HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2007, 8:07 PM
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 PuyoPiyo View Post
"The 55,000 to 60,000 people that drive into Oregon every day will have a big hit."
$2/day is NOT a big hit, considering all the other everyday expenses we have to pay; gas, food, mortgage, taxes. Let's see... $10/week... how many lattes is that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2007, 10:08 AM
Civ E JB Civ E JB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8
Hi everybody. I just wanted to make a few comments about some of the many concerns that have been raised in this thread.

First, a couple of people have mentioned it not making a lot of sense to build a 5 or 6 lane bridge that meets up with the soon to be 3 lane I-5 section in Delta Park. I would agree with that, but the actual designs are only calling for 3 through lanes across the bridge with 2-3 auxiliary lanes to facilitate easier merging from downtown Vancouver/SR-14 to Hayden Island and Marine Drive exits and vice versa coming northbound. The entire length of the Crossing project is designed with only 3 lanes meant for traffic traveling through the region.

Second, several people would like to keep the original bridges rather than replace them, or altogether cancel the project. They are, after all, essentially a kind of symbol of the region, the "green bridge" right? The largest issue in my view is the safety these bridge currently provide to those crossing them and their ability to provide safety in the future. Right now, there is no shoulder to speak of on either bridge, if you get into an accident (and the accident rate on these bridges is much higher than other bridges in the region) not only will the lane you are in be closed but you could be forced into other lanes thereby creating a traffic nightmare. You can't pull to the side and we can't widen the bridge to add a shoulder.

Also, the wooden pilings supporting the older span aren't sunk all the way to solid bedrock in places. Geotechnical engineers worry that in a significant seismic event the soil supporting these piling could liquify and the bridge could fail, hopefully not catastrophically.

Related to the accident aspect is the fact that the Hayden Island side on and offramps and the SR-14 offramp from NB I-5 are designed well below current ramp standards. On Hayden Island they are much too short which, in heavy traffic, leads to difficulty getting into fast moving traffic NB and causes queing back onto the bridge SB effectively reducing the usable number of bridge lanes to 2. The NB SR-14 offramp curves so sharply away from I-5 when it exits that drivers must slow down while still on the freeway in order to safely navigate the turn, once again causing backups for NB I-5 travelers.

While the bridges have served us fairly well for decades, they are no longer capable of reliably providing the safety we should demand of all transportation routes and modes. Sorry to write so much, but I thought it might be worth presenting part of the case for why keeping the same bridges isn't a very viable option, or at least not very preferable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2007, 3:10 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65MAX View Post
$2/day is NOT a big hit, considering all the other everyday expenses we have to pay; gas, food, mortgage, taxes. Let's see... $10/week... how many lattes is that?
Especially when a lot of those people are abusing oregon's lack of a sales tax.

Poor Vancouver
__________________
"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
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 3:40 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexjon View Post
Especially when a lot of those people are abusing oregon's lack of a sales tax.

Poor Vancouver
Good point. Let's make it $8/day.

However, I reluctantly also point out that Vancouver residents that work in the Portland Metro contribute to the payroll tax that funds TriMet and I think they also contribute to Oregon income tax. I could be wrong on the latter tax (I don't live in Vancouver).

But I still think we should make it $8/day. It would need to be that or higher to put a dent in the bill for the new bridge and make collection cost-effective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 3:51 PM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
^^^I thought they already have the money for the bridge?
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 6:20 PM
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,116
⇪ How can you say they are abusing Oregon's lack of a sales tax? I am sure the Oregon retailers love the fact people of Washington shop in Oregon. I would say they are probably abusing their own sales tax policies in Washington by shopping in Oregon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 7:00 PM
360Rich 360Rich is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vantucky
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
Good point. Let's make it $8/day.

However, I reluctantly also point out that Vancouver residents that work in the Portland Metro contribute to the payroll tax that funds TriMet and I think they also contribute to Oregon income tax. I could be wrong on the latter tax (I don't live in Vancouver).

But I still think we should make it $8/day. It would need to be that or higher to put a dent in the bill for the new bridge and make collection cost-effective.
I'm in favor of a toll, but $8 / day is asinine.

Washington residents who work in Oregon do pay the 9% Oregon income tax, so they are paying more than their fare share in return for the services they receive from the state of Oregon.

