Bridge Influence Area - Summary of Findings About this - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bridge Influence Area - Summary

• f Findings

About this Presentation

• Focus is on:

– Bridge Influence Area (BIA) – Traffic operations – Impacts – Costs

• Keep in mind -- draft recommendations include:

– LRT Loop – Substantially increased transit – Aggressive TDM targets

Task Force Draft Recommendations for the I-5 River Crossing

• River Crossing Capacity:

– New transit and vehicle capacity should be constructed across the Columbia River in the I-5 Corridor. – For vehicles, there should be no more than 3 through lanes in each direction and up to two supplemental lanes (auxiliary or local access) in each direction across the Columbia River (total 5 lanes in each direction). For transit, there should be two light rail tracks across the Columbia River in the I-5 Corridor. – In adding river-crossing capacity, every effort should be made to avoid displacements and encroachments. – The proposed design should include safety considerations.

Task Force Draft Recommendations for the I-5 Bridge Influence Area

• Bridge Influence Area:

– Between the SR 500 and Columbia Blvd. interchanges, the freeway needs to be designed to balance all of the on and off traffic, consistent with 3 through lane Corridor capacity and 5 lanes of bridge capacity, in each direction.

• .

• 80%
• 40%
• 20%
• Through Trips
• Enters or Exits I-5
• Within the BIA
• Enters and Exits I-5
• Within the BIA

70% 30% 30%

I-5 Columbia River Bridge Traffic

2020 Through Trips vs. Bridge Influence Area Trips

Southbound - AM Peak Period Northbound - PM Peak Period BIA

Origins and Destinations of Trips Crossing the Bridge

NB PM Peak (2020) 11% Outside Metro Region 9% Battleground/N Clark Co. 7% E Clark Co. 11% Vancouver CBD/ Port of Vancouver 9% Outside Metro Region 22% Portland Central City 10% Washington Co. 19% N/NE Portland 1% Clackamas Co. 4% SW Portland 2% NW Portland 31% Columbia Corridor 2% SE Portland 32% Central/E Vancouver 30% Hazel Dell/ Salmon Creek Columbia River Bridges

Bridge Influence Area Concepts

• Supplemental vs. replacement bridge concepts
• Joint use (LRT-highway) vs. separate bridges
• Alignments east and west of existing bridges
• Freeway lanes and arterial lanes

A Range of River Crossing Concepts Developed to Evaluate:

Not to Scale

Southbound Northbound Northbound Existing bridges used for northbound traffic. New double-deck bridge for southbound freeway traffic and LRT, west of existing bridges.

VANCOUVER HAYDEN ISLAND

Low- to mid-level span over existing navigation channel.

• 1. Southbound traffic on new

five-lane bridge, LRT on lower deck -- west of existing bridges

• 2. Low- to mid-level bridge,

with lift span over existing navigation channel

• 3. Northbound traffic would

be split between the two existing bridges

Concept 1: 5-lane southbound supplemental bridge for freeway traffic w/LRT

Not to Scale

Northbound Southbound

HAYDEN ISLAND VANCOUVER

New mid- to high- level double-deck bridge for freeway traffic. Relocate shipping channel to mid-river. New mid- to high- level bridge for LRT.

Concept 4: 10-lane double deck, replacement bridge, plus LRT on separate new bridge

• 1. Mid- to high-level
• bridges. Navigation

channel relocated to center of river

• 2. Potential fixed spans

for highway and LRT (with Coast Guard reduction of existing lift requirements), or lift spans

Not to Scale

Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound

VANCOUVER HAYDEN ISLAND

Low- to mid-level span over existing navigation channel. New double-deck bridge with LRT and four lanes of freeway traffic.

• 1. Provides for new four-

lane bridge with LRT west

• f the existing bridges
• 2. Low- to mid-level bridge

with lift span over current navigation channel

• 3. Use four-lane bridge as

collector-distributor (i.e., ramp access for Hayden Island, etc.). Requires fly-

• ver ramps north and

south, as shown in the schematic on the left

Concept 6:

4-lane supplemental collector-distributor bridge w/LRT, plus 6 lane freeway

New 4-lane bridge Ex.3-lane bridge SB

• Ex. 3-lane

bridge NB

Not to Scale

Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound HOV, express,

• r reversible

lanes. Low- to mid-level span over existing navigation channel. Low- to mid-level span over existing navigation channel.

