In yet another ominous sign for the Oregon Department of Transportation, a member of the Oregon Transportation Commission voted “no” on the agency’s ambitious plan to expand five miles of I-5 between Portland and Vancouver.
It’s the first time an OTC member has ever voted against the project.
It happened at the OTC meeting Monday where commissioners were asked to approve a request by ODOT to add nearly $2 billion in funding to the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR). The funding has already been identified from a range of sources (including state general obligation bonds, future toll revenue, a federal grant, and so on) and the OTC was being asked to amend the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to reflect the additional funding.
“I also struggle with the notion that we’re putting $2 billion forward here without having an answer on what this bridge is going to look like… I can’t support the request based on wrong information.”
— Jeff Baker, Oregon Transportation Commission
While it was just a procedural step, Commissioner Jeff Baker was not having it. Baker (in photo below), a retired business executive who’s served on the commission since 2023, took issue with a presentation about the funding increase shared by IBR Assistant Program Administrator Ray Mabey. Mabey’s presentation included a slide (see below) that summarized results of the project’s cost benefit analysis. “For every dollar spent, you get a return of $1.41 in benefits,” Mabey said. “So at this current cost estimate, that’s a strong indication that our program is cost-effective.”
“Current cost estimate,” is doing a lot of work in that sentence because the IBR is working off what insiders understand to be a woefully outdated 2022 estimate that says the project will cost around $5 to $7.5 billion. Some critics believe the IBR is delaying a new estimate, which conventional wisdom says is likely to be upwards of $10 billion when it’s released in December.
At Monday’s meeting, it was clear Baker did not appreciate Mabey using that old number in the cost/benefit equation in the context of currying support for a significant funding increase.
“All of these [benefits] are formulated with cost,” Baker told Mabey at the meeting. “And we don’t know what the cost is… so to try to rely on these numbers today for this presentation, I really struggle with it, because I don’t think they’re accurate, and they won’t be accurate till we get our new costs.”
Prior to a vote on the amendment later in the meeting, Baker once again expressed his discomfort. “When you take a look at the benefits of this… They’re wrong today because we know there’s going to be a significant change within 60 days [when a new cost estimate has been promised]… I think it’s really important we know where the costs are going to be.”
“I also struggle with the notion that we’re putting $2 billion forward here without having an answer on what this bridge is going to look like, whether it’s going to be a fixed or movable span. So we’re uncertain as to what the bridge is going to be, and we’re uncertain as to what the costs are going to be,” Baker continued. “I can’t support the request based on wrong information that we know is wrong. I’d like to see us delay this question until such time as we get fresh data.”
This might seem like a small thing, and this isn’t the first time an OTC member has had heartburn over the cost of this project. But given how tenuous the funding picture is for the IBR — with massive uncertainty at the federal level, critics ready to pounce, a touchy regional political landscape, and with ODOT operating under a fiscal microscope — actually voting “no” on a project of this scale that has this much bureaucratic inertia behind it, is unheard of. Baker asked to delay the funding increase request until the new estimate is revealed. But delay is kryptonite to these megaprojects.
The responses to Baker’s concerns from fellow OTC members, ODOT’s director, and IBR leaders underscore that point.
OTC Chair Julie Brown asked ODOT Director Kris Strickler how a delay would impact the project. “This is the last step of multiple steps,” Strickler said, after saying how they’ve already pushed the funding increases through many steps of the process and failure to approve it now and/or to create a delay, might spook regional or federal partners.
IBR’s Mabey said the funding is needed now because otherwise it would delay the project by another 6-8 months. “We still have to keep the lights on,” Mabey added, saying it would be unfair to project partners in Washington who’ve already committed their share to keep the project moving forward.
OTC Vice Chair Lee Beyer (a veteran of the IBR’s previous iteration, the Columbia River Crossing, which he was intimately involved with as a member of the Oregon Legislature) also pushed back on Baker’s concerns:
“The two states have been intimately considering this project for almost 30 years. Cost just keep getting higher. Had we acted on it in 2013 when the Oregon legislature approved it, we would be driving across the new bridge today, and it would have cost a third of what it would cost now.” Beyer added that while he respects Baker’s concerns, he’s just wants the darn thing built: “It’s time to get going. Go ahead and do it. I think people want it. We need it. We just need to do it.”
