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

[edgepdx]

The freight issue is a serious one and needs to be addressed. How about a truck bypass in the cut parallel to the BNSF line from Hayden Island down to Swan Island? Combine that with a MAX bridge and we're all set.

[PuyoPiyo]

Originally Posted by CouvScott

I think/hope congestion and higher gas prices will pry people out of their cars.

That is how I am thinking of. Maybe we should stop expanding the roads/highways/freeways, increase the gas price plus pollution tax, and increase semi-strict laws on the cars, as much as we can to pry people to get of the car. Pollution should go away and the cars are part of them, I like the idea!

[MarkDaMan]

Panel to vote on keeping Interstate Bridge
Monday, March 26, 2007
JAMES MAYER
The Oregonian

The task force exploring how to ease traffic over the Columbia River is scheduled to vote Tuesday on an option that would retain the existing Interstate Bridge spans.

A subcommittee of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force has been working on an alternative to include in the two-year environmental impact study. The subcommittee meets today and is expected to make a recommendation on an alternative to the task force.

Last month, the task force agreed to study a new $6 billion freeway bridge that would also carry either light rail or a dedicated bus lane. The project staff recommended removing the existing spans, but the task force appointed the subcommittee to look into a lower-cost option that would reuse the existing bridges.

The subcommittee has discussed options that would leave the freeway on the existing spans and put transit on a new bridge that would also carry one or two travel lanes in each direction. These extra lanes could be used for connections to Interstate 5 or as tolled express lanes.

Any of the alternatives also call for shifting the swing span on the downstream railroad bridge to line up with a ship channel under the Interstate Bridge. Shifting the span would significantly reduce the number of lifts on the freeway bridge. The problem is the railroad bridge is privately owned.

Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, subcommittee co-chairman, emphasizes that the group doesn't have to solve all the problems posed by the alternative they recommend. The goal, Stuart says, is to come up with a reasonable alternative to study that falls somewhere between the $8 billion project and doing nothing.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...430.xml&coll=7

[MarkDaMan]

Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, subcommittee co-chairman, emphasizes that the group doesn't have to solve all the problems posed by the alternative they recommend. The goal, Stuart says, is to come up with a reasonable alternative to study that falls somewhere between the $8 billion project and doing nothing.

I can't let go of this. $8B??? For $8B you could remove every commuting car from the roads and offer FREE TRANSIT to everyone, opening up space on the freeways for freight. Assuming LRT costs are about $50M per mile at the low end, and at the high end $100M per mile, that's still a lot of track!

[360Rich]

Crossing options may include old I-5 Bridge

Monday, March 26, 2007
DON HAMILTON Columbain staff writer

Task force study already features two ways to replace existing span

A plan to keep the old Interstate 5 Bridge might get a thorough vetting after all in the formal study of a new Columbia River bridge.

On Tuesday night, the Columbia River Crossing task force plans to add one more alternative to the draft environmental impact statement studying whether to build a new bridge. The new alternative would include keeping the existing bridge in the study.

The Tuesday vote will complete the framework for the draft EIS, which probably won't be completed until sometime in 2008. A final decision on what to build, if anything, won't come until later that year.

On Feb. 27, the 39-member task force launched the draft EIS. It calls for a thorough study of three options: replace the existing Interstate 5 Bridge with a new bridge with bus rapid transit; replace the old bridge with a new bridge with light rail; and don't build anything.

But the task force also formed a subcommittee to draft another option, one keeping the existing bridge. Members wanted to broaden the number of options subjected to the more intense scrutiny of an environmental impact statement process. Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, co-chairman of the subcommittee, said the intent was to explore a lower- cost option, something that falls between an expensive new replacement bridge and doing nothing.

Many decisions on the new option will be ironed out during the final subcommittee meeting this morning. But members already decided that the new alternative would use the existing Interstate 5 Bridge, offer high-capacity transit, improve truck and shipping mobility, offer bike and pedestrian access and minimize the impact on Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver.

Still to be decided is exactly what role the existing bridge would play in combination with a new bridge. Subcommittee members talk about a new bridge, two lanes in both directions, to carry I-5 through traffic. But this would offer no I-5 access to Hayden Island, which could be reached through auxiliary lanes. It would improve I-5's peak hour capacity by 10 percent and provide "modest improvements" to freight capacity.

The new alternative also would study reversible lanes, tolling lanes, high capacity lanes and other options.

