Flyover visualizations produced by the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program give us our best view yet on what the future of the I-5 freeway between Portland and Vancouver might look like after an estimated $7.5 billion investment. The project team has released these about half-way through a federally-mandated public comment period and only after they’ve raised over $4 billion and built considerable political inertia to begin the project.
The IBR team revealed a series of flyover videos at a Monday meeting of the Joint Interim Committee on the Interstate 5 Bridge, a group made up of legislators from Oregon and Washington. The “visual fly-throughs” were introduced at the meeting by Chris Regan, the IBR environmental manager.
Regan told lawmakers the videos were created to “help our community members better visualize and understand the potential investments that we’re studying.”
Scroll down for some before/after images of the interchanges and views of the future bikeway…
Marine Drive interchange looking north
Hayden Island/Jantzen Beach Interchange
Vancouver Riverfront
As you view these, keep in mind that the design is not yet final. The project has adopted a “locally preferred alternative” (LPA), in order to compare something to a “no-build” scenario, but within that LPA there are still several key design options under consideration.
The IBR is about half-way through a crucial public comment period on its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). This week the project hosts its first two, in-person public hearings and these flyover videos will be shown at each of them.
The lack of high-quality visuals is something project-watchers have been clamoring for for a long time. How can the public and lawmakers weigh the need to invest billions in something that hasn’t even been revealed to them yet? Note that even without these visuals, the project has already secured over $1 billion from each state and $2.1 billion from the federal government for a total of $4.2 billion.
Bikeway integration (read captions for details)
As bicycle riders, the videos reveal the best look yet at how we’ll approach the river and cross onto the bridge structure, then return back to surface streets. Look through gallery of screenshots above for a closer look at how the bikeway interacts with the various designs.
Coming from the south, it appears like whether you come from east or west of I-5, the route onto the bridge will be much more intuitive and direct. West of I-5, the project will build a bikeway along N Expo Road that begins at Delta Park dog park. This bikeway will head north to Marine Drive and then go west under the new bridge structure, onto a ramp, and then up onto a new bridge that will connect to Hayden Island and/or continue northbound onto the main bridge structure before coming to a spiral ramp that leads from the bridge on the Washington side and connects to surface streets in Vancouver.
In the single-level design, the flyover shows tiny little specks that are bike riders and walkers, at the same grade as six other travel lanes. If the final design of the project calls for a double-deck bridge, the bikeway will go under the bridge deck. Unfortunately, none of these visuals show the view of the bikeway over the river in the double-deck bridge design. (For more on the bikeway elements, refer to this PDF map.)
These visuals mark an important milestone and should give more people the ability to form opinions and comments on the project. Watch them and consider attending an upcoming open house and don’t forget to share an official comment so your feedback is included in the official public record. The design can still be altered and refined if enough people share a similar concern about a particular element of the project.
To help inform your comment(s), imagine yourself living, walking, biking, or taking transit on and around these proposed facilities. How would you feel? What would make it easier and/or more attractive to you?
The Portland in-person public hearing and open house is this Thursday, October 17th from 5:30 to 8:30 pm at the Expo Center. Learn more about the event here.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I find it telling that the videos don’t feature many (or any?) bikes using the bridge. I also find it telling that it shows very little traffic. I’d like to see the videos re-done to show the massive congestion that will happen, and strings of bicyclists outpacing the cars.
Here’s a video IBR released showing how they expect people riding bikes or walking to travel between various origins and destinations via the proposed active transportation elements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acoJPOZCyNY
The video only shows 2 dimensional paths. No indication grade or lengths of ramps. Included are new MAX stops and local streets, and intersections.
paths and ramps on both sides of the bridge in Oregon and Washington are shown.
They list the Hayden Island spiral as likely to be 50-55 feet high and the Vancouver spiral as 80-85 feet high, but then emphasize that nothing has been finalized. Lots of spaghetti to bike (and walk) through to get to those spirals, not to mention elevation changes for ADA users.
No comments allowed on the video.
We should make the engineers/planners play this through in Cities: Skylines so they can really feel/visualize the failure of adding more lanes.
Oh, they have the visuals. They just don’t want us to see them.
Hayden island is just a giant interchange now.
The new bridge is going to dominate the views from the fancy new downtown Vancouver condos.
The spiral ramp on the Vancouver Waterfront is awful. Something I like about the current configuration is that the bridge is close to the water, so it’s pretty straightforward to bike or walk on/off. Sure it’s too narrow, but if that was the problem we needed to solve it would definitely be cheaper to do anything other than build a massive new high level bridge.