Outgoing IBR Administrator Greg Johnson refuted claims that the IBR is delaying the new cost estimate. He acknowledged that the lack of an updated cost estimate is a, “tough position to be in,” but said: “This [funding increase amendment] is a necessary step for the program to keep moving forward… this is something we need to get done.”
The funding request ultimately passed by a vote of 3-1 (with one commissioner excused), but Baker’s “no” and his unwillingness to go-along to get-along could be seen as a shot across the bow.
And Baker wasn’t the only one with serious concerns. In another interesting exchange on Monday, Chair Brown asked Mabey point-blank: “Is there any indication that the funding for light rail is going to be there? Are we getting a nod from the FTA [Federal Transit Administration]?
This is a fraught topic as the Trump Administration has already taken steps to kill major transit projects in progressive bastions such as Chicago and New York City.
“Great question,” Mabey answered. “It takes congressional action to actually fund the program. I don’t think that’s happened quite yet… We are making sure we are in the [design and engineering] process, and being in the process helps you get in the president’s budget.” “But it’s a different administration, and it is not behaving consistent with history in this area,” he added, carefully.
“At $1 billion, it’s a large transit project,” Brown interjected. “And conversations probably need to be happening, although maybe this administration is into building new infrastructure, we’ll see.”
“Maybe” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
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.
Hot stuff. Glad that Jeff is on the OTC.
Not just is the data wrong – the costs are hugely underestimated – but the idea that the benefits outweigh the costs is (a) cooked books, and (b) the wrong question.
Once again, with this massive highway expansion, the whole frame is wrong.
In every microeconomics class you learn that the question is not “do the benefits outweigh the costs” but “What’s the highest possible benefits I get for X cost.” (What’s the maximum net benefit).
That is, if we’re spending $10 billion, what’s the most benefits we could get out of that? And for fun, go ahead and limit it to the transportation sector (though given much of this is backed by general fund, and by new congestion charges that could be used elsewhere in the economy…). There’s zero chance this is the highest possible benefits, even given all the weird restricted funds rules and standards.
(calling it “cost-effective” is another really problematic wording)
That the rest of the OTC wrote a blank check because: (a) someone else – Washington – jumped off the cliff before them; and (b) they’re childlessly impatient this has taken so long – is misgovernment at its worst.
This is the most expensive project in Oregon’s history. It’s not needed, at least as it’s scoped. Shore up the bridges, sure.
How should we deal with it when the current bridge has to be closed without a replacement bridge in the works?
Anyone who thinks there is even an iota of a chance that the Trump administration will fund a showcase public transit infrastructure project in Portland is totally on crack.
Me too! A moveable span will be a failure, yet it’s the only option that the Coast Guard will approve, unless the bridge can be high enough, and it can’t be cuz of the PDX flight paths.
Downsizing this entire project and just replacing the old drawbridge span with another drawbridge span is looking more and more like the best option.
IIRC, it’s not even PDX flight paths, it’s because of Pearson Airfield, the dinky general aviation airport in Vancouver. It’s hard to fathom it still being part of the equation for the IBR’s design.
Yeah, it’s Pearson.
Bizarrely, as far as I’ve been able to discover reading up on the CRC and IBR, shifting the runway ~250′ east to allow for a simpler upstream alignment (and/or a lower approach) was never studied.
The really wild thing is that the 2013 Pearson airport master plan calls specifically for moving the runway ~250′ east. So not only are we designing (at high cost) around a runway that could be moved, we’re designing around a runway that probably will be moved.
I shared this info with Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle a few months ago. She wrote back, expressed interest, and said she would discuss it with Greg Johnson at a meeting the following day. I never heard any more. I’m sure the current focus is pushing through the current monster and major revisions aren’t being entertained right now. But it’s just one of many ways the project could be significantly improved.
See this proposal. Thank you for telling Mayor Anne. She doesn’t want to consider any other option other than Greg Johnson’s horrible alternative.
