Being able to maintain river traffic is going to play into the success of this plan more than most people are aware. The commercial impact of marine traffic is huge
Really? I'd like to see the numbers for lost revenue for ships that actually require lifting of the bridge. Is there that much money being shipped east of the bridge down the Columbia?
Ignoring this is ignoring the majority of the issue. The bridge replacement is being used to try to shove in miles of massive unnecessary freeway expansion. EXPANDING THE FREEWAY WONT FIX TRAFFIC! The ONLY way to fix traffic is by building ALTERNATIVES TO CARS!
No. Keeping a bridge in operation extra 10 years costs zero. Prices can come down, in 2000s prices came down, for cement and steel..... Engineers act like a 1 in million chance of collapse is awful, but we accept a 1 in 10000 chance of death yearly in road accidents.... W 2 spans if 1 collapses can use 2nd..... People who commute across the Columbia 20 miles are idiots, we should slap a $30 toll and laugh..... Last, light rail is dumb, just fly to Seattle no need to ask me to build you a rail bridge...
it would have been done already if OR and WA put their head together and funded it. but they went over the citizens head and got federal inflationary spending to do it.
In Minnesota NE of Twin Cities into Wisconsin we have the Stillwater bridge across St. Croix river which separates WI from MN, which MN didn't want to re-build the dinky metal old fashioned bridge since it would encourage sprawl into WI. Eventually they did rebuild it into a massive and high concrete bridge, but it took about 20 years. No state likes building bridges to another state which then leads to endless sprawl. The St. Croix river doesn't lead to anywhere vital so no need to accomodate shipping, and due to zebra mussels and invasive weeds they even ban recreational boating past the zone of Stillwater. . . . Long ago there was a 1900 plan to build a canal from St. Croix to Duluth, but it would've cost too much.
It'll be under-built, just like I-5 completion in the'60s. Sure, it worked for 7 years, maybe 8, then issues started to become evident. This is just boondoggle waiting to happen. I worked in Tacoma for 22 years and watched the SR16 & I-5 interchange being rebuilt/ redesigned and that project took almost 21 years to complete. This IBR replacement? Will be at least half of that I'll wager.
@@InsidiousSwedeI don’t think thats true at all. The last bridge died because Clark County lobbied hard against tolls and light rail. Olympia is far more involved and this proposal and is pushing it along.
The city of Vancouver and Washington have been using excuses for years like that. Fact is, Washington's economic center is Seattle, nowhere near this EXTREMELY expensive bridge. Whereas the current bridge is literally inside Portland's boundaries.
@@InsidiousSwede The City of Vancouver has been pro bridge for awhile. You are confusing deep Clark County and District 3 republicans with liberal City if Vancouver leadership.
@@InsidiousSwede Washington State and Clark County are more than willing to pay their fair share, they however refuse to pay anything and have any part in a Light Rail line going across the bridge into their city and county. And they're smart for that. They have zero plans in Vancouver for it at all, Clark County is the same, and even CTRAN has no plans to accommodate a line there either. Voters and CTRAN/TriMet riders alike in Clark County and Vancouver have gone as far as to vote unanimously to legally rid themselves of having anything to do with a MAX extension into their city, county and jurisdiction, because they do NOT want it at all. That of course means we Oregonians will be forced to foot the multi-billion dollar bill for the Yellow Line extension into Vancouver that the IBR and TriMet are hellbent on forcing through. Aka, it is not the ridership or the voters that support and want the damn thing, it is the Government agencies. So who to blame for the issue here? TriMet, and the IBR itself. They're not letting it go no matter what, and it is that specifically that is the main lynchpin holding any progress back. We'd seriously rather the bridge just collapse into the river than give into their bullshit and pay for the stupid LRT extension no one actually wants. The tiniest little minority of bitchy people want it, but most do not and hold a lot of contempt and disdain for their instance upon it, as they should. They're smart up there in Clark County, clearing smarter than most voters and people down here in the Portland area. That much is abundantly clear. And they're staunch in their self-determination, whereas here, most people rather force others to swallow what they deem "best" and "needed". Thank god enough people learned the lessons TriMet was dishing out left and right when it came to their stupid "Transportation Bond Measures", aka, New MAX line Funding Packages if they were honest, and rejected the last one. They finally learned and know better now than to approve of those TBMs because we've had enough of their bullshit, lies, and stupid "capital projects" with the MAX grifting. It's just the way they get all that phat stacks of kickback paychecks from big name developers and contractors, as well as Federal Funds to squander away on god knows what as always. As a diehard Transit Whore and hellbent on improving and expanding the system _THE RIGHT WAY_, I hope everyone here rejects the next one, too. Call them out to their faces even more aggressively and viciously, let them know we know fully now, and we will NOT let them get away with their bullshit again. Take some power and control back. LRT is NOT the way to do this. BRT and Metro/Subway is at the local level, Regional, IC and ICE at the metro area to outer area level (up to 60 or so miles out from the start/end point, in this case, Downtown Portland and Vancouver, respectively). Emphasize pedestrians and bicyclists, while repurposing the roads to better accommodate such, as well as safety and community. Make it multi-modal. And all new rail would be entirely grade-separated, too. But, that'll never happen anywhere in the US, because it's not profitable, and they are not running transit agencies to serve the public, contrary to popular belief. But I digress.
What do you think they should have used? It was 1917. There is 115 feet of sediment between the river bed and the bedrock (thank you, Missoula floods). I don't know if they had any viable alternative. And wooden pilings have a very solid track record.
@@eritain I never knew the northbound span is actually the original bridge. Yeah definitely time for the whole bridge to go. Then again there is a bridge in Philadelphia from 1697 so I guess bridges are stronger than I thought
Have you seen the trees in the PNW. They are definitely capable of holding a bridge, which is why it is still standing 100 years later. We do need to prepare for a future earthquake however, we don't want to be Texas or Florida.
What few realize is that the bridge often lifts for ships that can easily fit underneath the humpback portion farther out in the river. Why then? The Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 9.6, which is just downstream of it, also opens, but as a swing span and is equally close to the shore as the Interstate Bridge's lift. That rail bridge doesn't have a similar raised portion out in the river, and so if a ship were to travel under the Interstate Bridge's hump in the middle of the river, it would have to attempt what is often an impossible or near-impossible maneuver to quickly line itself up with the rail bridge's swing span, and vice versa. Much of the big river traffic are barges, which are not able to make such a maneuver, and thus they will opt to go straight through both bridges' openings. My point with all of this? The new bridge is pointless in terms of anything outside of safety, unless the new bridge has its max clearance level at where the current lift is, or unless the rail bridge is replaced/modified so that the new opening is farther out in the river, shifting the straight line of safe navigation.
@@Macarena22279 Did you even read my comment? The clear point of it is that this other bridge must be addressed simultaneously OR Interstate Bridge's lift site must be replaced with the peak height of the new bridge, which, given proximity to the shore, presents more complex engineering challenges.
@@jaymao3511 It's 100% true, look it up. There are videos on RUclips about it. If you've ever seen a bridge lift in person, you'd realize that much of the lift traffic are ships/barges that could fit underneath the hump.
Fun Fact, the Cascadia Subduction Zone and San Juan Fault Line off the coast of Washington and Oregon don't just have the potential for a 9.0 earthquake, it's one of the only seismic zones in the world that can actually hit above a 9.4 in theory. I love scaring all the Cali transplants here with that, tell em about "The Big One" that we got drilled into our heads in middle school.
Great video, and a key component of the info provided is that the ACTUAL bridge is only 3/4 of a mile of the 5 mile long project. This project could have been completed LONG ago if politicians and special interests hadn't dog-piled the project to add their pieces of pork. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors...) I travel from the Central/Chehalis area weekly to care for my aging father in Corvallis. A key component of my 350 mile round-trip commute is having to leave the house by 4:00AM in order to hit the bridge deck no later than 5:30AM, or I get tied up in traffic. That's south-bound. North-bound I have to leave my Dad's house no later than 12:00PM in order to get across the river, and I usually STLL face a 2-3 mile long backup through Delta Park just to get to the bridge deck. Continuing to NOT replace this piece of aging, inadequate infrastructure, will only add to the cost, frustration and potential lost revenue from businesses that depend on the bridge WHEN disaster strikes, and it WILL eventually.
@@sojourner57 I kinda agree with your comment, but because of the increase in bridge height the grade of the freeway has to change. Which is why they have to replace miles of freeway.
Unfortunately I do not see this happening until it absolutely has to be done. As in bridge failure or partial failure. I hope I am wrong but it's Oregon and Washington two of the biggest government wasting bureaucracies in the US.
sad by the time the bridge is done , they will need another bridge aross the columbia. this happened to the 205 bridge. by the time it was finished. the bridge all ready over crowded with cars. traffic increase every year.and they want to much built on it, transibt stations extra.
It also doesn't help that we just build bridges instead of transit. This causes the bridges to immediately be at capacity from the moment they open with no other options to get across the river other than cars/bus. Washington refuses to implement common sense transit solutions to traffic congestion. Oregon wants to build rail across the river but Washington won't fund any of it. Ctran is a joke in terms of connecting Portland/Vancouver. You literally have to take a bus across the bridge and wait in traffic.
I live in vancouver, I was doing a job for a customer who was an underwater welder for the state, he does patchwork to the bridges to "keep it going" he said they're barely staying up, there's spots underwater so rusted away you can watch it flex from the river/traffic above
Bridges always flex; that's what they do. Rigid structures fail when they flex the material in the wrong place. I'm not explaining this well but I hope you understand. Go up to the top of a tall building and experience how much they sway and bounce.
@@1dariansdad I do understand they have to be able to move, but certain parts of a structure need to be rigid, and the parts that are supposed to weren't I hope you understand that
I get why they need to replace this bridge but they also need to make more crossings across the Columbia in and around that location. There need to be some surface street bridges that connect Vancouver streets with Hayden Island, Marine Drive, and the rest of North Portland. I would also argue for a surface street bridge that connects East Vancouver and SR 14 with Gresham as well. Having all traffic heading to and from Portland cross just two freeway bridges is one of the many reasons PDX has such bad traffic.
"There need to be some surface street bridges that connect Vancouver streets with Hayden Island, Marine Drive, and the rest of North Portland. " Those potential bridges face the exact same issues as the I-5 "replacement" bridge. Marine traffic and clearance being the most obvious. Then there is the matter of approaches and access to these bridges, the impacts they would have on the neighborhoods they connect to...etc...etc... Then, there is the cost involved in building multiple bridges over a major river. Multiple bridges is not the answer to this issue.
PDX has bad traffic completely independent of the river bridge. Oregon (esp PDX) road planning and management is trash, signs poorly placed or completely hidden, and many intersections and routes are rather counter-intuitive. Oregon also has the worst drivers I have seen in any of the western states (I've driven through all of them), and this is by a noticeable margin. OR seems to hand out licenses like Halloween candy and enforces all the wrong traffic laws(based on engineering principles and studies). (*Hawaii drivers are worse but I don't include them due there isolation and no connecting highway or ferry.)
One of the prior situations that could be a model for this is the so-called "Big Dig", an east coast megaproject that ran in Boston from the initial work in 1991 to the completion in 2006. Let's do it better this time, please.
It's more likely to go the way that the work on the Tacoma Narrows bridge did. With them doing one bridge at a time and setting the other one up to be bidirectional in the meantime.
I've done extensive research on the history of the Interstate Bridge and as far back as the 1970s, people have debated replacing it. Being a resident of Vancouver my entire life I always tell people: Get this thing built ASAP before an earthquake will make the decision for you.
as a washington citizen you should be telling your state/local politicians to get it done. Oregon wants this done and is going to do it, but Washington has a long history of pulling out of shared projects at the last minute. Washington also refuses to implement common sense transit solutions that would alleviate traffic across the bridge going forward. This would have been done decades ago if Washington wasn't dragging their feet and trying to get everyone else to pay for it.
Stupid Washington fighting light rail over the bridge even though it is Vancouver residents working and shopping in PDX that make up the bulk of traffic.
absolutely. it has to have light rail and ample pedestrian/bike lanes or it's just a waste of time. they have plans for that stuff on a separate deck and the public comment period will be open again soon so find the site and speak your piece. this is gonna take forever though. process is not streamlined and there's a lot involved including changing lanes of I5 on both sides of the river into north portland and vancouver. ugh. it's gonna be messy
washington is broken because the dumb citizens keep electing democrats who think social programs are more important than infrastructure, and getting people to work
Uncle Lou lived in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. Named after the American Bridge Division United States Steel Corporation. They made steel bridges. It’s all gone now.
I was thinking about things like this. Computers and IT are now the number one most valuable industry in the world. We gave that away too. The Chinese didn't even know how to make any of that stuff, we went over there and TAUGHT them. Very different from what the textbooks in Economics will tell you, about comparative advantage and that. Our companies fly into other places and teach them how to put us out of business. Its disgusting. My family also from PA btw.
West of I-5 unfortunately isn't possible, given the Port of Portland's main terminals and storage facilities are all right there, as is Kelly Point and Smith & Bybee Lakes parks on the Portland side, and the main industrial for Vancouver is also directly across the river there, with the wetlands and park of Vancouver Lake also being right there, too. That disallows anything like it from getting built, and makes it non-viable. The one east of 205 is possible, though again, you'd need to demolish A LOT of development just to squeeze it in, though the Sandy River Delta is also right there, as is Troutdale Airport... so unless the south end is a tunnel portal, it won't work either. We're actually screwed along this portion of the Columbia, when it comes to crossing abilities. Thus why supporting the Frog Ferry concept is genuinely a great idea, at least to connect Portland and Vancouver with each other in another way. Perhaps they could give people more reason to hit up Hayden Island and/or the Expo Center for once with such a service. A short hop ferry just to shuttle people across the river. Thus, we'd have a third option. If we could add in or reconstruct the BNSF Rail bridge to the west of the current I-5 Bridge, to then have say, 3 or 4 tracks, with at least two electrified, with at least one of them being strictly for passenger services, then we could implement a trolley with a metro's capacity to do quick short hops from St. Johns to Downtown Vancouver, or a true express Metro that would go from Downtown Portland to Downtown Vancouver, with a stop or two in between, possibly Swan Island and St. Johns for the two stop, or just St. Johns for the one middle stop. Technically being west of Downtown Vancouver, one could also place a middle stop in West Vancouver, too, I suppose. But do you know what would stop these problems? IMMERSED TUNNELS! "They're far too harmful on the environment and fish passage, as far more expensive than the bridges", they cry their favorite lies. But that's just it - the IBR has lied and fabricated all the BS they use against the tunnels. Anyone who has common sense, and does basic research knows this. But, tunnels would be the quickest, cheapest, most efficient path to achieve a new crossing. And we all know how the governments and contractors despise such things, because they can't milk it for ever penny they possibly can.
