does it make sense to build new bridge FIRST or a new corridor

[archangelrichard]

Look, I-5 was built as a replacement for US 99 through here and the bridge was built for US 99. This put both corridors into a single crossing; which we can see now did not make too much sense in the long run.

We are making the same error now in considering ONLY replacing the bridge - we need an additional corridor. A look at maps has suggested the following:

At I-205, what we now call SR 500 be upgraded as I-105 (an east - west route) which would continue along SR 500's route to near Stapleton then slowly creep north of that alignment AS A FULL FREEWAY along the south of BPA installation crossing I-5, skirting thesouth end of vancouver lake, and continue to cross the Columbia just north of the Williamette crossing US 30 (NEW CORRIDOR TO DOWNTOWN PORTLAND / I-405 bridge on westside) and Continue SOUTH along Cornelius Pass as I-605 crossing US 26 (NEW CORRIDOR TO BEAVERTON/HILLSBORO) and continue south / southeast eventually merging into I-5 near I-205 (NEW CORRIDOR ON METRO PORTLAND WESTSIDE)

This accomplishes several purposes, creates as an integrated transportation solution and provides areas with solutions for growth. It drives an alternative to downtown portland and the I 405 / US 26 mess, would make a better truck route around downtown portland than I-205

Further, if built, it provides a backup crossing for when we do build a replacement I-5 bridge

Personally I think the way the "Columbia Crossing" commission was done simply pushed a done deal - replacing a bridge which does NOT create increased capacity in that corridor, nor will the coming widening in the expo center area help much - the crunch point is the I-5 / I-405 / I-84 merge. A westside crossing gets around that while upgrading US 30 into a full freeway would create that other corridor down the center again for trucks into port of portland and across into port of vancouver.

How about some other creative ideas. This can't be the only one that makes a ton more sense than the bridge replacement.

[Waterbuffalo]

<b>"At I-205, what we now call SR 500 be upgraded as I-105 (an east - west route) which would continue along SR 500's route to near Stapleton then slowly creep north of that alignment AS A FULL FREEWAY along the south of BPA installation crossing I-5, skirting thesouth end of vancouver lake, and continue to cross the Columbia just north of the Williamette crossing US 30 (NEW CORRIDOR TO DOWNTOWN PORTLAND / I-405 bridge on westside) and Continue SOUTH along Cornelius Pass as I-605 crossing US 26 (NEW CORRIDOR TO BEAVERTON/HILLSBORO) and continue south / southeast eventually merging into I-5 near I-205 (NEW CORRIDOR ON METRO PORTLAND WESTSIDE)"</b>

Sounds like a good idea to start. But I would say this idea has been tried in different fashions over the past 20 years and shot down for various reasons.

Maybe an SR-500 from Leverich Park to Scapoose or something that your proposing might work.

<b>"Further, if built, it provides a backup crossing for when we do build a replacement I-5 bridge

Personally I think the way the "Columbia Crossing" commission was done simply pushed a done deal - replacing a bridge which does NOT create increased capacity in that corridor, nor will the coming widening in the expo center area help much - the crunch point is the I-5 / I-405 / I-84 merge. A westside crossing gets around that while upgrading US 30 into a full freeway would create that other corridor down the center again for trucks into port of portland and across into port of vancouver.

How about some other creative ideas. This can't be the only one that makes a ton more sense than the bridge replacement."</b>

The problem with this thought of "NOT" replacing the Interstate 5 bridges is one of those bridges in 10 years will be 100 years old and the other will be near 60 years old soon. Combine these bridges together on the same pilings that are under quicksand and roughed, scored out channels from the years the bridges have been in the river, they honestly need to be replaced.

Its not like we don't need both ideas archangelrichard but I think no one will allow any such bridge system to be build over Vancouver Lake Lowlands or near the steigerwald/Ridgefield wildlife refuge.

[Chief]

The bottom line is that any proposal that leaves the existing Interstate bridges in place is dead on arrival at the Washington State line, because:

** It will cost as much to retrofit the existing bridges to current seismic standards as it will to replace them.

** WSDOT, RTC, Clark County, The City of vancouver, et al, will not pay to maintain the existing bridges.

** Leaving the last set of lift spans on an Interstate in the nation is not acceptable.

** Alternative 14 has been considered repeatedly, and rejected repeatedly, and has never been endorsed by any authority on this side of the river, and likely never will be.