Opinion: A viable alternative that reduces traffic congestion – ClarkCountyToday.com https://share.google/aQB3uKwDJF0I5NOHX
Hi John: Does your proposal seriously advocate for NO dedicated transit or bike/ped lanes on the new bridge? Who could possibly take such a proposal seriously? – especially here, on BIKE Portland.
Fred —
The proposal advocates for transit, as demand grows. Presently there is NO DEMAND for any “high capacity” transit.
There is so little demand, that TriMet offers NONE over the Columbia River.
C-Tran carries about 263 people (525 boardings) on their 3 express bus lines, on an average day. They also carry about 450 people on their Delta Park bus line which connects to the MAX Yellow Line.
The article showing one of several alternatives, provides additional vehicle capacity, to reduce traffic congestion for EVERYONE, including buses.
Buses are infinitely more flexible. We have growing populations in Ridgefield, in Battle Ground, and in east county — Camas & Washougal. Buses will serve these people desiring transit much more efficiently than light rail ever could.
At $1 billion per mile, the current IBR proposal is truly outrageous. Especially when TriMet is GUTTING service. Their total annual operating budget is about $900 million/year and TriMet admits to needing to cut $300 million per year.
But that $900 million is overhead, debt, and a ton of non-essential staff and “services” not needed to operate their transit service. If you wade through the budget and spending, you’ll find arguably less than $600 million is actually related to some form of operations. So that means TriMet needs to gut between 1/3 and half their operations.
Last year, TriMet passengers only paid 8 percent of system operating costs. How much more should TriMet raise passenger fares, to cover operating costs?
The state legislature balked at giving TriMet a 400% increase in the statewide jobs “head tax”. Instead they have provided a temporary, 2-year 100% increase.
So given all these realities, I would think TriMet should focus on serving CURRENT customers, not expanding service.
TriMet system ridership peaked in 2012, I believe. Ridership was in decline before the pandemic lockdowns, and still hasn’t fully recovered.
As contrast, Clark County’s C-Tran isn’t gutting bus service. We have a healthy balance sheet. As information, C-Tran ridership peaked in 1999 at 7.75 million boardings. It’s been declining ever since, excepting for the Great Recession of 2008-2012.
To me, it makes much more sense to allow C-Tran to provide flexible bus service as actual demand grows. But I’m happy to continue the discussion.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I see that Peterson is also talking about moving the Pearson runway out of the way.
There main issue I see with this proposal is its reliance on keeping the current bridge. The current bridge is an operations/maintenance liability, it’s at the end of its service life (governed by truck fatigue cycles on truss members), and it isn’t going to survive the earthquake. For all these reasons I think proposals that keep the current bridge are non-starters (I’m a bridge structural engineer FWIW).
The most straightforward way to control costs is to remove the scope north of SR-14 and south of Jantzen Island. New collector ramps serving a combined Jantzen/Marine Dr. interchange can be the seismically resiliant route.
Building a new bridge wider than 8 lanes is not an efficient use of transportation funds, given the exhorbitant cost of widening the I-5 ROW in constrained urban environments. The north and south sections of the IBR and the Rose Quarter (even without a cap) show that these widenings cost around $1B/mile, five to ten times the cost of improving other routes such as I-205 and OR-217. Making I-5 an 8-through-lane highway through Portland would be mind-blowingly expensive.
A better use of funds would be improving bypass routes like I-205 and US-30/Cornelius Pass (with a bridge eventually built at St. Helens). This would open up space on I-5 by redirecting through-traffic around the central city.
I made a long post about this here: https://bsky.app/profile/jakz92.bsky.social/post/3lvwyk6wm5c2z
I don’t understand your angle on transit. You say that somehow BRT buses have more capacity than rail vehicles? What? Those same buses will have to run in mixed traffic for the entire corridor, not just downtown Portland. How is it cheaper or more efficient, operationally, to run more buses with more drivers (labor & fuel are huge costs) than trains that carry 2-3x the people?
