Coalition gathers to view cost effective alternative for river crossing
John Ley
for Clark County Today
In the shadow of where a replacement Interstate Bridge would tower about 50 feet above a local business, an Open House was held Friday. “See the model that exposes the IBR team’s ‘No Tunnel Connections’ lie,” a flier advertised.
Bob Wallis and Dave Rowe have collaborated to show something deemed impossible is actually very possible for a crossing of the Columbia River. Wallis, a retired engineer, provided the numbers and Rowe created a scaled model of an immersed tube tunnel showing what it would look like on the Vancouver side of the river. It took Rowe over three months to build the model.
“The DOTs continue to lie to the public about the feasibility of the tunnel connections,” said another retired engineer, Bob Ortblad. “The DOTs (WSDOT and ODOT) falsely concluded that the tunnel option evaluated during the initial screening of alternatives for the IBR project could not provide connections between I-5, local downtown Vancouver streets, and SR-14. That led to the rejection of the tunnel alternative in favor of the current proposal — a giant 200-foot-wide mega bridge, towering 100 feet above Vancouver’s historic waterfront.”
To illuminate reality, a model of the Vancouver interchange as it exits the water was constructed by Rowe. “The model makes it clear — the tunnel alternative offers superior connectivity to the mega-bridge option currently under design,” they say.
Ortblad has been an opponent of the $7.5-billion Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) proposal for crossing the Columbia River. He believes the proposed 4 percent grade will be too steep and cause safety issues, especially in icy winter conditions. Freezing occurs first on bridges above ground.
Some people are calculating 6-7 percent grades for the IBR’s SR-14 connection on and off ramps with Interstate 5. This would be even more unsafe, according to Ortblad, especially for freight haulers.
The solution? An immersed tube tunnel. Orblad has suggested this option almost from the beginning of the IBR program. He believes it can be built in half the time, and for much less than the $7.5-billion price tag of the current proposal by Administrator Greg Johnson and his IBR team.
Johnson, the IBR’s program manager, recently told those in attendance at a C-TRAN citizen’s advisory group meeting that construction could take between 10 and 15 years, according to Rowe. That’s a huge contrast with most timelines on the IBR website showing things wrapped up by 2035, a decade after construction begins.
Early in the program, the IBR supposedly evaluated and then discarded numerous options for a crossing. They said a new third bridge didn’t satisfy the “purpose and need” that was created over a decade ago for the failed Columbia River Crossing (CRC). They also said neither Oregon nor Washington had a third bridge in their 20-year transportation plans.
The Johnson team nixed a tunnel as being too expensive. Additionally, they said it couldn’t connect with SR-14 in Vancouver after spending over $100,000 on a “tunnel concept assessment.” Ortblad and Wallis vehemently disagree.
The IBR team continued to move forward, pushing to replace a three-lane bridge with a new three-lane bridge that has a single additional auxiliary lane. Their proposal fails to improve travel times or reduce expected traffic congestion. The IBR reports morning travel times will double, taking 60 minutes to go from Salmon Creek to the Fremont Bridge. Furthermore, half of rush hour traffic will be going zero to 20 miles per hour.
Members of the IBR team are currently fighting the US Coast Guard (USCG), which prefers a crossing with “unlimited” clearance for marine traffic. The USCG says a replacement must provide at least the current 178 feet of clearance.
When Ortblad offered data showing an immersed tube tunnel was much cheaper and could be built much faster, with minimal disruption to the maritime industry, the IBR team basically tried to ignore him. But Ortblad persisted with more examples. There is currently an eight-lane, toll free immersed tube tunnel being built in Vancouver, BC; and another one in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Gothenburg, Sweden recently completed their second immersed tube tunnel.
“Is the IBR team dishonest or incompetent,” Ortblad asked earlier this year. He questioned the “unstamped” engineering work of the IBRs evaluation which indicated 8 million cubic yards of material needed to be excavated from the Columbia River bottom to hold an immersed tube tunnel. Ortblad’s calculation was only one quarter of that amount; just 2.1 million cubic yards.
