Vancouver chancellor and task force co-chairman, concurred, but noted that the group is focused on only one portion of the broader I-5 picture.

"Just because we can't solve all of the problems," he said, "doesn't mean we can't solve the problem here."

Members of the public also addressed the task force.

Paul Rollins said the project is a waste of money.

"Don't build it," he said. "Build jobs in Southwest Washington."

Sharon Nasset of North Portland has unsuccessfully lobbied the panel since its first meeting for a highway up the North Portland railway right of way, but nonetheless was impressed by the task force's tenacity. Tuesday was the group's 21st meeting in 34 months.

"I'm glad," she said, "that everybody's still at the table." Columbia River Crossing


Update

- Previously: The Columbia River Crossing has been planning a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River with mass transit.

- What's new: The 39-member, bistate task force Tuesday started looking at preliminary data from its staff calling for a new bridge with light rail.

- What's next: The draft environmental impact statement and staff recommendations will be released Feb.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2007, 9:46 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,517

I-5 bridge fix could cost at least $3.1 billion

Preliminary cost estimates narrow as 4 construction options are considered
Daily Journal of Commerce
POSTED: 06:00 AM PST Thursday, November 29, 2007
BY ALISON RYAN

Improving transit over the Columbia River could cost at least $3.1 billion, according to estimates released this week.

Estimated construction costs for alternatives for the Columbia River Crossing bridge, transit and highway improvement project range between $3.1 and $4.2 billion. Estimates include components like I-5 related costs: interchanges, adding high capacity transit or new bridges.

At this point, Columbia River Crossing project engineer Frank Green said, the estimate pulls in a lot of factors, among them potential risks. A team of experts identified 155 risks that could impact cost, schedule, or a combination of the two.

“And I don’t think that’s uncommon, when you’re at this early stage of a project,” Green said. “There are still a lot of unknowns.”

All types of risk translate to money spent or saved. Some – for example, archaeological discoveries that would expand both timeline and budget – could mean higher costs. But some risks, like potential for containing transit options within the superstructure of a new bridge, could mean savings.

Actual cost will also depend on which project alternative is selected.

Four options are being considered, among them a replacement bridge with bus rapid transit, a replacement bridge with light rail, a bridge to supplement the existing Interstate bridge with bus rapid transit added, and a supplemental bridge with light rail.

As the project moves forward – and an alternative is selected – some of the risks will vanish.

The next step for cost estimating, Green said, will come as an environmental impact statement is issued and a locally preferred alternative released. Both things are expected to happen in February.

Picking the preferred alternative will have the biggest impact. Earlier cost estimates for an initial 12 options put the cost range between $2 billion and $6 billion. Figures released this week represent a narrowing of those numbers, and Green is confident that the next estimate will be within the new range.

“Advanced design will give us more detail,” he said, “and more refined cost estimates.”
http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...nstruction-opt
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2007, 2:38 AM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
This bridge is unlikely to get built, I think. At the very least, it is going to be delayed by multiple lawsuits, and probable resistance from Metro and PDX Council. Possibly long enough that it becomes financially and politically unfeasible.

Did anyone read the Oregonian article yesterday? At the end it contained this tidbit:

Quote:
Adding a fourth lane from Delta Park to I-405 might cost as little as $150 million, Anderson said. But making that part of this project could delay a new bridge for years.
So this is on their agenda.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2007, 7:25 AM
Sekkle's Avatar
Sekkle Sekkle is offline
zzzzzzzz
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland area
Posts: 2,276
I was told by someone working on the CRC study that they are looking at running light rail on a separate level below the bridge deck. All I've seen on EIS-type documents, though, is that transit (either BRT or LRT) will run in a dedicated lane next to traffic. Anybody know?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2007, 6:37 PM
360Rich 360Rich is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vantucky
Posts: 256
Bridge planners think inside the box

Sunday, December 09, 2007
BY DON HAMILTON, Columbian Staff Writer

Mass transit may not wind up on the new Columbia Rive bridge at all, but under it.

Or rather, in it.

Planners at the Columbia River Crossing are looking at a quirky design characteristic dubbed "transit-in-a-box." It means running mass transit lanes ­- be they for buses or light rail - under the road and inside the main structure of the bridge.

"It's still very, very early in the design," said Ron Anderson, manager of the project's consultant team, "but we haven't found any fatal flaws. We think it's possible."

For nearly three years, the Columbia River Crossing has been studying a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River. Staff recommendations will be issued Feb. 1, but preliminary findings say the best option is to replace the old bridge with a new structure that has light rail as the mass transit component.

