i-5 columbia river crossing partnership: traffic and

REVIEW DRAFT I-5 Columbia River Crossing Partnership: Traffic and Tolling Analysis

Columbia River Crossing Tunnel Options

Working Paper 12.31

Prepared by

Parisi Associates David Evans and Associates, Inc.

January 20, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................1

1.0 TUNNEL PARAMETERS......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 TUNNEL DESIGN ISSUES, COSTS, AND IMPACTS................................................................................................2 3.0 COLLECTOR-DISTRIBUTOR ROADWAY SYSTEM REQUIRED ..............................................................................3 4.0 TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................................................4 5.0 FINDINGS AND SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................5

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................6

Appendix A: Figures

Figure 1. High Level Bridge

Figure 2. Short Tunnel Option

Figure 3. Long Tunnel Option

Figure 4. Immersed-tube Tunnel Lane Configuration

Figure 5. Bored Tunnel Lane Configuration

Figure 6. Vancouver Freeway and Interchanges with Bridge Concept 6

Figure 7. Portland Freeway and Interchanges with Bridge Concept 6

Figure 8. I-5 Columbia River Bridge Traffic

Figure 9. Vehicle Hours of Delay on I-5

Figure 10. Average Speed – I-5 Southbound – Main Street to Lombard Street

Figure 11. Average Speed – I-5 Northbound – Lombard Street to Main Street

Figure 12. Travel Time I-5 Southbound – Main Street to Lombard Street

Figure 13. Travel Time I-5 Northbound– Lombard Street to Main Street

Figure 14. On-Ramps Impact – I-5 Southbound (AM Peak Hour)

Figure 15. On-Ramps Impact – I-5 Northbound (PM Peak Hour)

I-5 Columbia River Crossing Partnership: i Working Paper 12.31 Traffic and Tolling Analysis January 20, 2005

OVERVIEW

This working paper (WP) provides an overview of conceptual tunnel options for an I-5 Columbia River crossing within the Bridge Influence Area (BIA). This WP is based on design, travel demand modeling, and traffic operational assessments conducted as a part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. This WP contains five sections:

1. Tunnel Parameters: A description of “short tunnel” and “long tunnel” options, including portal locations and interchange ramps served.

2. Tunnel Design Issues, Costs, and Impacts: A discussion of tunnel design considerations, cost estimating issues for underground feasibility studies, and impacts associated with tunnel construction.

3. Collector-Distributor Roadway System Required: A discussion of the necessary collector-distributor (C-D) system that may be required with the conceptual tunnel options outlined.

4. Traffic Performance: A description of travel patterns and traffic performance under a tunnel and C-D roadway option compared to a Baseline scenario.

5. Findings and Summary: A recap of findings.

1.0 Tunnel Parameters

In 2001, as a part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study, three alternative concepts were developed to provide increased freeway and arterial capacity over or under the Columbia River by constructing a new bridge or tunnel to accommodate all I-5 freeway traffic. The Trade Partnership’s tunnel concepts included three through lanes in each direction to be consistent with several of the bridge concepts proposed in the study. All three concepts were included under “Option Package No. 14: Columbia River Crossing with New Freeway Bridge or Tunnel.”*

*(Note: Twenty “Option Packages” were developed in the first phase of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study. These options considered the I-5 corridor between I-205 in Washington and I-84 in Oregon and were summarized in a report entitled “Draft Corridor Improvement Option Packages,” for the Governor’s Task Force Meeting dated March 20, 2001. In a later phase of the study, eight Columbia River Crossing Concepts for specifically accommodating traffic across the Columbia River were developed. The bridge crossing concepts were described in a report entitled “Bridge Influence Area Summary Draft” dated April 19, 2002.)

One bridge and two tunnel concepts were developed for Option Package No. 14. The bridge concept proposed a new high-level, fixed-span bridge just east of the existing northbound I-5 bridge, carrying all freeway traffic and connecting to the SR 14 and Hayden Island interchanges. The existing Interstate bridges were assumed to remain in place and new approach roadways would be constructed to provide direct arterial connections between downtown Vancouver and Hayden Island. The bridge concept is illustrated in attached Figure 1.

