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

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by cab

Honestly, we should just go for a tunnel. Just sucker egomanic in charge with a name sponsor to cover the cost. Donald Trump Interstate tunnel (the deepest, the most beautiful, the best tunnel ever built. Trust me) .

Don't quote me, but I think there were some serious issues with tunneling under the Columbia River, whether it be contamination on the river bed or just sheer costs, I don't remember because this has been going on for what feels like decades now.


Also, should we retitle this from "Dead" to "Zombie"? It has risen from the dead and it becoming a new beast.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Don't quote me, but I think there were some serious issues with tunneling under the Columbia River, whether it be contamination on the river bed or just sheer costs, I don't remember because this has been going on for what feels like decades now.


Also, should we retitle this from "Dead" to "Zombie"? It has risen from the dead and it becoming a new beast.

The tunnels would have had to go from at least Rosa Parks to SR-500, if I remember right. Like you said, it's been a while.

One thing to remember is that Vancouver and WSDOT were very supportive of the project. It was Clark County (outside Vancouver) that really opposed it.

[MarkDaMan]

And once again they're squabbling over light rail. They know light rail is a must for Oregon support, so if they haven't come around to accept that, why are they asking us back to the table? Time to toll the 5 and 205 at the state line.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...ight-rail.html

I-5 bridge fight: Washington Republicans ‘dismayed’ over Inslee endorsement of light rail
Updated 1:14 PM; Posted 1:12 PM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive atheen@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive

Here we go again.

One week after Oregon and Washington lawmakers shared a table for the first time in years to discuss replacing the Interstate Bridge, Evergreen State politicians are at loggerheads in public over one of the key issues that torpedoed the Columbia River Crossing project years ago: Light rail.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says a new Interstate Bridge will include a light rail extension from North Portland, a position he held in 2013 before funding for the Columbia River Crossing project died in his state’s Legislature, and which he reiterated Friday in an interview with The Columbian.

Inslee’s office confirmed Wednesday that his $17.5 million budget request for the 2019-21 biennium to reopen a project office starts with the position that a new bridge “will include light rail and may be partially funded with tolls.” The Democratic governor has consistently advocated for replacing the existing bridge.

On Wednesday, eight Southwest Washington Republicans issued a joint statement saying they were “dismayed” by Inslee’s comments while noting “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

...(continues)

[tworivers]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

And once again they're squabbling over light rail. They know light rail is a must for Oregon support, so if they haven't come around to accept that, why are they asking us back to the table? Time to toll the 5 and 205 at the state line.

Truly hilarious and also entirely predictable. This is when we need a good, strong, genuinely progressive mayor to raise their hand and say "um, excuse me". The city of Portland needs to stand up, flex its considerable muscle, and say that no capacity expansion on I-5 will be tolerated, period (seriously, did they not see the 12-year warning regarding climate change and emissions?), but that we are more than willing to discuss tolling both interstate bridges from the state line, seismically upgrading the existing I-5 bridges, and building a brand new, world-class arterial bridge between the Vancouver waterfront and N Portland, complete with platinum-level pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, a yellow line MAX extension, and no more than two lanes of auto traffic in each direction. Portland's elected leaders (starting with the mayor) showing even the smallest bit of spine, not to mention simply abiding by their own stated values and years of very expensive planning, would be a significant wrench thrown into the state-level negotiations. And if members of the Clark County Republican Death Cult aren't interested in negotiating, well, fuck 'em. We should toll the bridges unilaterally and punish Clark County however we possibly can until they step into line -- the time for "nice guy" politics from this side of the state line needs to come to an end starting now.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by tworivers

We should toll the bridges unilaterally and punish Clark County however we possibly can until they step into line -- the time for "nice guy" politics from this side of the state line needs to come to an end starting now.

I understand the frustration with our neighbors to the north, but this posturing wouldn't help us. Yes, I agree that we should toll both I-5 and I-205 at the border, but not in order to "punish" anyone. Congestion pricing can be used to benefit road users by making the best use of limited roadway facilities. I would hope that some of that money would go to dedicated bus facilities to provide alternatives to tolls between our two states, in addition to a light rail connection.

If the state and cause of climate change is as dire as the most recent reports (which I believe they are), we'll need to invest in busways everywhere for electric buses leading to light rail backbone.

[tworivers]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

I understand the frustration with our neighbors to the north, but this posturing wouldn't help us. Yes, I agree that we should toll both I-5 and I-205 at the border, but not in order to "punish" anyone. Congestion pricing can be used to benefit road users by making the best use of limited roadway facilities. I would hope that some of that money would go to dedicated bus facilities to provide alternatives to tolls between our two states, in addition to a light rail connection.

If the state and cause of climate change is as dire as the most recent reports (which I believe they are), we'll need to invest in busways everywhere for electric buses leading to light rail backbone.

I hear you. My frustration, though, is not with our neighbors to the north but with the City of Portland. In my opinion, one of the side effects of the past 15 years of political stagnation is that we've been left weakened in our relationships with others across the region. We have muscle to flex, a lot of it, and we're desperate for bold leadership right now. We could do a lot more to rein in ODOT, for example. I probably would not use language like "punish" in public but I'm deeply annoyed that Wheeler has, predictably, remained silent as these new meetings happen.