VANCOUVER HAYDEN ISLAND

• 1. Provides for new four-

lane bridge with LRT

• 2. Low- to mid-level

bridges with lift spans

• ver current navigation

channel

• 3. Two lanes on existing

northbound bridge could be used for HOV, express lanes, or (potentially) reversible lanes

Concept 7:

8-lane freeway concept plus new LRT bridge with two-lane arterial

BIA Performance

Is Freeway Effectiveness Increased with Additional Capacity in the BIA?

Southbound Travel Volumes

Along I-5 (AM Peak Hour)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 1-5 Mainline Begin 134th ON 99th St. ON 78th St. ON Main St. ON SR 500/39th ON 4th Plain ON Mill Plain ON SR 14 ON Jantzen Beach ON Marine Drive ON Victory Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Lombard WB ON Lombard EB ON Portland Blvd. ON Alberta St. ON Going St. ON Greeley ON I-405 ON Weidler ON 1-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations (Full Corridor)

Southbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed AM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

BI A

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 I-5 Mainline Begin I-84 ON Tillamook ON I-405 ON Going ON Alberta ON Portland Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Denver/Delta ON Marine/Swift ON Hayden Is. ON SR14 ON Mill Plain ON 4th Plain ON 39th ON Main St. ON 78th St. ON 99th St. ON 134th St. ON I-205 ON I-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations (Full Corridor)

Northbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed PM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

Northbound Travel Volumes

Along I-5 (PM Peak Hour)

BI A

Average Speed

I-5 Southbound - Main St. to Lombard (All Traffic)

10 20 30 40 50 60 6:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:30 AM

Time Southbound Speed (MPH)

2000 Existing 2020 Baseline 2020 10-Lane Double Deck Bridge 2020 6-Lane Fwy plus 4-Lane CD 2020 8-Lane Fwy plus Arterial Concept

Main St. Lombard

Columbia River

I -5

SR-500

.-~

Average Speed

I-5 Northbound - Main St. to Lombard (All Traffic)

10 20 30 40 50 60 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM

Time Northbound Speed (MPH)

2000 Existing 2020 Baseline 2020 10-Lane Double Deck Bridge 2020 6-Lane Fwy plus 4-Lane CD 2020 8-Lane Fwy plus Arterial Concept

Main St. Lombard

Columbia River

I -5

SR-500

,-____________________________________________________________________________

~D

Vehicle Hours of Delay on I-5

(AM and PM Peak Periods)

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 2000 Existing 2020 Baseline 2020 10-Lane Double Deck Bridge 2020 6-Lane Fwy plus 4-Lane CD 2020 8-Lane Fwy plus Arterial Concept

Concept Package Vehicle Hours of Delay on Freeway (7 Hours)

How Will an Arterial Bridge Function, When Considered With Improved Freeway Capacity?

8% I-5 20% Mill Plain/Fourth Plain 24% SR 14 17% Vancouver CBD 9% Denver 13% Marine Drive (west) 31% Hayden Island 17%Marine Drive (east) 2% Other 28% Hayden Island (west) 21% Other 10% Fruit Valley Road Arterial Bridge across Columbia River

An Arterial Bridge Can Provide Transportation Benefits

Trip Patterns, NB Across Columbia River (PM Peak Period)

Most Trips Are Regional -- Not Local

Average Trip Length Northbound Across Columbia River (PM Peak Hour)

14.7 15.7 17 5.7 39.4 9 13.6 13.5 17.2 13.5 37.6 38.7 8.9 16.9 16.6 15.7

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Existing I-5 Baseline (2020) I-5 LRT/3 lanes I-5 Arterial Bridge

Option Package Miles SOV HOV Truck Average

Arterial Bridge Travel Demands

• Arterial bridge reduces peak direction volumes
• n I-5 bridge by 1,100 - 1,500 during peak

hour

• The arterial bridge does not appear to act as

a “bypass” to the I-5 bridge:

– 10% of PM Arterial traffic from/to I-5 – 24% of AM Arterial traffic from/to I-5

Arterial Bridge With Additional Freeway Capacity:

• Adding one additional freeway lane and one arterial

lane in each direction appears to offer substantial transportation performance benefits, but…

• The trade-off appears to be more delay at

interchange ramps and along arterials approaching I-5 with the freeway/arterial lane combination

• The arterial connection, in conjunction with an

additional freeway lane, can provide important transportation benefits -- it does remove local trips from the freeway, thus reducing the need for freeway level improvements

Other Transportation Performance Issues

Does bridge type matter?

