Senate Vice President
Assistant to PSU Sustainability Coordinator
Environmental Club President

Basically, we do need to upgrade a bridge. Unfortunately, not that bridge, but the one a mile downriver that the trains go across.

Dear Mr. Leiss:

I am writing to provide a correction to the response I sent you on April 15. I have since received further clarification on information we discussed.

In your previous email you asked about the 15 percent vehicle reduction projected by the Columbia River Crossing project. I am assuming that you got this figure from the memo posted on our website from CRC staff to CRC project directors, Doug Ficco and John Osborn. The memo says:

“The CRC project is proposing provision of tolls. Compared to a non-tolling scenario, tolling the I-5 bridge would reduce daily vehicle-trips crossing the Columbia River on I-5 by 15 percent.”

The 15 percent reduction is a projection for a scenario that only included tolling the I-5 bridge. This projection didn’t take into account the project’s other two integrated solutions of bridge improvements and high capacity transit. A tolling-only scenario is not one under consideration by CRC because it would not meet the goals established by project sponsors to address highway safety problems, upgrade bicycle and pedestrian access, increase freight mobility and provide travel options.

I hope this provides clarification on this projection. Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.

Sincerely,

Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach

Dear Mr. Leiss,

Thank you for again contacting the Columbia River Crossing project with your clarifying question regarding a supplemental bridge for mass transit.

The CRC project is a three-part project focusing on bridge, transit and highway improvements to address six problems along I-5 including safety, congestion, freight mobility and travel options. The projected 15 percent reduction in vehicles crossing the bridge comes from the project’s integrated solutions of tolling, bridge improvements and high capacity transit. The project also aims to lower safety risks on the bridge by adding shoulders and auxiliary lanes for safer lane changes and movements to and from interchanges near the bridge.

The proposal to implement bridge tolls and build a high capacity transit bridge without completing the bridge and highway elements would not meet the project goals for reduced congestion, improved mobility for transit and freight and enhanced safety conditions on the I-5 bridge.

Thank you for your continuing interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.

Sincerely,

Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach

- Jonathan

http://portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=120724833812135400

Dear Mr. Leiss:

Thank you for contacting the Columbia River Crossing project with your question regarding proposed bridge options.

Your suggestion to build a similar lift-span bridge next to the existing I-5 bridges dedicated to high capacity transit and bike and foot traffic was considered by the project in the spring of 2006. Several reasons led to the decision to drop this proposal from further consideration:

Vehicle safety: Bridge lifts contribute to a high collision rate. Crashes occur three to four times more often during a bridge lift as I-5 traffic unexpectedly comes to a stop. There are outdated design features associated with the freeway to bridge connection that could not be fixed by interchange and ramp adjustments. These outdated design features have a strong correlation with increased crashes. Improving safety is one of the primary goals of this project.

Marine safety: This area of the Columbia River is already difficult for barges to navigate especially during periods of high water flow. Another bridge similar to the existing bridges would add more piers in the water, which increases the navigation complexity. In addition, the existing bridges need to be upgraded to meet current seismic standards if they remain in use. The upgrades would require the piers to be reinforced with a concrete encasement. Pier encasements would increase the diameter of each pier by 10 to 40 feet, which would reduce the space between piers for marine traffic. When traveling downstream, barge captains attempt to avoid calling for a bridge lift by traveling under the high portion of the Interstate Bridge and then turning to the right to access the lift span on the railroad bridge. An additional bridge combined with the seismic upgrades on the existing bridges would make this maneuver more difficult and, as a result, would lead to more bridge lifts. Improving safety and congestion are the primary goals of this project.

Traffic flow: Bridge lifts cause traffic jams. It can take up to an hour to restore traffic to pre-lift conditions following a bridge lift. Reducing congestion is a primary goal of this project.

Transit reliability: The presence of a bridge lift introduces schedule unreliability into the proposed high capacity transit system. If light rail is chosen, the entire MAX system would be affected by the traffic stop associated with bridge lifts. An unreliable transit system does not encourage ridership. Increasing transit ridership and improving transit reliability are primary goals of this project.

