Posted on 06/26/2010 2:47:25 PM PDT by Willie Green
Engineers’ assessment is that traffic will require more capacity by 2030
PORTLAND — An eight-lane bridge across the Columbia River would be too small to accommodate future traffic demand unless there is a major increase in the number of drivers deciding to take the bus or avoiding rush hour altogether, according to an engineering firm hired by the city of Portland to consider a smaller Interstate 5 bridge.
Concerned about the mammoth size of the 10-lane Columbia River Crossing currently being proposed, the city wanted to look at a slimmer version.
The engineering firm delivered its assessment Friday during a meeting of the bistate Project Sponsors Council. URS Corp. accounted for anticipated traffic demand in 2030.
“The conclusion that jumped out to us was a capacity issue,” said Ted Rutledge, URS transportation manager based in Denver. “Both northbound and southbound were really at or over capacity. So based on that alone, it’s not going to meet the need.”
However, Rutledge told members of the bistate panel that the project could save $50 million building a slimmer version of the current 10-lane proposal and still meet the multibillion-dollar project’s purpose and need. Bridge planners envision a span striped for 10 lanes but expandable to 12 if needed in the future.
Henry Hewitt, the council’s co-chairman, suggested sending the matter back to city and state transportation planners, who would then deliver a recommendation during the council’s next scheduled meeting on July 16.
Washington members of the council made it clear they were dubious about the eight-lane concept.
URS found that the eight-lane bridge would accommodate only 78 percent of the anticipated traffic demand in 2030. And that assumes the number of people crossing the bridge who ride light rail and buses increases from about 3 percent today to 15 percent in 2030.
Avoiding traffic paralysis on an eight-lane bridge would require aggressive use of carpooling, enhanced bus service and jacking up toll rates from $2 to $3 to suppress rush-hour demand, the firm concluded.
“It’s a big number,” Rutledge said. “There’s no getting around it.”
The concept appeared to be a nonstarter with Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart.
“I don’t consider paying higher tolls for less mobility effective,” he said. “Charging more for less isn’t creating a better cost-benefit for those people who are paying it.”
The project, with a price tag estimated at $2.6 billion to $3.6 billion, would replace twin three-lane drawbridges, improve four miles of I-5 on both sides of the river and extend Portland’s light-rail transit system into Vancouver.
Given the increase in toll rates likely to be necessary to forestall congestion on an eight-lane span in 2030, Washington Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said she’s inclined to drop further consideration of the eight-lane option.
“To constrain people’s ability to work in the region, I think is a problem,” she said.
Hammond’s comments generated a heated exchange with Portland Mayor Sam Adams. The mayor said he takes “serious umbrage” with Hammond’s assertion that aggressive measures to manage demand on the bridge somehow artificially constrain traffic, as if adding freeway lanes were an unquestioned foregone conclusion.
Concrete and asphalt are choices, too. “That’s as much social engineering as a carpool,” added David Bragdon, president of the Portland-area Metro council.
Heck, I bet they already have plans to install sensors in your neighborhood to charge you a toll for backing out of your driveway.
Rip that thing out of your truck so they can't track you down and plunder your bank account.
Then jump on the light-rail bandwagon to help save gas and postpone the coming shortages.
Ah, yes. "Light rail", the government mandated socialist answer to the problem. Face it, nobody wants rail except government planners and their socialist underwriters.
Except in areas of very high population density light rail is a proven money loser.
Doesn’t go where people want to go when people need to be there. Further when they do get to their location they are stuck without a car to get from the rail station to their final destination.
“Then jump on the light-rail bandwagon to help save gas and postpone the coming shortages. “
Al Gore is that you?
Light rail is controlled by unions. These unions would love to be able to shut down a city to extort higher pay. Why should these people get such high pay when tax payers must subsidize them. Light rail will only be viable if we get rid of the unions.
We do have lightrail and it carries 1-2 per trip losing about $250K per month after the 2 Billion initial rat hole. Using the Peoples Republic of Portland as an example is a good choice for you. Perhaps they could build an 8 lane bike bridge?
