I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

[The Ghostbuster]

So, they are no closer to constructing the new bridge than they were before?

[brad2971]

Sigh.

And if they don't build it, it'll get cheaper, right?  that's what happens to projects that are delayed?

Or the Big One will come and cause some deaths and damages and a lot of inconvenience...

Or they have a perfectly reasonable expectation that the USDOT will come in and fully fund the replacement should some sort of event happen that will cause the bridge to be impaired.

[Bruce]

At this rate, just build the new bridge with the same number of lanes and same connections on both ends. Add light rail and an improved pedestrian/cycling path, and nothing more.

We don't need a complete rebuild of the Vancouver section if it's going to add a significant portion of the cost.

[stevashe]

At this rate, just build the new bridge with the same number of lanes and same connections on both ends. Add light rail and an improved pedestrian/cycling path, and nothing more.

We don't need a complete rebuild of the Vancouver section if it's going to add a significant portion of the cost.

Second on this. Don't know why they need to include so many other improvements if they aren't needed due to the greater height or realignment of the new bridge...

[pderocco]

At this rate, just build the new bridge with the same number of lanes and same connections on both ends. Add light rail and an improved pedestrian/cycling path, and nothing more.

We don't need a complete rebuild of the Vancouver section if it's going to add a significant portion of the cost.

Second on this. Don't know why they need to include so many other improvements if they aren't needed due to the greater height or realignment of the new bridge...

To future-proof it. If you don't do so, the need to upgrade again will come a lot sooner.

[Sub-Urbanite]

At this rate, just build the new bridge with the same number of lanes and same connections on both ends. Add light rail and an improved pedestrian/cycling path, and nothing more.

We don't need a complete rebuild of the Vancouver section if it's going to add a significant portion of the cost.

Unfortunately that doesn't work:

- The grade on the Washington side has to be re-done to accommodate the new bridge's increased height (116 feet vs. 39 feet at the current drawbridge)

- The exit angle for the SR 14 ramp has to be changed, because as anyone who's driven the Interstate Bridge northbound knows, that tight turn causes backups and crashes.

- On the less "have to do it" than "makes sense to do it now," seeing the SR 500 interchange as part of the system will improve traffic flow on the Vancouver side.

Nobody's happy, of course. But we'll all be even less happy if we wait another decade to try again.

[Sub-Urbanite]

A bunch of dignitaries announced this week that work would start... in 2028? Maybe? But on a downsized project.

The downsizing is interesting, because at $15 billion the full project is just too much for either state to fully comprehend. So they're aiming for a $5-6b "just the basics" project that builds a new bridge from the Oregon mainland bank of the Columbia to just past the SR 14 interchange in Vancouver.

That's it.

A second phase could extend light rail to the Vancouver Waterfront for another $1b. Further down the line, rebuilding the interchanges on the Oregon and Washington sides and building the Hayden Island specific bridge would need future funding.

The Hayden Island people will be annoyed that there's no island-specific bridge.

The Port people and truckers will be annoyed that there isn't a new Marine Drive interchange.

The Light Rail people will be annoyed that the Yellow Line doesn't go all the way to Clark College. The anti-light rail people will be annoyed if it's funded at all.

The Vancouver redevelopment people will be annoyed about potentially losing their $30m grant to put a lid on I-5 through downtown.

They all gotta swallow and hope that this process keeps moving forward without the various things that built a coalition. Now that they've started pulling the thread, we'll see how much of the fabric remains in place.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow. All of this excitement for that. That sucks. This shouldn't be acceptable. Like we can't build shit like this anymore?

[Bruce]

Wow. All of this excitement for that. That sucks. This shouldn't be acceptable. Like we can't build shit like this anymore?

If WSDOT and ODOT hadn't decided to build massive new interchanges and incite the ire of so many people, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Construction inflation is hitting every project across the country very hard, so higher costs are just to be expected. It's smarter to remove unnecessary elements or defer them indefinitely until they are proven to be needed.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow. All of this excitement for that. That sucks. This shouldn't be acceptable. Like we can't build shit like this anymore?

If WSDOT and ODOT hadn't decided to build massive new interchanges and incite the ire of so many people, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Construction inflation is hitting every project across the country very hard, so higher costs are just to be expected. It's smarter to remove unnecessary elements or defer them indefinitely until they are proven to be needed.

This has nothing to do with people rising up a storm. A lot of people want to see the entire project happen. People gave compromises we've seen this project from inception. This is just due to extreme cost. Don't kid yourself you know this very well. The entirety of this proposed project is needed. They've already scaled it back in the terms of the amount of travel lanes and now they're reducing the entire scope of the project, not even including the rail. If anything, this new plan is like likely to piss off more people because you're just fucking over everybody now.

[Scott5114]

Construction inflation is hitting every project across the country very hard, so higher costs are just to be expected. It's smarter to remove unnecessary elements or defer them indefinitely until they are proven to be needed.

The problem with deferring projects due to inflation is that by the time they're actually needed, they will be much more expensive (due to inflation) than if they had been built ahead of time.

[citrus]

Looks like the EIS for this project was just approved.
https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/01/interstate-5-bridge-federal-approval-oregon-washington/

(Also, I'm a newcomer to Portland after 15 years in San Francisco. Fun to follow a whole new set of projects.)

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyone want to take bets on how quickly this quote from the governor of Oregon will prove to be false?

