Hayden Island interchange options down to two for Interstate Bridge replacement


IBR’s partial interchanges on Hayden Island score better on climate and equity

The current Interstate Bridge has a problem that contributes to traffic congestion. There are four interchanges within a two-and-a-half-mile area that cause a great deal of merging and weaving of vehicles. Key parts of this are connections to Hayden Island, as the interstate is the only way on and off the island for residents, shoppers, and businesses.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) team has narrowed down the interchange options for handling Hayden Island traffic to two choices. One will have a full set of on and off ramps in both directions, like the current bridges. The second will have partial interchanges, where southbound traffic can exit I-5 directly to the island. Northbound traffic will also have an onramp to go north from the island. The balance will connect via a complex series of ramps and interchanges at the Marine Drive location, as a separate bridge will connect the island to north Portland.

When viewed through “climate” and “equity” lenses, it would appear the partial interchange solution scored better according to the IBR team. The details of the scoring system were not discussed at the April 7 meeting of the Executive Steering Group (ESG).

The IBR team has also decided to replace the north Portland Harbor bridge, something not included in the previous Columbia River Crossing (CRC) proposal that failed nearly a decade ago. This will add cost, but provide the IBR team flexibility in its design.

The IBR team has narrowed down the options for Hayden Island and Marine Drive to two choices. One has full interchanges on Hayden Island; the other has partial interchanges, favoring traffic going to and coming from Clark County. Graphic courtesy IBR
The IBR team has narrowed down the options for Hayden Island and Marine Drive to two choices. One has full interchanges on Hayden Island; the other has partial interchanges, favoring traffic going to and coming from Clark County. Graphic courtesy IBR

More details are being revealed with each meeting of IBR stakeholders. It is expected that major details like the choice for transit and the number of lanes will be announced on April 21. The current schedule shows the ESG has a meeting that afternoon, and earlier, there had been a call for the Bi-state Bridge Committee of 16 legislators to meet the same day.

So far we know the IBR has asked the US Coast Guard for a bridge clearance height of 116 feet for marine traffic on the Columbia River. 

The IBR team noted several changes from a decade ago. The Port of Portland has decided not to build and develop a marine terminal on Hayden Island. The population has grown and the north Portland Harbor bridge has gotten older. There are proposed improvements to the levee system and businesses in the area. 

The project will be measured against the “Purpose and Need” statement which defines the problem to be solved. The six problems are traffic congestion, limited transit options, seismic vulnerability, impared freight movement, safety, inadequate bike and pedestrian connections.

In the current effort, the Purpose and Need has not been modified from the CRC. However the IBR team has added a “climate” and an “equity” set of lenses that will be applied to the project’s proposal.

The IBR team has added “climate” and “equity” lenses to the emphasis items in what will be proposed for the project. It has narrowed the options down to two for the Marine Dr./Hayden Island interchanges. It has scored them, showing the 2013 CRC proposal, a full interchange, and a partial interchange option. The partial interchange rates highest for “climate” and “equity” according to the IBR team. Graphic courtesy IBR
The IBR team has added “climate” and “equity” lenses to the emphasis items in what will be proposed for the project. It has narrowed the options down to two for the Marine Dr./Hayden Island interchanges. It has scored them, showing the 2013 CRC proposal, a full interchange, and a partial interchange option. The partial interchange rates highest for “climate” and “equity” according to the IBR team. Graphic courtesy IBR

The Purpose and Need statement defines the problem to be solved as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. All proposed solutions are measured against the Purpose and Need statement to measure the viability of each possible solution.

Multiple community surveys have reported that 7 of 10 people want the project to reduce traffic congestion and save travel time. Washington citizens rate that even higher, with 78 percent wanting reduced congestion and time savings.

So far, no specific cost estimates have been provided to any of the decision making bodies for any of the options. The 2013 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is scored better by the IBR team on cost, compared to either of their proposed options. The partial interchange option would appear to have much more concrete and vehicle interchange ramps and loops, likely adding to the cost, compared to the full interchange option.