Of course there’s only 1000 people day going across the bridge on transit. There’s like 10 buses a day that go across the bridge, they get stuck in the same car traffic, and they don’t really connect directly to the destinations that MAX serves. Maybe we should only build another crossing where people are currently driving their cars through the river to get to the other side!
And yeah, the current bridge design has space for walking, cycling, and public transit. You’re being disingenuous by comparing the percentage of bridge space alone. The project, and therefore project cost, is tied up in widening I-5 and building massive interchanges for miles on either side of the bridge itself. What percentage of the total project area is dedicated to cars? I’d ballpark at least 90%.
If you’re just a MAX hater, be honest and say it’s a “crime train” or whatever instead of trying to pretend like buses can do something they can’t. Or, be smart and advocate for fast, frequent commuter rail service from SW Washington to Oregon City using existing tracks. I suspect for what is being spent on this monstrosity of a bridge, there could be some major upgrades done to existing rail infrastructure to enable the required capacity.
In my opinion, we need commuter rail, MAX, AND buses to serve different purposes and trips in the same way we need highways, arterials, and local streets to serve different purposes for car drivers. Nobody ever talks about taking one of those options away from car drivers, so why do the same for transit?
DW — Thanks for the response.
RE: “You say that somehow BRT buses have more capacity than rail vehicles? What? Those same buses will have to run in mixed traffic for the entire corridor, not just downtown Portland.”
NO, the BRT buses (WHEN there is a legitimate need for high capacity transit) will NOT run in mixed traffic for the ENTIRE corridor. They would be allowed to run BOS — Bus on Shoulder — for most of the corridor.
Presently, the MAX Yellow Line travels at an average of 14 mph. The current traffic with buses NOT running the shoulder, travel at about double that speed, nearly 30 mph. If we allowed those buses to run on the shoulder, their average speed would be roughly 10 mph faster than present speeds.
Bottom line — nobody wants to travel 14 mph on a MAX line that has stops every mile. That’s giving people a “choice”, and they choose either express buses or their private vehicles.
I don’t understand where the runway would go if they moved it east. Would they demolish the Fred Meyer and other surrounding buildings?
Why not just close the airport. Looks like it’s only for hobbyists anyway.
The runway would only have to be extended to the east by about 250-500 feet (trimming the west end by the same amount) to be able to shift the bridge from its planned downstream alignment to an upstream alignment. This would allow for a simpler, straighter alignment and would simplify construction as the new SR-14 interchange could be built to the side of the current alignment instead of directly on top of it. It would also move the highway away from the Vancouver waterfront. It probably would be necessary to acquire one property with a single story office building just east of the runway.
They may be using Pearson as a scapegoat. If they were to build the bridge another 35-40 feet higher, they would have to build an additional 900- 1100 feet of freeway on either side of the bridge
Pearson is unimportant and can go away.
Exactly. I don’t know why this isn’t a bigger push at the state level. General aviation is terrible for cities, and this airport is already too close to PDX. We don’t need the noise and leaded fuel emissions in our community. Hobby fliers can find a new airport outside of the city.
Greg Johnson could design a much higher bridge and still fit within the FAA flight parameters.
Here is one possible option.
Opinion: A viable alternative that reduces traffic congestion – ClarkCountyToday.com https://share.google/aQB3uKwDJF0I5NOHX
My money is on the project being killed for another decade, then they’ll finally decide to bite the bullet and build a tunnel/immersed tube.
Yep – a tunnel needs to be seriously considered. It solves so many problems.
Another possibility in 10-20 years is that US Hwy 30 becomes I-5 and crosses the river at St Helens on a very tall bridge with 12 lanes in each direction. Also Hwy 217 becomes I-505 and continues north to join the new I-5 near Sauvie Island. (This is outside-of-the-box thinking.)
“a tunnel needs to be seriously considered”
Do you really think they did not consider a tunnel?
They did a cursory look at a tunnel option, but not seriously enough to use any realistic scenarios. They only looked at a really deep tunnel going under the river, rather than considering an immersed tube tunnel like the BART uses in in the San Francisco Bay, which is less deep and more realistic in this situation.
Sometimes amateurs see something obvious that the professionals missed… but not often. Is there any reason a submerged tunnel might not work?