@@MrBearcatjewtrolls only bring up the 3rd bridge because they know that would never be built as it would cost 100x more to build a 3rd bridge and supporting whole new highways for said 3rd bridge than to just replace the existing bridge (that they don't want to pay for)
Born and raised in Vancouver.. currently living in Vancouver.. the bridge has impact on my life personally. I love the downtown landscape and frequent the west side , daily. I worked in downtown Portland all of 2023 6th and couch and commuted this way 340x2 and many years before. When I was a kid .. I remember going to Jantzen beach to see the Carousel.. the old architecture layout of what was an amusement park. Now it’s target.. my mom used to love new years at the red lion and it’s the Hoyt hotel. When beaches used to be the best of the best in downtown and that was the only area adequate for walking .. because further into downtown west it was camps and DsHS .. fish.. the railroad.. The bridge holds Vancouver history that is quickly changing.. and I am on board for our town to get better. Just keep the historical significance in the new structure and plz.. no light rail. Where would it go.. Esther short park. We aren’t Portland.
Where would light rail go? To Portland, of course! An endstation in Vancouver would help alleviate vehicle traffic on the bridge by shifting commuters to light rail. I also grew up in Vancouver and worked in Portland for many years, so adding light rail is a no-brainer for me. We need to plan for the future by integrating all areas of the metro area into the light-rail system, including Clark County.
@@Soulforce1 Here's the irony though - Almost all CTRAN riders to and from Portland DO NOT USE THE YELLOW LINE AT ALL. They use the buses. The buses have always been far safer, cleaner, faster and more efficient than the Yellow Line. The Yellow line though claimed to be to serve commutes to and from the Expo Center in reality was to attempt to replace the original 6 bus that went down Interstate ave and into Vancouver. In other words, it was actually built with the people commuting from and to Vancouver in mind. Yet, almost none ever ended up touching it once, and each year there is less and less ridership on the Expo line. So, is extending it into Vancouver really a solution that will magically see people in Clark County wanting and choosing to ride it? No, obviously not. Paying billions more into a failed and worsening LRT line makes zero logical sense. Good transit agencies and policy makers listen to their ridership, not the other voices and voters. The riders of the system are your most informative, valuable resource as to what is needed and wanted to better accommodate them and their needs. CTRAN does a fantastic job at this. TriMet is the polar opposite, they have no fucks to give about anyone, certainly not us lowly riders, even more so when we favor bus over MAX. CTRAN listens to it's ridership, and acts according to the input they're given. It shows consistently. One way it does, is the fact that in July of last year, the board and ridership unanimously voted for a legally binding agreement that they would have nothing to do with any LRT being extended and built in their district/jurisdiction. Nothing. Not a single penny toward planning, construction, operation or maintenance. Meaning IF TriMet and IBR get their way, and the Yellow line gets extended into Vancouver, WE IN OREGON FOOT THE ENTIRE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BILL. What does this tell you? The people who commute from Clark County into Portland consistently do not want or need any LRT at all, and that it makes even LESS SENSE to support, fund and build the extension if only one side is set to pay the entire bill for a service almost no riders it would be build to serve would want or use it in the first place. This "LIGHT RAIL OR BUST" mentality as if it is the only option is beyond illogical, irrational and honestly pernicious. It's entirely wrongful and false, based in fiction and ego. BRT is what the people who use TriMet and CTRAN to get to and from Portland each day want and need. And they're intelligent for this, and I love their self-determination and conviction for sticking up for what they know they want and need, no matter the shit they get from elsewhere, other people or groups like the Light Rail Lobbies. They know better than to fall for that scam, like so many here did south of the river, and continue to do so even now. The ego is especially proven in the fact it's almost exclusively Oregonians attempting to force Vancouverites into having the MAX extension whether they want it or not. "YOU WILL GET THE LIGHT RAIL WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT!" is what you lot would scream at them into their faces if you were actually honest with yourself and everyone else. You need to recognize you are in a TINY MINORITY of people who actually want and support the MAX extension. And I guarantee that's all you'll ever be - a puny minority group. The fact is, you can be against the LRT, and still be all for multi-modal mass transit on the new bridge or tunnel (it needs to be a tunnel). BRT only lane with harsh, strict enforcement, a HOV lane specifically set at 4 or more occupants in order to qualify to use it, which would emphasize Charter, Tourist, Shuttle and School buses, and of course, 2 tracks both directions STRICTLY for passenger rail services, for Amtrak now, and for Regional, ICE & HSR later, with potential to also be used for a Metro line, meaning the line is entirely grade-separated. Congrats, you now have a multi-modal mass transit bridge/tunnel, without LRT! See, it is possible, whether you want it to be or not. Obviously there also has to be a wide, high-capacity pedestrian and bicycle pathway, preferably two, one for each direction. Otherwise, the bridge/tunnel would either maintain the same three normal traffic lanes, or, reduce them back to two in each direction, for a total of 8 on the entire crossing, not counting the emergency lane/shoulder, of course.
@@TheCriminalViolin nobody is gonna read that dude. Light rail works. Get off your weird horse. I rode Ctran and Trimet for years across the river and the bus system is broken. You're making a ton of assumptions about things. It's really weird.
$6 Billion to tie up traffic for 15 years, which according to people in the know is the projected construction time. It would be money ahead to replace the entire bridge with a new multi lane bridge constructed up river a half mile and either leave or destroy the existing when the new bridge is completed.
Hate to say this, but they will need to toll the 205 bridge in parallel to avoid exacerbating the problem there by toll avoiders it just needs to happen. I pay a toll every time I cross the Bridge of the Gods, which is the next bridge upriver. You just factor it in as part of the privilege (not right) to drive a personal vehicle. Thanks for the video.
i5 is a key economic corridor. You might think of it in terms of personal vehicles, but its a key route for trucking from Canada down to Mexico. People already pay registration and petrol taxes for their vehicles, so not sure what you're on about.
Of all the bridge structures mentioned, a "Floating Bridge" would keep it within height restrictions near a major airport, and a floating draw span can open wide enough for shipping to pass, like the Hood Canal Bridge between Kitsap, and Jefferson Counties in Washington state.
When the span is open, the traffic stops. That's the main issue! The purpose of the new bridge is to eliminate the lift and therefore the stopped traffic.
@@davidbrown587 The draw bridge cannot be avoided, a fixed span with 200feet of clearance is just impractical for the infrequent ship and barge traffic. Though a med-high span for small to mid size water traffic is needed. They only open it once per day on average anyway, this isn't like the port of Longbeach, CA where they do have a fixed span with 200 feet of clearance (and they should have made it 250 for accommodating the new ULCVs used in other parts of the world.) because large ships are almost hourly there.
It's not clear to me how they will make a new bridge that is high enough to not require bridge lifts to avoid stopping vehicle traffic, but still be low enough to not intrude into the airspace of the two airports. Seems something will have to give. This is going to be a $20 billion+ project by the time it is undertaken.
A toll would anger a lot of people who are barely making ends meet. 3 dollars a day(both trips) for 5 days a week stacks up fast. Everyone would just go to the other bridge.
And that's their choice. Seattle has a history of having tolls on the bridges to help fund construction. 520 currently has a toll, but neither I-90 nor going around the lake do. So, you're paying to use the bridge, but because there's a toll, the traffic is somewhat less than it would be if there were no toll. Eventually, the toll goes away when the bridge is paid off. It's definitely not ideal, but with taxing the rich to pay things like this being off the table, I'm not sure what other alternative there is. They can't just put this on Seattle's tab the way they like to.
The idea is to implement light rail and make that cheaper than the toll, which would alleviate a large amount of the needless traffic across i-5. A lot of people cross that bridge everyday for quick errands or work, which could be accomplished with light rail. However, you get folks that live out by battle ground who absolutely refuse to go along with light rail because it wouldn't really benefit them. Most folks in downtown vancouver want light rail and a hub. But then folks out in Fisher's Landing/Camas dont, so Washington keeps shooting that down. As it stands now you have to jump on a bus to cross the river on transit which means you'll be sitting in the same traffic as everyone else.
@@CRneu if passenger rail were really more efficient than private vehicles private rail companies wouldn't have abandoned it. There is far more to the calculation than some middle-school oversimplification of rolling resistance; fortunately we have prices to inform us of the relative value of two options and summarize the myriad of costs (most of which are ultimately a measure of total incorporated energy/resources..)
We need a new bridge there plus 2 more. One, east of I205, that goes from Fairview OR area to Camas WA area and another, west of I5, St Helens OR area to Woodland WA area.
Hey, hats off to the original builders. The first half of the brige has worked for over 100 years and the second half (mirror of the original plans) for over 60. It's not the bridge -- the problem is all heavy traffic going through the needle's eye in and out of Portland. Best solution would be to build two bridges to connect to WA 192nd to I-84 and from Ridgefield to connect to Hwy 26 (tunnel under Skyline Blvd instead of up Cornelius Pass). Problem solved for the 21st Century and much cheaper than a mega project like the proposed I-5 bridge that's been hampered by too many engineers and politicians.
Make it more like the Glenn Jackson bridge and start it further back maybe somewhere near Hazel Dell and SR 500. Wouldn't be as steep as a tunnel, which would never work, but would cut off downtown from freeway access.
Yeah, the fight over this is ridiculous. It’s a 100+ year old DRAW BRIDGE (ffs!) sitting on wooden pylons on one of the busiest stretches of I-5. It should have been replaced 30 years ago, but no one wants to foot the bill. The feds should cover a large chunk of it because it’s an interstate but it will very likely need to be tolled as well, which I think is the biggest sticking point outside of light rail. The reality is, though, that this bridge is primarily used by freight and people who live in SW Washington (who already dodge income and sales tax), so they need to shut up and pay up.
Amazing how far costs spiral out of control. New bridges will cost (inflation adjusted) 20 times the cost the second bridge built in the fifties mind boggling. This is why nothing infrastructure wise gets done because of astronomical costs and every agency getting their cut along with contractors cheaping out on materials to squeeze even more money and then cost overruns are inevitable. Those bridges should cost nowhere more then one billion to replace.
Planning this project has turned into a permanent endeavor like homeless services. A by-pass on the west side, I205W, would solve all these problems without the politics of Portland. All those trucks from San Fransisco and Seattle would stay out of town and we would have a third choice of bridges.
the problem is made worse by the fact that portlanders and vancouverites can't seem to go anywhere without spending at least part of the trip on an interstate. sometimes I think they should have a flyover bypass for people with no intention of stopping in Portland.
People not familiar with the area need to realize that both spans (NB and SB) had only two lanes until they decided to up that to three, which means that there are no emergency lanes. So if there's an accident on the bridge, it's even more of a bottleneck. Another thing is that Portland politics dictates that Cars Are Bad, Light Rail Is Good, so making traffic flow better is not really a priority. (That's why I-5 only has two lanes in each direction between the Marquam Bridge and the Fremont Bridge.) And finally, my understanding about why funding for the Columbia River Crossing project got killed by the republicans in the Washington State senate is that they didn't approve of funding for light rail into Washington.
Portland politics dictate that cars are bad and public transit is good because cars ARE bad and public transit IS good. More cars=more traffic. There is virtually no public transit between Portland and its biggest suburb. It keeps getting shot down purely because of stupid people screaming about the crime train. Trimet's light rail system has been a huge help to the city, it's silly to stop it.
@@Jarekthegamingdragon I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just saying. (I could say a lot about how Portland's freeways are horribly designed; how cars are barely tolerated even though bus and light rail can't efficiently handle the demand; etc. But this is about the bridge.) The point is that the I-5 bridge replacement *will* carry light rail despite "people screaming about the crime train".
@@eco2geek. Cars really shouldn't be tolerated in residential neighborhoods. They should be for the people who live there, not for people driving through. There's really stupid chokepoints on highways but other than that, as someone who lives inner city portland, I agree with most of their changes.
@@Jarekthegamingdragon (And for anyone watching, that's your typical Portland anti-car attitude on display.) Funny you should say that, because I choose to drive through residential neighborhoods half the week instead of taking the freeway, specifically because rush hour traffic is so bad on the freeway. If you don't like it, you need to find a way to make freeway traffic better.
The larger but never-discussed aspect of this is that Vancouver, WA is a tax shelter for people who want to enjoy all the economic activity of Portland, along with Oregon's lack of a sales tax, without having to pay for any of the public infrastructure that creates that economy. These are people who badmouth Portland constantly while driving into the city every day because they'd be unemployed otherwise (but they still complain about having to pay OR state income taxes for the jobs they can't get in WA while also shopping in Portland to avoid WA state sales tax, but I digress). On the other side are Portland anti-car people and those who might prefer that the aforementioned antisocial types from WA stop taking OR jobs. While I'm just the sensible type who wants to see the delapidated old bridge replaced.
A better solution would be to keep it simple and cheap while planning for a bypass freeway for Interstate traffic starting in Woodland, WA and St Helens, OR down highway 30 and looping the metro between Cornelius and Hillsboro (then back to I5) THis would remove a lot of the interstate traffic from the Portland Metro and few would care if it was a cheap but undramatic bridge.
That's easier said than done. In order to do that, it means having to reroute the freeway to one side or the other in order to accommodate having both in place at the same time. It's probably possible, but the result is that you get something that wasn't as horrible in the short term, and a bridge that's in a less than optimal location forever.
Well done video. This could have been completed years ago if they'd just ditch light rail and admit you have to bypass downtown Vancouver and Jantzen Beach.