The best option for bikes and pedestrians would be a moveable bridge, and the primary reason a movable span isn’t in the picture is that lifts cause traffic jams. So choosing a fixed span rather than a movable span is prioritizing cars and trucks over bikes and peds. Plus, it’s not like a movable span precludes seismic safety – just look at the new Burnside Bridge.
I’m really lookng forward to the safer and easier bike and pedestrian routes over the river that the new bridge will be able to give us. It’s of course important to keep reminding those leading the project that biking and walking is an important modality (as well as transit).
But not ADA apparently.
Has there been any publishing of the maximum grade of the non-car infra? Just curious if they’re sneaking any 10+% grades in. The imagery makes the whole thing look pretty flat.
It absolutely is not flat. I welcome the elimination of the horrible at-grade crossing on Hayden Island, but don’t kind yourself, this is going to be just as bad as the I-205 bike path from a “pleasantness” perspective. Big grades to climb and noisy, polluting cars/trucks flying by.
Is there any way to make the bike path LESS like the I-205 path? The trail is dirty and you seriously need ear plugs it’s so noisy
Keep in mind that 205 and 5 are interstates. The only way to lessen vehicle noise would be to close them to vehicle traffic, and there’s no chance that’s happening.
It’s not the ONLY way. Installing some clear plexiglass sound walls would vastly reduce the noise from cars, as well as block some of the wind which would make biking much easier. But the cost will likely keep it from happening.
EVENTUALLY (i hope !) cars are going to be quiet. As far as all the gravel and crap that gets spit onto the 205 lane, at least the last time I rode it, which has been a bit–I’m not sure if that would be better with electric cars.
Electric cars at 70mph are just as loud as an unmodified normal gas vehicle. The tire/wind noise is what you are hearing.
One way to improve confidence about that actually happening would be to join the bike/walk route along the Max route. Rail sets a hard limit on the slope.
Also, eliminates the need for an entire additional adjoined bike/walk bridge on separate engineering, consumes less real estate everywhere, eliminates the multiple expensive and clumsy spiral ascents, provides a better connection on the Delta Park end, better connections to Hayden Island, connects to Vancouver somewhere useful instead of I5’s armpit, and wouldn’t commit connecting the north end at the largest possible height difference (highest point of the descending bridge, to literally the lowest elevation in downtown Vancouver).
Light rail can have 10% grades.
The longest sustained grade on the MAX system is 6.7% (up/down Interstate) from what I can tell from these schematics. I think 5.X% looks to be the maximum grade designed for on new structures though. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MAX could handle a 10% grade, but it would be silly to put one in without any reason to
I urge anyone interested in the actual evidence used to justify the IBR to read about the traffic prediction model (i.e., Kate) used by Metro, which contradicts ODOT traffic counts as well as most other models.
“Overestimation: As bad as it is in predicting overall traffic levels in the region, Kate is demonstrably worse in predicting traffic on the bridges across the Columbia River. Kate consistently overestimates traffic on the I-5 bridge, by almost 20 percent. In 2019, for instance, the Kate model says there were 164,500 average weekday trips across the I-5 bridge. The reality? A much more modest 138,530, according to ODOT’s own traffic recorders.
Exaggerated Growth Rates: Kate is the just the latest version of Metro’s traffic-inflating models. Kate’s predecessor “Ivan” predicted that if the Columbia River Crossing project (the predecessor to IBR) weren’t built (spoiler—it wasn’t) that I-5 bridge traffic would grow at a rapid 1.3% annual growth rate from 2005 to 2030. The actual growth rate from 2005 to 2019? A paltry 0.3% per year. Metro’s travel model predicts four times as much traffic growth as actually occurred.”
If anyone is interested in watching a vid on how induced demand works here is a straightforward explanation. I think it goes without saying if we want to turn Portland into LA, let’s build the IBR. If we’re looking for Montreal or Vancouver, we may want to consider not simply distributing our tax dollars to the heavens with the lovely traffic engineer’s dream catapult.
That thing is MASSIVE!
Also much uglier than what’s there now. Has the design aspect of this project been abandoned altogether?
I does give big Marquam Bridge vibes. I think that making it look nicer would inflate the cost even more, so we get the austere design.
If we build this, we’ll be living with it for the rest of our lives, so it may be worth paying more to make it less of an eyesore.