[Waterbuffalo]

SR_14, SR-500 to Scapoose, running a bridge over West Hayden Island up the Vancouver side and with its accouterments (this was talked about for the past 20+ years and its Dead in the water..)

All of thse ideas run over the Port of Vancouver or Port of Portland and guess what they are generally going to say if one of these behemoths runs over their valuable port facilities? Unless there is some common sense, they'll never go for it.

And Chief's statements are correct, right now our focus is on the I-5 interchange system and the two bridges it encompasses.

Do you think the Northwest, Lincoln and Fruit Valley neighborhoods are going to allow a huge bridge or traffic system like I-5 on 39th street to the vancouver lake lowlands and on to scapoose? They're all ready being hit with a 1200+ space cadet garage, more traffic funneled up I-5, Light Rail and many other fine improvements.

Does any one think with a sane mind these NA would go with that?

[tefen]

I'm unsure where the jump from SR-500 to Vancouver Lake occurs. From the sounds of it, either through the Lincoln Neighborhood on 39th or through the Burnt Bridge Creek wetlands.

I must admit that when looking at a map of the region, there's a definite break in the outer freeway ring between Beaverton Hillsboro and Vancouver. However, completing that ring could prove difficult politically.

[Waterbuffalo]

Tefen, The outer ring in so many different forms has been discussed in Clark County over the years. Even in my limited historical knowledge, I remember discussions on it.

One of the ways you could do it is run the corridor along 39th street or 78 th street down their hills and over the lake.

But the whole problem, is that lake.. Both politically and an engineers disaster. if you read my other threads I have posted to Richard, you'll see why I mean what I say here so I don't have to repeat it again..

Tefen from all the plans I have read in the past 24 hours about a separate freeway or corridor in some form on the west side has always come down to the politics of either crossing Vancouver Lake, Ridefield/Steigerwald NWR or run up Fruit Valley Road from the Columbia River to its interconnection with Lake Shore Drive and every exit from Mill Plain to 179th street has been discussed here at Clarkblog or in public meetings/discussions. And for one reason or the other they have been killed as bad ideas.

Something Chief said makes sense to me through all of these discussions, any of the above ideas are DOA at the Washington State line along the Columbia River at any point because we are not going to lose our wonderful treasure on the west side just because of some inconvenience for a driver. This feeling IMO also extends to Sauvie island, Hayden Island, Vancouver Lake and Scapoose. or any community along that area.

Does one think that all of these Columbia River communities or special interest groups are not going to scream bloody murder over these ideas? Please also include all of the Ports in Clark and Multnomah Counties who lives depend on the boats that come up the river and that one of the bridge ideas would block the ships coming up river to call on them. And also block the ships going up to the Rose Parade Festivities.

ArchangelRichard had one good idea with his Jersey Barrier movement. It was tried here in Portland a little while ago. Tefen, do you remember this idea? (jersey barrier is basically those movable cement barriers..)

[Chief]

The only way this would make sense....

Take a regional map of Oregon and Washington, and if you lay a ruler between roughly Longview on one end, and Salem on the other, and draw a straight line between the two, there is the shortest possible route for an alternative I-5 bypass that runs through Columbia County, and through Washington County just about at Forest Grove or so, on the other side of Hillsboro.

Construction of such a "bypass" might make Alternative 14 more attractive in some ways, but we are talking about untold Billions worth of design, property acquisitions (hostile or outright purchase), not to mention decades of design and construction. All of that may be worth talking about some day.....

But not at the expense of I-5 or the Columbia Crossing.

[archangelrichard]

This is exactly the problem. Certain people have fixated on the I-5 replacement first - and is that the best idea?

FACT. We know we need a westside freeway sooner or later. All the arguments about this community or that, this location or that just kind of fade away when you realize this is not an "if" question but a "when" question. Something will be built. Lets face it - Vancouver lake is going to be crossed in some way at some time

FACT: if we make it sooner it helps move traffic off the I-5 bridge, especially during construction

FACT: the I-5 bridge and therefore the corridor will be DOWN during construction

FACT: any I-5 bridge will NOT add lanes to the corridor, especially in the I-5, I-405, I-84, US 26 merger area which is where the traffic is. A westside freeway will.