I-5 Columbia River Crossing Partnership: 1 Working Paper 12.31 Traffic and Tolling Analysis January 20, 2005

The tunnel concepts proposed a “short tunnel” option and a “long tunnel” option. The short tunnel option would extend about 9,100 feet (1.7 miles) and have its northern portal near Mill Plain Boulevard and its southern portal just north of Marine Drive. Unlike the bridge concept that would accommodate traffic to and from all nearby ramps, with the tunnel concept traffic to and from Mill Plain Boulevard, SR 14, Hayden Island Drive, and Marine Drive would be unable to access the tunnel due to the location of the portals relative to the interchange ramps. Traffic to and from Fourth Plain Boulevard and Victory Boulevard could access the tunnel, but would be required to weave across multiple freeway travel lanes. The short tunnel concept is illustrated in attached Figure 2.

The long tunnel option would extend about 18,500 feet (3.5 miles) and have its northern portal near 20th Street and its southern portal near Victory Drive. Due to the length of the tunnel and portal locations, traffic to and from Fourth Plain Boulevard, Mill Plain Boulevard, SR 14, Hayden Island Drive, Marine Drive, and Victory Boulevard would be unable to access the tunnel. Traffic to and from SR 500 could access the long tunnel, but would be required to weave across multiple freeway lanes. The long tunnel concept is illustrated in attached Figure 3.

Both proposed tunnel options would retain the existing Interstate bridges. The existing bridges would be used for vehicle-trips between the interchanges not accessible by the tunnel, i.e., Fourth Plain Boulevard, Mill Plain Boulevard, SR 14, Hayden Island Drive, Marine Drive, and Victory Boulevard.

For constructability purposes, the short tunnel option, which would be shallowly placed under the Columbia River, was conceived to be constructed using immersed tube technology. The long tunnel option would be placed deeper under the Columbia River, as well as under the North Portland Harbor and under land areas north of the Columbia River. The long tunnel option was therefore conceptualized as using bored tunnel technology. Cross-sections of both options are attached in Figures 4 and 5 (please note, however, that the cross-sections show two travel lanes in each direction instead of three lanes).

2.0 Tunnel Design Issues, Costs, and Impacts

Although this working paper primarily addresses how traffic would perform with the tunnel options, it is also important to understand tunnel design issues, costs and their potential impacts.

A frequently cited rule-of-thumb in engineering is that tunnels cost two to three times as much as similar length bridges. In most situations, the cost savings associated with the benefits of tunnels are not sufficient to cover the initial capital cost disadvantage. Therefore, because of the high cost, tunnel sections are often designed at lesser cross-sectional standards than bridges to reach an economic balance between the cost of construction, maintenance, and operation; while still providing a safe facility.

Designs for the tunnels in Option Package No. 14 were only developed at a very conceptual level in the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. The tunnel sections shown in Figures 4 and 5 are examples of “minimal” sections required to move two lanes of traffic in each direction. The two tunnel types provide for 12-foot wide lanes with one to two feet of shoulder, which does not meet federal Interstate standards and would require design deviations/exceptions for approval. The need for added lateral space is greater in longer tunnels because of the increased likelihood of collisions or


disabled vehicles. Sections that meet design standards would add to the cost of construction, maintenance, operations, and environmental impacts.

Design requirements for the portals will also have impacts on right-of-way needs at the tunnel entrances and exits. Adjacent freeway lanes will need to split prior to entering the tunnels. Additional width will be needed for safety shoulders, space for impact attenuators, and the tunnel wall structure. About 56 feet of additional width will be required at the portals. The added width will need to extend along the freeway to accommodate transition tapers required by Interstate design standards.

Other design considerations that impact the size of the tunnel section are the need for ventilation, guide signing, and safety considerations such as safe egress for vehicle occupants in emergencies. From an operations standpoint, underwater tunnels typically prohibit trucks carrying hazardous materials, while bridges would continue to allow them. Bicycles and pedestrians are typically banned from long tunnels because of air quality, access, and safety issues.

As previously stated, tunnels are expensive. Costs for the minimal sections for Option Package No. 14 were estimated at $750 million for the immersed-tube short tunnel option, and $2 billion for the bored long tunnel option (these estimates were from the “Development of Alternative Scenarios – Final Report” dated December 1, 1999, as part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Trade Corridor project). These estimates should be considered within the context in which they were made. These were 1999 estimates that were based on historical cost data that may not be well suited for estimating underground facilities today that must meet more stringent safety standards. A more precise estimate of tunnel costs would require more extensive design, analysis of risks, and an understanding of geotechnical conditions. However, based on available preliminary information, the costs of a tunnel are estimated at two to four times more than a bridge.

