I 205's Glenn Jackson bridge has two lanes shut down today. Traffic is gridlocked all over town as a result. How anyone can argue that we don't need a bigger and better bridge is beyond me. Just look at what closing 2 lanes is causing.
The lane closures have been known for quite some time. Everyone was asking people to make preparations ahead of time. Here's one such notification:
http://c-tran.com/alerts/detail/id/97
As for the bridge itself, it's an environmental justice/community enhancement issue. And, it won't directly help I-205 traffic anyway.
The proposed Columbia River Crossing will also most likely have a high toll associated with it, which isn't likely to help Veterans Memorial Hwy./I-205 and Banfield/I-84 traffic and will probably simply make it worse. There are also serious discussions of tolling both bridges once any new I-5 bridge opens.
Additionally, North Portland residents don't want to see extra freeway lanes come across the Columbia, which would probably lead to extra freeway lanes on I-5 between the bridge and Rose Quarter. Add the Vancouver residents who've organized in opposition to light rail expansion, and the bridge is a design for absolute disaster.
Finally, if the new I-5 bridge is built, where is all the traffic going to go when they have to close I-5 to tie in the new bridge with the rest of the freeway? Sounds like more gridlock on I-205.
This has been studied over and over again, and a full dissertation of impacts is best left to either an in-person community forum, or another website where they specialize in traffic debates.
Edit: Brian's post which was probably done while I was writing mine, reminds me that Spokane is building a new freeway to replace Division St. as the main north/south route.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/
Of course they're also lucky in the sense that there's only one small river running through their metro area, no port operations, and the state line is on dry ground.
From what I've seen, the new I-5 bridge would basically be built AROUND the existing bridges (yes, there's two of them) ... and once the new span is operational, they take out the old ones.
The one thing I think EVERYONE can agree on is that there needs to be a new I-5 bridge.
And while I personally hate tolls, I don't see the big issue here. It would pay for itself pretty quickly ...
A new I-5 bridge is essential, but unless Portland expands I-5 south of the new bridge, the problem will not go away. Any new bridge on the I-5 corridor will require agreement between OR and WA on improving I-5...moreso on the Oregon side, where it is most needed. Unfortunately, this would likely involve removing many residents, something that would be fought about for years, or decades.
Yeah, that's my problem with an expansion. I don't see a material impact on the traffic throughput without really tearing into I-5, running through well established structures.
re: Tolls, the only toll I would even come close to supporting, is one with a firm end date on it, and one not administered by a private corporation, who will have the term of the toll to figure out how to convince people to just keep paying. If we do a toll that way, then it will actually pay for itself, and go away once that is done. Anything else is just not worth the hassle.
So many tolls on the east coast work that way, and often the corporation making the money, is a foreign one, profiting from a deal where a State was desperate enough for income to sell it's own people out for 100 years or something.
Unless federal dollars come floating our way, I'm less and less interested in the new bridge these days. I'd say we wait until the older Interstate bridge pulls a Sellwood, because perhaps by then people may have wised up with urban planning (living near where your work, shop and play). We may find ourselves not needing it.
As for the traffic problems -- deal with it. It wasn't my idea to elect someone (twice) to empty our bank account on an imaginary war.
I'd like to see a 3rd bridge that could/would take some of the load off of both the existing bridges.
I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be though.
Maybe a continuation of 192nd street across the river and tie int I84??? Just a thought.
Building a new bridge with the same amount of traffic lanes but adding bike and light rail is a serious waste of money.
Thinking people will move next to where they work, shop, and play is a pipe dream that won't happen because people do not play near where they work in large enough numbers to make that much difference. This is not New York City. This is the west. People like their room and where they are, generally. They like to play at the coast, in the mountains, the desert, etc.
I agree with Missing..about tolls. Illinois say they need the tolls to maintain the roads. Yet, as soon as you leave Illinois, the same roads where there are no tolls are in better shape. And easier travelled. I have been driving in Wisconsin/Illinois every year since 1993 and I have never had a smooth interstate ride in Illinois. You can tell when you cross the border into Wisconsin. You don't need signs.