FACT: ANY I-5 bridge can be damaged during an earthquake. Keeping all our eggs in that basket is incredibly foolish.

NOTE: I don't know where anyone got the idea that this would be anywhere near 39th street. Again, I said skirting the south side of BPA which puts it in the high 50's low 60's. There is an existing BPA alignment (which is probably too narrow.) This is further north, north of the islands (which is why I said "continue to cross the Columbia just north of the Williamette" in the original post. This is North of the Port of Vancouver.

NOTE: in the Vancouver lake area the freeway / bridge would be elevated and rising to climb above river traffic minimizing it's impact (OK, I'm from Phoenix and that's how freeway's end up being built when you are in sensitive environments - above them.)

NOTE: I had never heard of "Jersey Barrier". The Golden Gate (for those who read my post) uses Lighted Orange Cones with a stud on the bottom that fits into a hole in the roadway so they can be easily moved

What is gets down to is we really really need a new corridor RIGHT NOW much more than a new bridge RIGHT NOW.

Reading these posts (which is why I started these threads) I am struck by just how many times I have to repeat what was in the original posts because people are going off in the direction of criticizing not what I said but what they have heard before. Worse thre is an almost religious fixation that the I-5 bridge must be replaced first and nothing can stand in its way and this fixation removes any smart build option - that is why the majority of the public ends up going with the no-build option as they are tired of an effete elite making these take-no-prisoners choices. It was a question not of whether to replace the I-5 bridge (that has to be done at some time) but whether it makes more sense to build an integrated system of a freeway with a bridge elsewhere FIRST that takes traffic OFF THE I-5 CORRIDOR and use that as a backup during construction as well - which could reduce those construction costs. In another post I was suggesting the cheaper alternative of building one wider bridge with movable cones to make lanes flexible so you effectively get more lanes out of the bridge AND integrate the idea of transit on the bottom but with the single wider freeway you solve the issue of access to get to an accident And again I had to repeat the original post as some kept confusing the single surface with the idea that the bridge I was using as an example was a suspension bridge.

This is going to sound mad / bad / negative but so be it. I was taught, as a child, to build arguments by quotes and facts; when someone referred to geography, "quote" (refer to) the map. I don't see that happening here, I don't see objectivity, I don't see scientific thinking. I see prejudgment, I see an effete attitude that "we know what's right", I see an "idee fixe" on the I-5 bridge that excludes all rational thought, any alternative. To be fair I could have included a very rough map to illustrate this thinking (I have here) but I thought that referencing landmarks was good enough justy as I thought in my other post about 'why insist on a 2 bridge design ...' that saying "ignore that it is a suspension bridge" meant IGNORE THAT IT IS A SUSPENSION BRIDGE. This "idee fixe"seems to trump reading comprehension as all the responses kept referencing that it was a suspension bridge.

People, basic rule of thumb about blogs - if you are not going to read the d$!m thing, don't respond; it only makes you look foolish. Remember,no one can make you look like a fool, that is something you have to do all by yourself. The best anyone else can hope to do is point out just how well you have accomplished this (and IN PRINT! How embarrassing for you.)

If you go back and read my original posts, both in this topic and the others, you can respond to those. They are only ideas. You won't insult me by criticizing them logically, with facts, You only insult yourselves when you can't read the original post and go off in a different direction, especially in print where everyone can read it.

[karma]

Come on here, you are getting closer to the new route through Felida, heck how about a bridge over the top of the City of Couver??

[archangelrichard]

its by no means exact but it shows the purpose that I stated in my first post - to connect I 205 to hillsboro / US 26 bypassing I 5, I 405, and US 26 downtown portland; provide access to US 30 as an alternate into downtown portland, allow seattle to L.A. traffic to bypass downtown portland entirely and go I 5 through the new route back to I 5

A bridge over the top of Couve does not support traffic FROM couve; only the Seattle - L.A. crowd

[Chief]

MEMBER TEMPORARILY BANNED (24 HOURS)

Congratulations Dick. You've earned yourself a 24 hour timeout. I reccommend that you reconsider your tone and tactics when you come here and post at my site. I will not tolerate your rude manners here. Come back tomorrow, and you can try again to be civil.

[tefen]

To explain why I said 39th or Burnt Bridge wetlands:

39th is where SR-500 currently connects with I-5, drawing a line directly west of that runs down 39th, one block from my house, of course I would be concerned.