Environmental impacts of tunnels are another important factor to consider. Both the short and long tunnel options require a massive amount of surplus excavation, both for the cut-and-cover sections for the approaches and for the bored or sunken-tube sections. For the short tunnels, the surplus excavation is estimated between 1-1.5 million cubic yards of material using the minimal sections. The long tunnel is estimated to create between two and 3.5 million cubic yards or material for disposal. Today’s stringent environmental standards may make it very difficult to obtain permits to deposit that much surplus excavation.

3.0 Collector-Distributor Roadway System Required

Both the short and long tunnel concepts would operate as mainline express lanes for I-5. For the short tunnel option, access to the tunnel would be restricted to the tunnel for traffic entering and leaving I-5 at Mill Plain Boulevard, SR 14, Hayden Island Drive, and Marine Drive. Access to Fourth Plain Boulevard and Victory Boulevard would also be impacted since the proximity of the interchange to the portals would create a short weave. None of these interchanges could be served by traffic using the long tunnel, with these impacts extending to SR 500. Because of the large number of I-5 vehicles entering and exiting I-5 within the area of the tunnels, an extensive C-D roadway system connecting all of these interchange ramps with auxiliary lanes parallel to I-5 would be required.


The designs for a C-D system required to handle projected traffic for the tunnel options was never developed in the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. However, a C-D system that closely mirrors the needs for the tunnel concepts was developed for one of the eight Columbia River Bridge crossing concepts described in the “Bridge Influence Area Summary Draft” dated April 19, 2002. “Bridge Concept 6” included a southbound C-D facility west of I-5 and a northbound C-D facility east of I-5, except where the C-D systems were combined to the west of I-5 on a consolidated bridge structure as they crossed the Columbia River.

Similar to the tunnel concepts previously described, the I-5 mainline in Bridge Concept 6 could not be accessed directly from many of the interchanges within the BIA, including SR 500, Fourth Plain Boulevard, Mill Plain Boulevard, and Hayden Island Drive, and only limited access could be provided to SR 14, Marine Drive, and Victory Boulevard.

Bridge Concept 6’s C-D system is illustrated in the attached Figures 6 and 7. The C-D system would include segments with up to three lanes per direction, and would require new ramps including flyovers, new and widened bridges, roadway realignments, and extensive right-of-way acquisition.

Although Bridge Option 6 included three mainline I-5 through lanes in each direction (exclusive of the C-D system) on a bridge instead of within a tunnel, the C-D system and interchange connectivity issues are similar. Therefore, the traffic operations analysis that was performed for Bridge Option 6 can be used to estimate the performance of a tunnel alternative.

4.0 Traffic Performance

Travel demand modeling was performed to evaluate the Bridge Influence Area (BIA) options as a part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. A key finding of the modeling was that in the year 2020, about 70 percent of weekday a.m. peak period traffic traveling southbound within the BIA will enter or exit I-5 within the BIA. (The BIA is defined as the segment of I-5 between and including SR 500 and Columbia Boulevard.). During the p.m. peak hour, about 80 percent of northbound traffic will enter and exit I-5 within the BIA (see attached Figure 8).

Therefore, under either the Bridge Concept 6 with a C-D system, or a tunnel option that would need to include a similar C-D system, during peak periods 70 to 80 percent of the traffic demand would be on the C-D system. Only 20 to 30 percent of the traffic would use the I-5 mainline. These figures vary significantly from the typical freeway and C-D systems, where the freeway mainline accommodates most of the vehicle-trips.

Because traffic volumes using the limited access I-5 mainline would be low, the mainline, and therefore the tunnel, would only need to consist of two lanes in each direction, not three lanes as originally envisioned.

In contrast, there would be significant congestion in both directions along the C-D facility due to the number of vehicle trips that would be required to use the system. According to detailed traffic operations results, the C-D system evaluated in Bridge Concept 6 would barely decrease I-5 vehicle hours of delay in the year 2020 compared to a Baseline scenario, where no additional vehicular capacity is provided across the Columbia River (see attached Figure 9).


It should be noted that the C-D system studied would have up to three lanes per direction and due to its location east and west of I-5’s existing mainline, would result in substantial right-of-way acquisition. Provision of a C-D system with additional capacity would result in more extensive property impacts, as well as potential environmental concerns.

