tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post2276517559869910644..comments2023-09-21T01:51:15.719-07:00Comments on The Dead Horse Times: The Columbia River Crossing, and the role of state DOTsEngineerScottyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-61525581680420478402010-06-30T09:58:08.484-07:002010-06-30T09:58:08.484-07:00@Anon... did you see this post?
At any rate, the...@Anon... did you see <a href="http://deadhorsetimes.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-stuff-that-matters-population.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>?<br /><br />At any rate, the argument between Adams and the woman from WSDOT underlies a prevalent cultural attitude: That one mode of transportation (the auto) is the normal, default mode--and that any others are suspect. Transit has to prove it isn't some commie pinko plot, whereas new auto capacity is presumed to be desirable unless shown otherwise (and even then...). Obviously, we won't get near 37% transit across the bridge without a new bridge.<br /><br />The primary technical justification for not increasing roadway capacity (8 lines I'm OK with, though I'd prefer to have access to Hayden Island via a supplemental bridge, even if only crosses the south channel into Oregon, not the main channel into Vancouver) is the limitations of I-5 closer to town. The bridge acts as a funnel in both directions--collecting traffic from I-5, SR14, and SR500 on one side and dispersing it onto Interstate, Marine, MLK, and I-5 on the other, so having the additional lane makes sense. But building out to 10 or 12 lines will just move the problem south.<br /><br />Of course, the same issue is present for MAX--37& of bridge traffic won't be able to shift to MAX if the Yellow Line is only running 4 trains an hour (even if full, that's only ~1300 passengers per hour)--and running more trains ALSO leads to downstream capacity issues. That said, adding another Willamette Bridge crossing for MAX is probably a lot easier than widening I-5, let alone doing a Portland version of the Big Dig like some have proposed.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-70614278963161554762010-06-30T08:59:35.306-07:002010-06-30T08:59:35.306-07:00Scotty,
Your link to the Mercury article about th...Scotty,<br /><br />Your link to the Mercury article about the URS study points out another big problem with this project. It is based on "projected demand" which is about as fictitious as next years housing prices, which we have seen in recent years to be highly speculative.<br /><br />It is laughable to think that 37% (or whatever %) of the trips across the I-5 crossing will be by transit if we never get around to building a decent transit alternative. It is that very implausibility that is used by the project supporters to move the project forward in the minds of the politicians and the public.<br /><br />Yet we know that if nothing is done, that projected "demand" will never materialize. We have a variety of politically viable choices that the CRC advocates don't want to see discussed, none of which would result in the bizarre all-day gridlock seemingly implied by the "projected demand" numbers. <br /><br />It will be interesting to see how this all evolves, but I am betting that fiscal conservatism will have a big influence on what happens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-56442468814086676492010-06-29T21:23:25.571-07:002010-06-29T21:23:25.571-07:00The recent conversation between Mayor Sam and vari...The recent <a href="http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/25/revealed-the-8-lane-columbia-river-crossing" rel="nofollow">conversation</a> between Mayor Sam and various Washington politicians is telling. But a big problem is inertia. Many people in the Couv only have cars, live in neighborhoods where everyone drives a car and if they're lucky, a bus rumbles by a half-mile away every half hour. The suggestion that they drive to a park-and-ride and take MAX or C-Tran into Portland, Does Not Compute.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-81399192424750759132010-06-29T17:14:15.971-07:002010-06-29T17:14:15.971-07:00Here are two additional significant aspects of thi...Here are two additional significant aspects of this project that you don't mention in your fine review.<br /><br />First is the adamant refusal to engage in "least cost planning" which is the method by which electric utilities realize that conservation (efficient use of existing capacity) is usually the most cost-effective way to serve future needs. This is like a homeowner fixing a roof leak with a new roof, without at least finding out whether repair is possible or cost-effective.<br /><br />Second is the failure to set a goal demanding significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per dollar spent. Whether this project spends $2 billion or $4 billion, it doesn't do anything for sustainability. The light rail merely balances out the increased auto use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-33726915286680115402010-06-28T13:29:45.487-07:002010-06-28T13:29:45.487-07:00Scotty,
Your point about Metro is exactly the rea...Scotty,<br /><br />Your point about Metro is exactly the reason why Vancouver should bear a greater burden of restriction by the rest of the region (besides the obviously much higher cost to cross the Columbia than the Clackamas....).<br /><br />It is that Vancouver does not have a meaningful urban growth boundary. Yes, it does HAVE a UGB, but it's violated with impunity by the Republican County Council. There's no "edge" to Vancouver. Like most American cities it just trickles off to sprawl nothingness over a ten mile wide band that's constantly moving outward. <br /><br />Compare the land between North Plains and Hillsboro versus that between Vancouver and Battleground. There is actual productive agriculture around North Plains, but the only significant farming on the very similar soil and topography of the Brush Prairie area is a few blueberry farms. The rest of what could be productive land has run to weeds awaiting the sprawldozer.Anandakoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15397105362372268883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-81185431354850987652010-06-28T12:16:18.565-07:002010-06-28T12:16:18.565-07:00@Anandakos