The new alternative also could call for shifting the lift span on the downstream BNSF Railroad Bridge from the north side to the middle, to line up with one of the main ship channels under the I-5 Bridge.

Don Hamilton can be reached at 360-759-8010 and don.hamilton@columbian.com.

Update

Previously: The Columbia River Crossing task force formed a subcommittee to study keeping the existing Interstate 5 Bridge as part of the new river crossing.

What's new: The subcommittee today will finish outlining its plan to study keeping the existing bridge, which may include reversible lanes, toll lanes and congestion pricing.

What's next: On Tuesday, the full task force will consider whether to add the subcommittee's recommendation to the draft environmental impact study.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localN...news119369.cfm

[360Rich]

TOLLS Bridging a budget gap

Sunday, March 25, 2007
DON HAMILTON Columbain staff writer

Like it or not, tolls may be the answer to the whopping I-5 bridge project

Lots of scary words have attached themselves to the new bridge planned for the Columbia River.

The mere sound of "multibillion-dollar government project" makes even the most faithful of taxpayers wary.

But one word in particular excels in setting nerves on edge.

Tolls.

Tolls have been at the forefront of the discussion over how to cobble together enough public money to pay the $2 billion to $6 billion price tag the project may require. The Columbia River Crossing task force, which is guiding the process, says tolls are an active part of the discussions.

So, will we have to pay a toll to cross the new bridge?

Yeah, maybe.

"I don't see how it can be built without tolls," said Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, a member of the task force. "Who's going to pay for all this? This is the best example of a user fee you can find."

And it's not like we haven't had them before.

Paying to cross the river has been common through the years, starting with the ferries that came before bridges. Of the nine Columbia River bridges crossing from Washington to Oregon, eight have resulted in tolls. All but two removed tolls after paying off the bonds issued to build the bridges.

The Interstate 5 Bridge actually had tolls twice: from 1917 when the first span opened until 1929, and again from 1960 to 1966 after the second span opened. And at least at one point, Clark County voters were practically begging for the chance to pay tolls. In 1913, county voters, by a 7-1 margin, approved $500,000 in bonds needed for the local share of the new bridge, with the bonds to be paid off by tolls.

Today's drivers still pay to cross the Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River-White Salmon Bridge, paying mostly for upkeep.

Neither of those rural crossings, though, are quite the same as collecting a few bucks every day, both ways, from tens of thousands of Clark County commuters who cross the bridge to get to work. Making it only slightly more palatable is the possibility of reductions through ticket books, electronic fare transponders and off-peak pricing. And the Interstate 205 Bridge will remain toll-free.

"There's always resistance to any tax or fee increase," said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, a member of the Crossing task force. "Everybody's working with limited budgets, and no one wants to see more going to the government."

Pollard said he likes the idea of a toll because people who don't use the new bridge won't get stuck paying for it.

Any tolling system, he said, needs to be imaginative. He suggested a toll that offers unlimited all-day crossings, the better to help businesses that go back and forth.

"We've got the smarts to do that stuff," he said. "It has to be reasonable."

State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, has doubts. He sees tolling as an effective tool for paying for new projects but would support a toll on a new Interstate 5 Bridge only if capacity increases.

"We paid for it once," he said, "and shouldn't be asked to pay for it again unless there's some significant increase in capacity and/or an alternate route."

In Stevenson, paying the $1 toll to cross the Bridge of the Gods isn't a big deal, said Steve Emond, manager of the Big River Grill in downtown Stevenson.

"You totally get used to it," he said. "I don't even think about it anymore."

He said he regularly buys a book of 15 or 30 bridge passes at the toll booth, cutting the cost to 75 cents per crossing. In addition, the restaurant offers to pay the bridge toll for customers coming from the campgrounds across the river in Cascade Locks.

Tolls are common in the East and the Midwest. The New Jersey Turnpike, the New York State Thruway, the Indiana Tollway and all the various toll cards, tollbooths and the like are a permanent part of the transportation landscape.

Not around here, though. Tolls may be far less common in the West, but they are becoming more common, with private tolls roads in California, Texas and other states.

Right now, the only tolls collected in the state of Washington -- road or bridge -- are for the Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River-White Salmon Bridge. That will change this summer when the second span opens on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The amount of the toll hasn't been set but is expected to be about $3 for a round trip, or $1.50 when paying with an electronic transponder.