The tunnel option with C-D system would be the worst performing option from a traffic operations perspective compared to other BIA improvement concepts evaluated as a part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. River crossing concepts that performed better included providing five lanes in each direction (Bridge Concept 4) and providing four lanes in each direction plus a two-lane arterial connection between downtown Vancouver/Hayden Island/Marine Drive (Bridge Concept 7).

According to VISSIM traffic simulation modeling of 2020 conditions, average travel speeds for the tunnel with C-D system would be similar to those experienced under a Baseline scenario. This is especially true on weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Travel times would also be similar (see attached Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13).

Due to congestion at the C-D roadway ramp junctions, vehicles accessing the C-D’s ramps would experience considerable queuing and delays, in fact, substantially more than under the 2020 Baseline scenario. During the weekday a.m. peak period, on-ramps to the southbound C-D roadway would be impacted at SR 500, Mill Plain Boulevard, and the City Center entrances. During the p.m. peak period, on-ramps to the northbound C-D roadway would be impacted at Columbia Boulevard, Marine Drive, Hayden Island Drive, and Mill Plain Boulevard. In some cases, back-ups would extend past the ramp terminals, affecting traffic flow along the arterial roadways (see attached Figures 14 and 15).

5.0 Findings and Summary

This WP provides an overview of tunnel options for I-5 within the BIA. This WP is based on design, travel demand modeling, and traffic operational assessments conducted as a part of the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership study. The following is a summary of key findings:

Provision of an I-5 tunnel would preclude direct interchange ramp access to and from Fourth Plain Boulevard, Mill Plain Boulevard, SR 14, Hayden Island Drive, Marine Drive, and Victory Boulevard. Access to/from SR 500 would be difficult.

To serve traffic to and from these ramps, as well as across the Columbia River, a comprehensive C-D roadway system with auxiliary lanes would be needed. This system would consist of two- to three-lane C-D roads and would require new ramps including flyovers, new and widened bridges, roadway alignments, and extensive right-of-way acquisition.

Due to travel patterns, by 2020, 70 to 80 percent of the traffic using I-5 in the BIA would be required to use the C-D system and only 20 to 30 percent would use the mainline tunnel. Traffic demands would create an imbalance based on tunnel lanes providing about 40 percent of the total I-5 capacity to serve 20 to 30 percent of the demand. The remaining three bridge


lanes would need to serve 70-80 percent of the demand with about 60 percent of the available capacity.

The over-reliance on the C-D system would result in substantial congestion. In fact, compared to a Baseline scenario, a tunnel with a C-D system would function similarly in terms of vehicle hours of delay, travel speeds, and travel times, but many of the ramp terminals would experience congestion that would back-up to the arterial roadways themselves.

The mainline tunnel’s demand would only require two lanes in each direction, but could cost in the neighborhood of $750 million for the short tunnel option and up to $2 billion for the long tunnel option, excluding the costs of the extensive C-D roadway systems. If interstate design standards were required, the costs would be much higher.

Tunnel construction would generate massive amounts of surplus excavation, estimated between 1 million to 3.5 million cubic yards of material, depending on whether a short or long tunnel is used.

From a traffic operations perspective, lower-cost options including river crossings that provide five lanes in each direction (Bridge Option 4) and river crossings that provide four lanes in each direction, plus a two-lane arterial connection between downtown Vancouver/Hayden Island/Marine Drive (Bridge Option 7), would perform substantially better than a tunnel and C-D option from a traffic demand model perspective.

REFERENCES

“A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994”, pp. 387-391, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

V.S. Romero and J.M. Stolz, “Cost Estimating for Underground Transit: Too Dangerous to “Guestimate”, pp 186-190, Track 4 – The Capital Projects Process, Cost Control.


APPENDIX A:

Figures

r..£GENO - -/'rwlosed s/rur:l~ __ Exis:Jkrg ptoIfJe ~

- I'mpo.HIj ptOfQ ~

"j) .., '50 • -i

. _ _ ..... ""~~._ w.