Here in Florida, when a new toll road(408) was built through Orlando, resident were told that tolls on the privately-owned road would end by a certain date. Well, that date came and went several years ago. And the tolls remain. While the roads are well maintained, the fact remains that residents were told tolls would go away, but, in fact, there's no sign of those tolls ever going away.
If I still lived in Portland, I would not support construction of a bridge that did not include a specific date when tolls would end.
No one in authority has suggested tolls would end on the new bridge - in fact, the tolls are considered dual purpose: not just to raise revenue but to discourage traffic ("use the new light rail instead"). An opponent of the new bridge suggested that if tolling would discourage traffic on the bridge, why not start tolling NOW?
I do not support tolls - that's an east coast thing I don't miss. It's not even clear to me why we need to dump the existing two bridges if we build a new one - too expensive to maintain? Why not leave the existing bridges as a local access to downtown Vancouver - maybe run light rail and local traffic between Janzten Beach over them? Then the new bridge could be totally cars and less expensive to build and design.
If the real need for a bridge is to support the rush hour commuters from Vancouver to Portland, perhaps it would make more sense to find ways to encourage workers to move to Portland or businesses to move to Vancouver? The reason people live in Washington and work in Oregon is that it's easy and (despite having to pay Oregon income tax) financially practical. If it wasn't, workers would move to Portland or businesses would move north.
If we are going to do that dual purpose thing, why even bother with the new bridge?
Seems to me, that's all just a bait 'n switch. A model project on the West Coast, IN OREGON, that has a toll of that type would be a huge win. We are being manupulated with this project.
I don't support that at all.
"....and I have never had a smooth interstate ride in Illinois."
I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 5 years before coming out here in '95.
Jimbo, I'm sure you meant in the Chicago area (and east as far as Rockford on I-90) not all of Illinois!
As soon as you get out of the Chicago area the highways are fine and roll smoothly.
In the Chicago Metro area, the highways are USELESS unless you want to go downtown. Sometimes there are miles and miles between exits and entrances.
Here you can get on and off the freeway at will and they actually are useful for getting from point A to point B.
Missing, we DON"T need a "model" project. We all know that is just double speak (not necessarily on your part though) for a politician designed MONEY GRAB.
What we need is something that will actually improve traffic flow between WA and OR not something that the politicians can beat their chests and say "Look how good I did".
It was doublespeak on my part. Agreed. It's a money grab, and a potentially lucrative corporate entitlement for somebody, depending on how it might all go. Knowing Oregon, they would get the corporate part right, and not let some company from France own and profit from our public road, but they would gladly see the toll as a nice, new, fresh revenue source, with a lot of potential.
No thanks on any of it so far.
Anderew says:
"It's not even clear to me why we need to dump the existing two bridges if we build a new one - too expensive to maintain? Why not leave the existing bridges as a local access to downtown Vancouver - maybe run light rail and local traffic between Janzten Beach over them? Then the new bridge could be totally cars and less expensive to build and design."
Or how about adding a third and perhaps, forth bridge of the same design as the other two? It just seems silly to tear down a couple of reasonably decent structures to build a very expensive new one... are they in poor condition?
Don't forget that the I-5 bridge is an intersection of many transportation modes, the two biggest being auto traffic and ship traffic. Right now, large ships and cars can't use the space at the same time, with the need to raise the bridge. During high water like we have now, I imagine the lift is getting a good workout (and traffic jams are more frequent than usual). There are a few reasons to build a new bridge:
-High enough so it doesn't obstruct ship traffic as it does now.
-Bigger so that it can accommodate more vehicle traffic
-Allow it to properly accommodate bicycle and mass transit (both growing modes of transportation).
-Build a seismically safe bridge (probably impossible to do with the age/design of the current bridge)
Just remember that the new I-5 bridge is not just about shuttling commuters. There are other very valid reasons to scrap the existing bridge and build a new one.