I'm actually a bit surprised at th...@Anandakos<br /><br />I'm actually a bit surprised at the decline in Vancouver's tech industry; while much of it was production work that is now outsourced, there were quite a few R&D facilities as well. Vancouver has some tax advantages vs the Oregon side (for businesses), esp. post Measures 66/67--that said, there are plenty of places even more tax-friendly than Washington State.<br /><br />That said, some of your comments regarding Vancouver could also be made with regards to bedroom communities on the Oregon side. For instance, should we toll the two bridges across the Clackamas to put Oregon City--a bedroom community and former mill town with no separate economic vitality since the timber industry went kaput--out of business? What about other suburbs where geography doesn't provide a bottleneck by which commerce and movement can be throttled? The main difference with Vancouver is that it lies outside the jurisdiction of Metro--Oregon City can't sprawl all the way to Mulino, whereas the Couv can.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-56971941240885107612010-06-28T09:51:25.657-07:002010-06-28T09:51:25.657-07:00Scotty,
Count this Vancouver resident as one stro...Scotty,<br /><br />Count this Vancouver resident as one strongly in favor of tolling both bridges even just as they are without new construction. <br /><br />I realize that means my house would lose value: maybe as much as 30 to 40%. But the truth is that Vancouver has lost its ability to support itself. All our local tech employment has gone to Asia, and the city really has no economic vitality except as a "bedroom community". <br /><br />Sadly (for Vancouver especially), it just does not work to have cities that cross state lines. It's hard enough to run Metro governments within a single state; urban/suburban jealousies and conflicts of interest are deep running and inevitably lead to the evisceration of the central city. They are almost impossible interstate because of interfering state governments. <br /><br />The one exception that works is New York/North Jersey, because the northern part of the state controls the state legislature of New Jersey and FORCES the state bureaucracy to work with New York's. In the same state Philadelphia/Camden fails miserably in comparison as do St. Louis/East St. Louis and Boston's relationship with southeast New Hampshire. <br /><br />So Vancouver needs to shrink as a proportion of the SMSA, not grow. Tolling the bridges will help ensure that. It's unfortunate that Federal law prohibits the use of toll facilities on Interstate highways from subsidizing transit usage, because otherwise a $3 peak hour toll providing transit usage like the GGT in Marin County would be very successful. <br /><br />There are really only five major employment loci in Portland: the CBD, the Rose Quarter, OHSU, the Max/Tech corridor and Wilsonville. C-Tran already serves three of them directly and could add express service to the Sunset TC to serve the tech corridor. Wilsonville is small enough and far enough away from Clark County that it doesn't matter.Anandakoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15397105362372268883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-90072007684851429782010-06-27T20:36:35.510-07:002010-06-27T20:36:35.510-07:00@Scotty
I was referring to the 60k plus commuters...@Scotty<br /><br />I was referring to the 60k plus commuters who come to Portland area from Vancouver. They're not there for any tax reasons because they pay Oregon income taxes.<br /><br />And even if schools were their first choice, it's debatable that Vancouver's public schools are better than Beaverton, Lake Oswego, West Linn, or even some of Portland's high schools.<br /><br />http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/real-estate/articles/our-best-schools/<br /><br />Yeah, Portland has a few bad apples for schools, but they also have some really good ones that don't get much attention because they're doing all of the right things like Cleveland, Grant, and Lincoln.wshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747279651073130352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-56980275085721427282010-06-26T20:50:15.700-07:002010-06-26T20:50:15.700-07:00@SpyOne: The bridge has been there since 1918--of...@SpyOne: The bridge has been there since 1918--of course, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Airfield" rel="nofollow">Pearson Airfield</a>--the oldest operating airport in the US--has been there since 1905. Back then, obviously, there was no FAA regulating this sort of thing. Given all the existing infrastructure that centers on the present location, there aren't many other good places to put the bridge. Some have suggested a third bridge further west, but that would have all sorts of complications.<br /><br />As noted above, there would be fierce resistance (by Clackamas County, in particular), to the idea of encouraging most traffic to the I-205 bridge. While ODOT signs encourage through traffic to use I-205, it's about 10 miles longer to go that way; and the traffic usually isn't any better.