The deal is 12 lanes plus tolls.

Brilliant.

We only "need" 12 lanes if there aren't any tolls to manage peak-hour demand.

If we have tolls, we don't need 12 lanes.

From the editorial: "Before adjusting the thermostat, we need to build the house." Following on that lame analogy: why the hell would you spend more money than you have to overbuild a house with four surplus rooms that are going to cost a fortune to heat?

And why not save money by simply renovating the already-paid-for house and then adding on a couple of rooms, along with a new energy-efficient heating system.

Chris, I can't find enough trust for this one.

BUILD THE (Bob R mode activated) [expletive deleted]
BRIDGE WITH 12 LANES AND STOP ALL THIS [expletive deleted]messing around with all this [expletive deleted] BUREAUCRATIC NONSENSE!

Does he want to be recalled or what?

There is an Exhibit of Artworks depicting a Green Park Roof for the CRC Bridge at the NW Lucky Lab Brewpub on nw Quimby above 19th. The Park Roof will absorb CO2 24 / 7 , and will captue rain driven pollution runoff[saving a fortune in treatment].
Finally , the beautiful arcing park will connect
Oregon and Washington with a Green Gateway to the NW!

[Repost of my comment from earlier today on the Mercury blog.]

Don't forget that "12 lanes" is really wide enough for 18, if those lanes are striped the way the current bridges are striped.

If we build an 8-lane bridge, and future generations want to squeeze 10 or 12 out of it, they can.

12 lanes == the potential for 18 lanes.

Mercury coverage here.

[Moderator: Link shortened to preserve page formatting.]

"We propose that it be built to accommodate up to three add/drop lanes and three through lanes. But these lanes will not be created equal. Our new partnership agreement will determine how the lanes will be phased and managed over time to get the right mix of tolling, HOV or HOT lanes, van pools and transit fare programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled and pollution."

Article 1 section 20 of the Oregon Constitution reads: Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.–

Sam has said he wants to be everuybody's mayor and is working hard for the people of Portland. 80 percent of the trips in the region are made by motor vehicle. The question; is Sam working hard to represent all the people including those who drive, or just working hard for the special interests and sees the people who drive as cash cows to be milked for his special interest and one-sided agenda? Since the basic terms that apply here are receiving benifit from and crossing the river on a new bridge; if tolls are charged on the crossing, to maintain equality, the tolls must apply to the users of all modes of transport to maintain equality. Any thing less would be a socialist policy making. So the bigger question here is; does Sam beilve in the constitution, or does he want to dictate policy to the population of the region?

Terry copies the whole thing, but his analysis skips right over the middle part [emphasis added]:

"Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

There are no laws saying you *must* drive in a car, or *must* ride transit -- anyone is free to use the mode of their choice, so tolling different modes at different levels isn't unconstitutional, because those modes are available to all persons.

On the other hand, you *can't* ride a bicycle on urban freeways... Terry may be on to something here... is the exclusion of pedestrians and bicyclists from certain roads unconstitutional? :-)

I don't know when Sam became mayor of Vancouver, or a Clark County Commissioner, but I guess it happened. Huh.

Bob,

The terms are using the bridge to cross the river, NOT dissecting those terms based on the transport mode used; how the vehicle is powered; the purpose of the crossing and by whom (commuter, freight carrier, tradesman, tourist, male, female, etc); or even the time of day when the crossing is being used. That would be rationing.

“On the other hand, you *can't* ride a bicycle on urban freeways”

Nor can I drive a motor vehicle on a bicycle path that in most cases the fuel taxes I pay were used as the primary funding source to construct that bike path. When specialized infrastructure is constructed for specific modes, be it bicycle infrastructure or transit, the users of those transport modes have an obligation to pay their share, in this case tolls assessed on bicyclists and transit passengers to use the CRC.

Mayors Adam's and Pollard's proposal for the Columbia River Crossing is like building a massive coal-fired power plant with 19th century technology to produce cheap, dirty energy while you promise to talk about a conservation program sometime in the future. Looks like WOOPS II to me!

What's the status of rail on the bridge?