Leave it to a traffic planner (an oxymoron in this area) to try and sell something that costs too much and doesn't really fix the problem. And the powers in charge really don't want to solve the problem. They just want their pet projects done.
Having said that, without fixing the north Portland I-5 bottleneck, making a bigger bridge would just make things worse. Traffic planners in this area don't make plans to keep traffic moving, they want to make it more difficult so as to make you want to get out of your car and take the highly subsidized mass transit or, if Blumenauer had his way, Vancouverites would ride their bikes across the bridge and jump on the Max line.
Skybill, yes you are mostly correct. I do believe you meant "west" to Rockford, however, on I-90. Actually, it does improve the closer you get to Rockford and even after the big curve to the North about the State Street exit (the one with the Bell Tower) but it is still not the best until you hit Wisconsin and it makes an immediate improvement.
You are correct. Chicago is the pits. I-80 across Illinois is just fine (non toll) until you get near Chicago. I think they have finally finished that big interchange just south of Chicago before you hit Indiana and the toll turnpike. But, in Indiana, you get a ticket when you start and don't pay anything until you get off or go into Ohio. In Illinois you used to pay about 5 times from Ohare to Rockford. Now I think it is down to maybe 3 (higher cost per booth). Also, I-35(?) from I-80 to Rockford doesn't have a toll and when I used it last year, it was fine. And then there is I-94 north to Wisconsin. Same thing. clackety clackety clack all the way to Wisconsin then smooth. They have been working on that one though. Particularly up near Gurnee.
We had a toll on the Interstate Bridge here until it was paid off. At that time, they took the tolls off.
I agree that tolls are just another source of revenue for districts that still overspend.
Maybe we should put a toll back on US26 to Mt. Hood and charge everyone a toll to go skiing. And while we're at it, put one at the entrance/exit to the tunnel on US26 for all cars going east and west there. Use that money to build Sam's bicycle lanes to nowhere that very few people use, such as out in Lents.
Having spent some time in the Chicago suburbs myself, I will say that for the most part the free interstate system inside the 290/294 ring are less than desirable. However, there are suburban expressways (a more common term in Chicagoland, above mentioned 294, and 355, as examples, that are in excellent condition, and yes, they are tolled.)
bicycle lanes to nowhere that very few people use,
A mindset like this is exactly why the new bridge should not be built yet. Wait 15 years and see where we're at urban transit-wise. At the very least, many old goats will have died off leaving things in the hands of people more in tune with the needs of the future.
edselhr, one interstate bridge is 50 years older than the other, so the newer one ought to last another 50 years.
Yes skep and with proper maintenance both should last another 100 years - **assuming we don't have a big quake**. My comment was about seismic capability, not longevity. I assume you agree with the rest of my points.
Ah, the ol' "toll" bridge concept again. That's still on the table? Heck, I remember that scenerio being brought up when I ran for 'Couve City Council in '94. Most of us who lived downtown were only thrilled about a new bridge because it possibly brought a Max with it, and that meant our property values would get even nicer.
The "toll" concept was put into effect up here out in a suburb areas of Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and more. The recent bridge put up was geared by the area government to help take pressure off of the Port Mann bridge (Hwy 1) that usually looks like the I-5 bridges from 3:30 to 6pm, except add 8 more hours at various times throughout the day.
The new "toll" bridge has been open some months now and the highway department just announced that they are going to lower the toll as hardly anyone will use it. Yes, most would rather sit in line for no toll than take the paying bridge.
Everytime I drive south, I keep guessing to see if there will be any changes to the terrain. LOL
My comment was about seismic capability,
Do you know what the capability for the Glenn Jackson bridge? I'm assuming more thought went into that during the design phase than when the Marquam bridge was planned.
If "the big one" hits and the Glenn Jackson bridge survives, then it's an ok trade off. We'll have other matters more pressing if the interstate bridge gets knocked down.
Does anybody have a number for the % of time that the interstate bridge(s) are unavailable due to river traffic?