I have lived six miles from this bridge for 50 years. A replacement bridge was studied and several designed as per the video, and rational funding proposed, all about 10 years ago. Nonetheless, the whole investment was wasted, and the bridge plan killed by Washington, driven by politics and parochial interests. The crack used to wedge the bridge to death was "light rail" public transportation. Portland had developed a rational and effective light rail system. That system had an existing extension right to the point where a bridge would pick it up. The proposal was to extend that service across a new bridge with a new terminal in downtown Vancouver. The terminal would have been built at the Washington end of the bridge, using land abandoned by prior industrial and commercial business, primary a car dealership, no loss to anyone and a valuable service to the community. The problem was that other local interests were ideologically opposed to any public transportation which might expand service in the local county, currently serviced by a barely functioning bus system. There was no economic or public service reason for the opposition. It was a political wedge used to manipulate elections, literally, "if you put light rail on a new bridge, the Commies will get you." Further, we then suffered a first term Congresswoman (Republican) with few credentials and almost nothing accomplished to warrant her re-election. She seized on the issue as a campaign cry to divert attention from the fact that vacating her seat would be a step up from her return to office. The two groups who would benefit got almost no input on the matter, those being commercial and private traffic which flows past Vancouver at 55 MPH and locals who'd like a quick trip to Portland without spending 3 hours sitting stalled on I-5 to complete a 14 miles round trip. Why has no progress been made since these events? Putting the federal and state money together at the time was a minor miracle. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted. As soon as weakness was shone over bridge development, other interests at the federal level swooped in to carry off the huge federal part of the budget. Oregon footed most of the rest of the bills wasted. Washington's behavior was so outrageous that no Oregon politician was willing to stick a neck out again, and Portland took a "so go sit on the freeway then, because we have our own issues" position. A correction to the video. This is all local politics. The argument for or against a new bridge as impacting long distance trucking on the I-5 corridor is pointless. All of that "flow-through" traffic by-passed this route when the Glenn Jackson bridge was built decades ago. I=5 itself in downtown Portland is a dangerous nightmare no one uses unless they have no option. (The Congresswoman was defrocked in 2023 as not MAGA enough. Her replacement lost to the Democrat. She is currently trying to regain the public trough, running for state Commissioner of Public Lands, another position she knows nothing about, but is a paycheck, an office, and nothing to do. The idea of "get a job" seems foreign to her.)
Totally agree.....Only lived in the area for 8 years now but the nonsense over the bridge and the rabid "No Tolls" nonsense is ridiculous. Seems to be common sense to design a bridge that could accommodate light rail at a future date....especially when you consider the traffic issues. And in this house we refer that defrocked GOP rep as "Blueberry Girl" since it got a prominent mention in her bio lol.
@@Thor_Odinson The no tolls argument was used up north where I live when the 2nd Tacoma Narrows bridge was being built. The I'd rather sit in traffic for 45 minutes plus rather than pay a toll argument didn't hold sway.
Oh, for gosh sakes. The political vindictiveness in the above comment is over the top. And it leaves out a most important point. If Portland light rail goes over the bridge to Vancouver, then Clark County residents will be taxed to support light rail. In the failed bridge-building effort of 10 years ago, the bridge became the tail that wags the dog. I don't live in Clark County -- but didn't voters there reject a light-rail proposition? Constructing a bridge with light rail essentially forces it on the people of the area, and forces them to pay taxes to support it, whether they want light rail or not. Let me point out that light rail has been enormously expensive in the Seattle area, and there are many who seethe with rage about the huge auto-license fees that residents of King, Pierce and Snohomish County must pay. I live in Thurston County, and am relieved that Seattle light rail will probably not cross the county line in my lifetime. And let me add -- the insults in the above comment directed at former Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler are really uncalled-for. Given the tone of the comment, it is important to point out that she lost her bid for re-election in the 2022 primary because she was one of the few Republicans who voted for Trump's impeachment. I would think those on the left would be more appreciative of her principled stand.
From what I understand the project will not included additional lanes for cars or trucks but adds new lanes for bikes, bus and light rail. So this provides no solution for the terrible traffic congestions we have now. They are going to spend $6 billion + charge a forever toll on the new bridge and add a forever toll on the Glenn Jackson bridge which is paid for. This is upsetting to lots of people because I am still sitting in traffic jams for hours. How can you justified spending 6 billion and not solve the traffic issue and also kick us in the wallet with forever tolls?
Modelling shows a toll or congestion charge will nearly eliminate traffic, and both Oregon and Washington have set goals of reducing VMT. If they are even slightly serious about that, a future with a narrower bridge and less cars being driven across it makes perfect sense
@@rancidmarshmallow4468 "will nearly eliminate traffic" Unless your charging a $25 toll that is not going to happen. Set your goals to reduce but to "will nearly eliminate traffic" is not a realistic goal. Are you saying your going to make it so expensive to cross traffic will "will nearly eliminate traffic"? Also how is the bridge going to be more "narrower" when your adding a lane for bikes, buses and light rail and still having three lanes for cars and trucks? Are you from the Portland / Vancouver area?
@@michaelspring3915 yes, I live in Portland. Sorry, I may have been unclear- I don't mean there will be no travel over the bridge, but a charge is predicted to largely eliminate congestion. Coupled with a reduction in general VMT through other efforts, a bridge with 6 vehicle lanes is, if anything, overbuilt. What's underbuilt are the current number of transit lanes (0), that absolutely needs to increase.
BS, more people moving in means we need more lanes to move the cars. You can't toll your way out, Seattle still has awful traffic, the residents just now have less money and and the same crappy roads. Max ridership isn't rising but violence is. We don't want the Max crime line in Vancouver, it's bad enough the vagrants keep making it over the river.
@@rancidmarshmallow4468 No, you are putting more value on "transit lanes" vs normal lanes. Sure it would be great to have more "transit lanes" but can I cross the river on a Suday at noon without it costing me a hour and now a toll?
They should just fix the existing bridge there are bridges that are way older that get restored the Brooklyn bridge was built in the 1800s there are no calls for knocking it down there is a bridge here it can be repaired and improvements can be made to the bridge we currently own and have
Why is there no commuter rail between Vancouver and Portland using the Columbia River Railroad Bridge? Seattle has commuter rail to Tacoma and Everett.
You barely mention the impact of the 205 freeway and river crossing. There is also talk of a new freeway and river crossing that goes around Portland completely to the west.
I think a western bypass route is going to be needed even if the Interstate Bridge is replaced. Where is the I-5 traffic going to go while the Interstate Bridge is being reconstructed? It can't all be diverted to I-205 -- that would be horrendous.
If 47.5 Million cars cross it per year, the toll could be $2 per car and it'd be paid for in under 10 years. But they won't. It'll be $6 per car and the tolls will remain long after its paid for itself.
Making the bridge available for bicycles and pedestrians will "Significantly" reduce the number of cars using the bridge. Obviously the person claiming that got some good drugs from the "homeless" in Downtown Portland.
@@ATappin I regularly see cyclists and pedestrians going across the floating bridges on Lake Washington. The big factor tends to be the weather. And, I'd wager the same thing would be the case with this bridge as well. The walkway could be on another deck, or separated from the cars on the same deck. I'm not sure that the number would really be that many, as that is a pretty windy area.
@@ATappin I biked across 205 daily for years. I'd see a lot of people doing the exact same thing. It's weird how people just assume these things without doing any lick of research to see if they're correct. It just sounds right so you go along with it, is that how it works? Falling for the "it sounds right" fallacy is weird.
traffic is always going to just get worse over time regardless. there should be a cars/commuter bridge and a freight bridge that's built a long stronger, then toll the hell out of the commuter bridge.
I just can never get my head around these costs. How does a $200MM bridge (today's money) grow 300X? How does light rail cost $1BB to run a few miles? My ears hear it and my brain just says, "Bullshit" over and over again.
You missed key points that doomed the original CRC. The original engineering is still valid and cost $190 million and can still be used. Vancouver voters shut it down over NIMBY concerns about Portland homeless coming to Vancouver. They could build 3 floating drawspans for 6 billion dollars. Portland, Oregon also needs a Westside loop Freeway like I-205 to the east... And new floating bridges both upstream and downstream from I-5 at Washougal, WA & Ridgefield, WA. Politicians failing ! No tolls !
Tolls are a PITA but the original bridge is over 100 now and long, long overdue for replacement. FWIW, Oakland Bay Bridge toll os $7 and Golden Gate is $9.25.
Not going to resolve the traffic issues. You have local traffic and interstate traffic mixed on a single bridge and making it bigger is just going to encourage more commuting from Vancouver to Portland. Vancouver grew because they have little land use regulation and you can build anything you want anywhere and have created a lot of sprawl over there with cheap housing and forcing everyone else to subsidize their commute to Oregon. Now that cheap housing has become expensive as you add in the time in traffic. They made that decision and i have no problem with that. Since these plans also include a requirement to widen and trash more north Portland neighborhoods that have nothing to do with poor choices made by Vancouver commuters, it is not something north Portland actually wants. You want to resolve the issues, this is what to do: 1: A new light rail bridge to Vancouver and build up the light rail in Vancouver. Add a toll to the I5 Bridge. You want to commute, do it the right way. This is the only rational thing to do and provides the best solution for the problem which is commuters crossing to Oregon from Vancouver. Add a toll to the Glen Jackson bridge if needed. So you want to play Robert Moses? Fine, add this as well... 1: Complete the 217 bypass that ends on the sunset on the west side of Portland to continue north and over the Columbia on a new bridge that and have that join I5 North of Vancouver. Rip right through the west hills just like the old days and tear up someone elses neighborhood. Build a tunnel through the hills if you feel like it. 2: Add another bridge east of the I5 bridge that connects MLK to Vancouver by marine park and connect it up to the Vancouver roads. This splits out the Beaverton traffic and sends it around Portland which cleans up I5 and the sunset highway for locals and adds in a locals bridge on MLK to get the east side traffic off the I5 bridge. Commuters use the MAX and the toll keeps them off if I5. Your welcome.
ok 1st i kinda like your idea but no light rail costs to much i mean they say 1.2 bil per mile over the river come on man use are money wisely and the idea to force people to do things what kind of freedom is that give choice and go bigger make a full 4 lane both ways north and south so 8 lane freeway off I-5 just like 205 but swings west links in close to where 205 does in the south break off north side of willsonvill near boones ferry road go NW and go between Tualatin and Sherwood up Roy Rodgers road and jog over to corn pass follow that all the way across Sauvie island skirting Vancouver lake and merging just south of clark county fair grounds like around 164th it would take all the pressure off the I-5 bridge and set up portland for the next 50 years after that then lets think about light rail
What is truly shocking is the cost escalation and that the new suggestions do not include another lane or even increased capability to have more vehicles cross. This will be there for a long time and there needs to be more lanes. Even a 20% reduction in traffic does not clear this bridge at 7:00 AM. And from 7-9 am it can take an hour to cross this bridge going from Washington to Oregon. Sometimes until 10 AM. The afternoon is worse on the way north. If you are going from downtown Portland to Vancouver WA on I5 it takes about 2 hours to travel about 25-20 miles. You have to be on the road by 1:30 PM to avoid the stupid busy traffic.
Even the most generous estimates say a toll or congestion charge would nearly eliminate traffic on the current bridge, it would be truly insane to keep building more lanes and encouraging more people to live in Vancouver and drive in every day. The only hope we have of constricting that tax and UGB loophole is a bridge that costs time or money to cross
A bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007. They rebuilt the bridge in two years. These fools in Oregon have been arguing about the I-5 bridge since BEFORE the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. It’s the biggest choke point on I-5 from Canada to Mexico according to truckers. Like typical Marxists, Portland wants to ram their lifestyle (tolls, bike lanes, trains no one rides, etc) down the throats of everyone else and we all suffer because of it. The bridge would have been MUCH cheaper if built twenty years ago. Portland has been an absolute mess since the lunatics took over.
Nobody is dedicated to getting things done at a reasonable cost anymore. Perfectly happy charging a mint to study things endlessly to reach “consensus” and extract more taxes in the form of tolls. There’s no reason the replacement bridge should cost 20 times what the original bridges cost IN TODAY’S DOLLARS and people have to pay a tax to drive across it. It’s a Federal structure providing interstate transportation, interstate commerce, and national defense along the West Coast. If our tax dollars that are supposed to go towards funding such things can’t fund the replacement of a 100 year old bridge of national importance without more taxes, then let it fall into the river. We need to hold our government accountable to do what we pay them to do. The entire interstate system across the country was built without tolling everything and with a much smaller tax base. We are getting hosed.
Except the thing that they failed to mention is in the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake scenario soil is going to be in a liquid state not to mention the tsunamis could easily reach 200 feet. There won’t be any roads left to connect to these bridges if they make stronger bridges. All modern infrastructure is to be washed away like toothpicks houses in a bathtub. And this is the reason why the 205 bridge was built across the river and engineered for such an event..
There's a hell of a lot of stuff the don't publicly admit to when it comes to the damage the Portland area would suffer from that quake. We're built on almost entirely filled in flood plains and swamps, with countless springs all over. On top of that, we're also built on top of tons of volcanic silt, which itself is very soluble and subject to vicious liquefaction. Now, add on the fact most of our utilities are built underground on average 3 feet down, so gas, sewer, water and electricity, and now you've got a recipe for the worst possible scenario. AND EVEN WORSE is the fact that Portland sits atop all the century + old Shanghai Tunnels, which sprawl way further than most people ever realize. AND THEN you got the fact that most of the buildings are still really old, most of our bridges are too, and hell, let's not forget the reality of all the endless landslides, mudslides and rockslides that will transpire over and over again, ripping any buildings and foundations that remained atop the hills across the region down into the already obliterated low lying areas. Congrats! You now know the shit they refuse to teach you and say publicly about where we all live! HAVE FUN! There's plenty of other things not usually accounted for too - in example, there is a surprising amount of local transform faults, fracture zones and even a subduction zone within the Portland region. The Subduction Zone is the Cooper Mountain Subduction Zone, aka The Beaverton Subduction Zone. It's about 15 miles long for the morbidly curious. I grew up living practically on top of it too, never even knowing it existed until just before I coincidentally moved out of that home I grew up in for 15 2/3 years. I'm 30 2/3 right now. How's that for Synchronicity! haha. All of these faults I bet you will react in kind to the main quake, if not some of the fore and aftershocks. And then there's the fact all of the Cascade's volcanoes are directly connected via a vast lava tube system, and that same system of tubes connects directly into the subduction zone and the vents off our coast. Meaning there is a high chance the tricentennial could set off eruptions, too. Now how much fun would that be? Haha, I actually would LOVE to survive that scenario myself, it would exhilarating, including to document all the changes afterward. That said, here's a third one for you - The last tricentennial quake completely changed the landscape of both Oregon & Washington. Where you see mountains, hills, valleys, rivers and lakes now were either elsewhere, a completely different shape and size/height, or straight up didn't even exist before it. The rivers changed their paths a lot, especially the Columbia and Willamette. This was well documented and orally accounted by the vast amount of tribes we have across the two states. I just wish I could see or ask them for details so I or a cartographer could make a map to show us what it was like before. It's one of the many reason I badly want to experience the quake, so I can document and map the changes myself. I digress though. :)
I think it's a very very bad idea to have tolls on i5 this is the blood artery of the west coast, it's not a, nice to have shortcut, you have people who travel for emergencies, people moving and re-location, a lot of travelers, this would cause such a headache for no reason. Also, there is no reason in the world that cycling or pedestrians should be involved this is a freeway, there are no pedestrians or cyclists anywhere along I5 why here? This makes 0 sense. The project should have nothing to do with that.