• The replacement bridge handles traffic
• perations the best.
• A supplemental freeway bridge has operational

problems, but they may be overcome with further design and operations work.

• Concepts for a supplemental collector-

distributor bridge result in traffic operations problems that are difficult to overcome

• The collector-distributor bridge is too heavily

utilized because it serves several interchanges

• - the existing bridges are underutilized

because they primarily handle through traffic.

What are the benefits to freight mobility?

• Addition capacity in BIA
• Make Columbia Blvd a

full interchange

• Improve access to I-5 at

Marine Drive interchange

• Full connections between

Columbia Blvd., Denver Ave, Marine Drive, MLK Blvd., and Hayden Island.

• Improved access to/from

key industrial destinations: Port of Vancouver, Columbia Corridor, Rivergate

• Improved travel times and

reduced delay on I-5

• Increased reliability and

predictability

Benefits Improvements

What about HOV?

• HOV utilization and performance is highly

dependent on the facilities provided:

– Additional river crossing capacity is needed for HOV system continuity – Direct access ramps should be considered at key locations (i.e., SR 500) – Bridge design affects HOV performance (a supplemental bridge splits freeway traffic, which limits HOV access) – Further study is required to determine effectiveness of an HOV system corridor-wide.

How will Safety be Affected?

• All concepts reduce weaving and merging.
• Replacement bridge provides for current

design standards for all freeway users; supplemental bridge means traffic on existing bridges will not have standard shoulders.

• Existing bridges do not meet current seismic

standards (could fail in a major earthquake).

• Bridge options that minimize number of

crossings are more desirable for marine navigation.

Potential Traffic Impacts from Increased BIA Capacity

Southbound Travel Volumes

Along I-5 (AM Peak Hour)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 1-5 Mainline Begin 134th ON 99th St. ON 78th St. ON Main St. ON SR 500/39th ON 4th Plain ON Mill Plain ON SR 14 ON Jantzen Beach ON Marine Drive ON Victory Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Lombard WB ON Lombard EB ON Portland Blvd. ON Alberta St. ON Going St. ON Greeley ON I-405 ON Weidler ON 1-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations (Full Corridor)

Southbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed AM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

BI A

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 I-5 Mainline Begin I-84 ON Tillamook ON I-405 ON Going ON Alberta ON Portland Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Denver/Delta ON Marine/Swift ON Hayden Is. ON SR14 ON Mill Plain ON 4th Plain ON 39th ON Main St. ON 78th St. ON 99th St. ON 134th St. ON I-205 ON I-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations (Full Corridor)

Northbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed PM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

Northbound Travel Volumes

Along I-5 (PM Peak Hour)

BI A

Changes in Travel Demand on Other Major Corridors

• In Portland, traffic will increase on arterials

near the BIA (Denver, MLK, Columbia), but the effect of the capacity increase is dispersed as you travel away from the BIA.

• In Vancouver, BIA capacity increases will

result in additional growth in traffic on SR 500 and SR 14 (beyond the background changes from 2000 to 2020).

What are the Potential Costs and Impacts?

Estimated Costs

BIA Estimated Costs $2002 dollars - in millions* Concept LRT Arterial Freeway Total Ten- lane Freeway Concepts 5-lane southbound supplemental bridge for freeway traffic w/LRT $69 $0 $969 $1,038 10-lane double deck, replacement bridge, plus LRT on separate new bridge $186 $0 $989 $1,175 Eight freeway lanes plus two-lane arterial 8-lane freeway concept, plus new LRT bridge with two-lane arterial $69 $142 $612 $824

* Costs of potential improvements from SR 500 to Columbia Blvd, plus the Delta Park to Lombard widening.

