Move the Council to Support Moving the Sauvie Island Bridge
Posted by: KarlApr 01 2008, 3:17 pm
Mayor Potter has decided to oppose a proposal put forth by Commissioner Sam Adams that would greatly enhance bicycling in Portland. This time it’s the proposal to reuse the Sauvie Island Bridge for a landmark bicycle and pedestrian crossing of I-405 that would make the NW Flanders Bicycle Boulevard a reality.
The BTA has worked closely with the City, neighborhood and business groups to designate and fund a NW Flanders Bicycle Boulevard as part of the Burnside-Couch couplet project. There is currently no low-traffic bike route that runs east-west in NW Portland, connecting the river to NW 23rd; I-405 is the biggest barrier. Pedestrians can cross at Everett or Glisan, if they can get to the one-sided narrow sidewalks through all the speeding freeway-bound car traffic. And bicyclists can brave it if they have strength, skills and nerve, but that’s asking a lot of NW residents and employees who just want to move around their city.
The best way to get bicyclists and pedestrians across I-405 is on their own bridge, away from cars. The old Sauvie Island Bridge structure, which was recently replaced, was identified early on as an ideal recycling solution for this problem. In keeping with the Portland ethic of reuse and creating unique amenities that make the city and its neighborhoods stand out, this project would cost a little more but would deliver huge returns.
In recent months, Commissioner Adams, working with the community, has identified funding for this Flanders Street bridge project. The project will cost $5.5 million. Much of the funding is not traditional transportation dollars. Rather, it consists largely of Urban Renewal and System Development funds. These dollars cannot be used for maintenance – they can only be used for new projects near the developments that paid them. There are also Federal funds and a group is working on a fundraising campaign for the remainder.
If saving 25% by building a cheaper, and not as nice, bike and pedestrian bridge here meant we got to use the difference to fund other bike and pedestrian improvements, that would be a no-brainer. But that’s not how it works in this case.
The benefits of reusing the Sauvie Island span rather than building a new, cheaper facility are:
–The bridge would be wider and more attractive, making it more like a little park or plaza than the narrow, concrete pedestrian bridges commonly built over freeways.
–A wide, attractive bridge would be another public space where people could gather for events, or could linger while out on a walk.
–A standard width bicycle and pedestrian bridge would only serve demand for so long before we started to talk about widening it (look at the recent summer traffic jams on the Hawthorne Bridge, the Esplanade, and in the bike lanes on N Vancouver and Williams).
If it’s tough to think about spending more money on a nicer facility, think back to previous investments the city has made. Should we have just torn down the Hawthorne bridge and built an engineer-approved concrete slab, rather than spend extra money to make it the lovely amenity it is today? Would it have been better to save money by tearing down City Hall rather than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure? I think Portlanders would resoundingly say NO to these questions, because the results have made Portland a memorable and attractive world-class city, which has its own economic benefits.
So now we have an opportunity to reconnect two neighborhoods torn apart by I-405 in the 1970s, facilitate safe walking and biking in NW Portland, and create a landmark that will be inviting for residents and tourists alike. Things are different here. We’re Oregon. We love dreamers. Let the Mayor know you dream big!
The Council meets to decide this issue tomorrow morning at 10am. For more on this issue, read Jonathan Maus' story on BikePortland.Org.
http://npgreenway.blogspot.com/2008/04/from-bta-blog-cycling-community-seeks.html
It sounds like a very cool idea – 5.5 million isn't that much for a public improvement project like this. Has Potter done anything notable since he's been in office besides growing a beard?
While I do support the BTA's position about the reuse of the Sellwood Bridge rather than building a new, more narrow structure, I'm having a hard time getting my head around Karl's argument that the bridge could be a "public space where people could gather for events, or could linger while out on a walk." This bridge is not going to be sitting over a river, this is going to be sitting over a major freeway. The project is really for the general moving of people as quickly as possible over a major arterial, a commuter, pedestrian thing, but not as a place to linger unless you want to breathe in exhaust. I haven't seen the plans, so if there is talk about some sort of area on either side of the bridge for people to hang out, that's great, but I wouldn't be selling the idea of this overpass as a destination spot. I'd be selling the idea on the recycling merits and the relatively low cost of the entire project compared to other, less user friendly things are government spends its money on. Take the Iraq war for example.
