The proposed ambitious bridge that would span the Columbia River, set to cost up to $3.6 billion, looks like it’s too risky to build:
The governors of Oregon and Washington on Thursday abandoned the proposed design of a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River after a report said concerns about cost and construction dangers could not be overcome.
In the latest setback for a project that has struggled for years to find an acceptable design, Govs. Chris Gregoire of Washington and John Kitzhaber of Oregon said they have instructed transportation officials to stop work on the ambitious bridge design that they’ve spent millions of dollars planning.
In lieu of the design that’s been scrapped, officials will consider a more cost-effective, less risky alternative design—which is also described as “the least visually appealing.” This sounds like the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem. As overpriced and inefficient as the deep-bore tunnel replacement might be—and how much more frugal and effective surface/transit may prove—the political realities (and engineering groundwork already laid) could leave Seattle no other choice but with the “least visually appealing” option—a larger new viaduct.
why, uh, do they need a new bridge?
A larger new viaduct would at least preserve the views of 100,000 drivers per day. That’s visually appealing to me as I’m not a waterfront condo owner and occasionally one of the 100,000 drivers.
Replacement Viaduct: Hooray!
It’s easy to fix the appeal issue:
1) Pick a motif, brick and green girder (Safeco Field, et all), ivy covered or Roman aqueduct could all look awesome.
2) Stop straddling parking lots and slap an open air, but rain-covered, market with beer gardens and parade viewing stands (run some parades down Alaskan) under there.
3) Put a few tall trees and other park features to break up the outline slightly.
If you’re all so heart set on it, we can certainly engineer it so that condos go up over the roadway.
@1, mostly traffic, as I understand it. It’s only three lanes each way and a traffic jam for several hours daily.
Most of the northbound bridge is coming up on 100 years old, but apparently it’s in good shape for its age.
@2 get out of your car and enjoy the view from street level like the thousands of tourists, office workers, and residents do daily. It’s not JUST the condo owners that want that roaring beast put down.
We need a new bridge because there are only 2 ways to get from Oregon to Washington. I spend an hour a day to go 2 miles.
I would love to see our government make the decision to build a bridge that was safe, efficient and as inexpensive as possible.
We don’t need an “iconic gateway to the West”. We need something that gets me over the damn water in less than an hour.
This was a joint project, with costs to be split between WA/OR. The need for the new bridge was due to the projected increase in comercial shipping and improvements to the BC to Portland light rail coridoor that federal stimulus funding would be used. Tolls would be used to cover most of the costs of the bridge. But they were trying to cram in way too much, light rail, bicycle lanes, pedestial path, etc and the one size fit all solution was too much for both states to cover and provided risks to actually building it.
The bridge needs replacement, but not due to being damaged by an earthquake like the Viaduct was, but by the fact that its a bottleneck that cuases alot of traffic backup in the area. It sounds like, instead of building one massive all in one bridge, they’ll build 3 smaller bridges (one for trucks/cars, one for bike/pedestrial and one for light rail).
So where the viaduct NEEDs to be repalced before it falls down, the columbia bridge can still operate. People will deal with the backups until a better plan is finalized. To compare this to the Deep Bore Tunnel is kinda dumb.
Biased much Dom?
“…effective surface/transit may prove…”
There is no evidence of this in any of the reports.
“a larger new viaduct.”
This option has been rejected over and over due to loss of business, years of construction, years of increased commute times and a host of other reasons in the many, many reports over the year. Not to mention the pointless vote from 2007 you like to haul out every Viaduct story in which people rejected a rebuild. No mention of it here of course since it doesn’t support your “reporting”.
You can tear down a viaduct, but it’s infinitely more difficult to fill in a tunnel.
On the other hand, let’s just stop the tunnel and tear down the existing deathtrap ASAP. We can worry about what”s next when live traffic diversions begin.
Actually, the bridge down there makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than the insane tunnel up here.
But it probably has more to do with cutbacks in both states, is my guess.
But good catch on the visual appeal aspect.
Main problems in both instances are the risk factors. When you push the design/risk envelope and you can’t count the major risk factors on only one hand, you’re fairly certain to have an unworkable project that will bankrupt you.