This was essentially the argument I made the last time the bridge replacement was killed when I presented public testimony down in Salem. I brought a visual aide where I photochopped the proposed bridge design in the location of the Golden Gate Bridge, and asked anyone if they could name the location. Then I showed the next Picture with the Golden Gate Bridge there. I consider myself a very moderate architecture enthusiast, but this stuff really does matter. When people spend a lot of time, money, and resources to build big projects I think it’s really important that they be something we can be proud of when we’re finished. Nobody remembers or cares about budget overruns ten or even five years after something is built, which is one reason why budget arguments against public transit projects and trains are so infuriating. I like to think of a grandparent telling their grandchildren about helping to build “that bridge,” “that cathedral,” or “that building” and feeling like they made a really meaningful contribution to the world by doing so. The Columbia River Crossing location isn’t quite as spectacular as the Golden Gate, but it’s not far off. Looking east as one crosses the bridge over the “Great River of the West” with the entrance to the Columbia River Gorge and Mount Hood in the background is really quite breathtaking. People stuck in their cars are generally far too focused on getting safely across in traffic to be able to have the time to appreciate it, but if one takes the time to bike or walk across, it can be something special. The location deserves a bridge that’s equally special and spectacular.
This is a great point! I would love to see the the immersed tunnel get some more coverage. Imagine putting the freeway under the water and converting the bridge to MAX, ped and bike!
excellent point. A bit before my time, but I’ve heard that the design of the Fremont Bridge (fairly elegant) was an ODOT response to people’s horror at the Marquam Bridge, an absolute blight on the skyline.
I’m supporting the single-deck pre-stressed concrete design (like the Glen Jackson Bridge I-205) because of its simplicity and structural integrity. The Coast Guard minimum river clearance is 125′ and the design should reach 135′ clearance. The ped/bikeway (east side) ramp on Hayden Island shouldn’t be too steep, unlike the ramp in Vancouver. I’ve got an issue with the southbound exit ramp to Hayden Island. I don’t like the ‘T’ stop at the end of the ramp. I’d rather it were longer and curved west to a stoplight, even if that meant routing the MAX line further west.
I went to the Expo Center open house Thursday evening and tried to glean from presentation materials a clearer assessment of the Columbia River I-5 Bridge replacement project. Despite more detailed material, I still don’t understand the Marine Drive segment which seems much more complicated than designs presented during the CRC years, perhaps over-built, a bigger (more expensive) proposal than necessary.
I got a better look at the Washington State interchanges and still conclude the only interchanges absolutely necessary are the access ramps to/from SR14 and downtown Vancouver. There too, a seemingly overbuilt (more expensive) freeway expenditure than necessary.
What’s curious about the latest Hayden Island design is that from Washington, southbound motorists have a (probably unsafe) exit ramp and a northbound entrance ramp. Oregon motorists must go through a maze of Turnarounds and an off-island bridge (eastside of I-5) from Marine Drive to Hayden Island.
That’s true, but the way most people engage with it will be the same, regardless of the design – driving on the road surface. I’d be interested what stakeholders in Downtown Vancouver think of it.
The single-deck bridge design seems simplest, but after viewing “a series of flyover videos” link in the first paragraph, It is apparently overbuilt, particularly around Delta Park, Marine Drive and Hayden Island (Oregon). Why should we should expect any different from ODOT? I’m still fuming about the SW Corridor MAX extension to Tigard (land grab) and equally objectionable (death trap) widening of I-5 through the Rose Quarter.
Agreed: The bridge can be two things at once: Functional AND Beautiful. We need to work on the beautiful part. It would be nice to have a structure that our community could be proud of and an icon for our region. Maybe we should put Liv Østhus on the bridge committee. . 🙂
Yeah, it’s interesting to contrast all the work and multiple design concepts for the new Burnside Bridge with this monstrosity just plopped down. Maybe there is a “design” phase to put lipstick on this pig later, but it seems like it would influence the conceptual design in terms of height, span lengths, etc.
Ironically, a lot of people who like to talk about how this will bring more pedestrians to the Vancouver waterfront are overlooking both how much would have to get torn down and how the bridge would obscure any nice views. As it is, there’s not enough there right now to justify walking miles. Those chances would give even less reason.
The bridge is constrained both above and below. It needs to be tall enough to allow massive ships to traverse under it without a lift, and short enough to not interfere with the nearby airport. So it’s not going to have any overhead support structures that could make it nicer to look at.
What is the maximum percent grade for these bike facilities?
I don’t think that’s known yet. That’s a level of detail that I don’t think the project folks have figured out and/or aren’t willing to share at the moment.
I’m going to vote on “aren’t willing to share” and leave off the “at the moment”.