"This milestone is proof of what Oregon and Washington can accomplish when we work together toward a shared goal. While there is still significant work ahead, I'm confident that our partnership will carry us through to a bridge that serves everyone well for generations to come,"

[citrus]

Anyone want to take bets on how quickly this quote from the governor of Oregon will prove to be false?

"This milestone is proof of what Oregon and Washington can accomplish when we work together toward a shared goal. While there is still significant work ahead, I'm confident that our partnership will carry us through to a bridge that serves everyone well for generations to come,"

I would guess it will remain true through this fall's election (where she is up for re-election), and not much longer.

[pderocco]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

Eh, this is already kind of the Oregon/Washington version of the HSR.  The two sides never have been able to agree on much other than the existing bridge is a problem.  In recent years the project cost estimates have started to skyrocket out of control.  Funding issues and disagreement tend to not often be conducive for shovels even hitting the ground.

[pderocco]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

Eh, this is already kind of the Oregon/Washington version of the HSR.  The two sides never have been able to agree on much other than the existing bridge is a problem.  In recent years the project cost estimates have started to skyrocket out of control.  Funding issues and disagreement tend to not often be conducive for shovels even hitting the ground.

But I think this bridge will ultimately be regarded by the public as more important, as a practical rather than ideological matter, than California's rail project. It may be that it becomes a significant traffic choke point (if it isn't already--my experience with it is from the 1990s), or that the existing bridge begins to fail, or that people get fed up with the drawbridge opening. I don't think very many Californians are desperate for the train, except for ideological reasons. And who knows, maybe some future US government will pass some enormous infrastructure bill that will pick up much of the tab.

[Bruce]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

Eh, this is already kind of the Oregon/Washington version of the HSR.  The two sides never have been able to agree on much other than the existing bridge is a problem.  In recent years the project cost estimates have started to skyrocket out of control.  Funding issues and disagreement tend to not often be conducive for shovels even hitting the ground.

It's Portland's, not all of Washington's. There are far larger fish to fry in Seattle at the moment (namely light rail expansion), so the IBR program gets an occasional "oh that's still going on" article in the newspaper every few months.

[stevashe]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

Eh, this is already kind of the Oregon/Washington version of the HSR.  The two sides never have been able to agree on much other than the existing bridge is a problem.  In recent years the project cost estimates have started to skyrocket out of control.  Funding issues and disagreement tend to not often be conducive for shovels even hitting the ground.

It's Portland's, not all of Washington's. There are far larger fish to fry in Seattle at the moment (namely light rail expansion), so the IBR program gets an occasional "oh that's still going on" article in the newspaper every few months.

Not to mention there's also a lot of large to very large road projects going on in the Seattle area,  none of which are as large as IBR but are certainly taking a lot of attention when combined:

• I-405 Brickyard to SR 527
• I-405 Renton to Bellevue
• SR 18 widening
• SR 522 widening
• Puget Sound Gateway
• SR 520 Portage Bay

And since the original statement was about Washington as a whole, I could throw in the North Spokane Corridor too 

[Scott5114]

Anyone want to take bets on how quickly this quote from the governor of Oregon will prove to be false?

"This milestone is proof of what Oregon and Washington can accomplish when we work together toward a shared goal. While there is still significant work ahead, I'm confident that our partnership will carry us through to a bridge that serves everyone well for generations to come,"

I mean, if nothing gets built, that would still be proof of what Oregon and Washington can accomplish when they work together toward a shared goal.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think the bridge will eventually get built, with the usual large cost overruns and temporary traffic nightmares.

Eh, this is already kind of the Oregon/Washington version of the HSR.  The two sides never have been able to agree on much other than the existing bridge is a problem.  In recent years the project cost estimates have started to skyrocket out of control.  Funding issues and disagreement tend to not often be conducive for shovels even hitting the ground.

It's Portland's, not all of Washington's. There are far larger fish to fry in Seattle at the moment (namely light rail expansion), so the IBR program gets an occasional "oh that's still going on" article in the newspaper every few months.

Not to mention there's also a lot of large to very large road projects going on in the Seattle area,  none of which are as large as IBR but are certainly taking a lot of attention when combined:

• I-405 Brickyard to SR 527
• I-405 Renton to Bellevue
• SR 18 widening
• SR 522 widening
• Puget Sound Gateway
• SR 520 Portage Bay

And since the original statement was about Washington as a whole, I could throw in the North Spokane Corridor too 

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like anything I would look twice at. A city like Seattle I would imagine having almost double the amount of that.

[Bruce]

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like anything I would look twice at. A city like Seattle I would imagine having almost double the amount of that.

The other big project is Interstate 5 rehab work, which is going to become an all-encompassing issue eventually. The elevated sections through downtown are nearing the end of their useful life and replacing it is going to be a whole clusterfuck politically.

Building highways for the sake of building them isn't going to happen here. It's just not practical, wise, or responsible.

[Max Rockatansky]

You folks have the worst traffic on the west coast in metro Seattle.  It is has always been the worst part of any trip I have taken there. 

The last time I was there in Seattle was giving me flashbacks to when I living in Chicago.  I-5 was a bigger disaster than usual with all the construction at Lake Union.  99 was  the only nominally practical way to get around.  It reminded me of trying to get around Chicago on surface streets when the expressways were clogged.

Now that I think about it, traffic in Guadalajara usually is easier to navigate by road than in Seattle.  That's not a comparison I thought I'd ever be making.