Cost Considered

• Potential highway and transit costs in the BIA

range from $825 million -1.2 billion (in 2002 dollars)

• Costs exclude major maintenance and seismic

retrofit costs for existing bridges

• When these extra costs of maintaining the

existing bridges are factored in, the costs of concepts are within 20% of one another

Potential Property Impacts

Concept #1: 5- lane southbound supplemental bridge for freeway traffic w/LRT Concept #4: 10- lane double deck, replacement bridge, plus LRT

• n separate new

bridge Concept #6: 4- lane supplemental collector- distributor bridge w/LRT, plus 6 lane freeway Concept #7: 8- lane freeway concept plus new LRT bridge with two-lane arterial Resi- dential Non- Resi- dential Resi- dential Non- Resi- dential Resi- dential Non- Resi- dential Resi- dential Non- Resi- dential Displacements Vancouver 1 2 Portland 8 16 6 8 20 21 6 17 Total 8 16 6 9 20 23 6 17 Encroachments Vancouver 21 15 9 8 15 26 13 10 Portland 17 27 1 17 19 Total 21 32 9 35 16 43 13 29

Fish Habitat

• All concepts have the potential for impacts to fish

habitat associated with Columbia River, North Portland Harbor and Columbia Slough crossings

• Concept 4, the replacement bridge has the most

crossings, while Concept 1 has the fewest.

• Impacts are dependent on the number bridges and

their type, size and location

• Impacts will need detailed evaluation in an EIS and

ultimately will need mitigation

Wetlands and Parks

• Potential impacts to the radio tower wetland

and Delta Park.

• All concepts, except concept 1, have

encroachments onto Delta Park (60-120 feet depending on concept)

• All concepts, except concept 4, have

encroachments onto the radio tower wetlands site (100-240 feet depending on concept)

• Impacts will depend on the design of

improvements and will need detailed evaluation in an EIS

Historical

• All concepts have encroachments onto the Ft.

Vancouver Historical Site (60-120 feet depending

• n concept).
• An encroachment over 60’ would impact the FHWA

building, however no historic buildings would be impacted

• Concept 4, a replacement bridge, would involve a

full impact to the Columbia River Bridge.

• The existing northbound bridge is registered on the

National Register of Historic Places and the southbound bridge is eligible for registration.

Key Resources - EIS Work

• Actual impacts to natural, cultural and historic

resources will need to be determined in an EIS process. Mitigation may be required for some impacts.

• If a park, historic or cultural resource is impacted,

federal regulations require a determination in the EIS process that there is no feasible or prudent alternative. While this standard is quite high, it is balanced with the overall needs of the community.

Overall Findings

BIA Findings

• Additional crossing capacity in the BIA is needed for

transit and vehicles to address current and future corridor congestion problems

• Without investment, congestion and delay will grow

steadily and spread into the mid-day periods

• Overall, improvements in the BIA significantly

enhance system performance compared to today and 2020 Baseline

BIA Findings - cont.

• BIA improvements are likely to result in:

– Minimal traffic increases on I-5 outside the BIA – Increases in traffic on arterial with direct access to the BIA

• Traffic increases dissipate as you move away from

the BIA

BIA Findings - cont.

• An arterial connection in the I-5 corridor would

improve connections between local street systems and serve a significant number of trips

• While an arterial-only bridge would not address the

capacity problems on the freeway, it could be an effective component of an overall transportation package

Implementation Findings - cont.

• Concepts with 10 freeway lanes, and concepts with

8 freeway plus arterial lanes, appear promising and should both continue into an EIS for further detailed study to specifically identify: – Optimal amount of capacity – Optimal balance of freeway and arterial lanes – Specific impacts and costs

Implementation Findings - cont.

• A joint use (hwy/lrt) bridge could be cost effective,

but there are other important factors to consider: – right of way impacts

– construction staging – optimal alignment for LRT and hwy, and – light rail station siting

Implementation Findings - cont.

• While conversion of an existing bridge for LRT use

is technically feasible, it may not be cost effective particularly if seismic retrofitting is required.

• Further investigation of costs and comparison to

costs of a new bridge is needed.

Implementation Findings - cont.

• Further study is needed to determine whether new

bridge should be a replacement or supplemental.

• Several factors will influence decision:

– optimizing traffic operations (replacement is easier) – costs (supplemental may be as costly as replacement) – right of way impacts (replacement appears to have fewer impacts) – impacts to cultural and historic resources (both supplemental and replacements have trade-offs)

Implementation Finding - cont.

• A corridor-wide HOV lane is a possibility with a new

river crossing

• HOV utilization and performance is highly

dependent on how it is designed

• Further design work in an EIS is needed to ensure

that it will operate well and have good utilization

Cost Findings

• Potential highway and transit costs in the BIA

range from $825 million to $1.2 billion.