The IBR team has only told citizens that “if” the CRC were built today, it would cost between $3.2 billion and $4.8 billion. Washington and Oregon legislators were informed each state would need to come up with “at least” $1 billion to fund their share of the project, and that tolling would be needed to cover some of the construction costs. That was before the federal IIJA was signed into law, providing $1.2 trillion in funding for infrastructure projects like the Interstate Bridge replacement.

In its short session this year, the Washington legislature allocated $1 billion from the $17 billion transportation package for the IBR. That will be added to nearly $100 million set aside from the 2015 gas tax package for the Mill Plain interchange at I-5. 

The ball will be in Oregon’s court next year to decide its contribution. It would appear much more of the project’s construction and costs will be in Oregon. This is especially true with the decision to replace the north Portland Harbor bridge, and all the interchanges and infrastructure to be built at the Marine Drive and Hayden Island locations.

Will Oregon be required to pay for the larger share of the project? That hasn’t been addressed yet by legislators or key decision makers.

The Purpose and Need statement defines the problem to be solved as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. All proposed solutions are measured against the Purpose and Need statement to measure the viability of each possible solution. Graphic courtesy IBR
The Purpose and Need statement defines the problem to be solved as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. All proposed solutions are measured against the Purpose and Need statement to measure the viability of each possible solution. Graphic courtesy IBR

Also read:

Receive comment notifications
Notify of
guest

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Margaret
Margaret
7 months ago

Data from an independent review panel hired by the governors of Washington and Oregon indicated the cost of the I-5 bridge with light rail formerly called the Columbia River Crossing, CRC, project was closer to $10 Billion. With inflation gapping up, the costs will be higher now. Underestimating costs, and overestimating transit ridership were hallmarks of the failed CRC plan. Tolling and debt were keys to the financial plan, and discussion of toll and debt was avoided then as it is now.
We need more bridges to keep freight moving in our region, as well as commercial and other traffic, a new east side bridge, and a west side bridge. Therefore, any I-5 Bridge project must be economically designed. Gold plated light rail requires so many $, and so much land for so few people, 1-2% of trips across the bridge. Not a good value by any measure.

Allen Smith
Allen Smith
7 months ago

Has this planning team actually driven this stretch of highway?

The Hayden Island onramp is the cause of a great deal of the northbound congestion stretching back for miles. It’s too close to the bridge and too close to the SR-14 offramp. Drivers intending to exit onto 14 position themselves in the right lane prior to the Hayden Island onramp, putting themselves into contention with slow merging traffic. By the time you get onto the actual bridge, the traffic quickly speeds up to 40–50 mph, even at peak rush hour.

A local-access bridge with a beefier Delta Park interchange has always been the obvious solution to the actual congestion problem. It would be nice if this bridge were being designed to alleviate corridor congestion, instead of a sop to Hayden Island!

janice whitehead
janice whitehead
7 months ago
Reply to  Allen Smith

Massive merging from Delta Park & Marine DR/MLK slow northbound. Traffic moves faster at bridge approach where there is a trickle merging from island in comparison.

pete
pete
7 months ago

Entry traffic, even low volume, just before a natural slow down (e.g. entering the bridge) creates congestion. Hayden Island traffic (both north and south) should be routed via Marine Drive and the interchanges there. New lanes (northbound) should be created with the Marine drive onramp — that could “peel off” for the WA 14 exit on the north end of the bridge. Likewise, lanes added for WA 14 onramp southbound on bridge could “peel off” at the Marine Drive exit.

Study the I-205 bridge as an example. Lanes are created where WA 14 enter and then decrease at the PDX exit (southbound). A similar lane addition/reduction occurs northbound between PDX onramp and WA 14. Of course, (at this late date), I-205 would benefit greatly with an extra lane (or 2) each way between I-84 and PDX.

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x