What's the status of rail on the bridge?

The plan working its way through the process includes light rail to Vancouver.

"Bi-state compromise?!" Ha! This is the equivalent of a six-lane Sellwood Bridge replacement, while saying it's a compromise and agreement with the neighborhood.
It's the equivalent to a recent quadruple-bypass patient going to Burger King right afterwards and ordering a quadruple stacker!
I really, really wonder why/how anyone thinks that all lanes of traffic would quickly fill and congestion would back up traffic as far as it does now.

The current lane widths of the Interstate Bridge are substandard; I can't think of any reason one would want to have nine travel lanes, in each direction, of similar width.

For 6 lanes of traffic (in a given direction) to be filled up; it would have to have sufficient levels of traffic feeding it. Likewise, having six lanes of traffic on the bridge which reduce down to three or so, isn't going to give you six lanes heading downtown.

Bridgebuilding is expensive, compared to other infrastructure expansions--it isn't unreasonable to build excess capacity now, even if the surrounding infrastructure doesn't permit its use.

For those concerned about sprawl--one obvious design choice is to physically seperate (with medians--removable if needed to get around an accident or other incident on the bridge) the through lanes from the C/D lanes.

I really, really wonder why/how anyone thinks that all lanes of traffic would quickly fill and congestion would back up traffic as far as it does now.

Exactamundo! How the (Bob R mode activated) [expletive deleted] do they come up with this nonsense?

"Hey Honey, they have a new bridge down there heading to ORYGON, lets get in our car and drive back and forth every day FOR FUN, cause it's a new bridge and we need to take advantage of it"!

It's the equivalent to a recent quadruple-bypass patient going to Burger King right afterwards and ordering a quadruple stacker!

LOL!!LOL!!

I want BACON on mine!

++++message to moderator-i hope you realize just how well you have me trained, I now delete my own posts and replace them AUTOMATICALLY with moderator corrections!++++

“I really, really wonder why/how anyone thinks that all lanes of traffic would quickly fill and congestion would back up traffic as far as it does now.”

Actually, if Sam gets his dictatorial way and his proposals to phase in lanes and add, restricted, HOV and HOT lanes are adopted by the sponsors council, the idling, stop and go congestion will still exist in the remaining full service lanes. Then it will be Sam and his cohorts that will have created the congestion that they seem to want to keep in place so they claim it is due to the big bridge thereby absolving themselves.

Moreover, if Sam truly wants to manage something, he should be addressing all the out of control taxpayer dollars being dumped into bicycle infrastructure and manage that by directly taxing the user bicyclists to replace those dollars.

he should be addressing all the out of control taxpayer dollars being dumped into bicycle infrastructure and manage that by directly taxing the user bicyclists to replace those dollars.

It comes down to redirecting your unconscious mind. On the surface, you know your bicycle phobia is illogical. But it has persisted because your subconscious has attached the idea of bicycles to all those negative emotions.

Until now, you haven’t had a methodology for reprogramming those connections. We’re here to give you that methodology. Are you ready to put it to use?

al m shifts into guru mode.

Nice one, al, and not a video link in sight.

read Gerald Fox's piece on Smarterbridge.org
I guess its now up to Obama's EPA or a federal judge to look at this thing and kill it.
Just about everyone around here except for Amanda and Robert have gulped down the kool-aid.
If you think some kind of commission is going to keep Clark county commutes from shooting across this new dog alone in their rigs, you are taking something a lot stronger than kool-aid.

Does scoutmaster sam have a degree in civil engineering?

What makes him qualified to determine the optimal number of lanes needed to keep traffic moving at a reasonable pace and at the lowest cost possible?

Anthony -

Does that mean you disagree with Sam's support of a 12-lane crossing?

What I mean is Sam's support [or lack of support for that matter] is completely irrelevant. He is not qualified to determine the size of the bridge, the function of the lanes, or any other variable.

Id like to hear what actual traffic engineers have to say about the project.

"What I mean is Sam's support [or lack of support for that matter] is completely irrelevant. He is not qualified to determine the size of the bridge, the function of the lanes, or any other variable."