• There is not a significant enough cost

differential to eliminate any of the options based on cost alone.

Property Impact Findings

• Should improvements be made in the BIA, it

is unlikely that property impacts can be avoided altogether.

• There are design concepts that can minimize

property impacts.

• Even so, the need for additional right of way

will likely require the purchase of homes and businesses, primarily on Hayden Island.

Key Resource Impact Findings

• There

are several important natural and historic resources in the BIA.

• In making improvements to the BIA it will be

difficult to entirely avoid impacts to all key resources in the corridor.

• The EIS process will allow a full exploration of

impacts to natural, cultural and historic resources and to determine the best balance for the environment and the community.

Land Use Findings

• Overall, BIA improvements are compatible

with local and regional land use plans.

• Bi-state coordination in the area of growth

management is needed to minimize the risk that local and regional land use decisions will compromise the transportation benefits of improvements in the BIA.

Overall Finding

• Draft recommendations for the BIA and the

river crossing support the Task Force’s Problem, Vision and Values statement and require little change.

Specific Questions about BIA Improvements

Do We Need More River Crossing Capacity? If Yes, how much?

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Existing (2000) No Build Baseline West Arterial Express Bus/3 Lanes LRT/3 Lanes Express Bus/4 Lanes LRT/4 Lanes

Option Package Percentage Congested Lane-Miles

(4-Hour PM Peak Period)

Congestion on I-5 and I-205

Congested Lane-Miles (PM Peak)

24.1% 33.7% 30.4% 25.2% 19.8% 19.5% 13.6% 13.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Existing (2000) No Build (2020) Baseline (2020) West Arterial Express Bus/3 Lanes LRT/3 Lanes Express Bus/4 Lanes LRT/4 Lanes

Option Package Percentage Congested Lane-Miles

(4-Hour PM Peak Period)

Congestion on Truck Routes

Congested Lane-Miles (PM Peak)

25.1% 21.1% 22.6% 18.7% 18.9% 20.7% 19.3% 30.1%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Existing (2000) No Build (2020) Baseline (2020) West Arterial Express Bus/3 Lanes LRT/3 Lanes Express Bus/4 Lanes LRT/4 Lanes

Option Package Vehicle Travel Time in Minutes

(4-Hour PM Peak Period)

SOV/Truck HOV

Vehicle Travel Times

Downtown Portland to Salmon Creek (PM Peak)

38 44 40 34 32 31 30 21 33 37 35 29 25 25 25 21

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Existing (2000) No Build (2020) Baseline (2020) West Arterial Express Bus/3 Lanes LRT/3 Lanes Express Bus/4 Lanes LRT/4 Lanes

Option Package Vehicle Hours of Delay

(4-Hour PM Peak Period)

Other Roads Truck Routes

Vehicle Hours of Delay

In the Study Area (PM Peak)

4359 4327 4065 2660 3891 4197 4751 6281 17,088 12,310 13,123 10,424 11,997 11,629 13,390 25,767

Value of Truck Delay

(In the Study Area)

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 Existing (2000) No Build (2020) Baseline (2020) West Arterial Express Bus/3 Lanes LRT/3 Lanes Express Bus/4 Lanes LRT/4 Lanes

Option Package Annual Value of Truck Delays

$34.0M $21.3M $26.5M $17.2M $19.7M $20.4M $14.1M $16.9M

Without Additional Capacity Congestion will Move into the Mid- Day

2000 2020 Morning 7-9 a.m. 6-10 a.m. Evening 4-6 p.m. 2:30 – 8 p.m.

Findings

• Travel demands will be increasing over the next 20

years due to growth

• Additional freeway capacity is needed for vehicles to

address the “bottleneck” caused by the existing bridges and to serve future demand.

• To maintain, and improve, today’s level of

performance (travel times, speeds, hours of congestion), up to two additional lanes, in each direction, are needed in the BIA

• Without additional capacity, and other

transportation improvements, users of the freeway system can expect delay time to about double and for congestion to creep into the mid-day period.

How does an Arterial Bridge work with additional freeway crossing capacity?

Average Speed

I-5 Southbound - Main St. to Lombard (All Traffic)

Main St. Lombard

Columbia River

I -5

SR-500

60 50

"C

Qj

40

Qj

C-

en

"C -

::I:

c a.. 30

::::I

0 :2:

..c - ..c

...