<br /><br />@Wes--not everyone who live in Vancouver is living there for tax reasons. The schools there are generally regarded as better; while some of that may be avoidance of inner-city poverty (a big issue with suburban flight in general), part of that is also that the State of Washington better provides for public schools than does Oregon.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-14640242635137018622010-06-26T09:50:39.463-07:002010-06-26T09:50:39.463-07:00I'm an outsider here: all I know about this ar...I'm an outsider here: all I know about this area is what I learned on Mapquest. That said, it seems this is an incredibly stupid place for a bridge. It has to cross the shipping channel in a place that is right next to one airport and in the flight path of another.<br /><br />The solution seems simple (though I admit if I were more knowledgeable about the area I would see why this is a stupid idea):<br />Route I5 over to I205 and blow up the old I5 Bridge. Over by the BNSF bridge, build a bridge to handle local traffic, with lanes for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and those BNSF trains.SpyOnenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-89166509277254059042010-06-25T14:19:39.399-07:002010-06-25T14:19:39.399-07:00Nice breakdown thus far of the situation! In orde...Nice breakdown thus far of the situation! In order to get a solid project conducted, a common design goal needs to be created.<br /><br />DOTers want mobility w/o regard for its impact, and Portlanders and community groups want livability.<br /><br />Within that common and agreeable goal that all are beholden to, both groups can actually come to a solid design decision because they are designing towards that goal and not so much to their given field or area of concern.<br /><br />My personal opinion of the entire project is there are plenty of better highway related projects to work on other than CRC, especially in Portland like the I-5 Rose Garden area as you mentioned. <br /><br />I also do not feel sorry for someone who works in Portland metro area but willingly chooses to live across a body of water (natural choke point) and live in Vancouver instead.<br /><br />I also don't understand the point from a personal budget sense, either. You save a few dollars on your property tax which just gets burned up from transportation costs.wshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747279651073130352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-27375589328735413002010-06-22T17:15:37.669-07:002010-06-22T17:15:37.669-07:00This looks like a synopsis of tolling programs, to...<a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage/history.htm" rel="nofollow">This</a> looks like a synopsis of tolling programs, towards the bottom is a section on federal policy. I didn't see an explicit mention of rail, but it looks likes there are tolling options for HOV lanes.BJCefolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853184790589644682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-65171815853005858642010-06-22T15:35:10.116-07:002010-06-22T15:35:10.116-07:00So they won't toll I-205 because you can't...<em>So they won't toll I-205 because you can't toll an interstate unless it's for capacity improvement. Paradoxically, they will need capacity improvement if they don't impose tolls.</em><br /><br />Pretty much.<br /><br />Given that Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council has decided on BRT for Clack County, including "enhanced bus" service along I-205 from Hazel Dell to the Parkrose Red Line station--perhaps a "capacity improvement" project on the Glenn Jackson bridge--to add a transitway--might be in order? :)<br /><br />Or does capacity improvement mean only for cars?EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-17164066001276866652010-06-22T15:18:39.141-07:002010-06-22T15:18:39.141-07:00So they won't toll I-205 because you can't...So they won't toll I-205 because you can't toll an interstate unless it's for capacity improvement. Paradoxically, they will need capacity improvement if they don't impose tolls.BJCefolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853184790589644682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-59502596224620201402010-06-22T12:03:32.730-07:002010-06-22T12:03:32.730-07:00It seems things are getting more interesting.It seems things are getting more <a href="http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/22/crc-wont-toll-i-205-expert-accidentally-calls-new-tolling-plan-stupid" rel="nofollow">interesting</a>.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-69426184142109837382010-06-22T06:57:10.708-07:002010-06-22T06:57:10.708-07:00Ed speaks of the Supreme Court's 1964 decision...Ed speaks of the Supreme Court's 1964 decision in <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims" rel="nofollow">Reynolds v. Sims</a></em>, which as he notes, requires state legislatures to be allocated based on population. The US Senate is obviously exempt from the ruling, as its form is decreed by the US Constitution itself.<br /><br />Good catch!EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-63158167697279414122010-06-22T05:10:25.288-07:002010-06-22T05:10:25.288-07:00"Many state Senates, . . . assign equal repre..."Many state Senates, . . . assign equal representation to political subdivisions regardless of population; a state of affairs which allows rural interests to dominate;"<br /><br />Actually, this was the case through the 1970s. Since the "one-man-one-vote" ruling by the US Supreme Court, states (and subdivisions) have to assign representation based on equal population. The ruling doesn't apply to the US Senate, and gerrymandering can create results similar to the old system even while creating districts with equal population.<br /><br />Good article otherwise.Ed Hillsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11948492255598760990noreply@blogger.com