State officials also plan a pilot project allowing solo drivers to pay a toll to get into the car pool lanes on state Highway 167 between Auburn and Renton.

What does that mean for a new bridge over the Columbia? Hard to say. But tolls are a prominent part of the discussion, with talk of hot lanes, transponders and toll booths. Nothing's been decided, but the project's draft environmental impact statement, which just got under way, will look at tolling as a finance mechanism, said Danielle Cogan, the Columbia River Crossing communications manager.

"Part of the DEIS process involves studying whether the alternatives are financially feasible," she said. "And that will include a discussion of tolling. How do you determine what a fair toll is? How do you determine whether a toll will decrease the number of people crossing on I-5?"

Tolls, she added, would be used only to repay bonds needed to build the bridge itself, not expenses related to other aspects of the project like mass transit, interchanges or river navigation improvements.

Drivers pay tolls to cross a few of the major bridges around the rest of the country, from as low as $1 for the Sunshine Skyway across Tampa Bay to $9 for New York's Verrazano Narrows Bridge and $12 for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.

Tolling hasn't been a part of our transportation mind-set for a long time, however. Cogan said any tolls for the bridge would come with a public education campaign so motorists know what the tolls are for, how much they will be, why they're needed and how long they will be imposed.

Tolling, Cogan said, is a user fee, a system where those benefiting from a project bear a greater share of the burden of paying for it.

Clark County residents will know all about that because more Clark County residents than Oregon residents will probably wind up paying the toll.

Just look at the numbers, said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, a member of the Columbia River Crossing task force. About 65,000 Clark County residents work in Oregon every day while about 25,000 Oregon residents cross the river to the north.

There's no obvious way to equalize those numbers, Stuart said, but "it's going to be a continued discussion."

Tolling is only one option for raising local money. Here's a quick look at a few other options that also could be considered.

Local gas tax: Legal, but never yet used by a county.

Sales tax: Local options maxed out, but a vote could allow more.

Local B&O tax: Vancouver phased it out in 2004 but can reimpose without a vote.

Property taxes. Complicated, temporary and need voter approval.

Special taxing district: Works like a local improvement district, with fees on affected property owners.

Transportation benefit district: Can levy sales taxes, property taxes and impact fees, but it is little used.

Stuart recently spoke with members of the Washington congressional delegation about the bridge and came away feeling its prospects at the federal level aren't bright. The two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, all told him the big federal deficit and the cost of the war in Iraq are making big-ticket transportation projects less feasible.

"We'd be very, very lucky to get even half," Stuart said. "Whatever we come up with is going to require local dollars, and inevitably that means tolls."

Tolls, he notes, can raise a lot of money quickly. Even at only a buck per car, a toll would raise $875,000 a week if 125,000 vehicles cross the bridge each day.

Pollard said the economic success of the region depends on the success of the new bridge project.

"We're all going to have to hold our noses and say, 'OK, I'll support this one.' We need to deal with this now and not put it off."



For whom the tolls bill

Here's a look at the tolls charged at a few prominent U.S. bridges.

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Chesapeake Bay: Cars $12.
George Washington Bridge, Hudson River: Cars $6, inbound to NYC only.
Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco Bay: Cars $5 (with a $1 boost under consideration).
Mackinac Bridge, Straits of Mackinac, Michigan's Upper Peninsula: Cars $5.
Sunshine Skyway, Tampa Bay: Cars $1.
Verrazano Narrows Bridge, New York Bay: Cars $9.

Note: Many toll operations offer discounts for ticket books, electronic payment like E-ZPass and FasTrak, and car pools.

Tolls, by the numbers

Virtually all major bridges in Washington were built with bonds paid off by tolls. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the tolls paid in generations past were sometimes a lot more than what's paid today. Here's a look:

Toll Toll in

Bridge Opened when opened today's dollars
Lewis and Clark Bridge, Longview 1930 $1 $23.02
Tacoma Narrows Bridge, first span 1940 $1.10 $15.10
Fox Island Bridge 1954 75 cents $5.36
Interstate 5 Bridge, second span 1958 40 cents $2.60
Hood Canal Bridge 1961 $2.60 $16.71
Sam Hill Memorial Bridge, Maryhill 1962 $2 $12.73

Toll history of the nine Washington-Oregon highway bridges across the Columbia River

Eight of the nine had tolls at one time or another. Two still do, one never did and six removed them after paying off construction bonds. Here's their tolling history.

