I-5 Bridge Replacement - Formerly Columbia River Crossing | Proposed

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by NOPO

No, this is not the kind of thinking we need. MAX needs to go into Vancouver and they need to not widen the freeway. I’m really liking the idea of a tunnel with a tram for pedestrians on top of MAX. If they’re wasting money and you think they should build anything you are indeed going to get a car-centric monstrosity that does not serve the multi-modal needs of our region and the reality of induced demand.

This is always going to be "car-centric", it's an interstate bridge, not some downtown Portland local access bridge. This bridge's primary purpose is quite literally a freeway. Also considering there are only two bridges across the Columbia in the Portland Metro area, capacity IS a concern and the primary reason for massive backups for a majority of every day of the week. Yes, bridge lifts also contribute, but traffic congestion also happens when there is no lift.

I'm going to bring up lane-mathematics (traffic flow) again here. On the North end of the bridge, you have a major highway intersecting with I5 (SOUTHBOUND - two lanes merging to 1 lane ramp, then merging to 3 thru lane I5 = negative 2 lanes with addition of 2 lanes of traffic) and on the South, you have Jantzen Beach and Delta Park (NORTHBOUTH - addition of 6 lanes worth of traffic added to a 3 thru lane freeway with no auxiliary lanes = negative 6 lanes). That’s 4 major interchanges within about a mile of freeway and I’m not even factoring in Mill Plain and Fourth Plain Blvds. There are currently no auxiliary lanes in this section to ease the congestion of massive amount of merging vehicles. Adding auxiliary lanes to the new bridge design does not affect "induced demand" for this very reason. The auxiliary lanes are not thru lanes and therefore do not apply to induced demand.

Yes, MAX service should be extended to Vancouver, whether on this new replacement bridge or something separate. Nobody disputes that and this group is already planning for that and has included this option in what they are proposing. This carless utopia that keeps getting brought up on these forums are not going to happen in our lifetime. The transition to non-fossil fuel vehicles is going to continue to support our dependence on vehicles and the growth of the Portland Metro/Vancouver area are not going to stop, meaning this bridge (or tunnel if we get lucky) MUST plan for the next 50+ years.

[NOPO]

The auxiliary lanes are unnecessary in my opinion. I mention induced demand because if the DOTs were left to it, THEY WOULD WIDEN THE FREEWAY. It’s something to continually fight against with these orgs. I’ll die on this hill. Have a good one.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by NOPO

if the DOTs were left to it, THEY WOULD WIDEN THE FREEWAY. It’s something to continually fight against with these orgs. I’ll die on this hill. Have a good one.

THIS.

Too many people aren't thinking through the implications that come from turning this project into one big singular thing. I'm truly shocked by how short sighted so many people are.

By pumping more vehicles through this one bridge, they'll be pumping more traffic straight into downtown Vancouver, as if that makes any sense at all.

By pumping more vehicles through this one bridge, they'll be pumping more traffic straight through north Portland and into the Rose Quarter, as if either area is prepared to handle it. And before some knucklehead says "Well, we'll widen roads there too." At what cost? At what benefit? At what amount of further damage to those neighborhoods?

Interstate 5 never should have been routed straight into cities, but the planners didn't think that through. It should have been routed around the city, so that only the traffic that needs to come in and out of the city is routed into and out of the friggin' city.

It is what it is and we are stuck with it. Routing even more cars through it will take a bad situation and make it worse. I will always advocate for The Common Sense Alternative, because this latest incarnation of the CRC is stoooooooooopid. It is so foolish that I'm honestly embarrassed for those who push for it to be built.

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by NOPO

The auxiliary lanes are unnecessary in my opinion. I mention induced demand because if the DOTs were left to it, THEY WOULD WIDEN THE FREEWAY. It’s something to continually fight against with these orgs. I’ll die on this hill. Have a good one.

Unneccessary how exactly? I just explained exactly why they ARE necessary and you gave no rhetoric as to why they aren't. Do you think having thousands of vehicles sitting idle with their engines running is good for the environment, or do you just like to watch the world burn?

[NOPO]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

Unneccessary how exactly? I just explained exactly why they ARE necessary and you gave no rhetoric as to why they aren't. Do you think having thousands of vehicles sitting idle with their engines running is good for the environment, or do you just like to watch the world burn?

If we toll the freeway permanently, auxiliary lanes wouldn’t be necessary as there’d be less vehicle trips.

[Jakz]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

THIS.

Too many people aren't thinking through the implications that come from turning this project into one big singular thing. I'm truly shocked by how short sighted so many people are.

By pumping more vehicles through this one bridge, they'll be pumping more traffic straight into downtown Vancouver, as if that makes any sense at all.

By pumping more vehicles through this one bridge, they'll be pumping more traffic straight through north Portland and into the Rose Quarter, as if either area is prepared to handle it. And before some knucklehead says "Well, we'll widen roads there too." At what cost? At what benefit? At what amount of further damage to those neighborhoods?

Interstate 5 never should have been routed straight into cities, but the planners didn't think that through. It should have been routed around the city, so that only the traffic that needs to come in and out of the city is routed into and out of the friggin' city.