Umm, am I the only one who can't make sense of this? The Sauvie Island Bridge is way up north from I-405 and NW Flanders:
Here's a map with a direct line which shows almost 10 miles by the way the crow flies – what kind of bridge will span this?
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=116665129075818966091.000449db0b
e74bdc04e5a
Ohhh…. thanks to the first post, I see the idea is to MOVE THE RETIRED BRIDGE AND PLOP IT DOWN OVER I-405 AT FLANDERS. Would it have been so hard to say something about a bridge that's no longer in service being moved to be used for pedestrians and bicycles? This has to be the most confusing thing I've heard from the BTA until I read the blog posting listed in the first comment.
That said, while I agree Potter has done nothing other than waste money paying expensive California consultants for "Visioning" projects… my belief is that the odds of being able to reuse a bridge: the cost of disconnecting it, moving it intact, putting it in, and having it pass all the safety codes is 99% more likely to be more expensive than to just build something across I-405 that can be designed not for cars and one sidewalk, like the old bridge, but instead for everything but cars – we'd save money and get a bridge that was designed for the specific purpose, rather than trying to "reuse" a car bridge. I do believe in "reuse, recycle, repurpose" but not when it costs more and results in something that's not very well suited to its new purpose.
I imagine this is why the council opposes the idea. These are Legos – you don't just pick up a bridge and plop it down somewhere else, and the old Sauvie Island bridge was replaced because it sucked. I'd rather we spend the time and money on something built specifically for bikes and pedestrians. Sorry.
Thanks Karl for putting together a great argument for not being penny-foolish about the proposed Flanders Bikeway Bridge. Having commuted through NW Portland for many years, using Everett as the default route, I'd be happy to let Mayor Potter know why it is not an acceptable alternative for novices, parents towing children, or anyone who's not a Lance wannabe.
And Bill, don't be so quick to dismiss the idea of public right-of-way as park – yes, even if it's right next to (or above) traffic. Have you never been entranced while on BridgePedal? A lot of traffic still flowing around the route (e.g. Marquam or Fremont Bridges), yet thousands ride it every year. I think Americans love the novelty of having their paved public land put to another use than speeding and climate change.
Need more proof? Breakfast on the Bridges! I helped serve thousands of cyclists on the Broadway Bridge over the past 5 years. Despite the rush of motor traffic just a couple of feet away lots of otherwise-conscientious workers lingered to the point of tardiness, just to enjoy coffee and fellowship with their non-motorized pals, on a bridge.
Portland does not have the highest quality of life because we build the cheapest, most soulless spaces possible. We make crazy investments, like the Eastbank Esplanade, then enjoy them to the fullest, wondering how we ever lived without them.
Finally I am convinced that the relocation of the old Sauvie Island Bridge to Northwest Portland is the right idea for a crossing. The reason I'm convinced is twofold: it will provide a very broad, generous space for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross 405, and it will preserve a structure that is undeniably part of local history.
The placement of this bridge is timely, and it will only enhance the sense of place that is integral to Portland's forward-looking development as a city that values the past while accommodating a future that enhances the vitality of streetlife, where pedestrians and bicyclists feel safe, welcome, and essential. A little extra is warranted here. Portland is unique–let's continue this tradition with a bridge that celebrates this!
It's all about sustainability and livability baby!
Five to ten years from now, with the projected infusing of new residents and the housing and development trend to develop up instead of out, $5.5 million will seem like chump change.
Although I am all for additional bike friendly options in downtown, I think this project is presuming that the couplet will become a reality
At this time, I think the couplet is one of the poorest ideas for use of public funding in the city. It would create 2 hazardous roadways to cross, cost way too much money to 'redevelop" an area that is redeveloping itself with small businesses, and would impact the only designated park space and public school for children in all of downtown Portland. I hope the BTA can convince the city to create a bike corridor that runs East-West, but please, don't make it contingent on the couplet.