(Photos © J. Maus)
On Sunday, the girls and I joined a few friends for a ride out to Sauvie Island for some berry picking.
Besides a chance to enjoy a day on the farm, I was also able to get my first look at the new Sauvie Island Bridge.
The new bridge officially opened on June 26th and Multnomah County paid $42 million to have it built. The old bridge was built in 1950 and had become a liability for truckers due to its outdated weight capacity.
yet comfortable.
I rode over the old bridge many times. It was much narrower and, even though there was not a large shoulder or a designated bike lane, it felt sort of quaint and the motor vehicle speeds were low. The result was a cramped, yet relatively comfortable crossing.
The new bridge on the other hand, is massive in comparison (see photo above).
According to Mike Lynch, a bike planner with Multnomah County, the new bridge is 36 feet wide — 10 feet wider than the old one. In addition to being wider, the arch is also much higher.
new bridge.
The upside is that there is much more breathing room in the shoulder and they have added a standard, 6 foot wide bike lane. The downside is that, now that the bridge feels more like a highway and less like a quaint little road, I worry that motor vehicle speeds will adjust accordingly.
While riding over the bridge, I glanced at the old span and felt a twinge of sadness. I thought about the huge political and civic firestorm that erupted over the idea to spend an estimated $5.5 million to re-use this span as a bike and pedestrian-only crossing of I-405 in downtown Portland.
Now, what could have been a centerpiece of downtown Portland’s first bike boulevard, is destined for the scrap heap.
Have you ridden across the new bridge? Do you like having the extra room? Share your thoughts below.
I like the new bridge.
It makes me sad that the old bridge will be broken down and probably shipped to China. Sometimes it makes sense to spend a little more for infrastructure that is/becomes part of a place\’s identity.
Sad also that the math that makes massive investments in streetcar expansion and aerial trams pencil out cannot give cycling more than a removed parking spot or traffic signal. How about they take whatever the 6% who bike commute would have needed for parking structures and invest that in some expensive bike-related public works?
It\’s kind of like a miniature version of the CRC, isn\’t it? Official bike facility to buy us off, but greater traffic capability was the reason it was built.
#2 – It is still a two lane bridge I think. What is the greater traffic capability?
Any city that can afford to invest in infrastructure like Portland must be doing alright. Economically it is a good sign. Is our development unbalanced away from bikes, I guess it depends on your point of view. With the tram, we were crafting an image for ourselves, which was not automobile-centric. I think we bikers have some good things coming our way…
I\’m glad Sam is at the wheel.
In response to peejay and others who may be interested in facts about the Sauvie Island bridge: The Sauvie Island replacement bridge was NOT built for reasons of traffic capacity! It was replaced because it was structurally inadequate. The old bridge was designed and built in an era when trucks were about 25 tons rather than 60 tons. I was Multnomah County\’s traffic engineer when the bridge project was initiated and was involved in placing the speed monitoring devices on the bridge and changing the speed limit on the old bridge to prolong its life prior to the replacement. If you want to debate whether trucks should be as heavy as they are, that\’s fine, but let\’s make certain of our facts.
I remember reading somewhere that the pedestrian and bike facilities on this bridge could not fully completed until the old bridge was removed. I believe that this is not the final completion of the bride, and we may get better bike lanes when all construction is complete.
\”I remember reading somewhere that the pedestrian and bike facilities on this bridge could not fully completed until the old bridge was removed.\”
I think this was in regards to the pedestrian facilities. the bike facilities (except for possible adding some signage) are complete. .. it\’s the sidewalk they are yet to finish.
Trucks going from max 25 tons to max 60 tons == an increase in capacity. Taking out the speed control at the bridge == an increase in speed. Sounds like we win both ways!
What I mean to say is that you can increase traffic loads by many other means than putting in more lanes. For example, compare an old PDX neighborhood street with a new subdivision street. Same one lane each way, but the new one is much wider, therefore much less friendly to pedestrians because of the increase in speeds. Almost any accommodation for safety often leads to a recalibration of risk on behalf of the driver, leading to a higher speed road, which will carry more cars, in a less friendly way for all other transport modes.
Peejay,
On and on about increased capacity/traffic loads?
The new bridge was needed and built. If you lived on the island, you would be happy about it.
You don\’t live on the island, so it doesn\’t seem like a good idea to you. Well, boo hoo.
This same thought applies to the many who are Poo Poohing the need for a new I-5 bridge. You live on one side of it in your little bubble, and don\’t see the real need for a new bridge.
Look and think outside of your little bicycle bubble for a change. There is a lot going on, and changes needed/wanted for all modes of transportation.
