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

[pdxman]

I read in the sunday oregonian that spain and morocco are seriously studying the construction of a tunnel that would connect spain and the african nation by going under the strait of gibraltar and estimates are around 13billion for such a project. This tunnel would carry cars, trucks and HSR. So, my question is how can a tunnel under an ocean that is long in length and risky in construction only cost ~13bil while the crc bridge is estimated to be ~6bil and only carry cars, trucks and maybe light rail--all the while being a bridge over a river and not a tunnel under an ocean. Its kind of a far out comparison but it still begs the question of why is it going to cost so much to build a fairly simple bridge? I'm I just being naive here? I couldn't find the article on the O's website but i'm hoping someone else read it too. It just seems like we should be getting a lot more bang for our buck with the amount of money thats going to be spent on this bridge.

[zilfondel]

Really? I thought ours was up to $18 billion.

Guess I'm just imagining things. =P

[Snowden352]

Actually, I think I read (somewhere on this thread) that the CRC task force, or whomever, stated that the 6 billion was only the max estimate. More likely, if you discount the cost for the light rail, it's closer to the lower mark of 2 billion (they cite it as 2 to 6 billion, but everyone freaks out about a bigger bridge and starts calling it a 6 billion dollar bridge).

I think the article is still in this thread if you're willing to look.

[MarkDaMan]

The 6B would 'fix' the freeway problems for a few miles in each direction of the bridge, as well as build a new bridge. Most task members have gone a record that a new bridge doesn't make sense if the interchanges around the bridge aren't fixed as well, leading to the 6B figure to become more credible. The LRT cost is minimal (in the overall scope of the project), no more than $250M at tops if it is built in conjuction and on the new bridge.

Recently an $8B figure has been rumored...I wonder when the cost becomes so disgusting they walk away, because this will be a huge sell, if not impossible, to make to the public.

[Snowden352]

I don't know. I think this bridge is mostly just because there's so many people living in Clark County and so many of them commute, aside from the impact on neighborhoods (don't hate me, but I seriously think the city needs to rethink allowing people to live near highways), I really think that the Vancouverites will be paying for it the most (if it's a toll bridge).

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Snowden352

(don't hate me, but I seriously think the city needs to rethink allowing people to live near highways)

or maybe the government should stop putting highways next to where people live. The residents where there before the 5, 84, and 205 and yet the government choose the cheapest and straightest path, destroying century old neighborhoods...the only way to mitigate the effects of a highway, at least for the population that lives near it, is to place it under ground.

[Snowden352]

Well, to be fair, none of the neighborhoods were "century old neighborhoods" when the freeways were built, except for downtown. In fact, I think most of the neighborhoods in the vicinity of 205 are barely more than a few decades old, but cheekiness aside I think that the highways were built as a measure of demand for roadway. People didn't stop wanting them until they thought the benefit was too little to offset the cost of additional alteration of the urban landscape. Now that the freeways are all more than 30 years old, there is a rising demand (amongst most people, no offense guys, but inner Portland and this forum are no means by which you can measure the popular opinion of the greater metro area-which I fully recognize no one said, just heading off any future arguments).

At any rate, the benefit of burying the freeways are limited, and costly prohibitive (yeah, I'm analyzing this from a cost-benefit analysis). Besides, only when the demand is sufficiently high can this be considered (just a simple question, but how many people who live near the freeway now lived there when it was built? I don't think anyone's grievance can be counted unless they were honestly living there before it was built).

Sorry for the rambling post, typically I would be more succinct, but I find character to be important in these off-the-cuff things.

One last thing, I am NOT an UrbanPDX. I support Smart Growth and its intentions. I am only criticizing what I see as egregiously expensive solutions when there are more reasonable ones available.

[tworivers]

I think that the highways were built as a measure of demand for roadway.

True --to a degree. The auto apologists today always cry foul about the "social engineering" of progressive urban planning. Not necessarily innaccurate, either, but the history of the automobile is social engineering of the highest degree, to the lowest of ends. The interstate highway system was demanded by Eisenhower, for the purpose of "national defense" (hence the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956), and by the car companies, for obvious reasons. The model was the Autobahn. Come to think of it, we designed our public school system after the Germans, too... in the name of national unity.

(just a simple question, but how many people who live near the freeway now lived there when it was built? I don't think anyone's grievance can be counted unless they were honestly living there before it was built).

