Ideas Considered and Dropped

Many congestion relief ideas have been proposed and analyzed as part of the CRC project. Several were rejected because they did not address the project’s goals as identified in the Purpose and Need statement. They include the following:

BRIDGE

Third highway river crossing

Between 68 and 75 percent of trips crossing the Interstate Bridge in peak travel hours have origins or destinations within the project area itself. Even if a new bridge is constructed east or west of I-5, most trips would not be diverted to that new bridge. In addition, a third river crossing would not address the safety deficiencies on the Interstate Bridge or the highway leading to it. The SW Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) is studying the future need for a third crossing outside the I-5 corridor.

Tunnel

It would be difficult to match the existing roadway grades on either side of the river with a tunnel. As a result, a tunnel would bypass at least three interchanges in the project area: Vancouver City Center, SR 14 and Hayden Island. A tunnel would require creating an intricate system of arterials east and west of the tunnel for vehicles to access the portals in and out of the structure. This system would have more water quality, right of way, archaeological and historic resource impacts than the alternatives under consideration.

Arterial bridge

Even with an additional arterial crossing for travel between Vancouver, Hayden Island, and Marine Drive, I-5 would continue operating over-capacity, with the new arterial bridge carrying only 13-18 percent of river crossing trips. An arterial bridge would carry both local and regional trips. Traffic congestion in downtown Vancouver would increase by about 60 percent as drivers back up on local streets trying to bypass I-5 across the Columbia River.

Upstream bridge

CRC removed the upstream bridge alignment from additional active study because of its significant impacts to Fort Vancouver and its lengthier construction time compared to the other bridge alternatives. The upstream bridge alignment will be discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

TRANSIT

Commuter rail

CRC ruled out commuter rail on the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe tracks because the system does not have the capacity to operate both existing freight rail and more frequent passenger service. A second option, building new commuter railway tracks within the BNSF right of way, has significant environmental and cost impacts. Commuter trains would be slowed by priority BNSF freight trains, which would not improve transit performance in the project area. The project also considered a new railway corridor, but it requires massive financial resources and bi-state cooperation. A new railway corridor also would have significant right of way impacts.

Ferry

A ferry service would be slower than other transit modes and would not improve congestion.

Streetcar

This slower type of transit service cannot serve the region’s existing or future population and would not improve congestion if constructed to serve the Vancouver to Portland commuter market.

HIGHWAY

Reversible lanes

Reversible lanes, like those on I-5 in Seattle, require added shoulders and barriers compared to regular highways. This increased width could have greater impacts on right of way in downtown Vancouver. Reversible lanes also perform better as part of a larger, regional system; they would not relieve congestion significantly in CRC’s five-mile project area.

I-205 capacity improvements

Between 68 and 75 percent of traffic on the I-5 bridge enters or exits the highway within the project area, which does not include the I-205 corridor. To address congestion and safety deficiencies, improvements must be made to I-5 itself.