Most of this $6 b project comes from federal funding because the feds fund and maintain all major interstates and highways, and the bridge carries interstate 5.
Tunnel would have been too expensive? with only $2.5 billion in hard costs as seen at 4:35?? I get the interchanges will cost something, but seems like the total should be under $6 billion.
Correction, a few Republican senators in Washington killed the project and decided the whole thing for the dozens of other representatives and two whole states.
WTF...It is illegal to walk on I-5 but they want to accommodate foot traffic on the bridge. A perfect solution to all the tens of thousands of people stranded on one side or the other eagerly waiting to walk across.
this newest proposal is turning well into a boondoggle. gotta go back to the drawing board but this time there will be 'no' input from the City of Portland, Tri-Met, and METRO, only ODOT and WDOT and representatives from commerce as the current and proposed bridge directly 'interferes' with commerce...
The three bridges that cross the Columbia River from I-5 to Astoria are all a big question. As noted the I-5 bridge is wearing out, the Longview / Rainier bridge is, downright scary (😄) what’s going to be hilarious is when the USCG gets all their new ships (at the way that project is going it won’t be for a couple decades) and the Astoria bridge does a Key Bridge collapse trapping the CG ships on the up river side. Sorry I don’t think the Salvage Chief will be much help. Just Thinking
If you have ever driven across this bridge, it is OLD. Hard to believe they are still waiting to replace it. The conventional and rational method would be to finally start building the new bridge right next to the old one and tie in I-5 when it's done. Perhaps someone should consult the Japanese or Dutch in order to plan and construct a successful replacement.
Some good comments and observations here. I sat on the committee for awhile back in the early 2010's. Couple of points. One we (both sides of the river) agreed the age of the bridge needed some upgrades for earthquake etc. There was a proposal to not do one bridge but three bridges at a lower cost and only the bridges not the add on of 5 billion for "interchange upgrades". I supported this concept for two main reasons. A) two more bridges: one near Troutdale to deal with expansion East, and one nearer to Woodland (other ideas included Kelley Point). This would deal with the issue of reducing Commercial traffic onto Hwy 30 in Or and provide relief in the event of disaster. B) Another was two other bridges could be built without shutting down I205 or I5 and then I5 could be redone. Another Idea that had merit was building two joining local traffic bridges and saving the I5 for later (once the two were completed) and relieving the through commercial traffic for the I5 and local daily drivers to the other smaller bridges. This included the bicycle and light rail add ons. However, the (and it was touched on lightly, very) squandering of 70 million USD to discover it was too short left everyone with a bad taste and politically a downer. Seriously the firm who blundered that should have returned some of that money or been sued by OR and WA. That was a serious abacus failure.
It is a travesty. First, an immersed tunnel would be a better choice to prevent the design nightmare the IBR has thrown at people and ruins the Vancouver waterfront. Also, the tunnel information you are discussing here was recently discovered to be seriously flawed and not nearly as costly as IBR mentioned. IBR, despite this realization, refuses to consider the option despite increasing public disdain over the project costs and the models they have released...and with no assurances the Coast Guard is buying their story. A tunnel, plus repurposing the existing I-5 bridges for transit, would cut between $200 and $400 million in costs, according to several sources, as well as eliminating a steep eye-sore. In addition, an immersed tunnel would be more seismically sound, and similar tunnels have succeeded in several seismically active areas. What would be better is the construction of two other bridges, something both sides have clamored for years: One on the west side that would connect west Vancouver to Hillsboro and Beaverton and one on the east connecting east Vancouver to east Portland. Both could be toll bridges, wide enough for two lanes in each direction, or also tunnels. Both would reduce the congestion on the current I-5 Columbia crossing significantly. One source: www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/tunnel-model-for-interstate-crossing-exposes-more-ibr-flaws/
No tunnel has survived if the land in earthquake shifts at their location... The sample size for tunnels in equarthquake zones is low, like 20, one shouldn't bet on a tunnel surviving.... People don't realize it but that area is insanely earthquake prone, and volcano prone, all of E WA and OR was a lava field cuz the crust is so thin and weak for 2 million years at 16m years ago the lava just gushed to make the Columbia River Basalts... It is more active than Iceland, truly.... All the West coast is inching north but at mid WA the movement stops so OR is being compressed and you get east west hills popping up in mid WA ...... The Boring volcanoes 30000 years ago popped up in W Portland in the city and geologiats have no idea why, literally volcanoes in suburbs, , , , , , so wow I wouldn't trust a tunnel...... Geologists skip a lot cuz literally there is tallk that OR and WA are doomed, but no one can yell that without panic .... Google "Washington is Toast" where FEMA had a memo saying everyone within 100 miles of coast will be dead or homeless in a quake/tsunami..... I would no live there, it's like living on Mt. Vesuvius as they do in Italy, it's child endangerment...
How do you get help when you are locked in a moving box for 12 minutes and a bad man/women wants to hurt you. As Gresham found out criminal element loves light rail.
I parked and traveled on the Max from Portland International Raceway (PIR) into downtown Portland for a year - and it was terrible. Countless times the Max would force the riders off the train to catch buses because of trains breaking down and sometimes b/c of black masked men rioting in downtown Portland. Anyone who thinks the Max is a good idea to cross the river is either a communist, a raging liberal, or intentionally homeless. Adding the Max to the I5 bridge project is a mistake b/c the organisation who owns the Max is politically motivated - it is not based not want or need but power and influence, according to a judge overseeing this project 15-20 yrs ago.
What's the point of tolling if the poors are going to get discounts? They're the ones crowding the roads with their Civic hatchbacks and salvage title Altimas.
You made a good point that I forgot about. We have a motorhome next to my house with a smashed in windshield and expired tags from WA and a truck with a 5th wheel without plates at all. How are tolls going to be collected if they don't enforce license plates?
City of Portland has no more traffic enforcement police. They are in crisis just keeping up with the major crimes going on. Defund the police is good for avoiding the toll?
The major problem with this project from a practical stand point is. The new bridge will not have anymore lanes, than the old one has. The only major difference will be a new max line. Which Vancouver residents have said over and over again, they don't want. The big lie about Max, is that it will reduce traffic. Which it hasn't anywhere it has been placed. So in effect this bridge project is going to replace a bridge for the sake of replacing a bridge, bringing with it, no improvement to traffic with the addition of tolls. If they were to build a bridge that is double deck. With six lanes each way. That would improve the congestion. Portland philosophy for years has been to get you out of your car. And to make it as painful as possible until you do. I've always thought that making a interstate bypass along the BNSF rail line into NW Portland would elevate much of the congestion. Diverting traffic north of the interstate bridge, and connecting people from Washington county. Along with the industrial traffic from the NW industrial area, bypassing the interstate all together. While using an existing byway.
There is nothing wrong with getting people out of their cars. Cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around cities since they take of so much space. (Note..I own a car and drive it most days). Replacements aren’t always increases in size. This bridge replacement is necessary for 3 reasons: 1. Will not survive a major earthquake (it’s going to collapse) 2. General safety improvements are needed which makes the bridge unsafe today (sight lines, exit locations, bridge lift). 3.rebuilding with transit gives people a choice to life in downtown Vancouver and travel to downtown Portland without having to drive (reducing the numbers of vehicles on the road for those that still want to drive. Transit does help people that want to continue to drive by taking a trip off the road.
I understand that one improvement will be that the curve that is rather sharp for freeway driving will be straightened out somewhat. @Aguyononesideofthecountry mentions line of sight which is a big thing on the existing bridge.
You're using a culture problem to say that trains dont work, which is just kinda stupid, sorry. Without max the traffic in portland would be considerably worse. Max has some of the highest ridership in the entire country, so anyone saying nobody rides max or that it doesn't alleviate traffic is just blowing smoke. What you should say instead is if Max wasn't around traffic would be worse than it already is. Portland suffers from induced demand, heck we have a song about it. When you build more car infrastructure people will use it, but on top of that it encourages a car-first culture which results in people driving more which creates more traffic. This is the real problem in many american cities. We don't fund transit(or we build it in dumb ways because public support isn't there), nobody takes transit, traffic gets worse. The issue is culture. A lot of people absolutely refuse to take transit for a variety of reasons so our roads are always clogged. Based on your variety of comments in here it seems you are VERY anti transit which is very stupid. sorry dude but you're finding problems while ignoring solutions because you don't like transit.
You could make each direction 12 lanes wide and it wouldn't do much for traffic because it would still dump into Portland. Portland has spent billions over the last 50 years to ensure it is the worst bottleneck for cars in the West. They can't design good transport systems, but they know how to make sure their streets are really, really bad to punish anyone driving. Also, their bike lanes don't connect to anything, their sidewalks are tent cities, and their light rail serves as their mental institutions. The new I-5 bridge should just fly over the city and create a direct connection from Vancouver to Tigard so that interstate traffic doesn't have to deal with Portland.
And yet not one additional automobile lane added! Lmao it's just a mess and another traffic jam waiting. Not to mention tolls for automobiles so trimet can run an empty train across is!! 😅
Few will walk or bike 2 miles across the Columbia.... Be honest have you ever walked 2 miles across a windy bridge w traffic roaring.... There is nothing north of the river except boring another town ...
@@amyself6678 yes? I have, I used to commute for years under your exact description. But regardless of that slight difficulties if they build it, it will get used. Why not build for the future and not the now.
"Build for the future". What a nice phrase that means nothing. We build costly things and use them till they almost fail, we don't build things before to "build for the future". There are too many competing demands for tax money. Not to over argue this, but building a bridge early takes money from govt spending more on cancer treatments and education. It's all one govt pot. Just saying, govt has reasons and delay unless the bridge collapses often is OK plan. . . . The smart people can say if the new bridge would save 100000 about 20 minutes a day for 200 days a year, and if we value their time at $20/hour, is mathwise it worth re-building bridge 20 years earlier than the collapse would occur - - so it's a complex analysis - - but us bozos just go with our gut and liking of shiny videos showing cars zooming along. This shallow thinking is why dictators in world build shiny bridges that barely get used .. .. I honestly have no idea, just suggesting small thoughts, and suggesting the experts probably are looking at many factors. .. .. . And most people hate light rail, even in France or Finland 70% of people drive if they have to get to work, and vacationerse and business people can just take a plane, light rail is the stupid idea of yuppies who never will take it much once they smell the homeless people and me who may use it. .. . Overall Im amazed we have a road system, kudos to everyone involved, I don't mean to be negative.
The longer they wait the more expensive its going to be and the need to build a new bridge WITHOUT closing the current one during construction will only get worse! There is NOTHING that can be done to reduce traffic on ANY US highway system since we have ruined our cities by urban sprawl and mass transit can NEVER fix that flaw in any reasonable timeline! Very few people have the need to go from city center to city center anymore! So mass transit cannot fix a problem that has been growing since the 1940'S. Hey, I love trains and wish we had things like the Eurostar here but unless some long term (i means 20+ years) federal program comes about mass transit is always going to be a system for the poor! UGH
Being able to maintain river traffic is going to play into the success of this plan more than most people are aware. The commercial impact of marine traffic is huge
Is river traffic going to pay tolls?
@@michaelspring3915 no, federal law doesn't allow it
@@michaelspring3915are the pedestrians going to pay toll
@@michaelspring3915 they'll pay taxes that pay for this bridge
Really? I'd like to see the numbers for lost revenue for ships that actually require lifting of the bridge. Is there that much money being shipped east of the bridge down the Columbia?
I think you underplayed how much of the controversy is over the freeway expansions to north and south.
Ignoring this is ignoring the majority of the issue.
The bridge replacement is being used to try to shove in miles of massive unnecessary freeway expansion. EXPANDING THE FREEWAY WONT FIX TRAFFIC! The ONLY way to fix traffic is by building ALTERNATIVES TO CARS!
I just want it built already, the longer they wait the more it cost.
No. Keeping a bridge in operation extra 10 years costs zero. Prices can come down, in 2000s prices came down, for cement and steel..... Engineers act like a 1 in million chance of collapse is awful, but we accept a 1 in 10000 chance of death yearly in road accidents.... W 2 spans if 1 collapses can use 2nd..... People who commute across the Columbia 20 miles are idiots, we should slap a $30 toll and laugh..... Last, light rail is dumb, just fly to Seattle no need to ask me to build you a rail bridge...
@@amyself6678 This has to be the dumbest and most uninformed comment I have ever read about the bridge. Congratulations.
it would have been done already if OR and WA put their head together and funded it. but they went over the citizens head and got federal inflationary spending to do it.
@@maxxordinate5088 Absolutely not, it’s a federal freeway, the federal government should be paying for a majority of the project.
In Minnesota NE of Twin Cities into Wisconsin we have the Stillwater bridge across St. Croix river which separates WI from MN, which MN didn't want to re-build the dinky metal old fashioned bridge since it would encourage sprawl into WI. Eventually they did rebuild it into a massive and high concrete bridge, but it took about 20 years. No state likes building bridges to another state which then leads to endless sprawl. The St. Croix river doesn't lead to anywhere vital so no need to accomodate shipping, and due to zebra mussels and invasive weeds they even ban recreational boating past the zone of Stillwater. . . . Long ago there was a 1900 plan to build a canal from St. Croix to Duluth, but it would've cost too much.
It'll be under-built, just like I-5 completion in the'60s. Sure, it worked for 7 years, maybe 8, then issues started to become evident. This is just boondoggle waiting to happen.
I worked in Tacoma for 22 years and watched the SR16 & I-5 interchange being rebuilt/ redesigned and that project took almost 21 years to complete. This IBR replacement? Will be at least half of that I'll wager.
Why does it seem like this has been going on for at least the last 40 years
Because it has. And because Washington State doesn't want to pay their fair share, its infuriating.
@@InsidiousSwedeI don’t think thats true at all. The last bridge died because Clark County lobbied hard against tolls and light rail. Olympia is far more involved and this proposal and is pushing it along.
The city of Vancouver and Washington have been using excuses for years like that. Fact is, Washington's economic center is Seattle, nowhere near this EXTREMELY expensive bridge. Whereas the current bridge is literally inside Portland's boundaries.