Pray for America
I don't like that either. In fact, I live in Illinois and pay double because I want to avoid putting such a tracking device in my car. If it were just about tolls, it wouldn't have to be tied to a particular car with a recorded plate, and purchasing could be as anonymous as an international phone card at the 7-11
It's like letting them place a taxi-meter in your personal car, with a direct Internet link to siphon money out of your bank account.
Obviously, we aren't there yet.
But that's definitely the direction that the technology is trending.
We pay extra tolls, too, to avoid having then tracking device. No thanks- I pay cash at toll booths.
Say WA? Evergreen State ping I know my company would frown on that idea. The truck is my paycheck, not my albatross. Light rail wont transport your toilet paper or your blood pressure medications. High speed rail at 150 mph+ might compete effectively with commercial aviation but will require PRIVATE INVESTMENT to make it work. That means not my money nor yours. So Westinghouse IS your employer, right?
So Westinghouse IS your employer, right?
???
No.
I worked there almost 40 years ago the nuclear power division in a summer student engineering program.
But good ol' Circle Bar W has been dead for years: Who killed Westinghouse?
There are still remnants of the business maintaining the brand name, but they're all actually owned by someone else.
If I recall SF Bay Area Rapid Transit cars were produced by Westinghouse in suburban Pgh. If I mis-remembered my apologies.
I still believe that light rail is a boondoggle that horse-drawn trolleys are equivalent to. High speed rail may be the answer but not if it is subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
And keep the two three-lane drawbridges, to provide extra capacity.
Most cities located on a major river have more than one bridge across it. See Pittsburgh, for example. Cincinnati. Or St. Louis. Even New Orleans.
Hell, Astoria, Longview, Pasco and The Dalles have one bridge. Shouldn't Portland have more than one...???
Don’t build the bridge or the rail.
There’s no problem. I don’t have a problem with the traffic. The people in traffic want to be there. It’s quite popular. So, what’s the problem?
Don’t like traffic? Move. Stay. Accept. What ever.
If I recall SF Bay Area Rapid Transit cars were produced by Westinghouse in suburban Pgh. If I mis-remembered my apologies.
No, your memory is OK, that is still one of the Westinghouse "remnants" that I mentioned.
Somewhere along the line, that division became "Adtranz" and was mixed in with DaimlerChrysler for a while, but I think they're part of Bombardier nowadays.
It gets confusing... I'm not even sure I got the full story right.
But that division that made "People Movers" and Pittshburgh's "Skybus" is still located in West Mifflin and I'm pretty sure they're part of Bombardier now. So the might also still be using the Westinghouse name whenever it's appropriate. (service spare parts or whatever)
I think Westinghouse Air Brake (WABCO) is still operating in the Wilmerding section of Pittsburgh, but it looks like that one merged with MotivePower Industries and calls itself Wabtec now.
I still believe that light rail is a boondoggle that horse-drawn trolleys are equivalent to.
I'm certain that Lobbyists for NACS (National Association of Convenience Stores) appreciate your gullibility.
Keep them in mind the next time gas skyrockets at the pump.
There is a way around this problem that on the surface sounds fantastic and improbable, but is actually practical.
In modern airport concourses, there are “moving sidewalks” that efficiently carry a high volume of pedestrian traffic long distances. They are a marvel, because otherwise pedestrians would have to walk several congested blocks, with frequent clogs of groups of people. Instead, there are two moving sidewalks, and a wide, almost empty area between them for anyone else, such as courtesy vehicles.
This could be applied to multi-lane bridges, and would keep traffic flowing at a constant rate of speed.
The two normal middle lanes would be for heavy vehicles, and when traffic was light enough for faster speeds for passenger vehicles. Drivers who went onto the moving lanes would just put their vehicle into neutral, then park, and ride the distance of the bridge. The only oddity would be for special pull out lanes at the end of the bridge, so vehicles with engine problems could coast out of the flow of traffic.
This technique could also be used in bottleneck sections of freeways, that regularly cause traffic jams.
Importantly, in either case, the rolling roads would only be used during times of peak congestion.
Can’t build bridges, need the money to buy new entertainment centers for crack whores squirting out babies
One of the thing that annoys me most about the east is the proliferation of toll roads. That is what gas taxes are for. If a state has toll roads, then they should have no gas tax and vice versa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.