For anyone who crosses it, the Sellwood Bridge south of downtown is in desperate need of replacement. Only one lane goes in each direction, and the whole thing feels like it's ready to crumble. It rates only 2 out of 100 on a federal bridge-sufficiency scale. Buses and big trucks are banned, although I think SUVs are still allowed. (Or as I call them, SSUVs for their barge-like qualities.)
Multnomah County has spent nearly two years studying bridge options, including an entirely new span and a refurbishment of the old bridge. They've involved hundreds of neighbors and business to be involved in the process.
But in a very short time at a Monday night meeting with neighborhood residents, organizers agreed to drop one of the options endorsed by a task force that had spent 16 months studying. Policy makers agreed at the behest of neighborhood residents to only consider routes along the current span or between Spokane Street and Sellwood Riverfront Park. Fewer residences and businesses will be condemned that way.
"I'm not interested in taking homes," said Multnomah County Commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey, an advocate for the new bridge but apparently one willing to play to the crowd.
Such narrowing of the options also hinders the chance to build the right bridge, one that has room for bike lanes and wide sidewalks for pedestrians, as well as multiple lanes for cars. We should also consider the possibility of light rail or a streetcar eventually crossing here, even if it's not in the current plans.
As Arthur Sulzberger wrote in his Tuesday Oregonian report, though, "Community support has built around narrower, less intrusive options that don't funnel too much traffic onto Southeast Tacoma street, the arterial heart of the neighborhood."
The Sellwood Bridge is important to far more Portlanders, however, than those living in Sellwood. Heading south, It's the first chance people have to cross the river for miles after the Ross Island Bridge. Many people in Portland use the bridge to get to jobs in Clackamas County, such as my aunt, who lives in Hillsdale but works at a senior services center in Clackamas. With the city adding many thousands of residents per year, it seems preposterous to rebuild the same old small bridge with one lane in each direction.
I don't know the right answer for the Sellwood Bridge. Nobody wants to see people driven from their homes or businesses. But I wonder if process-heavy Portland could in a situation like this use just a little more of the Robert Moses style: Build the best bridge for the city's future. Move the buildings you have to, and compensate the displaced properly.
In other words, let's not make the Sellwood Bridge a local sellout.
I think the new bridge will be a two lane bridge, the problem is even if you made it a four lane bridge, Tacoma is only a two lane street.So even with a larger bridge you would dump traffic into a bottleneck. My ideal bridge would be two lanes with with wide sidewalks(10' - 12') for pedestrians and cyclists.
Posted by: stan | October 03, 2007 at 09:11 AM
Since the city restriped Tacoma to be two lanes several years ago, and truck and bus traffic across the Sellwood Bridge has been eliminated, morning rush hour traffic has decreased considerably, and probably helped your Aunt's commute! The best option presented so far is one not on the approved list, but keeps the existing bridge for bikes and pedestrians, and locates a new span over the park to the north, avoiding all existing buildings. Incidently, who's the genius that that's been approving all the god-awful development on the east end of the bridge, effectively forcing condemnation?
Posted by: DC | October 03, 2007 at 09:33 AM
The City and the County have no legal ability to stop development from happening in this area. What is taking place now is merely a concept plan for what sort of bridge should be built in this area.
Once a plan is adopted, then public funds can be used to purchase the needed properties. Government can not prevent land from being developed just because a road or a bridge may be built here at a future date. There is the road dedication process, but this is used to limit the footprint of new structures once a transportation plan is adopted.
Here is another important footnote, even rehabilitating the existing bridge will require the purchase of several properties since a portion of the bridge is built on leased property. One building is actually built underneath the bridge and around some of the support beams.
The first two responders are correct about capacity and the desire to keep the bridge at two lanes. None of the East/West streets in this area can handle the added capacity from a four lane bridge. Congestion would simply move from the bridge to points to the east and to the west.
PDOT has an interesting solution. They have proposed a three lane bridge. There would be two lanes for through traffic, plus another lane for traffic heading eastbound. This lane would then serve those seaking to turn left at Oaks Park and at SE 13th Avenue. This proposal seems to balance overall system efficiency.