@@InsidiousSwede The City of Vancouver has been pro bridge for awhile. You are confusing deep Clark County and District 3 republicans with liberal City if Vancouver leadership.
@@InsidiousSwede Washington State and Clark County are more than willing to pay their fair share, they however refuse to pay anything and have any part in a Light Rail line going across the bridge into their city and county. And they're smart for that. They have zero plans in Vancouver for it at all, Clark County is the same, and even CTRAN has no plans to accommodate a line there either. Voters and CTRAN/TriMet riders alike in Clark County and Vancouver have gone as far as to vote unanimously to legally rid themselves of having anything to do with a MAX extension into their city, county and jurisdiction, because they do NOT want it at all. That of course means we Oregonians will be forced to foot the multi-billion dollar bill for the Yellow Line extension into Vancouver that the IBR and TriMet are hellbent on forcing through. Aka, it is not the ridership or the voters that support and want the damn thing, it is the Government agencies. So who to blame for the issue here? TriMet, and the IBR itself. They're not letting it go no matter what, and it is that specifically that is the main lynchpin holding any progress back. We'd seriously rather the bridge just collapse into the river than give into their bullshit and pay for the stupid LRT extension no one actually wants. The tiniest little minority of bitchy people want it, but most do not and hold a lot of contempt and disdain for their instance upon it, as they should.
They're smart up there in Clark County, clearing smarter than most voters and people down here in the Portland area. That much is abundantly clear. And they're staunch in their self-determination, whereas here, most people rather force others to swallow what they deem "best" and "needed". Thank god enough people learned the lessons TriMet was dishing out left and right when it came to their stupid "Transportation Bond Measures", aka, New MAX line Funding Packages if they were honest, and rejected the last one. They finally learned and know better now than to approve of those TBMs because we've had enough of their bullshit, lies, and stupid "capital projects" with the MAX grifting. It's just the way they get all that phat stacks of kickback paychecks from big name developers and contractors, as well as Federal Funds to squander away on god knows what as always. As a diehard Transit Whore and hellbent on improving and expanding the system _THE RIGHT WAY_, I hope everyone here rejects the next one, too. Call them out to their faces even more aggressively and viciously, let them know we know fully now, and we will NOT let them get away with their bullshit again. Take some power and control back. LRT is NOT the way to do this. BRT and Metro/Subway is at the local level, Regional, IC and ICE at the metro area to outer area level (up to 60 or so miles out from the start/end point, in this case, Downtown Portland and Vancouver, respectively). Emphasize pedestrians and bicyclists, while repurposing the roads to better accommodate such, as well as safety and community. Make it multi-modal. And all new rail would be entirely grade-separated, too. But, that'll never happen anywhere in the US, because it's not profitable, and they are not running transit agencies to serve the public, contrary to popular belief. But I digress.
When I first moved to Portland they were talking about replacing the bridge. I moved to Portland in 1998. Also wooden pilings? Wtf??
The city of Venice is built on hundreds of thousands of wood pilings. They work.
What do you think they should have used?
It was 1917. There is 115 feet of sediment between the river bed and the bedrock (thank you, Missoula floods). I don't know if they had any viable alternative. And wooden pilings have a very solid track record.
@@eritain I never knew the northbound span is actually the original bridge. Yeah definitely time for the whole bridge to go. Then again there is a bridge in Philadelphia from 1697 so I guess bridges are stronger than I thought
Have you seen the trees in the PNW. They are definitely capable of holding a bridge, which is why it is still standing 100 years later. We do need to prepare for a future earthquake however, we don't want to be Texas or Florida.
@@sojourner57 well, most of the time, they work. It has been an issue recently
What few realize is that the bridge often lifts for ships that can easily fit underneath the humpback portion farther out in the river. Why then? The Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 9.6, which is just downstream of it, also opens, but as a swing span and is equally close to the shore as the Interstate Bridge's lift. That rail bridge doesn't have a similar raised portion out in the river, and so if a ship were to travel under the Interstate Bridge's hump in the middle of the river, it would have to attempt what is often an impossible or near-impossible maneuver to quickly line itself up with the rail bridge's swing span, and vice versa.
Much of the big river traffic are barges, which are not able to make such a maneuver, and thus they will opt to go straight through both bridges' openings. My point with all of this? The new bridge is pointless in terms of anything outside of safety, unless the new bridge has its max clearance level at where the current lift is, or unless the rail bridge is replaced/modified so that the new opening is farther out in the river, shifting the straight line of safe navigation.
This is fake information and not true.
So let's do nothing... Got it
@@Macarena22279 Did you even read my comment? The clear point of it is that this other bridge must be addressed simultaneously OR Interstate Bridge's lift site must be replaced with the peak height of the new bridge, which, given proximity to the shore, presents more complex engineering challenges.
@@jaymao3511 It's 100% true, look it up. There are videos on RUclips about it. If you've ever seen a bridge lift in person, you'd realize that much of the lift traffic are ships/barges that could fit underneath the hump.
@@TR-zx1lc that they have been studying since the 90s!
Fun Fact, the Cascadia Subduction Zone and San Juan Fault Line off the coast of Washington and Oregon don't just have the potential for a 9.0 earthquake, it's one of the only seismic zones in the world that can actually hit above a 9.4 in theory. I love scaring all the Cali transplants here with that, tell em about "The Big One" that we got drilled into our heads in middle school.
Great video, and a key component of the info provided is that the ACTUAL bridge is only 3/4 of a mile of the 5 mile long project. This project could have been completed LONG ago if politicians and special interests hadn't dog-piled the project to add their pieces of pork. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors...) I travel from the Central/Chehalis area weekly to care for my aging father in Corvallis. A key component of my 350 mile round-trip commute is having to leave the house by 4:00AM in order to hit the bridge deck no later than 5:30AM, or I get tied up in traffic. That's south-bound. North-bound I have to leave my Dad's house no later than 12:00PM in order to get across the river, and I usually STLL face a 2-3 mile long backup through Delta Park just to get to the bridge deck. Continuing to NOT replace this piece of aging, inadequate infrastructure, will only add to the cost, frustration and potential lost revenue from businesses that depend on the bridge WHEN disaster strikes, and it WILL eventually.
@@sojourner57 I kinda agree with your comment, but because of the increase in bridge height the grade of the freeway has to change. Which is why they have to replace miles of freeway.
It needs to happen and a big part of the cost is the on/off ramps!
Ready to pay a $3 toll each way weekly plus every time you need to cross for any other reason?
Unfortunately I do not see this happening until it absolutely has to be done. As in bridge failure or partial failure. I hope I am wrong but it's Oregon and Washington two of the biggest government wasting bureaucracies in the US.
Thanks for a very informative video! I've been curious about this bridge and its replacement.
This bridge project has been a hot topic for so long! It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Thanks for the inside scoop!
One big thing to factor in is the jantzen beach northbound on ramp. That is a huge part of the daily bumper to bumper traffic
I'm 54 lived in the area my whole life. I wonder if there will be a new bridge in my lifetime, and if it or Cascadia happens first.
We'll be well into the next ice age before this ever gets done. Might as well wait and just drive across the frozen Columbia river.
Not sure that's how climate change works but I bought a sled and a jet ski just in case.
So we built these 2 bridges for under $160M but a new one will be $6B??? Hows that make any sense🤡
Easy, look at Seattle and Portland's voting practices. That's all you need to know.
sad by the time the bridge is done , they will need another bridge aross the columbia. this happened to the 205 bridge. by the time it was finished. the bridge all ready over crowded with cars. traffic increase every year.and they want to much built on it, transibt stations extra.
It also doesn't help that we just build bridges instead of transit. This causes the bridges to immediately be at capacity from the moment they open with no other options to get across the river other than cars/bus.
Washington refuses to implement common sense transit solutions to traffic congestion. Oregon wants to build rail across the river but Washington won't fund any of it. Ctran is a joke in terms of connecting Portland/Vancouver. You literally have to take a bus across the bridge and wait in traffic.
I live in vancouver, I was doing a job for a customer who was an underwater welder for the state, he does patchwork to the bridges to "keep it going" he said they're barely staying up, there's spots underwater so rusted away you can watch it flex from the river/traffic above
Bridges always flex; that's what they do. Rigid structures fail when they flex the material in the wrong place. I'm not explaining this well but I hope you understand. Go up to the top of a tall building and experience how much they sway and bounce.
@@1dariansdad I do understand they have to be able to move, but certain parts of a structure need to be rigid, and the parts that are supposed to weren't
I hope you understand that
I get why they need to replace this bridge but they also need to make more crossings across the Columbia in and around that location. There need to be some surface street bridges that connect Vancouver streets with Hayden Island, Marine Drive, and the rest of North Portland. I would also argue for a surface street bridge that connects East Vancouver and SR 14 with Gresham as well.
Having all traffic heading to and from Portland cross just two freeway bridges is one of the many reasons PDX has such bad traffic.
Another bridge further east,like Troutdale to Camas. Yes.
Also west St helens to Woodland.
You say that as if it's easy.
"There need to be some surface street bridges that connect Vancouver streets with Hayden Island, Marine Drive, and the rest of North Portland. "
Those potential bridges face the exact same issues as the I-5 "replacement" bridge.
Marine traffic and clearance being the most obvious.
Then there is the matter of approaches and access to these bridges, the impacts they would have on the neighborhoods they connect to...etc...etc...
Then, there is the cost involved in building multiple bridges over a major river.
Multiple bridges is not the answer to this issue.
PDX has bad traffic completely independent of the river bridge. Oregon (esp PDX) road planning and management is trash, signs poorly placed or completely hidden, and many intersections and routes are rather counter-intuitive.
Oregon also has the worst drivers I have seen in any of the western states (I've driven through all of them), and this is by a noticeable margin. OR seems to hand out licenses like Halloween candy and enforces all the wrong traffic laws(based on engineering principles and studies).
(*Hawaii drivers are worse but I don't include them due there isolation and no connecting highway or ferry.)
One of the prior situations that could be a model for this is the so-called "Big Dig", an east coast megaproject that ran in Boston from the initial work in 1991 to the completion in 2006. Let's do it better this time, please.
It's more likely to go the way that the work on the Tacoma Narrows bridge did. With them doing one bridge at a time and setting the other one up to be bidirectional in the meantime.
I've done extensive research on the history of the Interstate Bridge and as far back as the 1970s, people have debated replacing it.
Being a resident of Vancouver my entire life I always tell people: Get this thing built ASAP before an earthquake will make the decision for you.
I guarantee you they'll wait for the earthquake.
as a washington citizen you should be telling your state/local politicians to get it done. Oregon wants this done and is going to do it, but Washington has a long history of pulling out of shared projects at the last minute. Washington also refuses to implement common sense transit solutions that would alleviate traffic across the bridge going forward.
This would have been done decades ago if Washington wasn't dragging their feet and trying to get everyone else to pay for it.
If this bridge goes down the traffic will get 100x worse than it already is
I live near here and I can’t recall a earthquake in the past 8 years
Stupid Washington fighting light rail over the bridge even though it is Vancouver residents working and shopping in PDX that make up the bulk of traffic.
Washington state is always broken because we don't tax our oligarchs.
absolutely. it has to have light rail and ample pedestrian/bike lanes or it's just a waste of time. they have plans for that stuff on a separate deck and the public comment period will be open again soon so find the site and speak your piece. this is gonna take forever though. process is not streamlined and there's a lot involved including changing lanes of I5 on both sides of the river into north portland and vancouver. ugh. it's gonna be messy
washington is broken because the dumb citizens keep electing democrats who think social programs are more important than infrastructure, and getting people to work
Please make a comment about this on the website!! I understand your feelings as a Vancouver Resident!
Light rail only supports the illegal drug trade. It is a complete and utter failure.
Uncle Lou lived in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.
Named after the American Bridge Division United States Steel Corporation.
They made steel bridges. It’s all gone now.
I was thinking about things like this. Computers and IT are now the number one most valuable industry in the world. We gave that away too. The Chinese didn't even know how to make any of that stuff, we went over there and TAUGHT them. Very different from what the textbooks in Economics will tell you, about comparative advantage and that. Our companies fly into other places and teach them how to put us out of business. Its disgusting. My family also from PA btw.
If Trump were President they'd still be out of business if that's where you're going.
in the meantime build one by camas and one west of the interstate
West of I-5 unfortunately isn't possible, given the Port of Portland's main terminals and storage facilities are all right there, as is Kelly Point and Smith & Bybee Lakes parks on the Portland side, and the main industrial for Vancouver is also directly across the river there, with the wetlands and park of Vancouver Lake also being right there, too. That disallows anything like it from getting built, and makes it non-viable. The one east of 205 is possible, though again, you'd need to demolish A LOT of development just to squeeze it in, though the Sandy River Delta is also right there, as is Troutdale Airport... so unless the south end is a tunnel portal, it won't work either. We're actually screwed along this portion of the Columbia, when it comes to crossing abilities. Thus why supporting the Frog Ferry concept is genuinely a great idea, at least to connect Portland and Vancouver with each other in another way. Perhaps they could give people more reason to hit up Hayden Island and/or the Expo Center for once with such a service. A short hop ferry just to shuttle people across the river. Thus, we'd have a third option. If we could add in or reconstruct the BNSF Rail bridge to the west of the current I-5 Bridge, to then have say, 3 or 4 tracks, with at least two electrified, with at least one of them being strictly for passenger services, then we could implement a trolley with a metro's capacity to do quick short hops from St. Johns to Downtown Vancouver, or a true express Metro that would go from Downtown Portland to Downtown Vancouver, with a stop or two in between, possibly Swan Island and St. Johns for the two stop, or just St. Johns for the one middle stop. Technically being west of Downtown Vancouver, one could also place a middle stop in West Vancouver, too, I suppose.
But do you know what would stop these problems? IMMERSED TUNNELS! "They're far too harmful on the environment and fish passage, as far more expensive than the bridges", they cry their favorite lies. But that's just it - the IBR has lied and fabricated all the BS they use against the tunnels. Anyone who has common sense, and does basic research knows this. But, tunnels would be the quickest, cheapest, most efficient path to achieve a new crossing. And we all know how the governments and contractors despise such things, because they can't milk it for ever penny they possibly can.
the people of camas will never let a bridge in their town lol
@@MrBearcatjewtrolls only bring up the 3rd bridge because they know that would never be built as it would cost 100x more to build a 3rd bridge and supporting whole new highways for said 3rd bridge than to just replace the existing bridge (that they don't want to pay for)
Born and raised in Vancouver.. currently living in Vancouver.. the bridge has impact on my life personally. I love the downtown landscape and frequent the west side , daily. I worked in downtown Portland all of 2023 6th and couch and commuted this way 340x2 and many years before.