200

100 , ~ , •

o

North PortJaod Harbo r

Option Package No. 14

Columbia River Crossing with New Freeway Bridge or Tunnel

Hayden Island " " , • I

SR· " "'!!"4>O •

• •

Vancouver

A. High-Level Bridge



200 _ .-=--- Val'lOOU'IeI' I

1 .. ~ • ------

LEGEND __ Pmpt;>$tJd roIIdwey

Pmpowd ,ulIcrure -- Propowd--~

ruoc tun,../

- - &l5lmfl~~ ---"ii !lOll.... ~ !lOll _

• ----- ---- -_ -:. \is -;- , ;' I ::t' :::! j - L

J.L ,

; . I i <

B. Short Tunnel Option (Immersed Tubel

---_._-

, .



• • ! ~ 1 ~ "':"'" · .' •

__ Proposea OOrefl run",,'

- - EillslJnO ptMIe gtBf1e

PtopOSfId (ItrJIH ~

• •

C. Long Tunnel Option (Bored)

What improvements are needed?

Immersed-tube tunnel lane configuration

.. Columbia River Bottom

6'

6'1

.. 2'

Shld.

12'

Trav~

2' Shld.

12'

Trav8

3'

-~ - .. 2' 2'

--+ Io-""'S='hl d. S::'hl~d. -+I 10--

12' 12' 12'

Trav~ Travel 3'

86'

.. 6'

4'

.. .. Columbia River Bottom

2' 2' I+-,--=-- -=--~ 1+--

Shld. Shld.

6'

6'1 12' 12'

Trav~ Trav8

3'

-~ - .. 2' 2'

--+ Io-""'S='hl d. S::'hld~. -+I 10--

12' 12 12'

Trav~ Travel 3'

86'

.. 6'

4'

What improvements are needed?

Bored tunnel lane configuration

- .. Courrbia R"erBotlom

2' Shld.

12'

Travel

12'

Travel

35'

-.. -

Cross Passage

25' Mn.

..

35'

12'

Travel

..

2' Sh~.

-CourTbia R"erBotlom

2' Sh~.

12'

Travel

12'

Travel

35'

-.. -

Cross Passage

25' Mn.

..

35'

12'

Travel

..

2' Sh~.

Southbound Northbound Characteristics Movements Allowed Characteristics Movements Allowed5 lanes (2 through,1 HOV, 2 auxiliary)

New off ramp to 5 lanes(2 through, 1 New on ramp fromSR 500 eastbound HOV, 2 auxiliary) SR 500 to I-5 north

Auxiliary lane forms No access provided off ramp to CD from I-5 to 39th St

5 lanes (2 through, 1 HOV, 2 auxiliary) 1st auxiliary lane Direct access from

becomes SR 500 and I-5 to SR 500 forms 2nd39th St. on ramp 39th St. on ramp 2nd auxiliary lane lane of SR 500becomes auxiliary lane weaves with CD becomes auxiliary laneending at Fourth Pl. traffic and SR 500 on I-5

2 SR 500 on ramp lanes 5 lanes (2 through, 1separated by barrier, 1 lane HOV, 2 auxiliary)

6 lanes (2 through, to CD system ending at1 HOV, 4 auxiliary) SR 14 and 1 to I-5 ending

at 4th Plain Fourth Plain mergesto auxiliary lanes

5 lanes (2 through, 1HOV, 2 auxiliary)

4th Plain on rampbecomes auxiliary laneto Mill Plain

All traffic must useCD system for

6 lanes (2 through, 1 Fourth PlainHOV, 3 auxiliary) Mill Plain

C Street 6 lanes (2 through, Access provided fromSR14 & 1 HOV, 3 auxiliary) Mill Plain to 4th PlainHayden Island

5 lanes (2 through, 1 Mill Plain on rampHOV, 2 auxiliary) becomes auxiliary lane

to 4th PlainMill Plain on rampoption merge withSR 14 traffic then I-5 or merge with Remaining auxiliary laneauxiliary lane traveling forms 1 lane of CD withacross new bridge 2nd lane exiting from

mainline

2nd auxiliary lane of All traffic must use CDCD becomes SR14 system for

Mill Plain &SR14/Washington St. Fourth Plainadds 2nd laneon new bridge SR14 on ramp choice

of CD or I-5

Off ramp to C St

Off ramp to SR14 frommainline and newbridge

5 lanes(2 through,1 HOV, 2 auxiliary)

REVISED 4/17/2002

Not to Scale

Columbia River

SR 14

C S

t.

E. 5th/6th

Was

hing

ton

St.