Lewis and Clark Bridge
Connects: Longview and Rainier, Ore.
Route: State Highway 433.
Opened: 1930.
Tolls: Removed 1965.

Hood River-White Salmon Bridge
Connects: White Salmon and Hood River, Ore.
Route: State Highway 14 to Interstate 84.
Opened: 1924.
Tolls: 75 cents per axle for general operations and debt service.

Sam Hill Memorial Bridge
Connects: Maryhill and Biggs Junction, Ore.
Route: U.S. 97.
Opened: 1962.
Tolls: Removed 1975.

Astoria-Megler Bridge
Connects: Megler and Astoria, Ore.
Route: U.S. 101.
Opened: 1966.
Tolls: Removed 1993.

Interstate 5 Bridge
Connects: Vancouver and Portland.
Route: Interstate 5.
Opened: First span 1917; second span 1958.
Tolls: Removed 1929; imposed again 1960 to 1966.

Interstate 205 Bridge
Connects: Vancouver and Portland.
Route: Interstate 205.
Opened: 1982.
Tolls: Never needed; the feds paid more than 90 percent of the cost.

Bridge of the Gods
Connects: Stevenson and Cascade Locks, Ore.
Route: State Highway 14 to Interstate 84.
Opened: 1926.
Tolls: $1 a car for bridge upkeep.

The Dalles Bridge
Connects: Dallesport and The Dalles, Ore.
Route: U.S. 197.
Opened: 1953.
Tolls: Removed 1974.

Umatilla Bridge
Connects: Plymouth and Umatilla, Ore.
Route: Interstate 82 and U.S. 395.
Opened: First span 1955; second span 1988.
Tolls: Removed 1974.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localN...news119045.cfm

[mcbaby]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I can't let go of this. $8B??? For $8B you could remove every commuting car from the roads and offer FREE TRANSIT to everyone, opening up space on the freeways for freight. Assuming LRT costs are about $50M per mile at the low end, and at the high end $100M per mile, that's still a lot of track!

remember back in 97 when they had to do major work on the I-5 bridge and commuters took the amtrack downtown for a week? it worked pretty well. people in vancouver actually complied.http://www.rtc.wa.gov/Studies/Archiv...n/brdgnews.htm

[MarkDaMan]

^was that when a boat hit the bridge? but nope, I was living in Phoenix during the time.

[mcbaby]

no, just needed major work.

[CouvScott]

Tuesday, March 27, 2007
DON HAMILTON Columbain staff writer

Under latest option, existing span would be northbound only


A new southbound-only Interstate 5 bridge may wind up in the draft environmental impact statement studying a new way across the Columbia River. The existing bridge would become a northbound-only span under the idea.

A Columbia River Crossing subcommittee signed off on the additional alternative Monday morning. It was drafted during three meetings in the past two weeks.

The full 39-member Columbia River Crossing task force will vote on including the alternative in the draft EIS, which is just getting started. Members said they expect the task force to approve the new alternative at today's meeting.

On Feb. 27, the task force launched the draft EIS. It calls for a thorough study of three options: replace the existing Interstate 5 Bridge with a new bridge with bus rapid transit; replace the existing bridge with a new bridge with light rail; and don't build anything.

But the task force also formed the subcommittee to draft another option to consider keeping the existing bridge.

The alternative approved Monday calls for:

Keeping the existing Interstate 5 Bridge for northbound traffic only, each span with two lanes plus shoulders and offramps.

Building a new bridge, adjacent to the existing one, with four southbound lanes as well as high-capacity transit, whatever system is chosen.

Increasing the mass transit capacity to 25,000 riders a day, express buses from 19 to 40, and park and ride lots in the corridor from 1,872 to 7,500 spaces.

Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the existing I-5 Bridge, perhaps on paths built off to the side.

The draft environmental impact statement may be completed by late this year and will be followed by new rounds of public meetings.

The final decision in the process -- selection of what's known as the locally preferred alternative -- isn't expected until a sometime next year. It's the last step before nailing down exactly how to pay for it. The price tag has been estimated as high as $6 billion.

Vancouver officials worry the fourth alternative could jeopardize Riverwest, a $165 million mixed-use project that would include a 90,000-square-foot library along the west side of Interstate 5 and south of Evergreen Boulevard.