The transit-in-a-box idea surfaced in June during a conference looking at ways to save money through design.

There are plenty of examples of cars and trains co-existing. The Steel Bridge in Portland with light rail and cars on top and heavy rail underneath is a good example. But this transit in a box is different, with the trains designed right into the design of a concrete box bridge.

No examples can be found in North America, but the design has been used in Asia and Europe, including the Reichsbrucke bridge in Vienna, the Nuselsky Bridge in Prague, and the approach to the Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong.

Early design work on the I-5 project has envisioned not one massive bridge, but three separate structures: one northbound, one southbound and one for mass transit. Placing mass transit in one of the main spans would reduce the number of bridges to two and reduce the number of pillars to 17 from 21. That, in turn, might save 60 to 100 feet of riverfront for other uses.

Cost factors remain uncertain.

"Cost savings are still being evaluated," a Crossing memo on the topic said, though initial evaluations showed that capital expenditures - the estimate of raw construction costs based on quantities - would likely be lower for the transit-in-a-box concept.

"Other major factors in determining the cost estimate, such as risk and schedule, still need to be included in order to make a rational comparison," the memo said.

The mass transit system would have to run under the southbound span. That's because it will connect with TriMet's light rail station at the Expo Center and feed into downtown Vancouver, both of which are west of I-5. Its place under the roadbed would bring transit closer to the ground and allow a stop as close to the Columbia River as Fifth Street instead of Sixth or Seventh under other options.

One downside to the design would be the limited view for mass transit passengers. It would be essentially a tunnel. The design could be open at the sides, but the view for passengers looking east, generally a grand sweep of the river and Mount Hood, would be obscured at least partially by the adjacent northbound span.

The tunnel would also complicate emergency access, but that's a problem that can be resolved, Anderson said.

Anderson said engineering for transit-in-a-box is only 5 percent complete but that initial signs are good.

"We'll make decisions over the next year or so as we're developing the design," Anderson said, "and we'll continue working on it until we find out it doesn't work."

'Transit in a box'

Bus rapid transit or light rail lines shoulder In a "transit in a box" scenario, light rail or bus rapid transit lines would run inside the girders supporting one of the new bridge's road decks.

According to Columbia River Crossing documents, a traditional two-deck bridge would either be too high for planes or too low for river traffic.

travel lanes merging lanes shoulder Each bridge lane would be 12 feet wide.


Advantages

Shorter construction time
Fewer pillars in the river
Require less riverfront

Disadvantages

Untested design in the U.S.
Obscured river view for mass transit riders.
More complicated emergency access.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localN...de-the-box.cfm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2007, 9:29 PM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
This is brilliant!! Finally, some creative thinking, instead of the usual negativity.

I would also suggest running the pedestrian and bicycle lanes through one of the box girders (the easternmost one, with the view of Mt Hood). Not only would the lanes be closer to ground level than the main decks, but they'd be covered too. Hell, they could even add a small kiosk midspan for walkers and bikers to grab a latte.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 360Rich View Post
Advantages

Shorter construction time
Fewer pillars in the river
Require less riverfront
I would add "Less expensive". Even if there's a premium for specially designed box girders, it's surely less expensive than building a third span.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 360Rich View Post
Disadvantages

Untested design in the U.S.
Obscured river view for mass transit riders.
More complicated emergency access.
1- Tested in Europe and Asia is good enough for me. We should be following more European and Asian examples in transportation.
2- It's not like you can't see Mt Hood from every other part of the city, you don't have to see it from the train too.
3- No more complicated than emergency access to any other bridge.

Also, it may be worth designing all of the box girders this way and use them as separate bus or HOV lanes, or reserve them for future high speed rail so another bridge wouldn't be necessary when that finally happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2007, 9:54 PM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
I have the same thoughts as 65Max^^^, but I wonder why does it have to be under the bridge? Why not try put the light rail on between of both bridges while there is empty space between the two bridges. If we do that, then the rider will have the view of Mt. Hood and the river.
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 10:57 AM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
^^^^
Because the box girders they're talking about will be below the decks of the two bridges. Also, if you fill the space between the bridges with more lanes for transit (and bikes and peds), you've just created one single extremely wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide bridge. The point of using the space below is to reduce the overall width of the whole project, reducing cost, construction time and environmental impact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 2:45 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
i like this idea a lot. the disadvantages seem so minor it's almost like the author was scraping for something - anything! - to appear to provide some balance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 6:25 PM
Pavlov's Dog Pavlov's Dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 356
What a simple idea.