It is what it is and we are stuck with it. Routing even more cars through it will take a bad situation and make it worse. I will always advocate for The Common Sense Alternative, because this latest incarnation of the CRC is stoooooooooopid. It is so foolish that I'm honestly embarrassed for those who push for it to be built.

The Common Sense Alternative is a band-aid, not a solution. Steel truss bridges can't be kept in service indefinitely, especially on a busy freight route like I-5. Fatigue cracks start to form after a certain number of truck loads (different for each bridge and each member). I'm sure the DOTs are keeping a close eye on it. But the bridge does need to be replaced, particularly the span that's over 100 years old.

Those opposed to a new bridge need to unite around a sensible replacement, like a tunnel.

[PhillyPDX]

We've (structural engineer) have actually made a lot of advancements in our knowledge and prevention of fatigue cracks, and their risk to propagate (and to actually fail). I don't know enough about the interstate bridge though. I'm also a huge fan of the history, elegance and beauty of steel truss bridges (not at risk to life safety though). Obviously will need some significant repairs over time. But I really only recall hearing about the seismic safety regarding this significant bridge, and the fact it would sever a major lifeline in a Cascadia event.

Not that this decision hasn't already been made.

I'm actually a bit curious as to the payments to the industry that will be affected by a static span. $90M (or was, probably $120M now). So do these fab shops just stop building the items they would need a high bridge lift for? Or are the payments for them to move so as to not be affected by the bridge? Just an odd thing to think a major industry player would be like "thanks for the $$, we no longer build X, Y, X products".

[Jakz]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

We've (structural engineer) have actually made a lot of advancements in our knowledge and prevention of fatigue cracks, and their risk to propagate (and to actually fail). I don't know enough about the interstate bridge though. I'm also a huge fan of the history, elegance and beauty of steel truss bridges (not at risk to life safety though). Obviously will need some significant repairs over time. But I really only recall hearing about the seismic safety regarding this significant bridge, and the fact it would sever a major lifeline in a Cascadia event.

Not that this decision hasn't already been made.

I'm actually a bit curious as to the payments to the industry that will be affected by a static span. $90M (or was, probably $120M now). So do these fab shops just stop building the items they would need a high bridge lift for? Or are the payments for them to move so as to not be affected by the bridge? Just an odd thing to think a major industry player would be like "thanks for the $$, we no longer build X, Y, X products".

Also a structural engineer here, ha! I admit I'm mostly speculating. But keeping a 100 year old steel truss bridge in service indefinitely on a route that sees as much truck traffic as I-5 just strikes me as a bad idea.

[PhillyPDX]

Admittedly, it’s a crappy location for an interstate bridge. Especially trying to keep all parties happy. FAA/two nearby airports, water based industry, and trying to connect to highways interchanges so close to a river. Major bridges don’t usually make connections so close to rivers, just given the fact they are usually higher up at that point to clear navigation. Doing a quick look, 205 bridge connects to US14/Airport Way at roughly 2x the distance from the river compared to the connections at 5 (US 14 and MLK). That is just another headache.

Taking a part of the CSA, would having a separate bridge to Hayden Island help? And removing a direct connection to I5. Or is that connection not really a driver here? Surely those stores would complain.

[PhillyPDX]

On a side note, I’ve wondered if another crossing by Camas would help. Say a straight shot where US14 jogs, and connecting to 84 at Gresham. So much Clark County growth is happening that way (as evidenced by the current construction project to widen 14 between 205 and 164th). Would help to alleviate 205 traffic and would also allow trucks from 84 to bypass the 205/84 interchange, if going to WA.That is such a traffic mess. This would then free up 205 and also 5. Just a thought.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Jakz

Those opposed to a new bridge need to unite around a sensible replacement, like a tunnel.

AT WHAT COST?

Now, if you are a benevolent multi-billionaire and you're coughing up the cash to build a tunnel instead of a bridge (or, more sensibly, repurposing existing bridges to lighten the traffic load, and build what's needed for the rest), then yeah, let's build a tunnel.

...oh, you're not? Well then.

This zombie project is going to die again the same way it did last time, and the same way it will die again the next time. It'll grow more and more expensive until it collapses under the impossibility of holding up its own weight, financially speaking.

Is Washington State willing to pony up their fair share this time? If not, let's build a bridge halfway across the river and let them figure out if and when they want to connect to it... and how they want to pay to do so.

[truebaru]

I'm surprised to see there hasn't been any recent updates to this thread given the news:

Effort to replace Interstate 5 Bridge gets $600 million from feds

Replacing the century-old bridge is expected to cost around $6 billion. Planners overseeing the project have banked on $2.5 billion of that to come from federal grants...

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said in a statement Friday that he wanted to see more federal dollars for the project to avoid tolling, calling the $600 million grant a “down payment.”

The announcement Friday had several officials from both Washingtons celebrating. Earlier in the week, several sources around the project worried the funding would come in significantly less — perhaps closer to $300 million.

Sources close to the project said the anticipated shortfall led planners to try to make up the losses elsewhere. In November, after meetings with legislators and the U.S. Department of Transportation, planners revised a $1.2 billion grant application to the Federal Highway Administration, and instead asked for $1.5 billion.

