Bob Ortblad shares that British Columbia plans to construct an immersed tunnel in five years while the I-5 Bridge replacement project is projected to take 15 years
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
British Columbia’s “Highway 99 Tunnel Program” is building a new eight-lane immersed tunnel under the Fraser River to replace the 68-year-old four-lane Massey Immersed Tunnel. The B.C. tunnel and approaches is estimated to cost $2.8 billion (US). A similar I-5 immersed tunnel and approaches should cost no more than $2.8 billion. An I-5 Columbia River immersed tunnel would be 600 feet shorter, 35 feet shallower, and about 40% smaller overall.
The IBR Program has a costly $17.7 billion design that requires five miles of freeway widening, the demolition of the current bridges and seven interchanges, and then their replacement. WA & OR can save billions and increase traffic capacity by keeping the current bridges and interchanges for local traffic and diverting interstate traffic through a new eight-lane Columbia River I-5 immersed tunnel with dedicated bus lanes. The IBR has lied about the seismic risk to the current bridges.
WSP is IBR’s General Engineering Consultant. WSP prepared the “Tunnel Concept Assessment” (July 14, 2021) that fraudulently disqualified an immerse tunnel by doubling the require dredging and excavation cubic yards (8 million), and ignoring a cost saving sandwich steel-concrete design alternative that can be fabricated in local shipyards. The report listed 13 professional engineers, but none stamped the report as required by state law. WSP should have retracted this report and refunded its $100,000 fee. Public disclosure requests forced two revisions that cut the cubic yards estimate in half (4 million) and added a professional engineer stamp. WSP never evaluated a sandwich steel-concrete design or circulated revised reports. Eight agencies approved IBR’s locally preferred alternative bridge design based on the original incorrect report.
Preserving the current bridges for local traffic and a shared use path, plus the construction of an I-5 immersed tunnel, will protect Fort Vancouver, Vancouver’s downtown and riverfront public market, and Hayden Island from the impacts of IBR’s massive, elevated freeway.
British Columbia plans to construct an immersed tunnel in five years. The IBR Project is projected to take 15 years.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design. - A sub-district vote could be a way to go to pay O&M costs associated with light rail
Clark County Council members heard details on how a voter-approved C-TRAN sub-district could be created to fund long-term operations and maintenance costs for light rail tied to a new Interstate Bridge. - Letter: British Columbia’s new immersed tunnel can solve Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $17.7 billion problem
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel similar to a project underway in British Columbia could significantly reduce costs and impacts associated with the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
While I 100% agree with you that a tunnel would be ideal, and a brilliant solution; the problem is that semi trucks are not allowed in tunnels in Washington State. I don’t know about Oregon. Read about the tunnel in Seattle, Wa. that does not allow semi trucks to pass thru. I am assuming that is why you chose a tunnel in B.C. idk.
It is still a great idea.
Even if true, so what? Truck traffic can be easily routed to I-205.
What I do know is that SW Washington residents had better get their act together and oppose and stop this 17-billion boondoggle! It simply cannot be allowed to proceed! I don’t really care if another 300 million have already been spent on planning. The current IBR plans will be the financial ruin (via tolls and taxes) for residents in Vancouver, Clark Co., and SW Washington.!
Semi-trucks are certainly allowed in Washington tunnels, including the new SR 99 tunnel in Seattle—provided they aren’t carrying hazardous materials like fuel or explosives.
In fact, the SR 99 tunnel was specifically designed with two decks to accommodate freight traffic and even has a specific toll rate for multi-axle vehicles. If the claim were true, the state would have a very difficult time collecting those $10 truck tolls! The restrictions you’re likely thinking of apply to ‘Hazmat’ cargo or oversized loads that exceed the 14-foot clearance, rather than a blanket ban on all semis.