Ortblad’s rebuttal forced the IBR to reexamine its numbers. The team then issued an “update” this summer showing the original 8 million cubic yards was now reduced to 4 million cubic yards. This time the document contained an official engineering stamp. But Ortblad believes the correct number is very close to his original 2.1 million figure.
Enter Wallis and Rowe. Wallis spent an estimated 600 hours engineering an immersed tube tunnel calculation. The design includes connections on the Vancouver side of the river. He gave those to Rowe, a passionate train advocate who then went to work building a scaled model. Their work was displayed on Friday (Dec. 1) at the open house in the Lucky Lager Warehouse in downtown Vancouver..
A tunnel would not have to deal with snow and ice in the winter, and would therefore be safer for vehicles according to Ortblad. While both the IBR’s bridge and the tunnel have 4 percent grades, the tunnel would be safer because it won’t freeze up.
An immersed tube tunnel would allow unlimited clearance for maritime traffic on the river, pleasing the Coast Guard. Ortblad also pointed out that the lack of in-water piers to support the bridge would be better for fish and marine life.
Following a public records request, Ortblad received the IBR engineering calculations. “Every one of the 158 cross-section areas used to compute cubic yard volume is incorrect.” he said. “A realistic estimate is 2.1 million cubic yards.
“This massive error of 6 million cubic yards can only be explained by intentional deception,” Ortblad said. “Confronted with this error, after three weeks, the IBR pleaded incompetence. The IBR claims data was duplicated, and problems with third-party software, and quantity errors are common.”
Ortblad believed a dredging depth of only 45 feet was needed for an immersed tube tunnel, whereas the IBR said it required a depth of up to 82 feet. The IBR’s Johnson showed up to Friday’s open house and there was strong disagreement about the needed depth of a tunnel. Johnson believes it needs to be 100 feet below the surface of the water, whereas the retired engineers believe the bottom only needs to be about 50-60 feet. Water depth in the main channel is maintained about 27 feet by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Instead of spending hundreds of millions destroying and removing the two current bridges, Ortblad prefers to repurpose them. They would serve as a local connection between Vancouver, Hayden Island, and north Portland. Light rail or bus transit could use one of the bridges, along with pedestrians and bikes.
This would save roughly $200 -$300 million in costs, not including the cost of a transit station roughly 90 feet in the air over the waterfront in the IBR’s proposal. Sen. Lynda Wilson has questioned whether or not people will actually use a transit station that high above the ground. The tunnel model shows the transit station at ground level.
The increased vehicle capacity of the system would actually relieve traffic congestion if a tunnel was built and the bridges remained. The IBR reports that a significant number of vehicles enter and exit I-5 within the 5-mile “bridge influence area.” They would benefit from a local connection, not using the interstate.
Transportation architect Kevin Peterson has reported that the I-5 corridor will require five lanes in each direction by 2030 and seven lanes by 2045. He was using previous CRC travel demand data in his analysis. The current proposal will be four lanes shy of what is needed.
Residents of Hayden Island are extremely concerned about the huge footprint of the current IBR proposal. They have called for a new, third bridge to be constructed first, according to Martin Slapikas, a leader in the HiNoon Neighborhood Association. They feel Johnson’s team has ignored their concerns, while removing resident Tom Gentry from the Community Advisory Group a year ago because he asked too many penetrating questions.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) both require a legitimate evaluation of options prior to approving a project and providing federal funding. The IBR is seeking about $1.5 billion from the FHWA and another $1 billion from the FTA for the transit component of the project.
It remains to be seen if both agencies will accept what Ortblad deems is a hugely flawed analysis of an ITT option for the crossing.
Also read:
- Travel Advisory: Expect daytime delays on northbound I-5 near Woodland for guardrail repairs, April 18
WSDOT will close the left lane of northbound I-5 near Woodland on Friday, April 18, to repair guardrail and improve driver safety. - Belkot speaks before C-TRAN board; directors pause vote on light rail funding language until JulyMichelle Belkot spoke at Tuesday’s C-TRAN board meeting, calling her removal from the board unlawful; directors postponed a vote on light rail funding language until July amid legal challenges.