Here's the breakdown of how OR tax dollars are spent:

Services paid for with Oregon income tax dollars (2005-07 Biennium)


Education--55 cents

* K-12 System
* Community Colleges
* Higher Education

Public Safety--17 cents

* Police
* Department of Justice
* Corrections Facilities
* Juvenile Corrections

Human Resources--23 cents

* Medicaid
* Food Stamps
* Senior Services
* Mental Health
* Child Protective Services

Other Services--5 cents

* Transportation
* Forestry Services
* Library Services
* Agriculture
* Environmental Quality



http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PERTAX/income-dollars.shtml
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 12:03 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65MAX View Post
$2/day is NOT a big hit, considering all the other everyday expenses we have to pay; gas, food, mortgage, taxes. Let's see... $10/week... how many lattes is that?
Hmm.. Let's see.. 60,000 people go to Portland from Vancouver for working times $2 each of them for the toll equal to $120,000 each days so time that 30 days equal to $36,000,000 a month, then times that 12 months equal to $432,000,000 a year.

Now let's compare to what you think about $10 a week so time that with 60,000 people equal to $600,000 then times that with 4.3 weeks per months equal to $25,800,000 then time that with 12 months to equal $309,600,000 a year.

$432,000,000 a year from $2 a day times 60,000 people or $309,600,000 a year from $10 a week times 60,000 people.

Which would you choose?
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 12:21 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
⇪ How can you say they are abusing Oregon's lack of a sales tax? I am sure the Oregon retailers love the fact people of Washington shop in Oregon. I would say they are probably abusing their own sales tax policies in Washington by shopping in Oregon.
Oregon's roads, oregon's bridges, oregon's time, oregon's energy.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 3:38 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
We need Vantucky. San Francisco has the East Bay, New York has New Jersey, Los Angeles has Palmdale/Lancaster/Riverside/San Bernardino, Seattle has Tacoma, and Portland has Vancouver.

Ok, now that I've had my fun... it's one metro area and the more the two states/cities work together the better it will be for everyone on both sides of the river. I'm so glad to see Clark County now very interested in light rail - what a huge change in just 10 years.

I do wonder why now we have to consider tolls to build bridges and freeways when most of the current Interstate system was done without tolls. What's changed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 7:09 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbear View Post
I do wonder why now we have to consider tolls to build bridges and freeways when most of the current Interstate system was done without tolls. What's changed?
Gone are the gas guzzlers that contributed so easily to our road-building. In addition, the gas tax hasn't been adjusted for inflation in 15+ years. Meanwhile, the costs of construction have skyrocketed. Asphalt is derived from oil, which isn't as cheap as it used to be; urban land is far more expensive than it used to be; property adjacent to existing highways is often already developed - requiring expensive multi-level ramps and overpasses to avoid displacements; and bridges must be designed to meet new seismic and safety standards. Add to that the interstate system was mostly funded with federal dollars (90% federal, 10% local) that are no longer available and you end up with a system that can barely be maintained (and in many cases isn't being properly maintained), let alone improved. The federal government's subsidy for highway construction led to more roads without the financial means of local government to maintain them. We're seeing that now as our expensive infrastructure crumbles.

I should note that the Interstate system was conceived for defense purposes - evacuation of cities should the Commies throw their bombs on our central cities - and interstate commerce - freight. It was not intended to be used as a commute tool as it is now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 8:58 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Note that WSDOT is spending ~$1 billion for upgrading the rail lines between Portland and Seattle. So there is some give-and-take involved in interstate transportation here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
I should note that the Interstate system was conceived for defense purposes - evacuation of cities should the Commies throw their bombs on our central cities - and interstate commerce - freight. It was not intended to be used as a commute tool as it is now.
Don't kid yourself. Eisenhower knew exactly what he was getting into...

Video Link

seen on streetsblog, video from 1958

I just want everyone to know that the Interstate system cost the US $425 billion in 2006 dollars (adjusted for inflation), and took 35 years to complete. wiki

Last edited by zilfondel; Dec 21, 2007 at 9:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 2:39 PM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
I LOVE that video - what a classic. Thank you for sharing. It's amazing how many of the overall concepts predicted came true, but the execution of those concepts are a bit different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 4:04 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
Don't kid yourself. Eisenhower knew exactly what he was getting into...
Love the cartoon, but Eisenhower was an army general, not an animator. His ideas were sold to the public with cartoons. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 is popularly known as the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Google it..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 7:30 PM
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 PuyoPiyo View Post
Hmm.. Let's see.. 60,000 people go to Portland from Vancouver for working times $2 each of them for the toll equal to $120,000 each days so time that 30 days equal to $36,000,000 a month, then times that 12 months equal to $432,000,000 a year.

