Hayden Island resident Sam Churchill disputes the assertions made by IBR program Administrator Greg Johnson
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Mr. Greg Johnson, the Interstate Bridge Replacement program administrator, made a two-part video with “Ten reasons why a tunnel wouldn’t work at this location.”
The video is helpful. I appreciate the effort. But I’m not convinced:
(1) The Vancouver BC tunnel, now planned for under the Fraser River, has similar characteristics to our location, but is more cost/effective then their original bridge proposal. It costs $4.1B total — and NO toll! Their tunnel is NOT DOUBLE the cost. It’s HALF the cost of our proposed Columbia River bridge.
(2) Cars enter/leave the tunnel on their island (for potential direct island access).
(3) It does NOT require raising up an entire 5 mile length of freeway AND building steep access ramps to the raised freeway — in EXTREMELY earthquake prone sandy soil. That saves $2.5 Billion right there.
(4) Mr. Johnson needs a shallow grade for the Max train. What if there were NO Max trains? Instead, shuttles move people. Electric van pooling. No Max to Vancouver, WA. That saves another $2 billion.
(5) Since the IBR plans a new main river channel, the immersed tube could be close to the surface near the Vancouver shore. It would surface BEFORE the East/West railroad line. NO height restrictions!
Mr. Johnson makes a good point on personal safety. I think it can be addressed with free electric shuttle vehicles on the active transportation areas.
This tall bridge and corresponding raised freeway is ugly. It hurts economic development on both sides of the river. It reminds me of Seattle’s Alaskan Way, which has now been permanently torn down, stimulating NEW waterfront attractions.
Let’s lower the cost. Enhance livability. The IBR plan IS a disaster. We’ll ALL pay for it.
Sam Churchill
Hayden Island resident
Also read:
- Opinion: IBR’s evasive, misleading and dishonest excuses for higher cost
Joe Cortright argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has withheld detailed cost estimates while offering contradictory explanations for rising costs tied to the I-5 Bridge project. - Rep. David Stuebe sponsors bill to strengthen enforcement of auto insurance laws and protect Washington drivers
Rep. David Stuebe has introduced HB 2308, a bill aimed at strengthening enforcement of Washington’s auto insurance laws and increasing accountability for repeat uninsured drivers. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement’s Park & Ride insanity
Bob Ortblad criticizes the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s proposed Park & Ride garages, arguing the costs are excessive and unlikely to receive federal funding. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement $13.6 billion estimate is too low!
Bob Ortblad argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $13.6 billion cost estimate understates the true expense, citing comparable projects, construction challenges, and engineering assumptions. - Opinion: ‘The drama and the waste of taxpayer money continues’
Rep. John Ley outlines his objections to the approved fixed-span I-5 Bridge design, citing cost concerns, engineering standards, funding uncertainty, and opposition to light rail and tolls.
wpDiscuz