- Travel Advisory: Expect delays on northbound I-5 near RidgefieldWSDOT is warning travelers to expect delays near Exit 14 on northbound I-5 in Ridgefield as crews begin barrier and lane improvement work supporting future development.
- Large crowd expected at C-TRAN Board of Directors Meeting Tuesday, April 15
A large turnout is expected at the April 15 C-TRAN board meeting, where public input and a key vote on light rail funding will follow the recent removal of Michelle Belkot. - Letter: ‘The IBR needs a more cost-effective design’Bob Ortblad argues the I-5 Bridge replacement project is overbudget and inefficient, urging a more cost-effective tunnel alternative to avoid excessive tolls and taxpayer burden.
Tear down the old 3 lane bridge, with all the traffic congestion from Portland to Vancouver and replace it with a new 3 lane bridge! I must have missed the benefit for the motorist! Having driven I-5 between Portland and Vancouver a new route around Portland and Vancouver is needed. Will it cost, yep, pay now or pay in the future…..
Barry – spot on!
Every major city in the world has a “ring road” allowing vehicles to bypass the crowded inner core of the city.
The original plan for Portland was to build a ring road. We completed the eastern half of the ring in 1982– I-205.
We were supposed to immediately begin building the western half of the ring, with everything completed by 1990.
Sadly, politics got in the way. Portland now has the 12th worst traffic congestion in the nation because they have refused to add vehicle capacity.
Regional population has doubled since the 1982 completion of I-205. The number of cars on the road has nearly doubled as well, yet no new vehicle capacity.
We need more transportation corridors and bridges across the Columbia River. Portland has a dozen bridges across the Willamette River. We need more than 2 bridges across the Columbia River!
I think the submerged tunnel is by far the best idea presented so far. We definitely need more than 2 bridges across the Columbia; one out towards Camas would be a great way addition.
Another advantage of completing the western “ring road” including a third bridge west of the I-5 bridge r is that the Ports of Vancouver and Portland would have a more direct connection. Freight haulers picking up loads at the Port of Vancouver and heading south to western destinations would not have to backtrack to I-5 to cross a bridge, but could continue south over a third western bridge, reducing congestion. More consideration needs to be given to freight and congestion reduction.
Does the IBR plan still include a planted lid covering sections of I-5 in Portland? How much is dedicated to that costly project and how does that improve congestion?.
Four to five bridges across the Columbia in the metropolitan area would be best. Plain simple bridges that do NOT include the worthless over priced light rail would be the best money to be spent. Replacing an existing bridge will do nothing for the traffic headache. Spreading out traffic with bridges in the Washougal area to the Ridgefield to Woodland area would help spread out traffic. The fact that some committee of “professionals” has been being paid for years now talking about the replacement of one bridge and being paid millions over the years should be classified as a crime. Ask the tax payers as they are paying the tab for the incompetent actions of the clueless politicians. NO Light Rail, No Tolls, No New Taxes.
JT — your comments are 100% appropriate.
Back in 2008, the SW WA Regional Transportation Council (RTC) published a “Visioning Study”. It highlighted what Clark County would need when population reached 1 million people. We are over half way there today.
They identified the need for TWO new bridges over the Columbia River. One was west of I-5 and the other was east of I-205. They also provided TWO “options” for each crossing. Sadly, the special interest politicians in Vancouver and in the state legislature have ignored this reality. They instead have caved into Portland’s demand that a platform for light rail be built.
The sad reality is that nobody wants to ride the MAX light rail. It only travels 14 mph — nobody wants to travel that slow. Currently, SAFETY is a huge concern for people regarding MAX. The $2 billion price tag is about $666 million per mile. That’s over triple the cost of previous TriMet light rail expansions.
Portland has a dozen bridges over the Willamette River in the downtown Portland area. We need more than two bridge across the Columbia River.
I’ll bet C-tran can do better, cheaper and bypass problems on the trip across than MAX.