Currently reading the transportation chapter of the SDEIS. On page 3.1-42, it describes the facilities under the different design options. Regarding grades, it says “The maximum grade for the fixed-span configuration would be 1.5% on the Washington side and 3% on the Oregon side; for movable-span configuration, these grades would be 4% and 1%, respectively.” Also says that under all design scenarios the two-way path will be 25 feet wide.
It has to clear the shipping channel. This is going to be as bad as I-205.
The massive spiral ramp on the north end is a good clue.
Which is why there’s been discussion about starting it so many miles from the river. People are forgetting that this bridge is an interstate, not a pleasure-bridge, and that even the most beautiful views are significantly less enjoyable with lots of traffic ten feet away.
It took me a moment and then I saw the separate Bridges to Jensen Beach. It might be god-awful ugly but talk about an improvement!
Gross
Cute.
the double decker design sounds really unpleasant for biking
Build the bridge faster it needs to be done
“How can the public and lawmakers weigh the need to invest billions in something that hasn’t even been revealed to them yet?”
I’m really curious about whether seeing the conceptual design does or doesn’t help clarify the decision process. I think the public and lawmakers really need to know what benefits they are getting–light rail, an actually useful bike/ped facility, some analysis of transportation impacts/benefits, etc. I don’t think there is shared, data-backed consensus on these issues. Seeing the bridge sketched up doesn’t really answer the question of whether or not we need it, or what benefits it would provide.
If they actually wanted to gain support for this thing, they should have made it look really beautiful in the fly-over so that lawmakers felt “oooh, gimme!” regardless of costs or benefits. Unfortunately (fortunately?) they made the bridge look hideously ugly and sprawling so maybe the renderings will have the opposite effect. We can hope!
Not much to say functionally except make sure train accessible go fast.
A lower bridge though would solve a lot but that would involve a miracle political browbeating of the coast guard who want their petty height clearance for god knows what reason.
Looking at the pictures available, I don’t see a clear path for people travelling west on marine drive to get on I-5 north. Am I missing something?
1. I5 Traffic is backed up thru portland. Bridge is just one part. Naive to think the bridge will solve traffic issues. Need to keep one or both existing bridges for local traffic. Bridge needs to be tall enough for any river traffic height. I have been an engineer for 50 years and find the lack of immagination pathetic. Designs were done 10 years ago.. Appears designers are milking the job.. Bikes need to pay to cross Bridge. Light rail not welcome in Vancouver.
How many decibels will it be for people walking and biking across? There should be a limit that has to be incorporated into an acceptable design. Currently this is completely disregarded by ODOT on I-5, 205 and the east esplanade.
What an absolute eyesore , and the bike facilities are so awesome you can’t even see them!
The whole plan is a joke! There’s not enough traffic lanes for future use as the population and bridge usage increases, there’s WAY more bicycle and pedestrian usage paths than in reality will actually be used, and it doesn’t look NEAR high enough for ship traffic on the river. Where’s the video of the largest ship that currently uses the river passing underneath it? And the toll idea, $4-$9 to use the bridge every single trip?? Who can afford that?!? Thanks to the poor policies of the current liberal administration, I can barely afford gas and food now much less add a daily toll to the mix!
The plan is heavily flawed and should be rejected!
Don’t worry, DOT has designed the bridges to be wide enough to add 2 lanes in each direction eventually. Those shoulders are much wider than they need to be. They will sell it as a “ten lane bridge”, but this can and will be a 14-lane crossing at some point.
The design team should be required to live on Hayden Island for the next twenty years to experience the nightmare they created.
Not realistic at all. Where are all the tents, the garbage, the graffiti?
Why can’t the bike/pedestrian path be on the MAX bridge, instead of the freeway bridge inches from semi trucks?
I asked one of the engineers this question, and she said it’s because “people and trains don’t mix.” Last time I checked, people and 70mph traffic don’t mix either.
Bury this pig and make Vancouver great again
Another Columbia Crossing ripoff of taxpayer dollars with the race card thrown in for good measure
What about extending the max to Vancouver? Is there a design for this?
There are many design considerations before this project can be finalized. I’m happy to see the alternate forms given enough priority to minimize a vehicle-centric concepts. From personal experience cycling on the new San Francisco Bay Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Benicia Bridge and modified Richmond-San Rafael Bridge reveals a possible glimpse to the future. If possible try them.
Are there actually more lanes for cars? Looking at these pictures I can’t see where they have been added. I know there is rapid transit more people room and it’s pretty. I know the powers that be hope for for more riders and less cars but we were told the new bridge would get more traffic across with less jam ups. Also, is this bridge as tall as the Coast Guard requested.