Now let's compare to what you think about $10 a week so time that with 60,000 people equal to $600,000 then times that with 4.3 weeks per months equal to $25,800,000 then time that with 12 months to equal $309,600,000 a year.

$432,000,000 a year from $2 a day times 60,000 people or $309,600,000 a year from $10 a week times 60,000 people.

Which would you choose?
Your numbers are a little off.

First, with a toll on the I-5 bridge, I'd guess that more than half of the 60,000 would use the I-205 bridge. So $2 x 30,000 = $60,000. 365 days x $60,000 = $21,900,000/year.

At $10/day, that number would quintuple to $109,500,000/year. Of course, the higher the toll, the more people will avoid driving across.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 9:34 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 795
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65MAX View Post
Your numbers are a little off.

First, with a toll on the I-5 bridge, I'd guess that more than half of the 60,000 would use the I-205 bridge. So $2 x 30,000 = $60,000. 365 days x $60,000 = $21,900,000/year.

At $10/day, that number would quintuple to $109,500,000/year. Of course, the higher the toll, the more people will avoid driving across.
To my understanding, a toll wouldn't be implemented on the I-5 bridge unless a toll was also implemented on I-205 for this very obvious reason. The I-5 bridge would probably have a higher toll though. Even if I-205 wasn't tolled and I-5 was tolled, the discrepancy in traffic would probably cause drivers who previously drove on I-205 to go the I-5 route to avoid the congestion. Many drivers who previously took I-5 and switched to I-205 might also switch back when they realize how much extra time they are wasting sitting in traffic.

Research has consistently shown that drivers are willing to pay more to save time and that the value of a person's time varies from one day to the next depending on their needs. Most toll users in other parts of the country are frequent users of the tollways, but sometimes go the untolled route. If someone has an appointment he/she has to be at and missing it would cost money, he/she would be more willing to cough up the toll to avoid being late. Similarly, he/she might avoid the toll if time wasn't an issue.

Regardless, all these rough #'s above ignore the relatively high collection cost of tolls. There would probably need to be a manual/cash option since it's an interstate and has non-commuter thru traffic. Thus, 15-25% of the toll goes to collection costs alone. Even electronic systems have collection costs of 10-20% due to the technology costs and billing. These #'s have been improving over time, but you can expect at least 15% of tolls to go toward collection in even the most favorable scenario.

Transportation economists believe that the most beneficial use of tolls is their ability to eliminate congestion, if implemented properly. Some of them argue that such tolls should be "revenue neutral" so that they only cover capital, maintenance and collection costs. For example, if the toll varied by time of day so that it was higher (i.e $8-10) during peak hours, lower ($2-4) during non-peak hours of the day, and free at night. Drivers who absolutely need to travel at the peak hour would pay more, but could expect a reliable commute, whereas many drivers would travel during off-peak times (either earlier or later), use alternate routes during peak times (if available), or change modes (take transit or bike, if possible). The result is that the roadway achieves maximum utilization because more drivers would travel during off-peak times, allowing traffic to move during peak times.

An analogy often used is the hour glass. If you turn it upside down too fast, none of sand will get through because all the sand specs are vying for the same space and get caught. If you turn it over slowly, you establish an orderly path for all the sand to eventually make its way through (sorry, but I didn't make that up). Basically, the optimum speed for maximum throughput is somewhere between 35-50 mph.

I'm going off memory from traffic engineering/transportation economics courses last year. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is a good source of more information on this stuff.. www.trb.org
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 3:46 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65MAX View Post
Your numbers are a little off.

First, with a toll on the I-5 bridge, I'd guess that more than half of the 60,000 would use the I-205 bridge. So $2 x 30,000 = $60,000. 365 days x $60,000 = $21,900,000/year.

At $10/day, that number would quintuple to $109,500,000/year. Of course, the higher the toll, the more people will avoid driving across.
Oh I am sorry I am confused by your own word, you say $10 a week, at first place. Here's your quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65MAX View Post
$2/day is NOT a big hit, considering all the other everyday expenses we have to pay; gas, food, mortgage, taxes. Let's see... $10/week... how many lattes is that?
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2008, 1:32 AM
PuyoPiyo's Avatar
PuyoPiyo PuyoPiyo is offline
Puyo!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 627
Update
  • Previously: The Columbia River Crossing Project is planning a new Interstate 5 bridge.
  • What’s new: The governors of Washington and Oregon came to Vancouver on Friday to reaffirm their support for the project.
  • What’s next: The project expects to release its recommendations this winter.