The project is studying the following five build alternatives to determine how well each relieves congestion and improves the safety and mobility problems defined for I-5:

 No build
 Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit
 Replacement bridge with light rail
 Supplemental bridge with bus rapid transit
 Supplemental bridge with light rail

The supplemental bridge being studied is different than the proposal you suggest because it would be built high enough to accommodate marine traffic, thus reducing the need for bridge lifts, and would carry southbound vehicle traffic and high capacity transit.

A thorough analysis of each alternative under consideration will be summarized and documented in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by federal law. The Draft EIS will include an explanation of the potential community and environmental effects of the alternatives. The Draft EIS will be published this spring and will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. Project sponsors are expected to take formal action to adopt a Locally Preferred Alternative in summer 2008, after reviewing Draft EIS findings and public comments. The Locally Preferred Alternative will focus on three decisions: bridge type (replacement or supplemental), transit mode (bus rapid transit or light rail) and transit alignment.

I encourage you to sign up for the project’s monthly email to be kept informed about new developments and the release of the DEIS at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/GetInvolved/SignUp.aspx.

Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.

Sincerely,

Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach

I replied:

Dear Ms. Pressentin,

Jonathan Leiss

I have not yet received a response from the CRC. When/if I do, I will post it here.

No CRC

Mr. Leiss,

Thank you for your message – I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the need for green alternatives. I do believe that we need a new bridge – having a draw bridge on a freeway was a terrible idea to begin with – but we need to demand green alternatives that will help reduce traffic congestion and green house emissions. In addition, I’m concerned that just fixing a bottleneck in one area will move that bottleneck to another area. We need a comprehensive approach that really values light rail and alternative modes of transportation – something that I will be pushing for when I’m on city council.

Please continue to let me know about your concerns. I definitely appreciate your input.

Take care,

Charles

Hi Jonathan,

You are correct to be asking hard questions. Here’s a post I put up on the Portland Mercury site earlier this week (note, my main opponent, Nick Fish, did not respond to the question):

—–

Our region is poised to consider what to do about the Columbia River Crossing-and we’re faced with an option that costs roughly $4.2 billion dollars, and possibly doubles the size of the bridge over the Columbia River. In your opinion, does the staff-recommended option-a 10 to 12 lane bridge, plus light rail transit, tolls, and improved pedestrian and bike crossing-meet Portland’s goals and needs? What would you advocate for as the optimal plan for the crossing, and how would you ensure that Portland’s needs and goals aren’t lost in a massive regional, bi-state project?

Staff Recommended Option

The existing bridge is old. It’s the only lift span on I-5. It’s not safe. And, the current and future constraints on freight movement cost our region jobs. The bridge is one of the most congested bottlenecks on the entire I-5 system from Mexico to Canada. It was designed in 1907 for horses and carriages; it’s on 60 foot timber pilings in the sand; and has the highest crash rates in either state for I-5.

That said, the likely staff recommendation currently is insufficient when it comes to meeting Portland’s needs. I understand that the CRC is a bi-state project that must provide benefits to both Washington and Oregon and Vancouver and Portland. In my opinion, the balance tips too far toward Washington and Vancouver in what is likely to be the preferred alternative (although we don’t know for sure what will be recommended).

Specifically, the likely preferred option scores points for Portland on light rail (assuming that’s what we’ll get), bike and pedestrian facilities but it falls short on the finance plan, the number of “alternate” lanes that provide on ramps and exits for short trips, the scale and cost of the on and off ramps in Vancouver (in my opinion they’re overbuilt) and the lack of grounding in a serious and compact growth plan for Clark County.

Finally, the projected cost of the bridge for Oregon is way too high compared with the benefits the staff says it will provide, particularly given the massive uncertainties surrounding global warming and peak oil.

Optimal Crossing

I don’t know what the optimal crossing would be at this time. I believe we need to begin implementing demand management now – i.e. tolling and congestion pricing – to see how traffic responds. My gut says we can do better than the staff estimates at reducing and spreading demand throughout the day using tolls and other techniques. If that’s the case, we can reduce the cost and scale of the project (Please note that I also believe we need mechanisms that ensure equity for low income people who must drive).