Mill Plain

Fourth Plain

39th St.

LRT connects todowntown Vancouver

Station

New two-deck bridge for ramp northbound and southbound ramp

traffic and LRTExisting bridges continue to be used for northbound and southbound freeway traffic.

I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership

Bridge Influence Area AnalysisVancouver Freeway and Interchanges with Bridge Concept 6

SR 500

Key: Southbound = Red HOV Lane Through lane Auxiliary lane On/off rampNorthbound = Green HOV Lane Through lane Auxiliary lane On/off ramp Local Street Signal Light Rail Tracks Barrier StructuresCD = Collector-Distributor Lane

Southbound Northbound Characteristics Movements Allowed Characteristics Movements Allowed

5 lanes across Columbia

River: 2 lanes on 5 lanes across Columbianew CD bridge; 3 River: 3 lanes on lanes on existing bridge existing bridge; 2 lanes

on new CD bridgeOff ramp to Hayden Access to HaydenIsland Island from new CD

bridge Hayden Island on ramp No access NB ontoto new CD facility mainline I-5 from H.I.

Hayden Island on ramp Access to I-5choice of CD facility to from Hayden Island Off ramp to Hayden Access from CDMarine Dr. or I-5 Island from new CD facility

facility

8 lanes across OregonSlough (2 through, 1 HOV,2 auxiliary, and 3 off ramps) Access between

Marine Dr. and HaydenIsland provided by local

New CD facility fly-over access bridgeMarine Dr. interchange

6 lanes across OregonSlough (2 through, 1

Marine Dr. off ramp Access to Marine Dr. HOV, 2 auxiliary, 1 onfrom C-D or I-5 from C-D, Hayden Is, ramp

and I-5Oregon Slough On ramp from Marine Access to I-5 mainline

Dr. merges into I-5

Marine Dr. on ramp to Access to I-5 main- 3 lanes on mainline atI-5 mainline adds as line from Marine Dr. Marine Dr. Marine Dr. (2 through, 1auxiliary lane HOV)

2 lane overcrossing 2nd lane of CD facilityof I-5 mainline to diverges from Marinenew CD facility Dr. off-ramp

Victory/Denver merge Access to CD facilityforms 1st lane of CD from Victory/Deltafacility

No access fromOutside CD lane exits to Access to Denver/ Columbia/Victory/Denver/Victory as well as Victory from CD and Denver to Marine Dr.auxiliary lane from Marine I-5Dr.

Off ramp to Marine Dr./ Access to Marine Dr./Off ramp to Columbia Blvd. Access to Columbia CD facility braided with CD facility from I-5prior to Victory Blvd. is Blvd. on ramp from Victorybraided with Victory/Columbia Blvd. off ramp

2nd CD lane merges withI-5 south of Victory Blvd.

Victory on ramp travels Access to I-5 fromparallel to I-5 Victory Blvd south of

Columbia Blvd. Off ramp to Victory Access to Victory Blvd. Blvd. from I-5 mainline

4 lanes across Columbia5 lanes across Columbia Slough (1 HOV, 2 Slough (2 through, 1 HOV, Columbia Slough through, and 1 on ramp)and 2 on/off ramps)

NB on ramp fromColumbia Blvd.through Victory Blvd.

Victory on ramp to I-5 SB Access to I-5 from combines with Columbia Columbia Blvd.Blvd. before merging withI-5 mainline

Off ramp to Columbia Access to Columbia Blvd. Blvd. from I-5 mainline

On ramp from Victory/Columbia mergesinto 3rd lane on I-5

3 lanes on I-5 north ofLombard

3 lanes approaching Lombard

REVISED 4/17/02

Marine Drive

Columbia River

MLK Blvd.

Hayden Is. Dr.

N. D

enve

r Ave

.

Victory Blvd/Delta Park

Columbia Blvd.

Lombard St.

Hayden IslandLRT Station

LRT connect to Expo Station

New two-deck bridge for northbound and southbound ramp traffic and LRT Existing bridges continue to be

used for northbound andsouthbound freeway traffic.