When I was a kid .. I remember going to Jantzen beach to see the Carousel.. the old architecture layout of what was an amusement park. Now it’s target.. my mom used to love new years at the red lion and it’s the Hoyt hotel.
When beaches used to be the best of the best in downtown and that was the only area adequate for walking .. because further into downtown west it was camps and DsHS .. fish.. the railroad..
The bridge holds Vancouver history that is quickly changing.. and I am on board for our town to get better. Just keep the historical significance in the new structure and plz.. no light rail. Where would it go.. Esther short park. We aren’t Portland.
Where would light rail go? To Portland, of course! An endstation in Vancouver would help alleviate vehicle traffic on the bridge by shifting commuters to light rail. I also grew up in Vancouver and worked in Portland for many years, so adding light rail is a no-brainer for me. We need to plan for the future by integrating all areas of the metro area into the light-rail system, including Clark County.
@@Soulforce1 Here's the irony though - Almost all CTRAN riders to and from Portland DO NOT USE THE YELLOW LINE AT ALL. They use the buses. The buses have always been far safer, cleaner, faster and more efficient than the Yellow Line. The Yellow line though claimed to be to serve commutes to and from the Expo Center in reality was to attempt to replace the original 6 bus that went down Interstate ave and into Vancouver. In other words, it was actually built with the people commuting from and to Vancouver in mind. Yet, almost none ever ended up touching it once, and each year there is less and less ridership on the Expo line. So, is extending it into Vancouver really a solution that will magically see people in Clark County wanting and choosing to ride it? No, obviously not. Paying billions more into a failed and worsening LRT line makes zero logical sense.
Good transit agencies and policy makers listen to their ridership, not the other voices and voters. The riders of the system are your most informative, valuable resource as to what is needed and wanted to better accommodate them and their needs. CTRAN does a fantastic job at this. TriMet is the polar opposite, they have no fucks to give about anyone, certainly not us lowly riders, even more so when we favor bus over MAX. CTRAN listens to it's ridership, and acts according to the input they're given. It shows consistently. One way it does, is the fact that in July of last year, the board and ridership unanimously voted for a legally binding agreement that they would have nothing to do with any LRT being extended and built in their district/jurisdiction. Nothing. Not a single penny toward planning, construction, operation or maintenance. Meaning IF TriMet and IBR get their way, and the Yellow line gets extended into Vancouver, WE IN OREGON FOOT THE ENTIRE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BILL. What does this tell you? The people who commute from Clark County into Portland consistently do not want or need any LRT at all, and that it makes even LESS SENSE to support, fund and build the extension if only one side is set to pay the entire bill for a service almost no riders it would be build to serve would want or use it in the first place.
This "LIGHT RAIL OR BUST" mentality as if it is the only option is beyond illogical, irrational and honestly pernicious. It's entirely wrongful and false, based in fiction and ego. BRT is what the people who use TriMet and CTRAN to get to and from Portland each day want and need. And they're intelligent for this, and I love their self-determination and conviction for sticking up for what they know they want and need, no matter the shit they get from elsewhere, other people or groups like the Light Rail Lobbies. They know better than to fall for that scam, like so many here did south of the river, and continue to do so even now. The ego is especially proven in the fact it's almost exclusively Oregonians attempting to force Vancouverites into having the MAX extension whether they want it or not. "YOU WILL GET THE LIGHT RAIL WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT!" is what you lot would scream at them into their faces if you were actually honest with yourself and everyone else. You need to recognize you are in a TINY MINORITY of people who actually want and support the MAX extension. And I guarantee that's all you'll ever be - a puny minority group. The fact is, you can be against the LRT, and still be all for multi-modal mass transit on the new bridge or tunnel (it needs to be a tunnel). BRT only lane with harsh, strict enforcement, a HOV lane specifically set at 4 or more occupants in order to qualify to use it, which would emphasize Charter, Tourist, Shuttle and School buses, and of course, 2 tracks both directions STRICTLY for passenger rail services, for Amtrak now, and for Regional, ICE & HSR later, with potential to also be used for a Metro line, meaning the line is entirely grade-separated. Congrats, you now have a multi-modal mass transit bridge/tunnel, without LRT! See, it is possible, whether you want it to be or not. Obviously there also has to be a wide, high-capacity pedestrian and bicycle pathway, preferably two, one for each direction. Otherwise, the bridge/tunnel would either maintain the same three normal traffic lanes, or, reduce them back to two in each direction, for a total of 8 on the entire crossing, not counting the emergency lane/shoulder, of course.
@@TheCriminalViolin nobody is gonna read that dude. Light rail works. Get off your weird horse. I rode Ctran and Trimet for years across the river and the bus system is broken. You're making a ton of assumptions about things. It's really weird.
@@CRneu Everything I said is factual. Just because you don't believe it is doesn't make it supposition out of my ass.
This is a really good video!
Whatever they build, this will be the new "Face of the Couve", so it needs to be beautiful to promote the Vancouver, USA waterfront.
$6 Billion to tie up traffic for 15 years, which according to people in the know is the projected construction time. It would be money ahead to replace the entire bridge with a new multi lane bridge constructed up river a half mile and either leave or destroy the existing when the new bridge is completed.
Hate to say this, but they will need to toll the 205 bridge in parallel to avoid exacerbating the problem there by toll avoiders it just needs to happen. I pay a toll every time I cross the Bridge of the Gods, which is the next bridge upriver. You just factor it in as part of the privilege (not right) to drive a personal vehicle. Thanks for the video.
how much is the toll?
@@twig4661Bridge of the Gods is $3 for cars. More for trucks and such($5?), $1 for motorcycles.
i5 is a key economic corridor. You might think of it in terms of personal vehicles, but its a key route for trucking from Canada down to Mexico. People already pay registration and petrol taxes for their vehicles, so not sure what you're on about.
@@twig4661 $3 cash/card but $1.25 if you have a breezeby account.
@@stevens1041 welcome to the mind space of a lib tard.
Of all the bridge structures mentioned, a "Floating Bridge" would keep it within height restrictions near a major airport, and a floating draw span can open wide enough for shipping to pass, like the Hood Canal Bridge between Kitsap, and Jefferson Counties in Washington state.
When the span is open, the traffic stops.
That's the main issue!
The purpose of the new bridge is to eliminate the lift and therefore the stopped traffic.
@@davidbrown587 The draw bridge cannot be avoided, a fixed span with 200feet of clearance is just impractical for the infrequent ship and barge traffic. Though a med-high span for small to mid size water traffic is needed. They only open it once per day on average anyway, this isn't like the port of Longbeach, CA where they do have a fixed span with 200 feet of clearance (and they should have made it 250 for accommodating the new ULCVs used in other parts of the world.) because large ships are almost hourly there.
It's not clear to me how they will make a new bridge that is high enough to not require bridge lifts to avoid stopping vehicle traffic, but still be low enough to not intrude into the airspace of the two airports. Seems something will have to give. This is going to be a $20 billion+ project by the time it is undertaken.
A toll would anger a lot of people who are barely making ends meet. 3 dollars a day(both trips) for 5 days a week stacks up fast. Everyone would just go to the other bridge.
And that's their choice. Seattle has a history of having tolls on the bridges to help fund construction. 520 currently has a toll, but neither I-90 nor going around the lake do. So, you're paying to use the bridge, but because there's a toll, the traffic is somewhat less than it would be if there were no toll.
Eventually, the toll goes away when the bridge is paid off. It's definitely not ideal, but with taxing the rich to pay things like this being off the table, I'm not sure what other alternative there is. They can't just put this on Seattle's tab the way they like to.
The idea is to implement light rail and make that cheaper than the toll, which would alleviate a large amount of the needless traffic across i-5. A lot of people cross that bridge everyday for quick errands or work, which could be accomplished with light rail.
However, you get folks that live out by battle ground who absolutely refuse to go along with light rail because it wouldn't really benefit them. Most folks in downtown vancouver want light rail and a hub. But then folks out in Fisher's Landing/Camas dont, so Washington keeps shooting that down. As it stands now you have to jump on a bus to cross the river on transit which means you'll be sitting in the same traffic as everyone else.
@@CRneu if passenger rail were really more efficient than private vehicles private rail companies wouldn't have abandoned it. There is far more to the calculation than some middle-school oversimplification of rolling resistance; fortunately we have prices to inform us of the relative value of two options and summarize the myriad of costs (most of which are ultimately a measure of total incorporated energy/resources..)
We need a new bridge there plus 2 more. One, east of I205, that goes from Fairview OR area to Camas WA area and another, west of I5, St Helens OR area to Woodland WA area.
Hey, hats off to the original builders. The first half of the brige has worked for over 100 years and the second half (mirror of the original plans) for over 60. It's not the bridge -- the problem is all heavy traffic going through the needle's eye in and out of Portland. Best solution would be to build two bridges to connect to WA 192nd to I-84 and from Ridgefield to connect to Hwy 26 (tunnel under Skyline Blvd instead of up Cornelius Pass). Problem solved for the 21st Century and much cheaper than a mega project like the proposed I-5 bridge that's been hampered by too many engineers and politicians.
Its such a key corridor economically, that I believe there should be zero tolls on it.
I-95 is a key corridor yet it has like 9 tolls on it
Make it more like the Glenn Jackson bridge and start it further back maybe somewhere near Hazel Dell and SR 500. Wouldn't be as steep as a tunnel, which would never work, but would cut off downtown from freeway access.
Yeah, the fight over this is ridiculous. It’s a 100+ year old DRAW BRIDGE (ffs!) sitting on wooden pylons on one of the busiest stretches of I-5. It should have been replaced 30 years ago, but no one wants to foot the bill.
The feds should cover a large chunk of it because it’s an interstate but it will very likely need to be tolled as well, which I think is the biggest sticking point outside of light rail.
The reality is, though, that this bridge is primarily used by freight and people who live in SW Washington (who already dodge income and sales tax), so they need to shut up and pay up.
Amazing how far costs spiral out of control. New bridges will cost (inflation adjusted) 20 times the cost the second bridge built in the fifties mind boggling. This is why nothing infrastructure wise gets done because of astronomical costs and every agency getting their cut along with contractors cheaping out on materials to squeeze even more money and then cost overruns are inevitable. Those bridges should cost nowhere more then one billion to replace.
Planning this project has turned into a permanent endeavor like homeless services. A by-pass on the west side, I205W, would solve all these problems without the politics of Portland. All those trucks from San Fransisco and Seattle would stay out of town and we would have a third choice of bridges.
the problem is made worse by the fact that portlanders and vancouverites can't seem to go anywhere without spending at least part of the trip on an interstate. sometimes I think they should have a flyover bypass for people with no intention of stopping in Portland.
People not familiar with the area need to realize that both spans (NB and SB) had only two lanes until they decided to up that to three, which means that there are no emergency lanes. So if there's an accident on the bridge, it's even more of a bottleneck. Another thing is that Portland politics dictates that Cars Are Bad, Light Rail Is Good, so making traffic flow better is not really a priority. (That's why I-5 only has two lanes in each direction between the Marquam Bridge and the Fremont Bridge.) And finally, my understanding about why funding for the Columbia River Crossing project got killed by the republicans in the Washington State senate is that they didn't approve of funding for light rail into Washington.
Portland politics dictate that cars are bad and public transit is good because cars ARE bad and public transit IS good. More cars=more traffic. There is virtually no public transit between Portland and its biggest suburb. It keeps getting shot down purely because of stupid people screaming about the crime train. Trimet's light rail system has been a huge help to the city, it's silly to stop it.
@@Jarekthegamingdragon I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just saying. (I could say a lot about how Portland's freeways are horribly designed; how cars are barely tolerated even though bus and light rail can't efficiently handle the demand; etc. But this is about the bridge.) The point is that the I-5 bridge replacement *will* carry light rail despite "people screaming about the crime train".
@@eco2geek. Cars really shouldn't be tolerated in residential neighborhoods. They should be for the people who live there, not for people driving through. There's really stupid chokepoints on highways but other than that, as someone who lives inner city portland, I agree with most of their changes.
@@Jarekthegamingdragon (And for anyone watching, that's your typical Portland anti-car attitude on display.) Funny you should say that, because I choose to drive through residential neighborhoods half the week instead of taking the freeway, specifically because rush hour traffic is so bad on the freeway. If you don't like it, you need to find a way to make freeway traffic better.
@@eco2geek. You say anti-car as if it's a bad thing. The only people who ever say that don't live in an area where not having a car is a legit option.
No forever tolls please
Toll roads suck. And how does poor out if area travelers get the discount? No US freeway should be a toll road
As long as the tolls are ended once the cost is recouped
The larger but never-discussed aspect of this is that Vancouver, WA is a tax shelter for people who want to enjoy all the economic activity of Portland, along with Oregon's lack of a sales tax, without having to pay for any of the public infrastructure that creates that economy. These are people who badmouth Portland constantly while driving into the city every day because they'd be unemployed otherwise (but they still complain about having to pay OR state income taxes for the jobs they can't get in WA while also shopping in Portland to avoid WA state sales tax, but I digress).
On the other side are Portland anti-car people and those who might prefer that the aforementioned antisocial types from WA stop taking OR jobs.
While I'm just the sensible type who wants to see the delapidated old bridge replaced.
A better solution would be to keep it simple and cheap while planning for a bypass freeway for Interstate traffic starting in Woodland, WA and St Helens, OR down highway 30 and looping the metro between Cornelius and Hillsboro (then back to I5) THis would remove a lot of the interstate traffic from the Portland Metro and few would care if it was a cheap but undramatic bridge.
If it is considered unusable tomorrow because of a deteriorating structure or any natural disaster, it will be replaced within a year or less.
We need more capacity before we demolish the i5 bridge. Build another or build a tunnel but don't take away a working bridge.
That's easier said than done. In order to do that, it means having to reroute the freeway to one side or the other in order to accommodate having both in place at the same time. It's probably possible, but the result is that you get something that wasn't as horrible in the short term, and a bridge that's in a less than optimal location forever.
We need a new bridge so badly
I hope it gets built with light rail
So we can have interstate face eating methheads! Yippie!!!
Might as well do one better and create a high speed rail system from north to west.
Says no one in Vancouver ever........except our "paid for" mayor
Vancouver does not want the crime train coming to town.
It's not worth building unless it has light rail.