The Burnt Bridge wetlands I mentioned because richard mentioned the BPA property. There's a natural valley there that's feeds directly over from the BPA to the Vancouver Lake area, with few homes in the way.


I must admit, I hadn't really considered the BPA powerlines as a possible path. I think it poses some more engineering problems in crossing the Burnt Bridge Creek area than other options, the powerlines go down into that valley and back up quite steeply. It also cuts through several neighborhoods and parks. Another, more political, challenge.


I think it's interesting that Richard has drawn a path out to Cornelius Pass over Sauvie Island. I don't think the "Option 14" was even proposing that. It was focused on following the train route, wasn't it?

[Chief]

I can't recall the specifics of what Alternative 14 calls for, but it's close to what Dick mapped out. Essentially they want to connect the Port of Vancouver with the Port of Portland and end up over on SR-30.

Again, that may have some merit, but it is NOT a substitute for replacing the I-5 bridges.

Again, not one single Government entity from Washington State has ever found any merit whatsoever in this plan, any of the times it has been considered. And it has been considered plenty! Sharon Nassett has been at every public meeting she can attend from RTC to the Clark County Commissioners, pimping some aspect of her plan. Right now she is focused on redifining the Bridge Impact Area, while we are considering the Locally preferred Alternative.

Sharon has a whole website devoted to this madness, and it's obvious that since she can't get hits on her stuff there, she's sending her flying monkeys over to play "Pimp my Alternative" at Clarkblog.

Apples compared to Atomic Bombs. Both start with an "A", but have nothing in common beyond that...

[karma]

This route isn't going to see the light of day due to the redevelopment down there and the environmental concerns. Plus this is a straight shot North and South for a corridor of traffic?? Beside this area isn't safe for a transportation cooridor??

[tefen]

Just for the sake of giving this fair consideration. <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=45.645728,-122.752991&spn=0.092525,0.22934&t=h&z=13&om=1&msid=100236860735977085239.0004411aa635c68258be5">Here's a map with some possible paths overlaying satellite images.</a>

I made some changes. Lets assume that SR-500 has a ramp that converges with northbound I-5 and then SR-500 splits off again around the BPA. (That way you don't plow through the Minnehaha neighborhood just to get to the BPA.)

I think the biggest problem is then the first mile or two going from I-5 out past Fruit Valley Road.

I see two possibilities, running up the Burnt Bridge Creek waterway to the Fruit Valley area. That has environmental concerns, but there are very few property owners in that valley. Of course, the people on top of the hills on either side bought for the views....

The second is closer to Richard's suggestion which is to follow the power lines. In that suggestion you would climb to the top of the hill at Hazel Dell and then take off to the side and cross the valley then cut through the Northwest neighborhood. It's more direct, but a much harder task, in my opinion. You've got got several significant elevation changes (down, up and back down again) and a lot of property owners and ab established neighborhood along the route.

After that first mile, the property becomes large plots of industrial and farm land all the way across Sauvie Island and even along Cornelius Pass into Hillsboro.

Rather than thinking about this as "instead of" the I-5 bridge, what does everyone think of the possiblity of something like this occurring at some point in the future? Maybe in addition to the CRC project.

[Waterbuffalo]

Tefen, Nice ideas..

The Burnt bridge creek trail idea might work, but like you said there is going to be environmental concerns. But doesn't the county all ready own the tracks and right of way along one of those ridges on the west end of your idea? There is also a train along the south side of that ridge that could be used for Light Rail or some other form of transport too.

The problem with this site is probably going to be a lot of environmental degradation and costs associated with it. Plus there was some storm water runoff fees for the past 20 years that were used to try to clean up that waterway that holds the old Chelatchie Prairie Railroad (now owned by the county) and a nice walking trail.

There have been many discussion of putting a heavy rail commuter line through that valley before and the discussions never went any where because no one had the money to pay for such an idea. But may be in the future with two hundred thousand more people may be enough will power and government support for such an idea.

Plus your correct, people above those bluffs, bought their homes for the view and reductions of noise. If there was ever any idea to run a highway along Fruit Valley Road or this idea through, property values for those places would sink because of it.

But i love the ideas of discussing this? :-)

Running the train via BPA right of way would have to get approval from them and sounds kind of dangerous running around or near those power lines of mega power flowing in them. Also your idea in Northwest neighborhood includes a park overlooking Fruit Valley and Vancouver lake isn't going to be given up too easily.