May I be the first to propose razing the butt-ugly Macadam bridge and instead of making the new Caruthers MAX bridge make a new I5 bridge with "transit in a box" instead. This more southern route for I5 would be part of tunneling under the Central Eastside and opening up the Eastern riverbank.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 7:20 PM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog View Post
What a simple idea.

May I be the first to propose razing the butt-ugly Macadam bridge and instead of making the new Caruthers MAX bridge make a new I5 bridge with "transit in a box" instead. This more southern route for I5 would be part of tunneling under the Central Eastside and opening up the Eastern riverbank.
Marquam Bridge
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 7:44 PM
Pavlov's Dog Pavlov's Dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 356
Yep. That's the ticket.

I knew it was wrong when I hit reply it but I couldn't figure out what the hell that bridge was called.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 8:46 PM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
I still wish they could tunnel it. But this idea seems like a good one. Efficient use of space that would keep the cost down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2007, 9:08 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Isn't there a Calatrava bridge going up like this? Well, transit within the substructure, that is-- it's a suspension bridge, IIRC
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2007, 2:31 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
C-Tran set to work out cross-river operations

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
BY DON HAMILTON Columbian staff writer

C-Tran is turning the bureaucratic gears that could lead to the operation of a mass transit system linked with TriMet's in Oregon.

During its meeting today, the bus system's board of directors will vote on starting talks with TriMet officials on how to operate high-capacity transit across the Columbia River. Washington, Oregon and the city of Vancouver also would also be part of the talks.

It's not a surprise. The move comes as the bistate Columbia River Crossing project prepares recommendations for a new Interstate 5 bridge with mass transit across the Columbia River. C-Tran would say with this move that it is willing to look at becoming a partner in whatever mass transit mode is chosen.

"The issue is at hand," said Scott Patterson, C-Tran spokesman. "This is saying, 'Yeah, this fits with the agency's long-range vision and is something that warrants further consideration.' "

In bureaucratic terms, the resolution C-Tran will look at today authorizes development of a memorandum of understanding among the five entities. That memorandum would set out the process and framework for a full agreement to define ownership, operating details, money sources, hiring and training policies, maintenance and all the other complex details of a transit system.

No final decisions have been made, but data prepared by the crossing staff say the best option would be to replace the old bridge with a new one with light rail.

Either light rail or express buses, the other mass transit option, would require an operating agreement for crossing city lines, state lines and transit agency lines. And that's what the memorandum of understanding would address.
Defining those operational details matters a lot to the federal government. The Federal Transit Administration won't authorize hundreds of millions of dollars for mass transit until it's convinced the operators can build and run the system and keep it financially stable.

"It's not just about the cost of operating between the Expo Center and downtown Vancouver," Patterson said. "It's about the financial viability of the existing system. The FTA is very particular that if they approve high-capacity transit it shall not degrade the existing bus system."

That means, Patterson said, that existing C-Tran revenue approved by voters won't be used for the high-capacity transit system. Some different revenue source would be needed to run either light-rail trains or buses.
On Feb. 1, the crossing project will release two important bureaucratic reports.

The draft environmental impact statement will contain the factual findings of nearly a year of study by the project staff. And the locally preferred alternative will contain the recommendations of the staff.

Update

Previously: The Columbia River Crossing project is planning a new Interstate 5 bridge with mass transit.

What's new: The C-Tran board will vote today on whether to initiate talks with TriMet, the two states and the city of Vancouver addressing who would own and operate the mass transit line.

What's next: The crossing project will release its staff recommendations on Feb. 1.

ON THE WEB
A history of the I-5 bridge columbian.com/i5bridge

Don Hamilton can be reached at 360-759-8010 and don.hamilton@columbian.com
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2007, 2:33 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Washington View: Bridges, barges critical to state's economy

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
BY DON BRUNELL for The Columbian

When the subject of transportation comes up, much of the state's political focus is on replacing the Viaduct along Seattle's waterfront and building a new 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington. But there are other transportation "mega-projects" that need our attention as well.

For example, in Vancouver, the I-5 and I-205 bridges are critical to our economic vitality. These two bridges are the only connection between Vancouver and Portland where Interstate 84, the main east-west highway, and I-5, the main north-south roadway, meet.

On Dec. 3, we got a glimpse of what would happen if that connection were severed when flooding forced the closure of I-5 near Chehalis. The only option for truckers headed from Seattle to Portland was a 440 mile detour through Yakima.