So, elected public officials, after having heard from engineers, planners, critics, and constituents, have no relevance in the process?

I agree that no decision should be made without carefully going over what the engineers have to say, and it's one of the most important inputs, but shouldn't the public and elected representatives have the final say?

Despite the current scandal, Sam Adams is still the elected mayor, and did bring up CRC-related issues as part of his campaign.

great so we're doubling the width of the bridge to 12 lanes and yet the entire regional freeway system has no more than 6 lanes. guess what happens when those 12 lanes of traffic go down to 6 lanes?

the answer is building more local traffic bridges across the columbia river. how about adding one across the river mid-way between the I-205 and I-5 bridges (west of PDX airport), add another by the BNSF bridge, and another right next to I-5 hitting jantzen beach.

imagine if in downtown portland there were no local bridges across the willamette... no burnside, no steel, no hawthorne, no morrison, no broadway, just the 2 freeway bridges. if you want to go from downtown to the east side you'd only be able to cross the Marquam or Fremont. thats essentially what we have with the columbia river... 2 freeway bridges and no local traffic bridges, so it shouldnt be any surprise that there is congestion.

It's not too hard to get more bridges across the Columbia. The current plan is to tear out two existing bridges that easily could support arterial traffic.

If we're going to toll the monstrosity, how hard would it be to toll the existing bridges as well? Tolls should provide all the funding needed to rehab and strengthen them.

jon -

You read my comment on the Mercury blog yesterday, didn't you? :-)

al m shifts into guru mode.Nice one, al, and not a video link in sight.

Thank you Mr Frane, as you can see I am a man of many diverse talents! :-)8

And for those of you who haven't seen the full length feature, here is the link:

A CONVERSATION WITH JEFF FRANE
http://rantingsofatrimetbusdriver.blogspot.com/2009/02/conversation-with-jeff-frane.html

The engineers have continually been saying a 12-lane bridge will work the best and needed to cool down the majority of hot spots where traffic is idling and interchange congestion occurs. It is the politically motivated social engineers like Sam Adams and David Bragdon who are pushing an agenda that rations roadway use, less lanes, restrictive use lanes and the extortion of motorists, using them through excessive tolling, as the cash cows to pay the expenditures associated with infrastructure for those who travel by bicycle and transit.

At the Portland City Council public hearing on Wednesday, Sam attempted to suggest that motorists were well represented in the process because the CRC Task Force included a representative from AAA and a representative from the trucking industry. First, it needs to be addressed the interests of the trucking industry, although absolutely necessary in this process, represents the trucking industry. They are not a representative for motorists in general and motorist commuters. Second, with a bicycle and pedestrian working group in place, a transit working group in place, and even a trucking and freight working group in place to advise the decision makers along with a number of various representatives on the CRC Task Force representing these groups and transport modes; with no general motorist and/or motorist commuter working group at all, only one token representative from AAA to represent motorists and motorist commuters can hardly be considered adequate. This is especially true when motorists are being unfairly targeted to pay excessive tolls while bicyclists and transit passengers receive a free pass when it comes to paying for the specialized infrastructure they will use to cross the Columbia.

This lack of representation for motorists in the process exhibits the epitome of taxation without representation, and clearly demonstrates how some of the elected officials in the Portland-Metro area will go to great lengths to divisively manipulate an outcome by routinely stacking the deck on advisory and citizen committees to advance their one-sided and special interest agendas.

I am going to get you, al. Not sure how, yet. But you're going to get it.

Another item noteworthy of mentioning about the recent CRC hearings was the testimony from the BTA (Bicycle Transportation Alliance) representatives. Much of their oratory was humbug in opposition to twelve lanes instead of just stumping for the purported world class infrastructure for bicyclists. Like the majority of the hardcore bicycling community, the BTA expects motorists rather than themselves as bicyclists to pay for it. The BTA arrogantly wants to eat their cake on somebody else’s dollar, but doesn’t want those who they hypocritically expect to pay for that cake have any cake of their own. This is self-absorbed egocentric selfishness. Any world class bicycle infrastructure must require world class tolls paid by the bicyclists who use it, and not paid for by motorists.