Notably, they have also released videos discussing current and future traffic flow based on the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (MLPA). Here are links for the videos about the Oregon and Washington sections. Unfortunately, the videos do not include a discussion of light rail station alignment or ridership quality, which is unfortunate since light rail is being used as a chip to get a lot of federal funding. The same is true for the multimodal path, which was selected in the MLPA as well.

They also still need to discuss options for what the bridge will actually look like based on design. Those are here. Renders are also careful not to show the bridge from downtown Vancouver. I've seen some discussion online that this is because it is huge, and at 70ft elevation above the city would hulk over downtown from ground level.



I'm not happy that this is a glorified highway project, but happy that we're getting a seismically resilient replacement structure.

[maccoinnich]

I-5 bridge planners release renderings of new, larger span



Interstate 5 Bridge planners on Tuesday released several illustrations of how they believe a new — and much larger — span could look.

The images visualize a new bridge looming higher than the current structure, over the banks of the Columbia River and over Hayden Island. Greg Johnson, who is overseeing the replacement project, acknowledged in a meeting the bridge is noticeably larger than is predecessor, parts of which are older than a century.

“This is going to be a larger bridge than currently exists,” Johnson said. “We know that.”

Johnson, head of the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Program, made the comments while meeting with representatives from Oregon and Washington who help steer the major infrastructure overhaul.

The designs are far from final. The release comes as the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Program — a team jointly funded by Oregon and Washington — works toward submitting an application to federal transportation officials ahead of planned construction.

Johnson said the renderings show only “design options being considered.”

“This is just to give perspective on the size of the bridge, as related to if you’re standing on the ground on Hayden Island or on the waterfront in Vancouver,” Johnson said.

...continues at OPB.

[subterranean]

I’m glad someone spent 15 minutes in SketchUp to bring us those so-called renderings.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I’m glad someone spent 15 minutes in SketchUp to bring us those so-called renderings.

Come on now, they've only been working on bridge concepts to the tune of $200M+ in design efforts for 15 years now, off and on. You expect something better?

One of my old firms once spent $500k proposing on a mega bridge concept, and it involved the use of former Pixar animators. This was just to win the project in a matter of a few months and it looked substantially more realistic.....not 15 years of concept work like this bridge.

[maccoinnich]

Interstate Bridge replacement project lands nearly $1.5 billion in new federal funding
This is the second major federal grant the project has received, bringing it closer to covering the entire projected cost, which is expected to exceed $6 billion.



PORTLAND, Ore. — The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project will receive just under $1.5 billion from the federal Bridge Investment Program, members of Washington's congressional delegation announced Friday. The award comes about six months after the project received $600 million from the federal Mega grant program, bringing the total federal investment to about $2.1 billion.

It also means the IBR project is two for two with its major federal funding requests so far, having received essentially the full funding amount it requested from each grant program. The project team intends to draw on three major federal sources overall; the third is the transit-focused New Starts grant program, which has a longer application process.

IBR's initial cost breakdown put the total cost of the project at about $6 billion, with an expectation that Oregon and Washington would each contribute $1 billion and the three federal programs would contribute a combined $2.5 billion, with the remaining cost to be covered by tolls.

...continues at KGW.

[aquaticko]

Given how long it's been in process, I'm sure it's been pitched, but has anyone mooted the idea of not building any new roadway at all, just extending the MAX and trying to get anyone who doesn't really need to be driving to take the train instead? If anyone was serious about, e.g., averting climate change, dealing with congestion, increasing transit service frequencies, etc., that possibility must've been discussed.

Then again, it's pretty clear that no one's actually serious about solving these issues, so I supposed maybe it hasn't been discussed.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

Given how long it's been in process, I'm sure it's been pitched, but has anyone mooted the idea of not building any new roadway at all, just extending the MAX and trying to get anyone who doesn't really need to be driving to take the train instead? If anyone was serious about, e.g., averting climate change, dealing with congestion, increasing transit service frequencies, etc., that possibility must've been discussed.

Then again, it's pretty clear that no one's actually serious about solving these issues, so I supposed maybe it hasn't been discussed.

The bridge in its current state would collapse in a major seismic event, there is much more to the bridge's purpose than at-best a few thousand people commuting to where a single rail line goes. Trucks, etc.

[dizflip]

The better solution is a submerged tunnel.

Given how dangerous the 205 bridge gets in winter weather, this planned bridge has a larger slope, the IBR planners are just putting the commuting public in danger with an eyesore on the new Vancouver waterfront to boot.

You don't even have to go too far to see what it's going to look like -

Fremont:



Marquam:

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by dizflip

The better solution is a submerged tunnel.

Given how dangerous the 205 bridge gets in winter weather, this planned bridge has a larger slope, the IBR planners are just putting the commuting public in danger with an eyesore on the new Vancouver waterfront to boot.

You don't even have to go too far to see what it's going to look like -

Fremont:



Marquam:

I'm fairly sure that tunnel was briefly looked at and the costs and limitations far exceeded the cost of a new bridge. I agree, if the money was there it would certainly be my choice. Tunnels are very expensive.