The I-205 bridge just east of the Portland International Airport is relatively new. Completed in 1983, this wide sweeping span, carries motorists unobstructed. However, the I-5 bridges just downriver are another matter. While the I-5 roadway through Vancouver was widened recently in preparation for a new span, the current structures are two side-by-side drawbridges; one built in 1917 and the other in 1958.

The bridge carrying northbound traffic was built while America was fighting World War I. It was so heavily used, initially by Model T Fords, that the five-cent-a-car toll was removed by 1929 when the construction bonds were paid off. Traffic remained heavy, and the southbound structure opened about the same time the Soviets launched Sputnik. Both are drawbridges, frequently closed when barges and sailboats move east and west along the Columbia.
Recently, the Washington and Oregon transportation departments announced that the preferred replacement option for the I-5 bridges is to build a new, wide high-rise span that would allow tugs and barges to easily sail under it without stopping traffic. The proposed replacement would be accompanied by a side-by-side light rail structure that would connect downtown Vancouver and Portland.

The earliest that construction could begin is 2010 at an estimated cost of $4.2 billion, a price that's likely to increase as we get closer to the starting date.

Dams play vital role

The Vancouver-Portland metropolitan area already experiences traffic congestion. In some instances, heavy traffic stopped growth in east Vancouver until additional interchanges could be added to State Route 14, which traverses the north side of the Columbia between Vancouver and Pasco.

That congestion will get much worse if some activists get their way. They want the four lower Snake River dams removed, which would severely restrict barge traffic on the Snake and Columbia rivers.

Port of Clarkston officials estimate that, if the dams located between Pasco and Clarkston were torn down and barge navigation halted, it would take an additional 120,000 rail cars, or more than 700,000 semi-trucks annually to carry the cargo now being moved by barge on the Columbia-Snake river system.

Breaching also adds to our problem with "greenhouse gases." For example, port analysts say that barges can move one ton of cargo 514 miles on a gallon of fuel, compared with 202 miles by rail and 79 miles on trucks.
Furthermore, the highway and rail network along those rivers can't take that increase in traffic as configured today. But the biggest bottleneck will be our bridges. Between Longview and Stevenson, a 100-mile stretch running through the heart of Portland-Vancouver, there are only four bridge crossings on the Columbia, and two of them have only two lanes.

There is no doubt that the I-5 bridges must be a top priority for both Washington and Oregon.

Our state's transportation infrastructure is getting old and replacing it will be expensive. But we should not make our traffic problems even worse by removing the dams that connect our vital water transportation corridor along the Columbia and Snake rivers.


Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state's chamber of commerce. Visit www.awb.org
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2007, 11:21 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Legislators say bridge will likely take a toll

Saturday, December 15, 2007
BY KATHIE DURBIN, Columbian staff writer

Local legislators offered a two-word reality check Friday to people wondering how the region will pay for a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River:

Expect tolls.

"Tolls are going to be part of the mix" on every major state transportation project from now on, said state Rep. Bill Fromhold, D-Vancouver, responding to a question at Friday's legislative preview breakfast, sponsored by Clark County business groups.

"If we want the bridge, we're going to have to pay forward," agreed Rep. Deb Wallace, also a Vancouver Democrat.

"To me, tolls are a true user tax," said Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside. "But they can't be the only source." A new Columbia River Crossing will benefit the entire state, he noted.

Not every lawmaker was comfortable with the concept of tolls, especially for Clark County residents who commute daily to jobs in Oregon.

Rep. Bruce Chandler's 15th District encompasses most of Yakima County, Klickitat and Skamania counties and a small portion of southeastern Clark County. "For most of our constituents, a toll is the 75 cents we pay to cross the Hood River Bridge," the Granger Republican said. "When you talk about $175 to $200 a month just to get to work, I am concerned."

That would amount to $5 per crossing. No one is expecting bridge tolls to be that steep. The toll on the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge is $1.75 per car for those with automatic transponders or $3 for cash customers. The toll is charged only in one direction.

Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, said he grew up in Maine, where toll roads are commonplace, and doesn't have a problem with tolls. But he wondered how wide the new I-5 bridge would have to be to accommodate toll booths.
Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, said he opposes tolls imposed by governments. "The cheapest way to fund transportation is if the costs are spread widely," he said. With tolls, he said, "The 55,000 to 60,000 people that drive into Oregon every day will have a big hit."

Lawmakers told the assembled business leaders that in order to get a significant federal and state buy-in on the $3 billion to $4 billion price tag for a new I-5 bridge, they will need to present a united front.

Otherwise, said Orcutt, the project could end up like the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Funding to replace the earthquake-damaged overpass is in limbo after state legislators, Seattle politicians and Gov. Chris Gregoire disagreed over what should be done with the double-deck highway, which carries fast traffic above downtown Seattle's waterfront.