::::I

20

en

10

• +----'-----'-----''------T-

6:30 AM 7:30 AM

Time

8:30 AM

02000 Existing 02020 Baseline 02020 10-Lane Double Deck Bridge

• 2020 6-La ne Fwy pi us

4-Lane CD

&l 2020 Sola ne Fwy pi us

Arterial Conce

Average Speed

I-5 Northbound - Main St. to Lombard (All Traffic)

Main St. Lombard

Columbia River

I -5

SR-500

60

02000 Existing 02020 Baseline 02020 1

O-La ne Double

50

Deck Bridge

• 2020 6-La ne Fwy pi

4-Lane CD flI2020 Sola ne Fwy pi "C

40

Arterial Concept

QI QI

C-

en

"C -

::I:

c a.. 30

::::I

0 :2:

..c - ..c

...

::::I

en

20 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM

Time

Demand and Vehicle Hours of Delay

(AM and PM Peak Periods)

1000 2000 3000 4000 8000 6000 5000

Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)

7000 100000

• • •

Demand Volume

D

VHD

90000

"'C

80000

c

'"

E

Qj

C 70000

"'C '':::

Qj

60000

a.

",Vi'

~ ~

Qj

:::l

• a. 0

50000

:;:J:

a.!::.

"'C

40000

c

'"

:;:

30000

« '"

20000

• I-

10000 2000 Existing 2020 Baseline 2020 10-Lane Double 2020 6-Lane Fwy plus 2020 8-Lane Fwy plus Deck Bridge 4-Lane CD Arterial Concept

Concept Package

Served Demand

AM and PM Peak Hours

7:00-8:00 AM 4:00-5:00 PM

Peak Demand 14000 13000 12000 11000

• __

10000 - -, 9000

:g 8000

• (J

._ 7000 J:

CI)

>

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

2000 2020 202010- 20206- 20208- 2000 2020 202010- 20206- 20208- Existing Baseline Lane Lane Fwy Lane Fwy Existing Baseline Lane Lane Fwy Lane Fwy Double plus 4- plus Double plus 4- plus Deck Lane CD Arterial Deck Lane CD Arterial Bridge Concept Bridge Concept

Findings

• Adding one additional freeway lane and one arterial

lane in each direction appears to offer similar transportation performance benefits, but…

• The trade-off appears to be more delay at

interchange ramps and along arterials approaching I-5 with the freeway/arterial lane combination

• The arterial connection, in conjunction with an

additional freeway lane, can provide important transportation benefits -- it does remove local trips from the freeway, thus reducing the need for freeway level improvements

Can an Arterial Bridge alone address the corridor’s problems?

Findings

• An arterial bridge alone, without additional

freeway lanes will not address the problems on I-5 -- it would provide only a slight improvement in freeway performance compared to a “do-nothing” scenario.

• With an arterial only bridge, users of the

freeway can expect substantially more congestion and delay - even during the mid-day periods

• The arterial road itself will carry short and long

distance trips, resulting in congestion along most of the arterial and its intersections.

What Happens to BIA Traffic? Is the BIA Increasing Traffic on Arterial Streets?

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 I-5 Mainline Begin I-84 ON Tillamook ON I-405 ON Going ON Alberta ON Portland Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Denver/Delta ON Marine/Swift ON Hayden Is. ON SR14 ON Mill Plain ON 4th Plain ON 39th ON Main St. ON 78th St. ON 99th St. ON 134th St. ON I-205 ON I-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed PM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

Minor Changes in I-5 Traffic Volumes Outside the BIA

Northbound (PM Peak Hour)

BI A

Minor Changes in I-5 Traffic Volumes Outside the BIA

Southbound (AM Peak Hour)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 1-5 Mainline Begin 134th ON 99th St. ON 78th St. ON Main St. ON SR 500/39th ON 4th Plain ON Mill Plain ON SR 14 ON Jantzen Beach ON Marine Drive ON Victory Blvd. ON Columbia Blvd. ON Lombard WB ON Lombard EB ON Portland Blvd. ON Alberta St. ON Going St. ON Greeley ON I-405 ON Weidler ON 1-5 Mainline End

On-Ramps Locations

Southbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed AM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

BI A

Where are Trips Coming From in Portland?

Northbound traveling to I-5 Columbia River Bridge (PM Peak Period)

11% 20% 45% 24% I-5: Traffic already on I-5 Denver Ave. MLK Blvd. Other Roads: Marine Dr., Hayden Island, etc.