Thayer Rorabaugh, city transportation manager, told the city council Monday there is better than a 50-50 chance the fourth alignment would creep westward into the footprint for Riverwest, as well as the already built six-story West Coast Bank building at Sixth Street and Broadway.

Killian Pacific, Riverwest developer, is eager to get the western boundary of the crossing project pinned down and cannot afford to wait for the federal bridge process to run its course, Rorabaugh said.

"They (Killian) need to get into engineering tomorrow," he said. "If we wait for the process to take place, we will probably lose Riverwest."

Mayor Royce Pollard, who sits on the crossing task force, will attempt to push through an amendment specifying the fourth alternative must stay within the existing freeway corridor. If that fails, Pollard intends to vote against including the fourth option in the EIS. The city government has one of 39 votes.

Councilwoman Jeanne Harris supported pursuing the amendment, but she argued that Vancouver should "remain in the game" and not oppose including an alternative backed by many regional officials and city residents.

Jeffrey Mize of The Columbian contributed to this report.


First online This story was first posted at 12:09 p.m. Monday at www.columbian.com.


If you go

What: The Columbia River Crossing task force decides whether to add a new alternative to the draft environmental impact statement studying a new Interstate 5 bridge.

When: 4 p.m. today.

Where: Washington Department of Transportation Southwest Region Headquarters, 11018 N.E. 51st Circle, Vancouver.

[MarkDaMan]

instead of whittling away the options to one preferred solution, it appears we are adding past options back on the table again...I doubt I will see this bridge started before the costs reach a trillion...since it seems an additional billion or two gets added onto the project every two months.

River crossing panel looks at 4th option
Columbia - Some wonder whether keeping the Interstate Bridge is low-cost
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
JOHN FOYSTON
The Oregonian

The Columbia River Crossing task force voted Tuesday night to include another proposal among the bridge options to be examined in the next two years, but members questioned whether it would be low-cost.

A recently formulated fourth option would use the existing Interstate Bridge spans to carry northbound I-5 traffic and a bicycle/pedestrian lane and a new span to carry southbound traffic and high-capacity transit.

Tuesday's vote means it will be studied along with three previous options: build nothing; replace the existing bridges with a new bridge including bus lanes; and replace the existing bridges with a new bridge incorporating light rail.

The task force includes representatives from city, county and regional governments; environmental and neighborhood groups; transit agencies; and representatives of business and industry groups from Oregon and Washington. Members voted 25-1 to include the fourth option but had lots of questions about its cost.

"I'm very concerned that we're calling this a low-cost or mid-cost alternative, and we don't know that yet," said Bob Knight of Clark College in Vancouver. "I know from experience that it's one thing to build a building and another to maintain it."

Staff members said price tags will be part of the intensive study. Estimates for earlier options have ranged from $2 billion to $6 billion.

"So far, we've been talking only about a lower capital investment, as we were directed," said Jay Lyman, who directs the project's consultants. "But we will have to examine life cycle and maintenance costs and do cost/benefit analyses of all the options."

TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen said the aim was to develop a fourth option to study.

"There are elements of this plan that I'm not particularly pleased with, and I probably wouldn't choose it," Hansen said. "But that's not the point -- this is so we can study all the options."

Dick Malin, a Vancouver neighborhood representative, brought up an engineering study on the costs of seismic upgrades to the original spans, which were completed in 1917 and 1958. According to the study, he said, the possibility of dirt under the bridge piers turning liquid in an earthquake could require digging 200 feet farther down to anchor the spans on bedrock.

"When we started this process, I was predisposed to reuse the existing spans because that seemed prudent," Malin said. "But I now see alternative four as a step backward -- we were on track and on focus." He cast the only dissenting vote.

Task force members agreed that the latest option might not be workable, but that it should be studied with the rest.

"I think the addition of the fourth alternative will do what we want" said Henry Hewitt, task force co-chairman. "It'll make whatever we finally decide on a stronger outcome."

John Foyston: 503-221-8368; johnfoyston@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...000.xml&coll=7

[cab]

At prices they are throwing around why not a tunnel?

[NJD]

At prices they are throwing around why not a tunnel?

the portals would be too far north from downtown Vancouver and SR 14 to adequately serve it is what they say because the tunnel option has to go really deep under the river.