"There's got to be consensus," Fromhold said. The agreement state and federal lawmakers reached over the Columbia River channel-deepening project would be a good model to follow in building support for the Columbia River Crossing, he said.

Wallace said she wants to make sure that all Clark County residents, including her 17th District constituents in east Vancouver, see a return on their investment in a new bridge. Many don't depend as heavily on the I-5 crossing because the Interstate 205 bridge is more convenient. One possibility, she said, would be more park-and-ride lots.

Dunn said it's important to ease the traffic jams people experience going between the I-5 and Interstate 205 bridges. "We need more corridors to address the gridlock we have off the freeways," he said.

Addressing the issues

The eight lawmakers who attended the breakfast had these comments on questions pitched by moderator Bart Phillips of the Columbia River Economic Development Council and audience members:

On tax increment financing, the ability to bond against future revenue to pay for local projects today:

Fromhold said most legislators want a state law that would give all communities that tool, but "the House Democratic Caucus leadership continues to oppose it."

But state Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, said it's important not to focus too narrowly on tax increment financing, because what's really needed is more state dollars for local projects.

On new capital projects:

Fromhold, who chairs the House Capital Budget Committee, said it "may not be realistic" to expect the 2008 Legislature to expand the state's bonding capacity to pay for new college buildings. "We have deteriorating sewer and water capacity across the state that is severe," he said, and local school districts are pushing for new construction dollars as well.

On new stormwater management rules soon to be adopted by the Department of Ecology, which developers warn could reduce the amount of buildable land in the county:

Chandler said it's important for Ecology to recognize that there is less rainfall and therefore less stormwater runoff east of the Cascades and that "one size does not fit all."

Rep. Jaime Herrera, R-Ridgefield, who was appointed Nov. 29 to fill the seat vacated by Richard Curtis, said that in her two weeks as a state legislator, she has heard from constituents that the Department of Ecology may be "overreaching" with its new stormwater rule.

"My experience is, legislative intent needs to be followed," said Herrera, adding that she favors "solutions, but not Draconian solutions."

But Pridemore pointed out that Ecology developed the new stormwater rule to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. If the state doesn't enforce the act, he said, the federal courts could step in.

Referring to U.S. District Judge Jim Redden's recent threat to take over operation of Columbia River dams to ensure adequate stream flow for threatened salmon, Pridemore remarked: "If you like what Judge Redden is doing with the Endangered Species Act, you'll love what the federal courts will do with the Clean Water Act."

The annual legislative preview, held this year at the Hilton Vancouver Washington, is sponsored by Identity Clark County, the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce and the Columbia River Economic Development Council.

Social services make pitch

After the breakfast, several legislators attended a session at the YWCA Clark County that was organized by 21 nonprofit human service agencies. Agency leaders thanked lawmakers for their work during the 2007 session on early childhood education, health care for children, housing, mental health services, and access to legal services for the poor.

La Von Holden, interim director of the Vancouver Housing Authority, said the lack of affordable housing is a fundamental unmet need of the county's low-income residents.

"If a family doesn't have decent, affordable housing, it can't make progress in other areas," she said.

Holden noted that 26 percent of all jobs in Clark County pay $12 an hour or less, and that a worker making the state minimum wage of $8.07 per hour would have to work 72 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom unit renting at the local fair market rent of $757.

"There's a real disconnect between the cost of housing and wages," she said. "The reality is, you can have a $12-an-hour job and not have a place to live."

Pat Beckett, executive director of the Children's Center in Vancouver, said the state's mental health system continues to be significantly underfunded, and new state Access to Care standards have created additional barriers for people trying to obtain mental health services, especially children.

From June 2006 to September 2007, Clark County's network of mental health service providers denied services to 316 people, Beckett said. Of those, 204 were children.

Pridemore, who got a sudden immersion in mental health issues this year as interim director of Columbia River Mental Health Services, acknowledged the problems. But he said solving them comes down to money, and money for expanded programs is going to be hard to come by in 2008.

"We're going to need supermajorities to pass new taxes now" under voter-approved Initiative 747, he said. "We won't have much ability to fund new programs." He asked agency heads to propose changes that won't require new funding.

Fromhold agreed. "It's going to be important to think about holding on to the footholds we've established."

The Legislature convenes Jan. 14 for a 60-day regular session.


Kathie Durbin can be reached at
kathie.durbin@columbian.com
or 360-759-8034.
__________________
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.