I wonder if the BTA representatives would be so cocky if the alliance itself (which is basically a lobby group) did not directly or indirectly receive public funding, and bicyclists were directly taxed, tolled, licensed and registered, thereby required to pay their own way including the entire costs for constructing and maintaining all bicycle infrastructure. There definitely needs to be an open discussion about narrowing the bicycle path to save cake on the crossing rather than rationing the number of lanes motorists can use.

It's not too hard to get more bridges across the Columbia. The current plan is to tear out two existing bridges that easily could support arterial traffic.

That's the most offensive part. Another lift bridge or two could help the corridor, with MAX and new train and pedestrian paths, for less than the cost of the CRC. I'm using bridges built in other parts of the US to guess and compare, but they have higher costs of living so we should be safe.

One in the BNSF corridor and one between SE Victory in Vancouver and NE 33rd in Portland would likely help a bit. The railroad berm and interchange of SR-14 near the Marine Park entrance (now just eastbound on) would need to be rebuilt as well, and it would need to avoid PDX's runways, but I bet it could be done.

I'd bet both of those, with two traffic lanes each way, and the BNSF route having rail and MAX (plus bike/ped facilities) would help out I-5 more than the CRC.

Long term maybe we build the 33rd/Victory bridge to take MAX to connect under the airport to the Red Line if I-205 really can't take the extra weight.

great so we're doubling the width of the bridge to 12 lanes and yet the entire regional freeway system has no more than 6 lanes. guess what happens when those 12 lanes of traffic go down to 6 lanes?

Ummm, a marginal inconvenience instead of total gridlock?

The 3 "new" lanes are all add/drop, or auxilary lanes, designed to fill the gaps between ramps where local traffic that only needs 1-2 exits uses the outermost lanes.

And many parts of Portland have over 6 total lanes. US-30 has 8 for a bit, 2 to I-405 South, and 2 to the North. I-5/I-405 at both ends. I-5 near 217 has 10 lanes I'm pretty sure.

None go over 3 through, that's all this is looking for. Just like I-5/217.

I am going to get you, al. Not sure how, yet. But you're going to get it.

I CAN'T WAIT, I'LL HAVE THE CAMERA READY FOR YOUR REVENGE!

Ya know Jeff, you have just entered the AL M hall of the insane!

Watch for the JEFF FRANE PICTURE OF THE DAY!

terry you are so quick to accuse others of an agenda against the car but when reading your posts i see exactly the same agenda but targeted towards bikes and transit.

are the evil bikers and transit riders holding you up from starting a motorist agenda group?

last i checked trucks were highly dependent on roads and highways. i would hardly dismiss their support of roads.

"excessive tolling"... yeah it sucks when the free market gets in the way of your car. god forbid the toll be higher in response to high demand.

There's one catch with this whole tolling thing.

It is illegal to toll an Interstate, as per the FHWA. The toll Interstates back east exist only because they were grandfathered into the system. If I'm not mistaken, ODOT and WSDOT could potentially lose federal funding, at least for part of I-5, if they were to attempt to toll the new bridge.

Some of you may point out that the Interstate Bridge, when initially built, was tolled. However, when that was the case, it was part of US Highway 99. I-5 didn't exist then.

The current Interstate Bridge is technically not up to Interstate standards either, being a draw bridge, but like the toll Interstates back east, it's been grandfathered.

It is illegal to toll an Interstate, as per the FHWA.

That's not accurate. You can toll a facility if you're making an improvement, and the CRC is certainly an improvement. Tolling 205 is trickier, but the FHWA under Bush was very interested in congestion pricing as a new approach and it may not be hard to get a waiver from the Obama administration.

"and the CRC is certainly an improvement."

Better put some qualifying punctuation and/or remarks around the word "improvement" before you get quoted far-and-wide. ;-)

It appears that the CRC isn't the only possible tolled Interstate bridge in the region. Washington is looking at a very similar idea.

Chris, you are correct. However, according to the following link regarding the FHWA's Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program link below, which I presume is the same program you are referring to:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm

Under the next to last bullet point, it states that "Interstate Maintenance funds may not be used on the facility while it is tolled.