Well done video. This could have been completed years ago if they'd just ditch light rail and admit you have to bypass downtown Vancouver and Jantzen Beach.
Just bypass all of PDX and Vancouver, this is a federal highway it should be engineered independent of this local incompetence.
I have lived six miles from this bridge for 50 years. A replacement bridge was studied and several designed as per the video, and rational funding proposed, all about 10 years ago. Nonetheless, the whole investment was wasted, and the bridge plan killed by Washington, driven by politics and parochial interests. The crack used to wedge the bridge to death was "light rail" public transportation. Portland had developed a rational and effective light rail system. That system had an existing extension right to the point where a bridge would pick it up. The proposal was to extend that service across a new bridge with a new terminal in downtown Vancouver. The terminal would have been built at the Washington end of the bridge, using land abandoned by prior industrial and commercial business, primary a car dealership, no loss to anyone and a valuable service to the community. The problem was that other local interests were ideologically opposed to any public transportation which might expand service in the local county, currently serviced by a barely functioning bus system. There was no economic or public service reason for the opposition. It was a political wedge used to manipulate elections, literally, "if you put light rail on a new bridge, the Commies will get you." Further, we then suffered a first term Congresswoman (Republican) with few credentials and almost nothing accomplished to warrant her re-election. She seized on the issue as a campaign cry to divert attention from the fact that vacating her seat would be a step up from her return to office. The two groups who would benefit got almost no input on the matter, those being commercial and private traffic which flows past Vancouver at 55 MPH and locals who'd like a quick trip to Portland without spending 3 hours sitting stalled on I-5 to complete a 14 miles round trip. Why has no progress been made since these events? Putting the federal and state money together at the time was a minor miracle. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted. As soon as weakness was shone over bridge development, other interests at the federal level swooped in to carry off the huge federal part of the budget. Oregon footed most of the rest of the bills wasted. Washington's behavior was so outrageous that no Oregon politician was willing to stick a neck out again, and Portland took a "so go sit on the freeway then, because we have our own issues" position. A correction to the video. This is all local politics. The argument for or against a new bridge as impacting long distance trucking on the I-5 corridor is pointless. All of that "flow-through" traffic by-passed this route when the Glenn Jackson bridge was built decades ago. I=5 itself in downtown Portland is a dangerous nightmare no one uses unless they have no option. (The Congresswoman was defrocked in 2023 as not MAGA enough. Her replacement lost to the Democrat. She is currently trying to regain the public trough, running for state Commissioner of Public Lands, another position she knows nothing about, but is a paycheck, an office, and nothing to do. The idea of "get a job" seems foreign to her.)
Thank you sir, for the backstory of why things about planning infrastructure wont go smoothly in US compared to the damn commies in China.
Totally agree.....Only lived in the area for 8 years now but the nonsense over the bridge and the rabid "No Tolls" nonsense is ridiculous. Seems to be common sense to design a bridge that could accommodate light rail at a future date....especially when you consider the traffic issues. And in this house we refer that defrocked GOP rep as "Blueberry Girl" since it got a prominent mention in her bio lol.
Thanks for punking good ole Jamie. She is a totally useless person .
@@Thor_Odinson The no tolls argument was used up north where I live when the 2nd Tacoma Narrows bridge was being built. The I'd rather sit in traffic for 45 minutes plus rather than pay a toll argument didn't hold sway.
Oh, for gosh sakes. The political vindictiveness in the above comment is over the top. And it leaves out a most important point. If Portland light rail goes over the bridge to Vancouver, then Clark County residents will be taxed to support light rail. In the failed bridge-building effort of 10 years ago, the bridge became the tail that wags the dog. I don't live in Clark County -- but didn't voters there reject a light-rail proposition? Constructing a bridge with light rail essentially forces it on the people of the area, and forces them to pay taxes to support it, whether they want light rail or not. Let me point out that light rail has been enormously expensive in the Seattle area, and there are many who seethe with rage about the huge auto-license fees that residents of King, Pierce and Snohomish County must pay. I live in Thurston County, and am relieved that Seattle light rail will probably not cross the county line in my lifetime. And let me add -- the insults in the above comment directed at former Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler are really uncalled-for. Given the tone of the comment, it is important to point out that she lost her bid for re-election in the 2022 primary because she was one of the few Republicans who voted for Trump's impeachment. I would think those on the left would be more appreciative of her principled stand.
From what I understand the project will not included additional lanes for cars or trucks but adds new lanes for bikes, bus and light rail. So this provides no solution for the terrible traffic congestions we have now. They are going to spend $6 billion + charge a forever toll on the new bridge and add a forever toll on the Glenn Jackson bridge which is paid for. This is upsetting to lots of people because I am still sitting in traffic jams for hours. How can you justified spending 6 billion and not solve the traffic issue and also kick us in the wallet with forever tolls?
Modelling shows a toll or congestion charge will nearly eliminate traffic, and both Oregon and Washington have set goals of reducing VMT. If they are even slightly serious about that, a future with a narrower bridge and less cars being driven across it makes perfect sense
@@rancidmarshmallow4468 "will nearly eliminate traffic" Unless your charging a $25 toll that is not going to happen. Set your goals to reduce but to "will nearly eliminate traffic" is not a realistic goal. Are you saying your going to make it so expensive to cross traffic will "will nearly eliminate traffic"? Also how is the bridge going to be more "narrower" when your adding a lane for bikes, buses and light rail and still having three lanes for cars and trucks? Are you from the Portland / Vancouver area?
@@michaelspring3915 yes, I live in Portland. Sorry, I may have been unclear- I don't mean there will be no travel over the bridge, but a charge is predicted to largely eliminate congestion. Coupled with a reduction in general VMT through other efforts, a bridge with 6 vehicle lanes is, if anything, overbuilt. What's underbuilt are the current number of transit lanes (0), that absolutely needs to increase.
BS, more people moving in means we need more lanes to move the cars. You can't toll your way out, Seattle still has awful traffic, the residents just now have less money and and the same crappy roads. Max ridership isn't rising but violence is. We don't want the Max crime line in Vancouver, it's bad enough the vagrants keep making it over the river.
@@rancidmarshmallow4468 No, you are putting more value on "transit lanes" vs normal lanes. Sure it would be great to have more "transit lanes" but can I cross the river on a Suday at noon without it costing me a hour and now a toll?
They should just fix the existing bridge there are bridges that are way older that get restored the Brooklyn bridge was built in the 1800s there are no calls for knocking it down there is a bridge here it can be repaired and improvements can be made to the bridge we currently own and have
Why is there no commuter rail between Vancouver and Portland using the Columbia River Railroad Bridge? Seattle has commuter rail to Tacoma and Everett.
You barely mention the impact of the 205 freeway and river crossing. There is also talk of a new freeway and river crossing that goes around Portland completely to the west.
A Bypass...that is an excellent idea!
I think a western bypass route is going to be needed even if the Interstate Bridge is replaced. Where is the I-5 traffic going to go while the Interstate Bridge is being reconstructed? It can't all be diverted to I-205 -- that would be horrendous.
If 47.5 Million cars cross it per year, the toll could be $2 per car and it'd be paid for in under 10 years. But they won't. It'll be $6 per car and the tolls will remain long after its paid for itself.
Making the bridge available for bicycles and pedestrians will "Significantly" reduce the number of cars using the bridge.
Obviously the person claiming that got some good drugs from the "homeless" in Downtown Portland.
Look to the Glen Jackson, no one's riding their bike from there 😂
@@ATappin I regularly see cyclists and pedestrians going across the floating bridges on Lake Washington. The big factor tends to be the weather. And, I'd wager the same thing would be the case with this bridge as well. The walkway could be on another deck, or separated from the cars on the same deck. I'm not sure that the number would really be that many, as that is a pretty windy area.
@@ATappin I biked across 205 daily for years. I'd see a lot of people doing the exact same thing.
It's weird how people just assume these things without doing any lick of research to see if they're correct. It just sounds right so you go along with it, is that how it works? Falling for the "it sounds right" fallacy is weird.
for that kind of money do a tunnell underneath the longer you wait the more expensive
Tolling will not decrease traffic. It is just another tax>
traffic is always going to just get worse over time regardless. there should be a cars/commuter bridge and a freight bridge that's built a long stronger, then toll the hell out of the commuter bridge.
I just can never get my head around these costs. How does a $200MM bridge (today's money) grow 300X? How does light rail cost $1BB to run a few miles? My ears hear it and my brain just says, "Bullshit" over and over again.
it costs $20 to drive to New York City. Tolls do not reduce demand, they fund infrastructure.
You missed key points that doomed the original CRC.
The original engineering is still valid and cost $190 million and can still be used.
Vancouver voters shut it down over NIMBY concerns about Portland homeless coming to Vancouver.
They could build 3 floating drawspans for 6 billion dollars.
Portland, Oregon also needs a Westside loop Freeway like I-205 to the east...
And new floating bridges both upstream and downstream from I-5 at Washougal, WA & Ridgefield, WA.
Politicians failing !
No tolls !
Tolls are a PITA but the original bridge is over 100 now and long, long overdue for replacement.
FWIW, Oakland Bay Bridge toll os $7 and Golden Gate is $9.25.
Different state. California is famous for its ridiculous cost of everything.
Not going to resolve the traffic issues. You have local traffic and interstate traffic mixed on a single bridge and making it bigger is just going to encourage more commuting from Vancouver to Portland. Vancouver grew because they have little land use regulation and you can build anything you want anywhere and have created a lot of sprawl over there with cheap housing and forcing everyone else to subsidize their commute to Oregon. Now that cheap housing has become expensive as you add in the time in traffic. They made that decision and i have no problem with that. Since these plans also include a requirement to widen and trash more north Portland neighborhoods that have nothing to do with poor choices made by Vancouver commuters, it is not something north Portland actually wants.
You want to resolve the issues, this is what to do:
1: A new light rail bridge to Vancouver and build up the light rail in Vancouver. Add a toll to the I5 Bridge. You want to commute, do it the right way. This is the only rational thing to do and provides the best solution for the problem which is commuters crossing to Oregon from Vancouver. Add a toll to the Glen Jackson bridge if needed.
So you want to play Robert Moses? Fine, add this as well...
1: Complete the 217 bypass that ends on the sunset on the west side of Portland to continue north and over the Columbia on a new bridge that and have that join I5 North of Vancouver. Rip right through the west hills just like the old days and tear up someone elses neighborhood. Build a tunnel through the hills if you feel like it.
2: Add another bridge east of the I5 bridge that connects MLK to Vancouver by marine park and connect it up to the Vancouver roads.
This splits out the Beaverton traffic and sends it around Portland which cleans up I5 and the sunset highway for locals and adds in a locals bridge on MLK to get the east side traffic off the I5 bridge. Commuters use the MAX and the toll keeps them off if I5.
Your welcome.
ok 1st i kinda like your idea but no light rail costs to much i mean they say 1.2 bil per mile over the river come on man use are money wisely and the idea to force people to do things what kind of freedom is that give choice and go bigger make a full 4 lane both ways north and south so 8 lane freeway off I-5 just like 205 but swings west links in close to where 205 does in the south break off north side of willsonvill near boones ferry road go NW and go between Tualatin and Sherwood up Roy Rodgers road and jog over to corn pass follow that all the way across Sauvie island skirting Vancouver lake and merging just south of clark county fair grounds like around 164th it would take all the pressure off the I-5 bridge and set up portland for the next 50 years after that then lets think about light rail
I was with you until you f'd up the contraction at the end. LOL
You're welcome
A tsunami may travel up the river and wreak a tunnel,, ,
Good job going full Robert Moses ;)
What is truly shocking is the cost escalation and that the new suggestions do not include another lane or even increased capability to have more vehicles cross. This will be there for a long time and there needs to be more lanes. Even a 20% reduction in traffic does not clear this bridge at 7:00 AM. And from 7-9 am it can take an hour to cross this bridge going from Washington to Oregon. Sometimes until 10 AM. The afternoon is worse on the way north. If you are going from downtown Portland to Vancouver WA on I5 it takes about 2 hours to travel about 25-20 miles. You have to be on the road by 1:30 PM to avoid the stupid busy traffic.
Even the most generous estimates say a toll or congestion charge would nearly eliminate traffic on the current bridge, it would be truly insane to keep building more lanes and encouraging more people to live in Vancouver and drive in every day. The only hope we have of constricting that tax and UGB loophole is a bridge that costs time or money to cross
The longer they wait the more expensive it's going to be.
For many reasons,im glad i moved out of north Portland... Though i love the neighborhood
A bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007. They rebuilt the bridge in two years. These fools in Oregon have been arguing about the I-5 bridge since BEFORE the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. It’s the biggest choke point on I-5 from Canada to Mexico according to truckers. Like typical Marxists, Portland wants to ram their lifestyle (tolls, bike lanes, trains no one rides, etc) down the throats of everyone else and we all suffer because of it. The bridge would have been MUCH cheaper if built twenty years ago. Portland has been an absolute mess since the lunatics took over.
Like the majority of intra state bridges, it wasn’t federally funded. Nor was it state funded . Multnomah County paid for it.
Nobody is dedicated to getting things done at a reasonable cost anymore. Perfectly happy charging a mint to study things endlessly to reach “consensus” and extract more taxes in the form of tolls.
There’s no reason the replacement bridge should cost 20 times what the original bridges cost IN TODAY’S DOLLARS and people have to pay a tax to drive across it. It’s a Federal structure providing interstate transportation, interstate commerce, and national defense along the West Coast. If our tax dollars that are supposed to go towards funding such things can’t fund the replacement of a 100 year old bridge of national importance without more taxes, then let it fall into the river. We need to hold our government accountable to do what we pay them to do. The entire interstate system across the country was built without tolling everything and with a much smaller tax base. We are getting hosed.
Except the thing that they failed to mention is in the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake scenario soil is going to be in a liquid state not to mention the tsunamis could easily reach 200 feet. There won’t be any roads left to connect to these bridges if they make stronger bridges. All modern infrastructure is to be washed away like toothpicks houses in a bathtub. And this is the reason why the 205 bridge was built across the river and engineered for such an event..