I rode over the new bride a little over a week ago. It seems like a grand entrance to such a peaceful place. I don\’t see any problems with this alleged increase in auto traffic speed. After riding on Highway 30 to get out to Sauvie Island, it seems like you should be accustomed to autos moving at high speeds anyway. I certainly do not feel unsafe crossing the new, rather spectacular bridge.
\”Look and think outside of your little bicycle bubble for a change…\”
That\’s what you need to do, Icarus. The people advocating for these new bridges are the ones who are thinking only of themselves, rather than the broader public good. Whether it\’s the CRC or a widened neighborhood street, it only benefits those who push the true costs of their transportation choices off on others. The costs in damages and mitigating the damage of global warming caused by driving single-occupancy vehicles are the perfect example of how those projects are ultimately worse for everyone.
Perhaps those people who live on Sauvie Island and need access by 60-ton trucks are happy about it, but you should not presume to speak for the entire population of the island. That\’s what someone who is living in their own \”little bubble\” would do.
a.O.:
Thanks for saying it before I said it!
Functionally, the new bridge is fine. It\’s important to support Island agriculture\’s need for greater load capacity. Aesthetically, I wouldn\’t miss the new bridge if it were gone tomorrow. Don\’t much care for the design…definitely could use a different color paint (hopefully, that\’s just the primer…probably not). The original span is in far better scale to the setting. It\’s the right color too.
Fairy godmother with the wherewithal to do it, can drop in anytime now to put the original span over on Flanders.
The trucks happen to move the actual commerce and production that many on the island make their living from. Are you suggesting that instead of replacing a bridge that needed it, they should have instead started growing less fruits and vegetables there?
And, in regards to:\”but you should not presume to speak for the entire population of the island.\”
I did not presume to speak for anyone. I mentioned that \”If you lived on the island, you would be happy about it.\”
I was only, and quite directly, stating that if Peejay lived there, he would be happy about it.
If you have to put words in other\’s mouths to make your case, then you do not have one.
The bridge was needed, the bridge was built. It was not rebuilt in the name of more SOV\’s, as is plainly stated in many different forums.
Move on.
Oh, and once again, \”Sharing the Road\” does not invovle wishing others were not using it in their chosen form.
\”If you lived on the island, you would be happy about it.\”
If peejay lived on the island, he\’d probably live in a houseboat on the island, and not as the owner of one of the farms there. And I don\’t imagine that he\’d really care for 60 ton trucks rumbling down his street if they weren\’t making him money, which they wouldn\’t be. Or at least, that is what I\’m going to presume…
I thought the new bridge at Sauvie Island was a good thing when I first heard about it, but you are right, I should get out of my bubble from time to time and look at it from the other side.
I am glad that the farms can load onto larger trucks. That\’s just great for the farmers, because, you know, the 25 ton trucks were so inadequate. All I\’m saying is that the wider bridge that makes it possible for the mega trucks to get through encourages higher speed traffic, and, consequently, a less pleasant and safe experience for the people crossing the bridge on foot or bike. It\’s fine for Sauvie Island. When the analogy is drawn to the bridge proposal for I-5, it\’s not ok. All that extra capacity has significant macro effects that are not good for sprawl, pollution, livability, or anything else that affects our lives in this city.
And, although I think houseboats are kinda cool, I don\’t live in one, because I couldn\’t have a garden.
Icarus, you seem to be struggling with reality here. You said, \”If you lived on the island, you would be happy about it.\” A perfectly logical implication of that statement that you think everyone on the island wanted the bridge to be replaced. I seriously doubt that\’s the case, and in any event I don\’t think you know that (or, rather, that you can *presume* that).
I think it\’s just your opinion. And I disagree with it. There are probably plenty of people on the island who don\’t care about the weight capacity of the bridge, and would just as soon not pay the taxes. Oregon is full of anti-tax types. So if you meant something else, you should clarify. It seems pretty clear Mr Denton (#16) has a similar understanding of your statement.
But here\’s an implication that does *not* follow from statements that have been made here…
\”Are you suggesting that instead of replacing a bridge that needed it, they should have instead started growing less fruits and vegetables there?\”
I\’m not suggesting that. And it seems to me that no one else is either. I will *presume* to speak for peejay (he\’ll tell me if I\’m wrong) and say that both he and I were making the point that increasing the motor vehicle carrying capacity of the bridge – independently of any need to remedy its structural integrity – effectively enables further reliance on an unsustainable transportation system.
The twin problems of global warming and peak oil will soon make mass-scale movement of commercial goods using motor vehicles economically infeasible. Spending public money to further this system instead of spending it on mitigation and restructuring the transportation system is foolish. The same is true of the CRC and widening of surface streets.
