The Columbia River Crossing (connecting Washington and Oregon) is the most ‘endangered’ major infrastructure project in the U.S., according to this report in Governing:
1. Columbia River Crossing
This joint Oregon-Washington project, which could cost up to $3.5 billion, would replace the existing Columbia River bridge that connects Portland to the suburb of Vancouver, Wash. … It’s viewed as an important investment in the region’s economy, since the more than $40 billion of freight crossing the existing bridge each year is increasingly facing delays due to congestion.
The next 18 months will be critical. That’s when both states’ legislatureswill hammer out many of the details of financing the project, which includes a tolling component. Officials hope to begin construction next year. But already, some are starting to balk at the cost.
A report last year from the Oregon state treasurer suggested the project may have overestimated its revenue projections from tolling by as much as $598 million. As a response, the project team has put together a scenario that would postpone about $140 million worth of improvements to the Oregon interchanges. Meanwhile, the project relies on $1.25 billion in federal funds, which are by no means assured, given Congress’ focus on spending reductions. If that money doesn’t come through, it “may require rethinking of the overall project scope, timeline and financing plan,” according to the treasurer’s report
David Goodyke sends along an alternative proposal:
Responding to the myriad of criticisms that have been leveled against the Columbia River Crossing Light Rail Tolling project (CRC), urban design architect George Crandall and mass transit advocate Jim Howell have developed a plan that they have labeled the Common Sense Alternative (CSA). The pair first joined forces in the early 1970s to help kill the Mount Hood Freeway—a large Department of Transportation construction initiative that many grassroots activists considered ill-advised.
.
Perhaps they’ll learn something from our experience when Port Mann opens later this year, and we see how how the predictions match the reality.
I think I read that Federal funding cannot be used for “local” projects – i.e. the arterial road bridge to Hayden Island and the arterial road bridge to Vancouver, WA.
Another question that comes to mind – how would the residents near the existing rail bridge like to see train traffic intensified and also have a new truck highway (including access routes) built next to it? I could see NIMBY protests (versus building in the existing I-5 corridor.
So the CRC is much like the Port Mann. The Port Mann will serve double duty as both a freeway bridge and an arterial road bridge. The express lanes will be the freeway aspect, and the collector lanes will be the arterial road aspect. The express lanes will not exit to Coquitlam, nor to Surrey (although you can enter the express lanes directly on each side).
I suppose that’s better than asking TransLink to build an inter-municipal bridge – or asking the affected municipalities – Coquitlam and Surrey – to cooperate and fund construction of a local arterial road bridge (although there is some precedent, as Richmond built the No. 2 Rd bridge (although technically, it is wholly within Richmond) and Vancouver built its False Creek bridges.
Actually, there are very few if any residents who would be affected by the new rail/truck bridge in this proposal, and while the funding aspect is a good question, there is already doubt as to whether that federal funding will come through for any project at all. I for one would rather a solution such as this, which spreads out the impact and allows for much more multi-model transportation than simply cars, than the solution that we are seeing for the Port Mann, which is, like the Columbia River Crossing plan, more freeway expansion than bridge and will have destructive long-term consequences for our region when it’s built.
Arguably, our transportation options’ impacts have already been spread out – as the SkyBridge provides a rapid transit crossing across the Fraser River and is not co-located at Port Mann.
The heavy rail bridge in New Westminster definitely creates a bottleneck, though (preventing expansion of the Cascades train service)
I love how every new bridge has rail, motor vehicle, wide cycle and pedestrian paths. I think this is great. (It appears that cycling and walking are sharing a path. I prefer some separation as they go at different speeds.)
It should be standard for all new bridges to have wide cycle paths, wide walking paths and at least the beds for a future rail option. The future will not be mono-modal like was once thought. Time to update the standards.