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/faced_with_nightmarish_weekend.html
Oregon transportation officials today scrapped their summer construction schedule for the Glenn Jackson Bridge, saying chain-reaction weekend traffic jams caused by lane closures on the Columbia River span have been worse than anyone anticipated.
For nearly two months, excluding Memorial Day weekend and part of last Saturday for Rose Festival traffic, ODOT has closed two northbound lanes from Friday night to Monday morning for the $5.2 million project.
As a result, weekend travelers have seen nightmarish, trickling gridlock on I-205, I-84, I-5 and many side streets. Some motorists have reported being stuck in traffic for more than an hour as they crossed the 2.25 mile Glenn Jackson.
ODOT traffic studies during the weekend closures found that the worst gridlock has happened between noon and 5 p.m. on I-205. “The traffic has beyond what we find acceptable,” Wurfel said.
Solution -- the Clark county people can just stay on their side of the river until the bridge is fixed. With the high unemployment rate in Clark county, its likely very few Portlanders are headed over there to work.
The thing is, the work is going to have to be performed at some point. Back in September 1997 they shut down one of the two Interstate Bridges at a time. There were months of announcements, telling people that if everyone continued to drive in the same manner as they always do, I-5 would be in gridlock around the clock northbound starting in Wilsonville and southbound in Woodland. That didn't happen because people made other arrangements.
If a chunk of the bridge falls into the Columbia River (hope to God that doesn't happen), everyone will be pointing fingers at everyone else for why maintenance wasn't being done.
Toll it during construction. Then keep the toll.
Ummm why don't they just do the construction at NIGHT? Like they're doing on I-5 between Lombard and Jantzen Beach now? Or like when they re-paved I-84 a few years back? Shut down two lanes after 10pm, re-open them at 5am.
Especially during the summer, when you have a lot of people going across the river to do outdoor activities, the splash-and-gigglers, the weekend traffic will be heavier. It just makes more sense to do it at night.
I assume construction at night costs much more - don't you have to pay workers more for working third shift? And who has the tax revenue for that?
Well, what's more cost effective - having it done during the week, at night, and having the project completed much sooner, and without the congestion nightmare ... Or having it done during weekend days only and fucking up BOTH crossings into Clark County?
I think the issue here is that they're talking WEEKS for the new concrete to cure. They have to maintain lane closure until the concrete is cured.
Brian, it may still cost the government less to endure huge traffic jams and do the construction during the day. Taxpayers of course aren't willing to pay more to get the construction done in a more effective way, but if there are traffic issues you better believe they complain...
What good will a new 6 lane bridge do? NONE! When the arterials through Portland are at one point only two lanes you will only be adding more Coke into a bottle with a longer neck that has the same size opening. When you turn it upside down it will still flow at the same rate.
Just look at the I-205 bridge for example. Rush hour into Vancouver flows fairly well until Mill Plain where it is reduced to three lanes, then further slowing at the SR-500 interchange until finally stop and go at the 83rd street exit were it becomes 2 lanes.
I still think a 3rd crossing at 164th or 192nd would be a better use of the funds as both Vancouver and Portland East counites are where the biggest growth is currently taking place on both sides of the river.
And if the airport wasn't in the way you could drop in another bridge that could join Hwy-14 up to Lombard midway between I-5 and I-205.
"And if the airport wasn't in the way you could drop in another bridge"
Tunnel under it!!! 
And the river!!!
I read today that they're using a temp sealer so the repaired surface can be driven on while the concrete is curing.
Why dont we have our own version of the Holland Tunnel ?
From Delta Park to Fort Vancouver. Cheap at half the price..!! Slightly higher North of the Columbia.
The interstate Tunnel .. and they can dig it with all traffic continuing normally on I-5 during the time of construction. And we can have kiosks along the way for emergency call out stations , or better yet, cell towers underground for convenience and safety.
Everyone should just take to the air in one of these if ground traffic backs up:
http://www.aerocarforsale.com/images/aerocar.wmv
http://www.aerocarforsale.com/images/Aerocar%201962%20KISN%20Air%20Watch%20plane%20flying-g.jpg
You must log in to post.