ZACHARY KAUFMAN/The Columbian

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski take a walk on the Interstate 5 Bridge in Vancouver on Friday to reaffirm their support for a plan to replace the aging bridge


Two states, tied together

Saturday, January 19, 2008
BY DON HAMILTON, Columbian staff writer
The governors of Oregon and Washington inspected the Interstate 5 Bridge in a joint appearance Friday, reaffirming their support for replacing the structure that connects their two states.




Govs. Chris Gregoire and Ted Kulongoski met at the small Clark Public Utilities station at the north end of the bridge and pledged that in 2009, their respective legislatures would address financing for the project, which could cost $4.2 billion. The two also met privately and then answered questions from reporters.

The appearance was largely symbolic and no major decisions were made or announced; but the meeting demonstrated to planners and local governments that the project continues to have strong backing from the states’ top executives.

“This is a task that’s extremely important to our economic future, for the region,” Gregoire said. “We know there’s a big job ahead. But today is the day we can say we’re partners, and we’re determined to make it happen.”

This winter, the Columbia River Crossing, the bistate task force planning the bridge, will release its findings and recommendations. Preliminary data indicate the group is leaning toward replacing the old bridge with a new one with a light rail link to Portland’s MAX system.

Gregoire and Kulongoski, wearing safety hats and vests, started their meeting with a walk onto the north end of the bridge’s pedestrian walkway to observe traffic and talk, over the roar, with staff members from the Columbia River Crossing. Trucks sped by a few feet away, and at one point the two elected officials had to dodge as a bicyclist pedaled through, unaware of or unimpressed by their stature.

The governors also reaffirmed their support for the mass transit link.

“Any time today that you’re talking about a transportation project, particularly in a large metropolitan area,” Kulongoski said, “you’d better look at the issues around global warming and around sustainability. You have to look at urban transportation differently than in other places.”

Gregoire agreed.

“If we’re looking at the 21st century, and we’re asking how can we help solve global climate change and how can we make sure we’re moving our goods and services and people, we’re going to have to look at it,” she said. “There’s no question in my mind. Now, how is it done? I want the communities involved.”

They said the Washington and Oregon congressional delegations are kept updated on the progress of the project. Kulongoski said the region is lucky because two Northwest federal lawmakers head key transportation committees. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., heads the appropriations subcommittee on transportation while Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is chairman of a highways and transit subcommittee on the House side.

But federal funding will carry the project only so far.

“There’s a limit to what we’re going to get federally,” Gregoire said, “so both of our respective states are going to have to look at the finance plan and whether we’re ready to roll.”

In her state of the state speech this week, Gregoire singled out four “mega-projects” on the state’s transportation agenda: the I-5 bridge, a new state Highway 520 bridge across Lake Washington, the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle and a proposed north-south freeway in Spokane. She said that soon, all will be at various stages of development.

“There are four that need to get done,” she said Friday. “We can’t afford to wait.”

Many questions remain about the bridge. Tolls, Gregoire said, will be a part of the finance package.

“The interesting questions there are: Do we start tolling before we even begin construction on the bridge to make sure the tolls can be lower when it’s ultimately opened? Do we do variable tolling to reduce congestion and give more choices to consumers? Do we have to toll someplace else because we’re going to push traffic in a big way” to other bridges? “In my mind, we are going to toll. How do we toll?”

Their encounter with the bicycle on the bridge prompted the governors to ask Columbia River Crossing staff about an expanded bike and pedestrian path on the project. Assured that conditions would improve, the governors vowed to one day ride their own bikes across the new bridge.

“I’m glad to see that on our watch this is going to happen,” Kulongoski said. “We’ll both be gone by the time it’s finished. But the fact is that we’ll be the ones that start it.”
The Bridge on the Web
Go to www.columbian.com/i5bridge
for stories, historical photos, timelines and other information about the bridge project.

Don Hamilton can be reached at 360-735-4526 and
don.hamilton@columbian.com.
__________________
Colorful Past, Bright Future.
My Diagram =====>> http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m21438
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2008, 10:34 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Their encounter with the bicycle on the bridge prompted the governors to ask Columbia River Crossing staff about an expanded bike and pedestrian path on the project. Assured that conditions would improve, the governors vowed to one day ride their own bikes across the new bridge.
That's actually pretty incredible... I wonder if they had not had this experience that perhaps the bike/ped part might have been dropped during planning like on the Morrison and St Johns Bridge?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 7:38 AM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
^^^ I think the Morrison bike/ped addition (two-way path on the south side) is on schedule to start construction later this year.

PS I'm really disappointed in Kulongoski.
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 11:57 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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