[hat]

I would suggest an Oregon-funded light rail bridge with a two-lane road and physically-separated bike lane, such as was proposed in the common sense alternative. Some of the funds from I5 tolls may also cover future trans construction in the future. Could Oregon afford this alone?

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...ge-is-now.html

Kate Brown: The time to plan new Interstate Bridge is now
Today 11:33 AM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Gov. Kate Brown wants Oregon to accelerate plans to replace the Interstate Bridge.

Assuming Washington’s legislature approves as $17.5 million request from Gov. Jay Inslee to open a new bi-state office to lead design, engineering and public outreach for a new bridge, Brown said Oregon must be ready to act. If the money comes through, that joint office should be opened by the end of the year, Brown said.

In a March 20 letter to the chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission, Brown said the aging bridge spanning the Columbia River is “a seismic risk, a freight bottleneck, a barrier to effective public transportation and a source of some of the worst gridlock in the nation.”

“Its current condition poses a threat to Oregon’s economic vitality,” Brown wrote to Tammy Baney, who leads the state’s top transportation decision-making body, “and is negatively impacting the livability of our state.”

The letter is the latest indication the moribund project, which died in 2014 when Oregon finally walked away one year after Washington lawmakers declined to pay for its share of the ill-fated Columbia River Crossing project, is gearing up once again.

...(continues)

[Abide]

Sigh

[2oh1]

I wish we could convince governors on both sides of the border to push for the common sense alternative. A multiple bridges for multiple needs approach makes more sense than one big bridge boondoggle.

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...o-be-slow.html

Oregon creates bipartisan Interstate Bridge committee, but ‘it’s going to be slow’
Updated 11:03 AM; Today 11:00 AM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Oregon’s top political leaders are, it seems, finally convinced that Washington is serious about reviving efforts to replace the aging Intestate Bridge.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney formally appointed eight state lawmakers to a new joint committee tasked with overseeing the bridge talks and working with lawmakers from the other side of the Columbia River on kickstarting that decades-old planning effort.

The bureaucratic maneuver comes some nine months after Washington legislators crossed the river to meet with their Oregon counterparts in an at-times awkward first meeting in a North Portland where lawmakers from all sides aired grievances five years after the failed Columbia River Crossing project died. The CRC failed in 2014 in Oregon, but the year before a small group of Washington lawmakers torpedoed that state’s $450 million funding commitment, essentially dooming the project.

Since that meeting, Washington committed to paying to set up a dedicated office for planning and engineering work specifically focused on the bridge project, and earmarked some $17.5 million toward preliminary designs on the project. Those efforts came in the wake of 2017 legislation signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee that set a blueprint to try and salvage past work from the CRC effort and pave a way forward.

...(continues)

[2oh1]

Can anyone explain why The Common Sense Alternative isn't a better way to go?

[MNTimberjack]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Can anyone explain why The Common Sense Alternative isn't a better way to go?

The phase retrofitting the BNSF bridge would be a significant interruption of service on that line on the scale of a year or more.

[MitchE]

Originally Posted by MNTimberjack

The phase retrofitting the BNSF bridge would be a significant interruption of service on that line on the scale of a year or more.

Seems like this could be addressed by moving CSA phase 3 (new rail and truck bridge) up to phase 1 and letting freight trains use the new bridge while the Railroad bridge gets updated.

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...e-by-2025.html

Oregon and Washington: We’ll start building a new Interstate Bridge by 2025
Updated 5:53 PM; Today 4:13 PM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Federal highway officials on Tuesday endorsed an accelerated timeline proposed by Oregon and Washington transportation officials that sets the two states on a fast track toward construction on a new Interstate Bridge by 2025.

Last month, the two states requested a 10-year extension on their timeline to show progress on the bridge project or face repaying nearly $140 million in planning costs tied to the Columbia River Crossing Project. That request would’ve given the states until Sept. 30, 2029, to either start buying up right-of-way or began construction on the I-5 project.

While seeking a decade delay, the states simultaneously suggested a series of aggressive milestones, including reinitiating an environmental review of a proposed project in spring 2020 and starting construction in the summer of 2025.

Travis Brouwer, Oregon’s deputy director for transportation, described the milestones as “highly theoretical,” but also “aspirational” and “reasonable.”

...(continues)

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...e-by-2025.html



...(continues)

I'm sure they'll find that the cost to construct is probably 2X what they previously planned because they waited so long. Will be interesting to see what comes of the transit component and tolling over the next few years.

[urbanlife]

As long as the new bridge includes light rail.

[green_man]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

As long as the new bridge includes light rail.

Not sure about Clark County as a whole, but I think Vancouver proper would be more open to it now.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by green_man

Not sure about Clark County as a whole, but I think Vancouver proper would be more open to it now.

Especially with the waterfront development going on, it makes sense for them to want it to be connected to light rail. I always imagined Vancouver adding three stops to the Yellow Line, one at the riverfront, one in downtown, and a park and ride just north of downtown.

[NOPO]

I sent a letter over to Kate Brown online that this project must include light rail. We as Oregonians must fight for light rail to be a requirement along with congestion tolling. I encourage everyone here to inundate Brown with constituent desire for light rail being included in this project.

And I like the idea for three stops in Vancouver another poster stated. The yellow line just makes sense in Vancouver proper.