I believe light rail must be the transit option and that light rail must serve Hayden Island. As I mentioned above, it appears to me that the Vancouver on and off ramps are overbuilt and overpriced – Vancouver doesn’t need that much capacity. We also need to take a hard look at reducing the number of auxiliary lanes on the crossing. And most importantly, we need a stronger commitment from Vancouver and Clark County that they will limit sprawl and focus instead on dense, compact development in downtown Vancouver that will give people options other than driving.

Portland’s Needs and Goals

It’s impossible to think of Portland alone. Vancouver and Clark County are part of our Metro region whether we like it or not. The best way to protect Portland is to focus hard on creating a balance of jobs and housing on each side of the river so people don’t need to drive. The second best way to meet Portland’s needs and goals is to ensure that Washingtonians – who create most of the traffic – pay their fair share of the costs. And, the third way to protect Portland is to ensure that the traffic, environmental and growth effects that will be created by the project — no matter what its scale and scope — are minimized and fully mitigated. Finally, whatever is built has to be a lot better looking than the monstrosity we have seen in the papers.

Jonathan:

Thanks for your e-mail. As luck would have it, the Columbia River Crossing was the subject of the Question of the Week put out by the Portland Mercury. The response that I wrote is below. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks again.

Jeff

———————————————

Back in November 2007, the staff and consultants made a recommendation to the Columbia River Crossing Task Force for a completely new bridge span to replace the Interstate Bridge . The new bridge is projected to be a twelve-lane span with either light rail or rapid bus transit capacity along with improved pedestrian and bicycle access.

A complete bridge replacement is the most ambitious, and expensive, option among the current project alternatives. While this project is not on my list of top priorities, I do not believe the current “no build” option will be adopted so it is our responsibility to fashion a plan that fits with the overall strategies to address global warming and better transportation for the residents of our region. I question the number of lanes in the current recommendation (an increase from the current six lanes to twelve seems excessive to me) and I am not convinced the expense of a totally new bridge is worth it at this point, although maintenance costs over the long term are projected to be lower than with other options.

While I am still studying the issue, I initially lean toward the project alternative that calls for a supplemental bridge built directly downstream (west) of the current bridge that would have a four-lane capacity and light rail included. The current bridge pair would be re-striped to four lanes and have capacity for improved pedestrian and bicycle access. It would also be seismically upgraded. I am more comfortable with this approach because:

* it calls for increasing the number of overall lanes from six to eight lanes;

* it appears as though it can be done at a somewhat lower cost;

* it focuses on light rail (rather than rapid bus transit, which would be more expensive than light rail);

* it seeks to improves bike and pedestrian usage; and

* it gets several more years of life out of the current dual-bridge span.

I am completely opposed to a project that does not include light rail as a transportation option across the river.

As I said, I am still studying the issue. There are several questions that I am trying to answer for myself about the project before I take a firm position on it. They include:

* what is the actual remaining potential life of the current dual-bridge span? I’ve seen several conflicting reports about the bridges’ viability over the long term and I’d like more clarity on that point.
* what is the actual effect on traffic flow? Are we simply moving traffic gridlock a few miles north and south from where it is occurring today or are we actually fixing the gridlock problem with a new bridge configuration?
* will the project improve the air quality in North and Northeast Portland?
* what is the effect of new configurations on the roads and streets adjacent to the bridge and any new interchanges?
* will a reconfiguration of the current bridge pair with better pedestrian and bicycle access actually make it more pleasant to walk or bike across the river?
* is there public support for instituting tolling as a way of partially paying for the project and can that tolling be implemented as “congestion pricing” so that more is paid when using the bridge at high traffic times (ie – during rush hour) and less at low traffic times (ie – at night).
* what effect will the project have on the businesses located in Jantzen Beach?
* how does this project fit with the greater regional transportation plan that seeks 1) to rely less on forcing people to use cars to get around and 2) to reduce our overall carbon footprint?

There are other questions but those are the key points I am considering. Lastly, while this is a very important project that we must develop thoughtfully, it is only one piece of a much larger picture. As my last question suggests, the project needs to be evaluated in that larger context. You can read more about the project for yourself at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org and let me know what you think by writing info@portlandersforjeff.com.