There's a hell of a lot of stuff the don't publicly admit to when it comes to the damage the Portland area would suffer from that quake. We're built on almost entirely filled in flood plains and swamps, with countless springs all over. On top of that, we're also built on top of tons of volcanic silt, which itself is very soluble and subject to vicious liquefaction. Now, add on the fact most of our utilities are built underground on average 3 feet down, so gas, sewer, water and electricity, and now you've got a recipe for the worst possible scenario. AND EVEN WORSE is the fact that Portland sits atop all the century + old Shanghai Tunnels, which sprawl way further than most people ever realize. AND THEN you got the fact that most of the buildings are still really old, most of our bridges are too, and hell, let's not forget the reality of all the endless landslides, mudslides and rockslides that will transpire over and over again, ripping any buildings and foundations that remained atop the hills across the region down into the already obliterated low lying areas. Congrats! You now know the shit they refuse to teach you and say publicly about where we all live! HAVE FUN!
There's plenty of other things not usually accounted for too - in example, there is a surprising amount of local transform faults, fracture zones and even a subduction zone within the Portland region. The Subduction Zone is the Cooper Mountain Subduction Zone, aka The Beaverton Subduction Zone. It's about 15 miles long for the morbidly curious. I grew up living practically on top of it too, never even knowing it existed until just before I coincidentally moved out of that home I grew up in for 15 2/3 years. I'm 30 2/3 right now. How's that for Synchronicity! haha. All of these faults I bet you will react in kind to the main quake, if not some of the fore and aftershocks. And then there's the fact all of the Cascade's volcanoes are directly connected via a vast lava tube system, and that same system of tubes connects directly into the subduction zone and the vents off our coast. Meaning there is a high chance the tricentennial could set off eruptions, too. Now how much fun would that be? Haha, I actually would LOVE to survive that scenario myself, it would exhilarating, including to document all the changes afterward. That said, here's a third one for you - The last tricentennial quake completely changed the landscape of both Oregon & Washington. Where you see mountains, hills, valleys, rivers and lakes now were either elsewhere, a completely different shape and size/height, or straight up didn't even exist before it. The rivers changed their paths a lot, especially the Columbia and Willamette. This was well documented and orally accounted by the vast amount of tribes we have across the two states. I just wish I could see or ask them for details so I or a cartographer could make a map to show us what it was like before. It's one of the many reason I badly want to experience the quake, so I can document and map the changes myself.
I digress though. :)
I think it's a very very bad idea to have tolls on i5 this is the blood artery of the west coast, it's not a, nice to have shortcut, you have people who travel for emergencies, people moving and re-location, a lot of travelers, this would cause such a headache for no reason. Also, there is no reason in the world that cycling or pedestrians should be involved this is a freeway, there are no pedestrians or cyclists anywhere along I5 why here? This makes 0 sense. The project should have nothing to do with that.
Realistic estimates that take into account corruption and cost overruns should end up north of 10 billion. And a 4 year delay.
We need a Tunnel not a bridge !
Most of this $6 b project comes from federal funding because the feds fund and maintain all major interstates and highways, and the bridge carries interstate 5.
Tunnel would have been too expensive? with only $2.5 billion in hard costs as seen at 4:35?? I get the interchanges will cost something, but seems like the total should be under $6 billion.
You think this is bad? Go look at the defunct Salem River Crossing to the south in Salem.
This could have been done a decade ago for half the cost. Politicians stood in the way since they didn't want to "offend" anyone.....
Correction, a few Republican senators in Washington killed the project and decided the whole thing for the dozens of other representatives and two whole states.
Washington politicians killed it.
The bridge that will never be built!
the aluminum can highway, iykyk
WTF...It is illegal to walk on I-5 but they want to accommodate foot traffic on the bridge. A perfect solution to all the tens of thousands of people stranded on one side or the other eagerly waiting to walk across.
Wait until after the big quake,,,
this newest proposal is turning well into a boondoggle.
gotta go back to the drawing board but this time there will be 'no' input from the City of Portland, Tri-Met, and METRO, only ODOT and WDOT and representatives from commerce as the current and proposed bridge directly 'interferes' with commerce...
The three bridges that cross the Columbia River from I-5 to Astoria are all a big question. As noted the I-5 bridge is wearing out, the Longview / Rainier bridge is, downright scary (😄) what’s going to be hilarious is when the USCG gets all their new ships (at the way that project is going it won’t be for a couple decades) and the Astoria bridge does a Key Bridge collapse trapping the CG ships on the up river side. Sorry I don’t think the Salvage Chief will be much help.
Just Thinking
If you have ever driven across this bridge, it is OLD. Hard to believe they are still waiting to replace it. The conventional and rational method would be to finally start building the new bridge right next to the old one and tie in I-5 when it's done. Perhaps someone should consult the Japanese or Dutch in order to plan and construct a successful replacement.
No light rail.
Some good comments and observations here. I sat on the committee for awhile back in the early 2010's. Couple of points. One we (both sides of the river) agreed the age of the bridge needed some upgrades for earthquake etc. There was a proposal to not do one bridge but three bridges at a lower cost and only the bridges not the add on of 5 billion for "interchange upgrades". I supported this concept for two main reasons.
A) two more bridges: one near Troutdale to deal with expansion East, and one nearer to Woodland (other ideas included Kelley Point). This would deal with the issue of reducing Commercial traffic onto Hwy 30 in Or and provide relief in the event of disaster.
B) Another was two other bridges could be built without shutting down I205 or I5 and then I5 could be redone.
Another Idea that had merit was building two joining local traffic bridges and saving the I5 for later (once the two were completed) and relieving the through commercial traffic for the I5 and local daily drivers to the other smaller bridges. This included the bicycle and light rail add ons.
However, the (and it was touched on lightly, very) squandering of 70 million USD to discover it was too short left everyone with a bad taste and politically a downer. Seriously the firm who blundered that should have returned some of that money or been sued by OR and WA. That was a serious abacus failure.
It is a travesty. First, an immersed tunnel would be a better choice to prevent the design nightmare the IBR has thrown at people and ruins the Vancouver waterfront. Also, the tunnel information you are discussing here was recently discovered to be seriously flawed and not nearly as costly as IBR mentioned. IBR, despite this realization, refuses to consider the option despite increasing public disdain over the project costs and the models they have released...and with no assurances the Coast Guard is buying their story.
A tunnel, plus repurposing the existing I-5 bridges for transit, would cut between $200 and $400 million in costs, according to several sources, as well as eliminating a steep eye-sore.
In addition, an immersed tunnel would be more seismically sound, and similar tunnels have succeeded in several seismically active areas.
What would be better is the construction of two other bridges, something both sides have clamored for years: One on the west side that would connect west Vancouver to Hillsboro and Beaverton and one on the east connecting east Vancouver to east Portland. Both could be toll bridges, wide enough for two lanes in each direction, or also tunnels. Both would reduce the congestion on the current I-5 Columbia crossing significantly. One source:
www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/tunnel-model-for-interstate-crossing-exposes-more-ibr-flaws/
No tunnel has survived if the land in earthquake shifts at their location... The sample size for tunnels in equarthquake zones is low, like 20, one shouldn't bet on a tunnel surviving.... People don't realize it but that area is insanely earthquake prone, and volcano prone, all of E WA and OR was a lava field cuz the crust is so thin and weak for 2 million years at 16m years ago the lava just gushed to make the Columbia River Basalts... It is more active than Iceland, truly.... All the West coast is inching north but at mid WA the movement stops so OR is being compressed and you get east west hills popping up in mid WA ...... The Boring volcanoes 30000 years ago popped up in W Portland in the city and geologiats have no idea why, literally volcanoes in suburbs, , , , , , so wow I wouldn't trust a tunnel...... Geologists skip a lot cuz literally there is tallk that OR and WA are doomed, but no one can yell that without panic .... Google "Washington is Toast" where FEMA had a memo saying everyone within 100 miles of coast will be dead or homeless in a quake/tsunami..... I would no live there, it's like living on Mt. Vesuvius as they do in Italy, it's child endangerment...
How do you get help when you are locked in a moving box for 12 minutes and a bad man/women wants to hurt you. As Gresham found out criminal element loves light rail.
I parked and traveled on the Max from Portland International Raceway (PIR) into downtown Portland for a year - and it was terrible. Countless times the Max would force the riders off the train to catch buses because of trains breaking down and sometimes b/c of black masked men rioting in downtown Portland.
Anyone who thinks the Max is a good idea to cross the river is either a communist, a raging liberal, or intentionally homeless.
Adding the Max to the I5 bridge project is a mistake b/c the organisation who owns the Max is politically motivated - it is not based not want or need but power and influence, according to a judge overseeing this project 15-20 yrs ago.
What's the point of tolling if the poors are going to get discounts? They're the ones crowding the roads with their Civic hatchbacks and salvage title Altimas.
The poors? you invented a new form of racism.
@@MrDogonjon 🤡
How the heck are they going to collect tolls on cars that don't have current tabs? I see cars all the time with expired tags some expired years ago.
In Portland you see more and more cars just do not have front and rear license plates anymore. Police don't enforce the law
You made a good point that I forgot about. We have a motorhome next to my house with a smashed in windshield and expired tags from WA and a truck with a 5th wheel without plates at all. How are tolls going to be collected if they don't enforce license plates?
City of Portland has no more traffic enforcement police. They are in crisis just keeping up with the major crimes going on. Defund the police is good for avoiding the toll?
Of course the final price will be $!8 to $24 billion. That's assuming that there will not be decades more delays.
Most of us just see the toll roads/bridge as just another tax on the people, instead they should raise the gas tax by a penny.
The major problem with this project from a practical stand point is. The new bridge will not have anymore lanes, than the old one has. The only major difference will be a new max line. Which Vancouver residents have said over and over again, they don't want. The big lie about Max, is that it will reduce traffic. Which it hasn't anywhere it has been placed. So in effect this bridge project is going to replace a bridge for the sake of replacing a bridge, bringing with it, no improvement to traffic with the addition of tolls.
If they were to build a bridge that is double deck. With six lanes each way. That would improve the congestion. Portland philosophy for years has been to get you out of your car. And to make it as painful as possible until you do.
I've always thought that making a interstate bypass along the BNSF rail line into NW Portland would elevate much of the congestion. Diverting traffic north of the interstate bridge, and connecting people from Washington county. Along with the industrial traffic from the NW industrial area, bypassing the interstate all together. While using an existing byway.
There is nothing wrong with getting people out of their cars. Cars are a very inefficient way of moving people around cities since they take of so much space. (Note..I own a car and drive it most days). Replacements aren’t always increases in size. This bridge replacement is necessary for 3 reasons: 1. Will not survive a major earthquake (it’s going to collapse) 2. General safety improvements are needed which makes the bridge unsafe today (sight lines, exit locations, bridge lift). 3.rebuilding with transit gives people a choice to life in downtown Vancouver and travel to downtown Portland without having to drive (reducing the numbers of vehicles on the road for those that still want to drive. Transit does help people that want to continue to drive by taking a trip off the road.
I understand that one improvement will be that the curve that is rather sharp for freeway driving will be straightened out somewhat. @Aguyononesideofthecountry mentions line of sight which is a big thing on the existing bridge.
You're using a culture problem to say that trains dont work, which is just kinda stupid, sorry. Without max the traffic in portland would be considerably worse. Max has some of the highest ridership in the entire country, so anyone saying nobody rides max or that it doesn't alleviate traffic is just blowing smoke.
What you should say instead is if Max wasn't around traffic would be worse than it already is. Portland suffers from induced demand, heck we have a song about it. When you build more car infrastructure people will use it, but on top of that it encourages a car-first culture which results in people driving more which creates more traffic. This is the real problem in many american cities. We don't fund transit(or we build it in dumb ways because public support isn't there), nobody takes transit, traffic gets worse.
The issue is culture. A lot of people absolutely refuse to take transit for a variety of reasons so our roads are always clogged.
Based on your variety of comments in here it seems you are VERY anti transit which is very stupid. sorry dude but you're finding problems while ignoring solutions because you don't like transit.
You could make each direction 12 lanes wide and it wouldn't do much for traffic because it would still dump into Portland. Portland has spent billions over the last 50 years to ensure it is the worst bottleneck for cars in the West. They can't design good transport systems, but they know how to make sure their streets are really, really bad to punish anyone driving. Also, their bike lanes don't connect to anything, their sidewalks are tent cities, and their light rail serves as their mental institutions. The new I-5 bridge should just fly over the city and create a direct connection from Vancouver to Tigard so that interstate traffic doesn't have to deal with Portland.
If it was near Seattle Washington would throwing money at it.
And yet not one additional automobile lane added! Lmao it's just a mess and another traffic jam waiting. Not to mention tolls for automobiles so trimet can run an empty train across is!! 😅
I hope they have a railway, bike trails and pedestrian ways as well.
Few will walk or bike 2 miles across the Columbia.... Be honest have you ever walked 2 miles across a windy bridge w traffic roaring.... There is nothing north of the river except boring another town ...
@@amyself6678 yes? I have, I used to commute for years under your exact description. But regardless of that slight difficulties if they build it, it will get used. Why not build for the future and not the now.
"Build for the future". What a nice phrase that means nothing. We build costly things and use them till they almost fail, we don't build things before to "build for the future". There are too many competing demands for tax money. Not to over argue this, but building a bridge early takes money from govt spending more on cancer treatments and education. It's all one govt pot. Just saying, govt has reasons and delay unless the bridge collapses often is OK plan. . . . The smart people can say if the new bridge would save 100000 about 20 minutes a day for 200 days a year, and if we value their time at $20/hour, is mathwise it worth re-building bridge 20 years earlier than the collapse would occur - - so it's a complex analysis - - but us bozos just go with our gut and liking of shiny videos showing cars zooming along. This shallow thinking is why dictators in world build shiny bridges that barely get used .. .. I honestly have no idea, just suggesting small thoughts, and suggesting the experts probably are looking at many factors. .. .. . And most people hate light rail, even in France or Finland 70% of people drive if they have to get to work, and vacationerse and business people can just take a plane, light rail is the stupid idea of yuppies who never will take it much once they smell the homeless people and me who may use it. .. . Overall Im amazed we have a road system, kudos to everyone involved, I don't mean to be negative.
@@amyself6678 shut up retard vancouver is better than portland and its fent induced crackheads breaking into cars
The longer they wait the more expensive its going to be and the need to build a new bridge WITHOUT closing the current one during construction will only get worse! There is NOTHING that can be done to reduce traffic on ANY US highway system since we have ruined our cities by urban sprawl and mass transit can NEVER fix that flaw in any reasonable timeline! Very few people have the need to go from city center to city center anymore! So mass transit cannot fix a problem that has been growing since the 1940'S. Hey, I love trains and wish we had things like the Eurostar here but unless some long term (i means 20+ years) federal program comes about mass transit is always going to be a system for the poor! UGH