This is insane, the task force again missed the mark... the new 4th option does nothing to lower costs, and it contains 4 lanes in each direction! does no one notice the Metro area designation of 3 lanes only on I-5? If we build any of these options we will be forced to expand I-5 from the bridge to downtown Portland which is incredibly expensive and disruptive to all the communities along I-5's original scar. I give up on these Washington State building bigger will solve all problems people... I don't want a dime of my taxes going toward an easier commute for McMansionites looking for cheaper land without urban growth restrictions. end rant.

option 5: add a middle freight only lane to I-205 (where freeway expansion ROW already exists), and add a freight only bridge along the rail corridor connecting Portland and Vancouver's industrial and port areas. leave commuters to their own decisions on where to live and how long their commute is.

[edgepdx]

Originally Posted by NJD

the portals would be too far north from downtown Vancouver and SR 14 to adequately serve it is what they say because the tunnel option has to go really deep under the river.

This is insane, the task force again missed the mark... the new 4th option does nothing to lower costs, and it contains 4 lanes in each direction! does no one notice the Metro area designation of 3 lanes only on I-5? If we build any of these options we will be forced to expand I-5 from the bridge to downtown Portland which is incredibly expensive and disruptive to all the communities along I-5's original scar. I give up on these Washington State building bigger will solve all problems people... I don't want a dime of my taxes going toward an easier commute for McMansionites looking for cheaper land without urban growth restrictions. end rant.

option 5: add a middle freight only lane to I-205 (where freeway expansion ROW already exists), and add a freight only bridge along the rail corridor connecting Portland and Vancouver's industrial and port areas. leave commuters to their own decisions on where to live and how long their commute is.

I agree completely. Is it me or is this all going on a bit under the radar so far. Where's the city of Portland on this one, all we've heard from is the interests in Vantucky.

[tworivers]

I also agree. Insane. This is not the 4th alternative I was expecting at all, which was an arterial bridge between n pdx and w van. This option seems to be added on in such a way that it is guaranteed to fail, but will provide political cover, i.e. the appearance that additional options were considered, for the Done Deal.

(I really can't imagine I-5 ever being expanded thru n pdx, btw. We'd be looking *thankfully* at a major uprising.)

What else can we do?

So many other places we could be spending these billions of transit dollars that would increase the available alternatives to driving, rather than imposing a 1960's-style autocentric "solution", the kind that just spawns new problems requiring more costly "fixes"... Depressing.

[MarkDaMan]

There is a lot of press recently on this project, yet no real comments from the citizens or even the cities or Portland or Vancouver (other than Pollard announcing he will push for rail). I don't see community buy-in, nor that much outrage about the daily tie ups being experienced and expected to increase. I think given the unoriginal solutions they've been proposing, that when they need citizen buy in, they will find it lacking and need to start again at ground zero.

[zilfondel]

After reading this thing again... I like it. But we still need to do something with the rail bridge, involving: new lift span, relocated to line up with the I-5 bridge(s), and throw down 3 new tracks to allow more trains to pass (higher bandwidth). Lots of work, probably be cheaper to build a brand new one anyway, and could allow higher top speeds for the trains as well.

Anyways, in 'option 4' - I'm assuming we'll see 4 northbound lanes, 4 southbound + lightrail & multi-use path. Not bad, although I think I still would prefer a local bridge w/lightrail & multiuse path (so I can ride my scooter across it without having to get on the freeway).

[MitchE]

Task force floats idea of cheaper replacement for I-5 bridge
by Libby Tucker
03/29/2007
Daily Journal of Commerce

VANCOUVER – A Columbia River Crossing task force this week said it would consider a lower-cost alternative to a proposed multi-billion-dollar Interstate 5 bridge replacement.

The 39-member stakeholder group decided Tuesday to consider a fourth alternative, which emphasizes use of the existing bridges and public transit options, after public criticism threatened to splinter the task force.

“The process is not about having this option become our favorite option, it’s about exploring different elements that aren’t necessarily being explored with those that have already been taken forward,” Fred Hansen, executive director of TriMet and a task force member, said. “Our goal is to have the whole of this group and those interested in this process to feel issues are being explored fully.”

All four alternatives will now get a full vetting of cost and traffic and environmental impacts by the task force over the next 18 months. The fourth alternative would almost certainly be a lower-cost option but, lacking a complete cost analysis, exact savings are still unknown.

Few of the task force members expect they’ll choose the fourth alternative for construction.