[deleted a bunch of reasons it thought of because I too am an amateur]
Before taking this too seriously, I’d really like to hear from someone who knows the project and its engineering well enough to speak intelligently about this. I know it keeps coming up, but then the idea of 9/11 being an inside job does too.
Was it considered, if so, why was it rejected, and if not, why not?
Full tunnel study here: https://www.interstatebridge.org/media/szhnvxsw/final-itt_-rev2_sealed_signed_remediated.pdf
The report says it would be difficult, especially the connection to SR14, but it’s technically achievable. Cost estimate in 2021 dollars was $2.5B. So probably $4B now. Not that far off the current estimate for just the central portion, which is around $3.5-$4B.
Long story short is they could do it but they don’t want to.
I would not be willing to walk, ride or drive through a several mile long tunnel. The very shape invites permanent homeless encampments and crime (separate problems, but invited by the same infrastructure). Many underground crosswalks are abandoned and avoided in other cities for exactly that reason, and those tunnels are only long enough to cross a street!
On top of that, the level of maintenance we devote to infrastructure in this country invites disastrous failures. I can’t imagine a driver on a collapsing bridge can possibly have a lower chance of survival than one trapped in a flooding tunnel.
Is there even a way to make a tunnel earthquake resilient? Bridges can flex and let the ground move under them to stay attached to their supports. I can’t imagine a tunnel like that can be made to survive the whole river bed moving around it.
An immersed tube would block the shipping channel which is maintained at 43 feet. The tube used for BART is 24 feet high placed in a trench that is 2 feet deep.
The report Jonathan posted (thank you!) shows a cross section of the river channel and navigation requirements. It’s obvious from that that a tunnel would need to go beneath the riverbed to work. The proposed depth doesn’t seem excessive.
Take a look. Figure 1 even shows a typical immersed tube cross section.
Thanks, Fred!
Here’s more details on an Immersed Tube Tunnel.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/tunnel-model-for-interstate-crossing-exposes-more-ibr-flaws/
There’s two engineers who ran the calculations and proved the viability of this as an option.
I would not be willing to ride, drive or walk through any tunnel. The way infrastructure is maintained in this country invites permanent homeless encampments, crime and disastrous structural failures down the road. There’s also no way to make a tunnel survive the predicted earthquake.
How often does the bridge even lift, and have they studied ways to move the location of the lift span or play with the height so it lifts even less often? I feel like the highway departments have gotten way too obsessed with the idea of eliminating the moveable span, in a fixed, ideological way, without considering the costs and benefits of what that means. It’s not like it lifts every day–it seems like a rare event that sucks when it happens, but life moves on.
I remember early on in Multnomah County’s alternatives analysis for the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge, they actually considered a fixed span with no bridge lifts, and it would have required the bridge to land all the way over at W Burnside & 6th Ave! So all the streets from 2nd Ave to 5th Ave would have been cut off by a massive bridge landing structure. That was rejected immediately as a terrible monstrosity, and they pivoted to a moveable span.
IBR is similar–this desire to avoid a moveable span is what makes it a massively high bridge, which then means more and more interchange rebuilds and steep ramps and more expense, to build a hulking freeway way up in the sky. If they could just drop this idea of a fixed span, it could be more like it is now, a fairly low bridge that doesn’t require so much construction for miles and miles. They could also lose a lot of the auxiliary lanes.
Limited data set here, but when I was living at the Holiday Inn right by the bridge almost two years ago, it raised a couple times a week. And this was in January/February, when the river is not usually flowing particularly strong, and off of the peak shipping coming and going from the port.
Less than once a day, on average. More during high water months than low water months. And it’s prohibited from raising during rush hour.
Cool. I would argue that one bridge lift a day during non-peak hours is not a big deal, certainly not enough to justify the extra cost that a fixed span ends up needing and the higher impacts of a higher bridge.
Great discussion. Many of the bridge lifts are either for “training” or “maintenance”, not for actual required maritime vessels.
