Burnside Bridge Earthquake Readiness Project
 

...continues at the Oregonian.

Seems like this would be the perfect time to address West Burnside and turn it into a one way couplet with Couch extending from the East Side over to the West side of the river. Especially if the bridge is replaced, the alignment could be shifted to allow the existing bridge to be used during construction. Shift it somewhat north and transition Couch/Burnside on each side onto the bridge and make them a couplet on both sides.

Or go crazy and build a bridge a city block wide with roads at the boundaries and a new bridge park that connects the West and Eastside waterfront parks with a greenspace bridge across the river. Just have to get rid of that pesky road on the eastside that is in the way.

I think the main thing about the Burnside bridge worth keeping are the cool castle-like towers. I'd think those could be removed and stored somewhere for re-attachment to a replacement bridge.

East Side Waterfront! Removal of Marquam Bridge, I-5 and ramps to Morrison. New Burnside Bridge can have an onramp connection and signal to stop cross-traffic traffic for bikes/peds. Protected bike lane on bridge and... what a beautiful new park we have.

How is it possible to have no mention of the Marquam bridge in that report? Did I miss it? I did a search but didn't find it in there. Is the plan to have it collapse so we can then start from scratch and get something less god awful?

That's an interesting idea, but extending Couch has problems on both sides. One of the West side the Skidmore / Old Town Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It's hard to imagine a design that would have an acceptable level of impact. On the east the development at the Bridgehead effectively now precludes extending Couch. The main resident entrance into Block 67 is planned to be onto the Couch Pedestrian Plaza.

ODOT owns and maintains the Marquam Bridge. It's not Multnomah County's responsibility.

Condition of the Marquam as reported by Transportation for America.

Gotcha. That explains it (among other things).

I find that superstructure to be anything but super.

This would be my biggest concern, the bridge itself isn't anything special structurally, but the towers on the bridge are iconic and should always be a part of the design of the bridge.

Funny thing, I actually don't mind the Marquam Bridge, it is a great example of an undertruss bridge. It isn't a spectacular design, but I don't mind it.

...continues at the Oregonian.

Burnside Bridge Earthquake Simulation Animation
 

:cheers:

Yikes.

Don't watch that video before bedtime.

My reaction was, yep, that is pretty much what I already knew. I am hoping we can secure funding for a new Burnside Bridge soon for this very reason.

...continues at the Business Tribune.

Found this presentation given a few months ago. It looks like options of preserving the bridge or a seismic retrofit are being ruled out, with only a complete rebuild or hybrid (rebuild of major portions of bridge and approaches) likely to move forward.

Slide 42 shows some options for a rebuild on the current alignment, or alignments to the north and south. It's hard to imagine either of those moving forward given the impacts they'd have at the approaches.

I feel like the north and south options were those after thoughts where someone was like "we only have the rebuild in the current location, quick, someone draw some lines on the map to make it look like we thought about alternatives."

those other alts would conceivably allow the current bridge to stay open for traffic for much of the construction phase. similar to when they set up the old Sellwood bridge off to the side during construction. it's not a small consideration.

http://www.kgw.com/article/news/loca.../283-528926339

(continues)...