“I’m uncomfortable with promoting it further and having to spend a tremendous amount of time, energy and money analyzing it,” Bart Phillips, president of the Columbia River Economic Development Council and a task force member, said. “I understand why we’re looking at this as an alternative. I just don’t think it will be successful.”

Task force had narrowed list to 3

The task force, charged with designing a replacement bridge to ease congestion on Interstate 5 between Portland and Vancouver, prior to Tuesday had already narrowed a list of 18 alternatives to three options after nine months of deliberation.

Those three choices included a no-build option and two alternatives that would replace the existing I-5 bridges with one much larger bridge. A new bridge, estimated to cost billions of dollars to construct, would accommodate up to 12 lanes of traffic and bus rapid transit or light-rail services.

Transit advocates, citizens and the regional government Metro, however, argued that the plans did not adequately consider the social and environmental impacts of adding up to six additional lanes of traffic to the I-5 crossing.

“If you match public transit up with a no-build, it would drive more people and be more cost effective, but because that doesn’t meet the purpose and needs (statement) of this project, that can’t be included,” Jim Howell, a director of the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates, told the task force Tuesday. “I suggest next time, (if) you write purpose and needs to include the issue of oil depletion and CO2 emissions, perhaps such an option would be (considered).”

To address the public’s and Metro’s concerns, the task force drafted the fourth alternative in about three weeks.

“It became clear to me that the process was in danger of collapsing and we were going to lose a lot of people that were part of this committee and others that have been following this process,” Rich Brown, a Bank of America spokesman and member of the task force, said. “So I think it’s important to include this and take it through the process. Having more information is always better. … My hope is that everybody stick with this process.”

The fourth alternative would keep the existing I-5 bridges, build a smaller, four-lane bridge and bolster transit service across the river.

The existing bridges would be re-striped to provide a total of four northbound lanes. Four lanes of southbound traffic would be directed across the new bridge, which would also carry a lane for bus rapid transit or light-rail service.

Improvements to an upstream railroad bridge owned by BNSF Railway Co. also are proposed under the fourth alternative.

Vertical lifts on the existing I-5 bridges allow marine traffic to pass under the bridge but delay interstate traffic. Reorienting the BNSF rail bridge would reduce the overall number of lifts required on the interstate bridge, the task force said.

Before voting to consider the fourth alternative, task force members expressed several concerns about the proposal.

The fourth alternative would require a seismic retrofit of the existing bridges to protect them from earthquake damage. Federal money has not been identified for a bridge retrofit, estimated to cost as much as $250 million.

Adding a third bridge to the existing structures would also increase the number of supporting piers in the water and could make it more difficult for barges to maneuver the river.

“I’m willing to put it in the hopper and let it spin around and get evaluated as the other alternatives are going to be,” Monica Isbell, owner of Starboard Alliance Co. and a task force member, said. “And hopefully during that process we’ll come up with the best alternative that has all these different elements we’re studying.”

[MarkDaMan]

Portland plans extension of Hayden Island moratorium
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/29/2007


The Portland City Council today will consider a one-year extension of a development moratorium enacted last October on Hayden Island. State law allows a moratorium to be extended for up to 18 months.

Interstate 5, which provides the only road access to the island, is a bottleneck for interstate traffic traveling to and from Portland. Long lines at the island’s interstate on-ramps contribute to congestion and a higher rate of crashes on I-5 near Hayden Island.

Additional development on the island would further snarl traffic near the I-5 bridge and decrease highway safety, according to the city.

The moratorium, which prohibits any new commercial construction on the island, would give the city time to create a neighborhood plan for development and traffic management. The moratorium also would delay development until the location of approaches for a new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River has been determined.

“We’re thinking another 12 months will allow for the completion of the neighborhood plan and selection of the preferred (bridge) alternative,” City Councilor Sam Adams said. “We obviously don’t have to have the plan built out or fulfilled, but we just have to have the plan in place.”

The Portland Planning Bureau is assessing current conditions for the island that would serve as a basis for the neighborhood plan, Adams said. A neighborhood plan typically takes two years to develop, he said.

The Columbia River Crossing task force, a team of 39 stakeholders planning a new I-5 bridge, has narrowed the list of 12 design options for a new bridge to four options. The task force is expected to choose one alternative before the end of the year.
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?...29197&userID=1

[mcbaby]

it's a good idea to have a plan in place since it takes forever just to get to jantzen beach during rush hour even by bus.