News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

Started by Tarkus, March 14, 2009, 04:18:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/

178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.

Totally agree. I don't know what the long-term plans are for that stretch between 5 and 205, but I don't see why 178 feet would ever be necessary.


Bruce

Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 08:52:50 PM
I think "end of 2025" has been a goal for a while now, but there are still budget and design issues to work out.




Article from last month talking about how the bridge may need to include an openable span, ideally bascule design...but ultimately may not actually need it due to separate negotiations:

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/10/new-i-5-bridge-over-columbia-river-plan-must-include-lift-section/

178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.

There is a shipyard at Ryans Point.

pderocco

Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2023, 03:15:24 AM
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM
178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.

There is a shipyard at Ryans Point.

I don't think that serves anything higher than the barges and tugs which go under I-205.

Sub-Urbanite

Let us not forget that one of the main litigants for a higher bridge in the last round (CRC) was a replica wooden sloop that takes people on pleasure cruises up the Columbia.

Theater of the absurd, this is.

Plutonic Panda

So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/

The Ghostbuster

So the new Columbia River Crossing is being delayed again. I am so NOT surprised! Maybe they should rename the Interstate Bridge as the "Not-In-My-State" Bridge?

Bruce

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 11:06:04 AM
So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/

1. It's a new governor.
2. The homelessness crisis is worsening by the day and is already a huge issue, arguably bigger than the immediate need for a bridge replacement.
3. The bridge replacement's cost (most of it for the interchange rebuilds) is getting more and more absurd.
4. Oregon can't do both at once, so they are going to prioritize the bigger issue that requires more attention.

Plutonic Panda

#207
Quote from: Bruce on April 17, 2023, 04:36:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 11:06:04 AM
So now the governor isn't wanting to fund this. The legislature has come and said yes let's spend a billion on it and the governor said she supports the proposal to build a new bridge but doesn't want to pay for it. Instead she wants to spend a billion on homelessness all of the sudden.

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/04/14/oregon-gov-kotek-balks-at-plans-for-1-billion-interstate-5-bridge-bond/

1. It's a new governor.
2. The homelessness crisis is worsening by the day and is already a huge issue, arguably bigger than the immediate need for a bridge replacement.
3. The bridge replacement's cost (most of it for the interchange rebuilds) is getting more and more absurd.
4. Oregon can't do both at once, so they are going to prioritize the bigger issue that requires more attention.
Yeah there's always these amazing excuses.

Yes, the homeless issue has been bad and all the sudden they magically found the money from a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario. They don't give a shit.

Fact is, this is one of the most critical infrastructure projects on the west coast. It needs to be replaced. Both projects can be done at once and have business competing.

Sub-Urbanite

This doesn't read like the governor doesn't want to fund this. Just that she doesn't want to pay for it with that bucket of money.

pderocco

You can reduce the housing shortage by reducing regulations on building, of which there are many in the Portland area. You can't build a bridge by reducing regs, you actually have to pay for it.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 17, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
This doesn't read like the governor doesn't want to fund this. Just that she doesn't want to pay for it with that bucket of money.
That's not really how I read it.

jakeroot

I don't think Kotek will single-handedly sink this project.

I agree with Sub-Urbanite above that it's not an issue committing money in general, Oregon can budget to do both things. It's just the source of the money that seems to be an issue.

That said, I do also agree with Bruce above that the price-tag is getting a little out-of-hand. WSDOT will have constructed the 167 freeway extension, 509 freeway extension, and the entirety of the 395 freeway around Spokane, for less than half what this project could ultimately cost. Adjusted for inflation, this project could also cost more than the Akashi-Kaikyo Suspension Bridge in Japan, engineering-wise a much more impressive project IMO.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2023, 09:22:01 PM
I don't think Kotek will single-handedly sink this project.

I agree with Sub-Urbanite above that it's not an issue committing money in general, Oregon can budget to do both things. It's just the source of the money that seems to be an issue.

That said, I do also agree with Bruce above that the price-tag is getting a little out-of-hand. WSDOT will have constructed the 167 freeway extension, 509 freeway extension, and the entirety of the 395 freeway around Spokane, for less than half what this project could ultimately cost. Adjusted for inflation, this project could also cost more than the Akashi-Kaikyo Suspension Bridge in Japan, engineering-wise a much more impressive project IMO.
Daddy's bridge (also known as Tappan Zee) is laughing at the price tag.

Plutonic Panda

So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

ErmineNotyours

Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:27:01 AM

178 feet is ridiculous. According to Wikipedia, the I-205 bridge only has 144 feet of clearance, and there's nothing between the two bridges but a bunch of marinas and houseboats.

Never underestimate the Coast Guard's need to throw its weight around.  In the 1980s, the state wanted to build a short freeway section of 516 around the west end of the Kent Valley, including a new Green River bridge.  The bridge is elevated to rise above a road along side the river, and is thus probably 20 feet higher than the old 516 bridge downstream, and the 181 bridge upstream.  There is no industry or boat launches between the three bridges, but the Coast Guard put up a fight for putting a bridge over a "navigable" river.  Eventually they gave in, and quickly someone (Kent Parks?) built a pedestrian bridge under the new bridge, lowering the clearance again to that of the nearby bridges.

CovalenceSTU

The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):

https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)

brad2971

#216
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.

kalvado

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
Is there any project on FHWA plate where more than 4 senators are involved? I bet 4 is much more than for most other projects, where only 2 would care..

Rothman

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2023, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...

And who sets its budget?

Rothman

#221
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 29, 2023, 07:42:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 28, 2023, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 27, 2023, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 27, 2023, 12:39:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 09:40:13 PM
So what bucket of money is she proposing this comes out of?

If the new governor has any sense, she'd propose the Feds pay at least 90% of the cost. If I-5 is the infrastructure and supply chain lifeline that it is, the Feds should definitely pay that 90%, especially if we're getting back to earmarks again.

Both Washington State and Oregon have some well-tenured congress people and Senators; there's no reason why they can't get the earmark for that bridge, even in this supposedly horrible partisan era. Then again, if a Senator like Mitch McConnell can only get $1.6 billion earmark for a $3.6 billion total cost Brent Spence Bridge replacement....

And FHWA will say "Cool, thank you very much, we'll be spending our money elsewhere." Because FHWA has to answer to 100 Senators and there are 4 with a stake in the Interstate Bridge.
FHWA is in the Executive Branch...

And who sets its budget?

Congress, but I'm not sure of the logic behind how you see this playing out.

Apportionments of core funding have simply been based upon previous bills rather than congressional whims.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

pderocco

Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 27, 2023, 12:13:58 AM
The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):

https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)

Figures that they'd only show what the bridge looks like from land, not what it looks like while you're driving on it. The latter is what most people are going to see.

I think only the first cable-stayed version looks appealing.

Bruce

Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2023, 08:25:39 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 27, 2023, 12:13:58 AM
The IBR program has released six new renderings of what the bridge could look like (two cable-stayed, two beam bridges, a drawbridge and a double-decker truss bridge):

https://www.interstatebridge.org/nextsteps

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/interstate-bridge-replacement-design-renderings/283-f7cc3cb6-05d1-4e23-baf2-a56649ed2186 (autoplay warning)

Figures that they'd only show what the bridge looks like from land, not what it looks like while you're driving on it. The latter is what most people are going to see.

I think only the first cable-stayed version looks appealing.


The view while driving is the least important for stakeholders. Who cares if it looks a bit funky for a few minutes while you're behind a windshield if it looks good from the Vancouver waterfront.

Plutonic Panda

Is anyone else getting a little bit bored with Cable stayed bridges?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.