Posted by: Lance Lindahl | October 03, 2007 at 04:35 PM
I was clearly wrong about suggesting a four-lane bridge given the street conditions on Tacoma and elsewhere.
However, I think the three-lane bridge idea is a good one.
Posted by: Brian Libby | October 04, 2007 at 08:56 AM
As Lance Lindahl says, I think 3 lanes, rather than 2, the additional lane to enable driver access to Oaks Park, and Sellwood too, without backing up bridge traffic, is acceptable. That lane could also serve a streetcar.
For that purpose, an additional motor vehicle lane on the bridge is fine. On the other hand, if opinion remains strong that a bridge crossing in the general area is necessary to support considerable growth in out-of-neighborhood commuter traffic, then it seems like serious, ongoing effort should be made to site another bridge somewhere nearby that can better handle that kind of traffic.
The notion that it's reasonable for neighborhood livability to be seriously degraded by pressing needs of people that do not live in the neighborhood or do not benefit the neighborhood, but are only passing through day after day after day in single occupancy motor vehicles, is not one that the neighborhood should be obliged to accept.
Posted by: ws | October 04, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I'd be really interested in figuring out how we as the design community, as well as a neighborhood resident, can kick-start a discussion on what this bridge could look like. Can someone speak to the relative costs of a Calatrava-like design, vs a faux-historic look, or even an ODOT basic scheme "6b"? What level of design has the publicized budget ranges envisioned?
Posted by: DC | October 04, 2007 at 12:09 PM
As I understand it, the steel structure of the existing bridge is fine; it's the approaches, particularly on the west end, that are failing. Jim Howell suggested an interesting refurbishment option: simply rebuild the approaches, keep two lanes on the bridge, but add a lower deck for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Instead of widening the entire bridge to three lanes, just add a left turn lane at the east end.
If extra lanes aren't needed, there's no particular advantage to replacing the bridge when the existing bridge can be rehabilitated instead.
Posted by: djk | October 06, 2007 at 01:08 AM
As with all such projects, the issues are very complex.
The bridge should be designed for many modes of transportation and not solely for the automobile. It should prioritize movement of people, not vehicles...hence provision for pedestrians, bikes and rail should be included in the design. Unfortunately, whatever mode or modes the bridge is designed for, it will not serve the present adequately...and if designed for the present, it will serve the future less so..therefore, its design should be predicated on what we can achieve in the future, not what solves the circumstances of today....example...4 lanes would meet the load of autos...but Tacoma would need to be widened...Robert Moses would have condemned the buildings along Tacoma and widened the street. He would have built for his future vision. Providing for rail is a vision of another sort, but as we know, it may be years for rail to get there...but the developers achieved that goal years ago...our 50's/60's society dismantled it. Do we provide for the future of rail, make it more difficult to realize?
Pedestrians and bikes should always be provided for. Neither requires remaking of Tacoma...or substantial future investment.
I think reworking the existing bridge is not an option. Its west side approaches do not meet current design standards, the bike lanes are unacceptable, as is the pedestrian component.
I believe we need a design that will provide a rail line in the future. One that will not require widening of any streets. One that that provides safe space for bikes and pedestrians. I also believe that we need a design that is beautiful...one we can be proud of, one that transcends mere functionality and graces the unique place it crosses.
Posted by: potestio | October 09, 2007 at 12:42 AM
It is time for Clackamas County to step up and build their own bridge. For years, homeowners and businesses have fled Portland for the cheaper taxes and wide open driving spaces there. The problem is the Clackamas NIMBY attitude. One Clackamas bridge alignment would cross into Lake Oswego's downtown grid, other similar alignments have been suggested.
Posted by: friendofbridges | October 15, 2007 at 01:31 PM
How about a 4 lane bridge, and making Tacoma two lanes one way, and one of the other parallel streets two lanes in the other direction.
With thoughtful attention to the design, you could open up some of the major bottlenecks at intersections east of the bridge, and it doesn't have to turn into a major artery for commuters that would destroy the local flavour of the area.
Posted by: whatabout | October 21, 2008 at 08:09 PM