I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership

Bridge Influence Area Analysis

Portland Freeway and Interchanges with Bridge Concept 6

Local Access Bridge between Hayden Island and Marine Drive

Not to Scale

Key: Southbound = Red HOV Lane Through lane Auxiliary lane On/off rampNorthbound = Green HOV Lane Through lane Auxiliary lane On/off ramp Local Street Signal Light Rail Tracks Barrier StructuresCD = Collector-Distributor Lane

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 Traffic2020 Through Trips vs. Bridge Influence Area Trips

Southbound - AM Peak Period Northbound - PM Peak Period

BIA

40% 40%

Vehicle Hours of Delay on I-5(AM and PM Peak Periods)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2000 Existing 2020 Baseline 2020 10-Lane DoubleDeck Bridge

2020 6-Lane Fwy plus4-Lane CD

2020 8-Lane Fwy plusArterial Concept

Concept Package

Vehi

cle

Hou

rs o

f Del

ay o

n Fr

eew

ay

(7 H

our P

erio

d)

Average SpeedAverage SpeedII--5 Southbound 5 Southbound -- Main St. to LombardMain St. to Lombard

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

6:00 A

M

6:30 A

M

7:00 A

M

7:30 A

M

8:00 A

M

8:30 A

M

9:00 A

M

Time

Sout

hbou

nd S

peed

(MPH

)

2020 Baseline

2020 Option 42020 Option 6

2020 Option 7

Main St.

Lombard

Columbia River

I-5

SR-500

Average SpeedAverage SpeedII--5 Northbound 5 Northbound -- Lombard to Main St.Lombard to Main St.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2:00 P

M

2:30 P

M

3:00 P

M

3:30 P

M

4:00 P

M

4:30 P

M

5:00 P

M

5:30 P

M

6:00 P

M

Time

Nor

thbo

und

Spee

d(M

PH)

2020 Baseline2020 Option 42020 Option 62020 Option 7

Main St.

Lombard

Columbia River

I-5

SR-500

Travel TimeTravel TimeII--5 Southbound 5 Southbound -- Main St. to LombardMain St. to Lombard

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

6:00 A

M

6:30 A

M

7:00 A

M

7:30 A

M

8:00 A

M

8:30 A

M

9:00 A

M

Time

Sout

hbou

nd T

rave

l Tim

es(M

inut

es)

2020 Baseline

2020 Option 4

2020 Option 62020 Option 7

Main St.

Lombard

Columbia River

I-5

SR-500

Travel TimeTravel TimeII--5 Northbound 5 Northbound -- Lombard to Main St.Lombard to Main St.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2:00 P

M

2:30 P

M

3:00 P

M

3:30 P

M

4:00 P

M

4:30 P

M

5:00 P

M

5:30 P

M

6:00 P

M

Time

Nor

thbo

und

Trav

el T

imes

(Min

utes

)

2020 Baseline

2020 Option 4

2020 Option 6

2020 Option 7

Main St.

Lombard

Columbia River

I-5

SR-500

OnOn--Ramps ImpactRamps ImpactII--5 Southbound (AM Peak Hour)5 Southbound (AM Peak Hour)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

I-5 M

ainlin

e Star

t39

th Street

ONSR-50

0 ON

Fourth Plai

n ON

Mill Plai

n ON

City C

enter

ON

SR-14 O

NHay

den Is

. ON

Marine D

r. ON

Denve

r / Delt

a ON

Columbia

ON

On-Ramps Locations

Uns

erve

d Ve

hicl

es

2020 Baseline

2020 Option 4

2020 Option 6

2020 Option 7

Que

ue L

engt

h fo

r Uns

erve

d V

ehic

les

(feet

)

Per

Lan

e

Per

Lan

e

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

0.25 mile

0.50 mile

1.00 mile

2.00 mile

OnOn--Ramps ImpactRamps ImpactII--5 Northbound (PM Peak Hour)5 Northbound (PM Peak Hour)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

I-5 M

ainlin

e Star

tDen

ver O

NDelt

a / C

olumbia ON

Marine D

r. ON

Hayden

Is. O

N

SR-14 O

NMill

Plain O

NFour

th Plain O

N39

th St. / SR-50

0 ON

On-Ramps Locations

Uns

erve

d Ve

hicl

es

2020 Baseline

2020 Option 4

2020 Option 6

2020 Option 7

Que

ue L

engt

h fo

r Uns

erve

d V

ehic

les

(feet

)

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

Per

Lan

e

0.25 mile

0.50 mile

1.00 mile

2.00 mile

i-5 columbia river crossing partnership: traffic and

Documents