Which is EXACTLY what the Deeply Bowlegged Tunnel is – a design and risk nightmare that makes no sense, given their stated objectives of capacity, freight, and cost.
@9 for the Baconcat Has First Draft Pick in Puppy Bowl win!
On what basis do you assert “how much more frugal and effective surface/transit may prove”?
Proved based on what, McGinn’s empty campaign promises?
Meh, like we need a new bridge for all the Vancouver tax dodgers.
@2 A replacement viaduct would have significantly taller guardrails, due to the evolution of safety specs over the years. If you’re in a tall vehicle, you might still have (some) view, otherwise, not.
@9 Brilliant plan! While you’re at it, why do you cut off your leg and see what happens next.
Can a bridge be ambitious?
“Sounds like”? Think for a sec. After Gregoire got good results from using an expert panel to review the DBT option, she and Kitzhaber convened a similar one to look at the leading bridge option.
In other words, the same expert examination methods that convinced the governors the bridge plan is *not* workable are the ones that convinced Gregoire the DBT plan *is* workable.
That’s what it “sounds like” to me, at least.
Very good point, @13.
As a practical tax revenue matter, longer delays crossing to Oregon from Washington may actually INCREASE sales tax revenue.
We need a lot more sunshine in the transportation decisions around here, obviously.
The usual anti-tax Clark County assholes* had hissy fits over the tolls, light rail, and bike lanes killing the project. Fuck ’em.
*I’ll exclude you from being an asshole if your vehicles are registered in WA, make most of your major purchases in WA, and never used an expired OR driver’s license to duck the sales tax while visiting Seattle**.
**Why isn’t there a crackdown on stores allowing out-of-state residents skip the sales tax?
What, they’re letting mere “risk” stop them? I wish they were as risk-averse about this tunnel plan. Technically feasible as it may be, at undeniable risk are the traffic patterns of the whole city. For some reason, though, they are fine with that – fine with a solution that doesn’t address the problem.
Please, please, please larger new viaduct. That’s what I’ve wanted all along. I love that thing. Driving on it, parking or riding bikes under it, I even like looking at it. I don’t want another urban park full of sketchy people and confused tourists.
I can’t see how a new tunnel would be any safer in an earthquake than a new viaduct, for the users or people in surrounding areas.
I don’t even see a solution to the problem that is going to do everything it needs to do, let alone pleasing every stakeholder.
@19: Ugh, no, wrong again.
They killed the bridge because it was overpriced and untested. It was a new technology that, while using current standards, used them in a novel or new way. The key line in the recommendation to kill the project is this:
Now, we hear talk about the “largest TBM ever” and more, which sounds like an underground version of the above.
As far as your representation of what happened, the IRP, much like the stakeholder group for the AWV, was all for the plan that was just killed. It was agitation from numerous groups, from engineers to environmentalists, all unsure of the effects of the approved plan, that the BRP was formed.
As an aside, I noticed one of the risks cited in the BRP report was “legal challenges to the ROD”.
In the end, it was novelty and community agitation that killed this plan.
Also interesting: note the train’s paint scheme in the renderings. Familiar?
@8: “This option has been rejected over and over due to loss of business, years of construction, years of increased commute times and a host of other reasons in the many, many reports over the year”
Except for all the ways in which the tunnel will do this, but worse?
@25, I don’t get your “IRP bad, BRP good” bit. The blockquote you cite approvingly is the IRP’s own, and you left out the line following, in which the BRP notes IRP’s recommendation that the bridge type selection be revisited. That’s the very recommendation that led to the BRP’s formation with two IRP members leading it.
The IRP method led to conclude the tunnel option, surface/transit, and replacement were all viable, just as it concluded the STHB bridge approach had to be revisited.
You’re quite a selective historian, you.
Ooh, I’m sorry, your “ugh, wrong again” actually was true in another way: the light bulb went off at last – google reminds me the now-defunct viaduct expert panel didn’t get a chance to review surface/transit (it had been taken out of the running already) OR the deep-bore tunnel (it hadn’t been thought up yet).
Egg, meet face.
Another big ugly viaduct is fine with me. A Seattle without a port and a bunch of minimum wage jobs and office jobs is the ugliest option.