Are you speaking of individuals or of communities when you talk about counting grievances? The black community that had been red-lined into NE post-Vanport still exists in the area that was once Minnesota Ave and is now I-5. I think they have a legitimate grievance, as their neighborhoods were grievously impacted numerous times: in the Memorial Coliseum area, the Russell and Williams area, and N Minnesota... and we all are still living with the long-term effects. I'm not sure how to fix the problems, just saying that there are reasons not to sweep the history under the rug.

[PuyoPiyo]

Sometimes we can't keep our own history, for exampe, Three Gorge Dam in China. It will force all of people to move away from the Yantze River, and overflood the cities around the Yantze River in the future.

[Snowden352]

Okay, I was aware that the black community does have a legitimate complaint with the highway. But does anyone else? I'm not so sure...

(just a note on Mark's post below--it seems Maywood Park's entire history is, on Wikipedia only significant in relation to its fight against the highway...)

[MarkDaMan]

^The City of Maywood Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywood_Park,_Oregon

[cab]

Do Vancouver commuters have a legit argument that they need more space to drive there cars in Portland? The amount of space isn't the issue its the USE of space. If Freight is the priority for our region then dedicate an existing lane of traffic to that use. The issue is not Freight mobility vs. a Neighborhood, its Freight mobility vs. Clark county commuters.

[NJD]

Let's let the 'Couv build their 10 lane megacongestionantiurbanhighwaybridgefreeway project on the Washington side and up over the Columbia into a 16-20 lane toll structure over the parking lot of the Expo center then leave the rest as is except change one lane on the Oregon side to a freight and transit only lane. How funny will it be to watch all that money and all that 'Couv sprawl inducing traffic have to funnel into TWO LANES while freight and transit mobility increases!

[cab]

Its not a bad idea. Vancouver BC DT has argued that Bridges are perfect ways of managing traffic into DT. The DT can only handle a certain amount of autos, the limited bridge space regulates that amount and forces development patterns to other areas that have better options to the city. If PDX is going to wizely hold tight on road widening then we should allow the bridges to do there job. This is why the only widening I'd support is something dedicated to freight or transit mobility. Commuters dot NOT deserve any more space, they've already abused what they have at the expense of well planned neighborhoods.

[Snowden352]

I agree! Diesen Autofahrers have outlasted their welcome in unsere stadt. Wir mussen diesen people kick out. Portland for Portlanders!

[cab]

Snowden, how does providing two bridges with a combined 6 lanes of road each way equal kicking people out? We provide plenty of access, some are abusing that access lets not reward them with more at the expense of existing neighborhoods. Shouldn't we be way past this already?

[Drmyeyes]

It's right to be concerned about neighborhoods or anything located next to highways, and the effect of the highway on it. You'd think they would have, but somehow it seems as though people never really anticipated the true potential for highways/freeways to produce the volumes of traffic they do and the resultant pollution. I addition to the autobahn and justification on the basis of national defense, I think the flimsy notion of trouble free highways was also, as usual, highly promoted by the auto industry as in the Futurama (the world's fair pavillion)

As long as cars are petroleum burning internal combustion machines, this is one more point against tunnels. Venting and cleaning those things must be a massive engineering task.

[Snowden352]

I think the main idea behind the expansion is that the two states recognize that Clark County is bound to grow, as is the amount of goods produced in Portland and so, assuming something supernatural doesn't prevent it, in all liklihood those people who live in Clark County will be working down here in Oregon. I think the big argument occuring here is not whether they should be allowed a larger bridge to cross, but rather what they're supposed to cross in. If it was six lanes allowing only bicycles, would there be as much outrage on this thread as for cars? No offense guys, but I think the "protect the neighborhood" thing is a red herring.

At any rate, I actually agree the bridge is a dumb idea. I would prefer to see built multiple smaller bridges allowing local access directly from point a to point b rather than funnelling everyone who needs to get to Multnomah County from Clark County down through two highway bridges.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by snowden

If it was six lanes allowing only bicycles, would there be as much outrage on this thread as for cars?

yes, because that would be non solution also. It has to be comprehensive solution that adds some automobile relief, additional freight capacity, and mass/alternative transit options.

[PacificNW]

⬆ Seriously, why should those who live in Portland, or its Oregon suburbs, give a sh** about making it easier, and faster, for Washington residents to drive to Oregon to work. Oregon jobs for Oregonians. Washington jobs for Washingtonians.

If they are living in Washington because of less taxation and cost of housing they can use that savings and build their own damn bridge.

When it comes to interstate commerce (freight/goods/mass trans) along I-5/I-205 then the region (as a whole) can pay for freight/mass trans only lanes or bridges.