But like you said, both of these could be serious opportunities to help things out.

[tefen]

Just a note: Not my idea.

I really just elaborated on Richard's idea.

[Waterbuffalo]

Answering Richards comments: Since Chief is being kind to let me respond to this since both him and I have attended nearly two years of the Task Force meetings and our selves a little ticked at this process, let me help you out understand some things..

"This is exactly the problem. Certain people have fixated on the I-5 replacement first - and is that the best idea?

FACT. We know we need a westside freeway sooner or later. All the arguments about this community or that, this location or that just kind of fade away when you realize this is not an "if" question but a "when" question. Something will be built. Lets face it - Vancouver lake is going to be crossed in some way at some time

FACT: if we make it sooner it helps move traffic off the I-5 bridge, especially during construction

FACT: the I-5 bridge and therefore the corridor will be DOWN during construction"

The first thing that has to be noted about your facts are that unless your a bridge engineer that can prove any of this in my eyes, all your statements here should be noted as personal opinion.

I do agree with your comments about Washington and Oregon needing a third crossing to Oregon. But what not understand is what your stating is not politically feasible to do here.

Where you noted your lines through Minnehaha as I see it in in the middle of an urban growth boundary and the City of Vancouver is not going to allow you to build a freeway, SR-500 style or any thing considerable of that size right in the middle of this stretch of land.

Take a look at Padden Expressway about 4 miles to the north? Do you know how it took for the county to get the will, money and time to build that? From my memory it was near 50 years in this community to build that road. It might be better for you to link your idea off Padden expressway, 99th street or many other locations than right through the area your proposing.

On your last comment in your series of Facts, The new Columbia River Crossing will be built either "AROUND" the current bridges or upstream/downstream locations. So your statement that the I-5 bridges will be down is nothing short of either ignorance or just a lack of knowledge about the I-5 partnership and many other discussion like the CRCP that have gone on for the last 20 years or more.

"FACT: any I-5 bridge will NOT add lanes to the corridor, especially in the I-5, I-405, I-84, US 26 merger area which is where the traffic is. A westside freeway will."

The problem with this fact is its opinion based on your own personal judgement. There will be extra lanes through the area.. But from my experience of living here in Vancouver is that eventually all the lanes of I-5 will be filled soon into the future.


"FACT: ANY I-5 bridge can be damaged during an earthquake. Keeping all our eggs in that basket is incredibly foolish.

NOTE: I don't know where anyone got the idea that this would be anywhere near 39th street. Again, I said skirting the south side of BPA which puts it in the high 50's low 60's. There is an existing BPA alignment (which is probably too narrow.) This is further north, north of the islands (which is why I said "continue to cross the Columbia just north of the Willamette" in the original post. This is North of the Port of Vancouver.

NOTE: in the Vancouver lake area the freeway / bridge would be elevated and rising to climb above river traffic minimizing it's impact (OK, I'm from Phoenix and that's how freeway's end up being built when you are in sensitive environments - above them.)"

Your idea of running a freeway along the BPA ROW is going to get through the Current Mayor who lives less than a 1/2 mile from your idea of running a free way along the BPA ROW. So this idea won't go any farther than your own imagination.

Also there is an "ACTIVE" wildlife refuge just to the north of this proposed area and the birds fly right through your proposed idea.

Even if you built your idea on concrete stilts through this area, your still going to have to deal with flooding that happens from time to time through this area, Richard.

"NOTE: I had never heard of "Jersey Barrier". The Golden Gate (for those who read my post) uses Lighted Orange Cones with a stud on the bottom that fits into a hole in the roadway so they can be easily moved"

This might idea might actually work..

You have seen the Jersey barriers before if you have driven I-5 or 205 before. Its a common way to separate traffic here in Oregon and Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier

Here is an example of what I am talking about Richard in case your lurking. This was loaded into a movable machine that moved them from one lane to another.

<snipped the rest to save all of the readers minds..>

[Waterbuffalo]

Just a note: Not my idea.

I really just elaborated on Richard's idea.

I did like some of his ideas after he explained it. But I liked your ideas about doing some of this through the Burnt Bridge creek area and some other stuff.

Though I don't think any of the ideas are open.. But hey, there is always a place to discuss it..