We think they should grow *more* produce on Sauvie Island, because within the next 10 years or so it will cost so much to ship pineapples in from Hawaii and truck bananas from Costa Rica that the only produce people will be able to afford is that grown locally. Have you been paying attention to fuel costs in the last year?
And if all the produce that is coming from Sauvie is consumed locally, there will be no need for 60-ton trucks to move it off the island and thus no need for such a large cash outlay for a heightened-capacity bridge.
Fine with the new bridge, one thing that hasn\’t come up is that Sauvie\’s Island also houses one of Portland Largest Landfills. So potentially, more trash can be moved there as well.
\”…one thing that hasn\’t come up is that Sauvie\’s Island also houses one of Portland Largest Landfills.\” will
Yes, that sucks. I\’m trying to remember about it. I think it\’s construction or manufacturing debris only. I believe, a year ago or so, there was a lawsuit by a neighboring property owner over concerns about possible long term effects. Not to mention that the fill is changing the geography of the island. Haven\’t heard about if for awhile.
It\’s disturbing to consider that the new, heavier load capacity bridge may help enable a certain spoiling of Sauvie Island for business gain.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I try hard not to be, I would theorize that the bridge was built because there is a huge landfill there. Note the timing of larger trash containers being delivered to the homes of Portlanders.
Does anyone have more info on the landfill angle / issue, and what might be happening there?
On a semi-related topic, is anyone taking the time to think about the ridiculous amount of packaging our consumeristic society encloses our products in. Most of that packaging comes from oil-based plastics. The cost of fuel is only a small part of the picture people.
For me, I\’ll keep riding my bicycle everywhere, I will continue to buy locally as much as possible, and try to remember to laugh when I hear that we will scrap a sustainable transportation solution so we can sell a bridge to China. Only a sense of humor will save us from the outrage we feel; resultant of paying attention.
Icarus, it might be worth taking down your defenses for a moment, and listening to what PeeJay & aO are trying to \’wake you up\’ to.
I am familiar with the landfill situation. I don\’t want to get into any detail, but I can tell you that it is going to keep getting higher as they will continue to add more stuff. And yes, as you point out, thanks to the new higher-capacity bridge, they can now do so much faster.
I used to get to a lovely mountain meadow over a terrible 10 miles of rutted FS road. I usually had the place to myself as most people were not up to that drive.
I often wished for a better road, and then day I got it…graded, smooth gravel, 35 mph, and guess what? Lots of people discovered the place, it was overrun with people and dogs, wildlife took off.
So watch out what you wish for.
I do not need a \”Wake Up\” thank you very much.
I realize and understand the situation.
I happen to have a different opinion than they do.
The bridge was needed, and it was built, so the arguing is really a mute point anyway.
I am over it.
I think you mean it\’s a \”moot\” point. Either way, you\’re wrong there as well, because the argument is equally applicable to the CRC, a topic which you originally introduced, and to street widening. Both of those are ongoing, as are thousands of other transportation decisions to which the argument is equally applicable.
You\’re welcome to whatever opinion you want, of course, but please don\’t pretend that you understand the situation and that you have some compelling logical reason for believing as you do. Instead, I\’d like to respectfully suggest that you\’re simply unwilling to admit that you\’re wrong or unable to provide any meaningful support for your position. But I guess it doesn\’t matter – since you\’re \”over it\” we won\’t be hearing from you on this again.
\”It\’s important to support Island agriculture\’s need for greater load capacity.\” In making that statement, I was assuming the agricultural industry on the island (definitely not the landfill), needed that load capacity to be economically viable. It\’s a shame if 42 million was unnecessarily spent.
I guess there is only a one sided opinion allowed on the subject of needed bridge replacement then. And for that matter many other things.
I didn\’t realize that \”They\” know everything, while \”I\” am so uniformed.
Plus, and a hell of a lot worse, I made a spelling error.
If any of you are lawyers, you should sue the hell out of me for:
Having a personal opinion.
Oh, and a functioning brain.
Speaking my mind.
And making a spelling error. (or two)
But, just remember, you can\’t get blood from a turnip.
But you can get an honest opinion from a educated, crusty old messenger. (who sometimes has lazy fingers and does not type well, nor use spell check)
We visited Sauvie Island recently too for berry picking.
My feeling…sad
My feeling re: the old bridge reuse for Flanders…still sad
When looking at it practically…it still is sad. It doesn\’t make sense in the big picture, is not sustainable and when you throw in the idea of the landfill…
still sad, and now pissed off (conspiracy theory aside).
Why not start making buying plastics a little bit harder?