If the bridge has a lift span, they have to maintain the lift span, and that means lifting it regularly. For instance the Hawthorne bridge maintenance plan involves lifting it every 8 hours, (boat or not,) which is also great for keeping bridge operators trained since every shift involves an opening. The existing interstate bridge doesn’t need that much, but it won’t ever be zero. And yes some of those maintenance openings happen at night when there is less traffic, but sometimes you want to open it while you can see things, which means you need some daytime lifts, (again, regardless of if there is a boat or not.)
What isn’t mentioned in the drawbridge debate is that the bridge problem with boats isn’t strictly height, it is that the shipping channel lines up with the railroad bridge’s swing span, and when the river is flowing fast, (in the winter/spring,) getting a large barge lined up with the railroad bridge means staying on the north side of the river at I-5… Most river traffic fits under the I-5 bridge in the middle without a lift, but when traveling downstream there is a risk they’ll miss the turn and crash into the railroad bridge, so the barges don’t do that. We could fix this problem by moving the lift span on the railroad bridge out into the middle of the river, this has been studied and the railroad has even agreed to the idea. However, the railroad won’t pay for it themselves because they doesn’t care if the I-5 bridge has to lift and it causes car traffic problems, and yet the state highway departments can’t fund an improvement that isn’t “highway”, so it doesn’t happen… 15 years ago, the price tag for this for this was $40M, in other word, what we are spending every year to study this project!
Here’s a great explanation to the “S Curve” for maritime vessels. The Common Sense Alternative! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPB1jtmHVkk
Great question, Marvin.
Yes, it has been studied and “when” they install a center lift span on the BNSF rail bridge, it will eliminate about 95% of current bridge lifts.
They installed one over the Willamette River a couple decades ago. It cost roughly $30 million then, so would easily help things. BTW — it IS in the current Metro 20-year plan.
If we can spend $700 MILLION / YEAR enabling ***inappropriate terms deleted by moderator – JM*** in MultCo, we can spend $2 Billion on critical infrastructure that is important for the regional economy. The replacement bridge will last potentially 80 years. That sounds like more of a sound investment than ***inappropriate terms deleted by moderator – JM***, half the shit the PCEF is spent on, the study demanded by the “Peacocks” this week to determine if Portland is actually helping Israel, and for Commissioner Avalos to obtain her own office lease because she can’t get along with her District 1 co-councilors!
It is completely ridiculous that Greg Johnson & his team say they need $2 billion “to keep the lights on”.
No way is their light bill, let alone hugely overpaid staff, costing $2 billion.
The IBR has spent $235 million for 5 years of “work” – a great deal of which has been a PR sales pitch for this boondoggle. A quick analysis would say that’s $50 million per year.
The OTC should have approved (if needed), the expenditure of an additional $50 million “to keep the lights on” for the next 12 months.
They would then know the answers to “how much” the cost increase will be. They would also know more about the design of the bridge, including whether or not the Coast Guard will approve or REJECT the the 116 foot clearance of the IBR proposal.
It’s very likely this boondoggle is crumbling before our very eyes. A fiscally responsible decision would have been to hit the pause button for another 3-6 months until costs are updated and the Coast Guard decision is known.
And let’s be real. Even if the estimate was 10b, and all the reports looked great, once construction begins, cost overruns and delays will double that number. Contractors look for and exploit any imperfections in the construction documents, site conditions, scheduling, labor costs, and any other variables that differ from the contract.
The original cost was an outrageous $3 Billion with rail. The Clark Couny Radical GOP will block any Green project. GOP owned by BIG OIL only wants dirty oil profits, no rail or Green.
Oil Billionairs continue to block this project.
We all pay in daily commutes time and gas than any toll.
A taller lift span or bascule would be a better design.
in 2023, Greg Johnson preferred a bascule.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/
the FEIS in 2011 estimated 180,000 vehicles per day could cross the Columbia …
250,000 vehicles cross the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Washington DC every day.
in the past, the bridge opened 260 times per year with 50′ clearance.
the new bridge is now 70′ clear and will open about 60 times per year.
the project cost $3.98 billion in 2024 dollars. and 6736 feet long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_Bridge
for $2B we could put in ferries on both sides and have change left over. there is no need to spend $7B on anything….