Marine Dr. Columbia River

I -5

SR-500 Denver Ave. I -5 MLK Ave. Hayden I sland

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Going St. Portland Blvd. Columbia Blvd. Denver/Delta Marine/Swift Columbia River

On-Ramps Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed PM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

I-5 Travel Volumes in Portland

Northbound (PM Peak Hour)

,---r-- ,---

r--

• .---

.---

• .---
• r--
• r--

, , , , ,

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 South of Going St. South of Portland Blvd. South of Columbia Blvd. North of Columbia Blvd.

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane Fwy plus Arterial Concept

Denver/Interstate Corridor Volumes

Northbound (PM Peak Period)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 South of Going St. South of Portland Blvd. South of Columbia Blvd. North of Columbia Blvd.

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

Martin Luther King Blvd. Corridor Volumes

Northbound (PM Peak Period)

Where are Trips going to in Vancouver?

Northbound traveling to I-5 Columbia River Bridge (PM Peak Period)

6% 2% 18% 27% 8% 30% 9% Mill Plain/4th Plain (west of I-5) Main/Washington St. north of 4th Plain I-5: continue on I-5 north of SR 500 SR 500 east of I-5 Mill Plain/4th Plain (east of I-5) SR 14 east of I-5 Other

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Columbia River SR14 Mill Plain 4th Plain 39th/SR 500

On-Ramps Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (Post-Processed PM Peak Hour)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes

I-5 Traffic Volumes in Vancouver

Northbound (PM Peak Hour)

• ,---
• ,---
• ,---

,--- ,---

,---

• f--
• r--

,

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 East of Fruit Valley Road West of Main/ Washington St. West of I-5

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

Mill Plain/4th Plain Blvd. Volumes

West of I-5 ( Northbound, PM Peak Period)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 East of I-5 East of St. Johns/ Fort Vancouver Way East of Grand Ave. East of Andresen Rd.

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

Mill Plain/4th Plain Blvd. Volumes

East of I-5 ( Northbound, PM Peak Period)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 North of 6th St. North of Evergreen St. North of Mill Plain Blvd. South of 4th Plain Blvd. North of 4th Plain Blvd.

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

Columbia/Washington Corridor Volumes

Northbound (PM Peak Period)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 East of I-5 East of Grand Ave. West of Evergreen Blvd. ramp

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

SR 14 Volumes

(PM Peak Period)

.-~D

Findings

• Traffic increases on the freeway outside the BIA will

be minimal compared to baseline and existing conditions

• Arterials that provide direct access to the freeway in

the BIA will see an increase in traffic

• While that increase is significant, it dissipates as

you move away from the BIA

• Overall, adding capacity in the BIA would not

substantially increase traffic on arterials outside the improvement area

Bottom Line Findings

• Concepts with 10 freeway lanes, and concepts with

8 freeway plus arterial lanes, appear promising.

• Trade-offs need to be evaluated in future studies,

including the balance of traffic on the freeway vs. local streets

Where are Trips Coming From in Portland?

Northbound traveling to I-5 Columbia River Bridge (PM Peak Period)

11% 20% 45% 24% I-5: Traffic already on I-5 (N

• f Columbia)

Denver Ave. (N of Columbia) MLK Blvd. (N of Columbia) Other Roads: Marine Dr., Hayden Island, etc.

Marine Dr. Columbia River

I -5

SR-500 Denver Ave. I -5 MLK Ave. Hayden I sland

Traffic Distribution of Increased Trips Across the Columbia River

Northbound traveling to I-5 Columbia River Bridge (PM Peak Period)

6% 2% 18% 27% 8% 30% 9% Mill Plain/4th Plain (west of I-5) Main/Washington St. north of 4th Plain I-5 north of SR 500 SR 500 east of I-5 Mill Plain/4th Plain (east of I-5) SR 14 east of I-5 Other

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 East of I-5 East of 39th St. East of St. Johns Rd. East of Andresen Rd. West of I-205

Screenline Locations

Northbound Traffic Volumes (emme/2 PM 4-Hour Volume)

2000 Existing 2020 Priority Baseline 2020 LRT/3 Lanes 2020 8-Lane plus Arterial Concept

Northbound Travel Demands

Along SR 500 - east of I-5 (PM Peak Period)