If I'm understanding that correctly, while it would be legal to toll the CRC, it would become ineligible for federal maintenance funding.

Tolls are not the only management tool available. HOV lanes with freight in the non-peaks are a cheap incentive to encourage carpools and vanpools and to speed transit.
Why not manage the bridge we have rather than the one we don't need...if we manage demand now.

Tolls are not the only management tool available. HOV lanes with freight in the non-peaks are a cheap incentive to encourage carpools and vanpools and to speed transit.

But HOV lanes don't work. They don't encourage carpools or vanpools, and are mostly abused by parents taking the kids to the mall at rush hour, or trips that would have had two drivers anyway.

HOT lanes are a bit more significant in managing demand, since they allow the lanes to stay closer to full (without congesting).

Neither one is realistic for the I-5 corridor as it stands though, since the feds have never (that I've heard of) allowed GP lanes to be converted to HOT/HOV. Shoulders and expansions are allowed, but we'd need to get the current bridges up to Interstate standards to do so. Without shoulders or a realistic way to expand the bridges, we're going to have to replace them. Thus, the current situation.

So the only thing stopping us from tolling the bridge right now is, (and this is from the "pro-car" person,) that we'd lose the federal funding for that section of I-5. If we tolled it, wouldn't we collect more money in tolls than we get from the fed anyways? I really don't see anything wrong with this picture...

I really don't see anything wrong with this picture...

Did you see what painting the Lewis & Clark Bridge costs in the stimulus plan?

$50 mil, if you haven't. $50 mil to keep a bridge that cost about that much to build.

So the only thing stopping us from tolling the bridge right now is, (and this is from the "pro-car" person,) that we'd lose the federal funding for that section of I-5. If we tolled it, wouldn't we collect more money in tolls than we get from the fed anyways? I really don't see anything wrong with this picture...

No, even worse. We don't just lose maintenance money for it, but Oregon risks losing all federal gas tax returns. Washington also. We have to basically say adios to federally funded roads, statewide including I-84, I-5, US-99, US-101, etc, to eliminate I-5 from contention.

The plus is if we do this we can make the drinking age 18 again. If you count that as a plus for spring break tourism. We've got strippers and under-age drinking! Yee-haw prohibition!

It is lead paint on the Lewis&Clark bridge. For various reasons, (like the fact that I and a lot of other people eat fish from that river, and drink water from some of the wells near that river,) you have to tent the entire bridge, sandblast it, and then paint it. I can see why that might cost $50M, they basically are building another bridge there, only the new one will be temporary and airtight.

What, exactly, that has to do with my quote, or the CRC, I can't possible imagine.

Matthew, you bring up an interesting point about "temporary" bridges. How exactly is this CRC going to be built? There will likely have to be temporary structures put in place during the construction of the new structures/removal of the old ones.

I'd imagine that will probably bring a considerable amount of cost to the project as well. Cost that may not be covered by any federal funding if the bridge gets tolled.

I think we need to do a little more research/get some clearer answers into just what the FHWA's policies would be before jumping to any final conclusions one way or the other.

I thank Nigel Jaquiss for the 12-lane bridge. This is his *gift* to Portland.

Id like to hear what actual traffic engineers have to say about the project.

As a traffic engineer, I'd have to say that 12 lanes is a purely political decision. The EIS showed that more southbound lanes actually increased AM peak congestion. It is only the northbound lanes that have an overall benefit to traffic. Of course, anyone who's paid any attention at all to recent history knows that this benefit is temporary, usually buying about 5 years.

This is a dumb use of scarce resources with a capital D-U-M-B. Money would be much more efficiently spent on new arterial bridges (as previously suggested), and the retrofitting of the I-5 and adjacent rail bridge to reduce I-5 bridge lifts. You could even add 1 or 2 reversible lanes in the center of the existing I-5 bridges. More benefit to traffic, fewer adverse impacts, for comparable cost. But it wouldn't match WSDOT's predetermined outcome.

Great smut journalism, Nigel.