This project, 20 years in the works doesn’t seem like it would ever get off the ground. I believe you can create a much cheaper project, replacing the western train track bridge with a cost-effective, walk/bike/MAX/Train bridge ,costing no more than half a Billion dollars (based on the costs of building the Tilikum Bridge). Sure, people stuck in car traffic will be pissed off, but the hope is that this bridge will allow people to replace some of their car trips with other modes of transportation.
That bridge is not safe. It will be destroyed by a mega-thrust subduction zone earthquake, which *is* coming. It needs to be replaced.
Lots of things will be destroyed in a mega thrust earthquake, including most of the minor bridges spanning I5, and probably the entire stretch on the east bank of the Willamette. The big one hitting at peak hours would be unspeakably catastrophic. Is a $10B bridge the most cost effective way to reduce that risk?
I think it’s probably not, and that fearmongering about the big one’s effect on the Interstate Bridge is a bit of putting the cart before the horse.
It is largely to do with mobility of resources. In town, vehicles can route around a blocked freeway, but going between Portland and Vancouver, there are only two bridges in total that can carry emergency responders and survival resources.
Which is why we need a 3rd and 4th bridge over the Columbia River!
Cacarr — the actual risk is very small. The real experts tell us there is only a 10-14% chance of “the big one” happening in the next 50 years.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/what-is-the-seismic-risk-of-the-cascadia-subduction-zone-and-earthquakes-in-the-pacific-northwest/
10 billion, so what? This is frickin Interstate 5; that current bridge is just ridiculous at this point. And it’s coming right down when we get that 9.1 off the coast, for sure.
Tunnel it just like the SF bay. But politicians want flashy and flashy isn’t a tunnel,
I commented this above, but I would not be willing to walk, ride or drive through a several mile long tunnel. The very shape invites permanent homeless encampments and crime (separate problems, but invited by the same infrastructure). Many underground crosswalks are abandoned and avoided in other cities for exactly that reason, and those tunnels are only long enough to cross a street!
On top of that, the level of maintenance we devote to infrastructure in this country invites disastrous failures. I can’t imagine a driver on a collapsing bridge can possibly have a lower chance of survival than one trapped in a flooding tunnel.
Is there even a way to make a tunnel earthquake resilient? Bridges can flex and let the ground move under them to stay attached to their supports. I can’t imagine a tunnel like that can be made to survive the whole river bed moving around it.
I agree with your concerns about “alternative use”, but tunnels can be quite earthquake resistant.
Google’s AI says this, which agrees with what I know:
Every year it gets delayed is an increase in cost. The bridge needs to get designed and engineered ASAP. How do we STILL not know if it’s going to be a lift bridge or not???
Those questions need to get answers ASAP, so the construction can break ground before the cost of delays pushes it up to $20 billion.
The project could be greatly reduced in cost, complexity, and controversy by reducing it’s scope to a simple bridge reinforcement or replacement rather than the huge highway upgrade everyone in power at all levels seems to want.
Shore up one span, replace the other, and move on. Adding lanes, light rail, and interchanges is what makes this project so expensive and technically/politically difficult.
Alex —
The actual replacement bridge is currently projected to cost $1 – $1.5 billion. There is NO NEED to spend $7.5 billion, let alone $10 billion or more.
There is no need to spend 5 or 10 times that much. There is also no need to destroy the current two bridges. We can repurpose them as a “local connector” for Hayden Island residents and Vancouver residents to use.
It’s much easier for bicycles and pedestrians to travel over the current low bridges instead of the 116 foot high bridge.
Here’s a viable option that would cost less than half the current proposal. It adds vehicle capacity by preserving the two current bridges as a local connector or arterial between Hayden Island and Vancouver.
This type of an option should have been properly studied by the IBR staff, however their bosses (politically connected special interests) only wanted a resurrection of the flawed CRC.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-a-viable-alternative-that-reduces-traffic-congestion/
Joe Cortright continues to beat up on the waste of taxpayer dollars by Greg Johnson and the IBR team.
https://cityobservatory.org/basically_the_same_275/