Bob Ortblad says the IBR shows its incompetence and possible corruption by exaggerating timber pile risk on the current bridges
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
Why is the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) spending $1.9 million to dig holes in the solid and well-drained sand of Hayden Island?
The IBR has a $1,937,944 contract with Keller North America to test three different methods of ground improvement on Hayden Island. The IBR plans elevated bridge approaches and a transit station that will be 30 to 70 feet above the ground with foundations supported by drilled shafts or piling. There is no need for ground improvement that modifies weak soil to create a suitable foundation, whereas piling and drilled shafts transfer loads deeper into the ground to bypass weak soil.
The IBR’s website has a dishonest description of why ground improvement is needed:
“What are they testing?
The seismic vulnerability of the current Interstate 5 Bridge stems from its foundation: It is supported by timber piles in liquefiable soils. To identify the appropriate approach to addressing this, engineers are testing different ground stabilization methods to determine how they perform in preparation for construction of program investments. The ODOT site on Hayden Island was chosen because it has similar soil characteristics as the North Portland Harbor and the north shoreline of Hayden Island, which have loose soil.”
The IBR shows its incompetence and possible corruption by exaggerating timber pile risk on the current bridges, and that digging holes in sand on Hayden Island will conjure information about drilled shafts in the Columbia River. (see IBR links & letters below)
Hayden Island is a sandbar that has been raised with about 20 feet of dredged sand from the Columbia River. Testing solid well-drained sand on Hayden Island for liquefaction and ground improvement will not provide any useful information for the design or cost estimate of the 96 drilled shafts required to support a bridge in the Columbia River. Drilled shafts will have a 10-foot diameter and be up to 250 feet long.
The IBR has $13 million worth of studies on the Columbia River’s bottom. The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) spent $12 million on geotechnical studies, test piles, and drilled shafts including:
Shannon and Wilson $6,283,675 Geotechnical services
Max J. Kuney. $4,753,313 Drilled shaft & pile tests
American Construction $828,508 Temporary pile test
Foundation Engineering $507,153 Geotechnical support
The IBR Program has spent an additional $1,046,369 on Shannon and Wilson for the “Geotechnical Data Report, Columbia River & North Portland Harbor Bridges, May 2024.” This 209-page report documents many boulders and cobbles that will make constructing 96 drilled shafts difficult and costly. This report was never released by the IBR and was only obtained with a Public Disclosure Request.
The U.S. DOT funded half of the $1.9 million contract with a Bridge Investment Grant of $1 million. Will the U. S. DOT trust the IBR to spend $2 billion in Federal construction grants?
IBR – Hayden Island Ground Improvement: https://www.interstatebridge.org/notifications/hayden-island-ground-improvement
IBR program awarded $1 million federal Bridge Investment Program grant: https://www.interstatebridge.org/resources/program-news/ibr-program-awarded-1-million-federal-bridge-investment-program-grant
Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program is hiding its ‘Geotechnical Data Report’:
Letter: ‘IBR’s seismic lie’:
The sand of Hayden Island supported the Jantzen Beach Big Dipper for 41 years, which was demolished in 1969.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle
Also read:
- 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. - Coast Guard approves fixed-span design for new Interstate Bridge
The U.S. Coast Guard has approved a fixed-span design for the new Interstate Bridge, clearing a major hurdle for the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. - Opinion: When fast feels slow
Doug Dahl explains why drivers often misjudge their speed, especially when using cruise control or transitioning from freeway to city streets. - Opinion: WSDOT secretary and I ‘obviously have very different definitions for the term cost-effective’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance sharply criticizes WSDOT Secretary Julie Meredith’s defense of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, arguing the escalating cost estimates undermine claims the project is cost-effective.
Thank you so much, Bob Ortblad! Please continue to publicly share your knowledge about this important issue. Your professional engineering experience needs to be spoken, heard, and heeded.
Billions of dollars are currently being wasted on a completely unsuitable bridge that even IBRP themselves have stated won’t fix traffic congestion, AND it does not comply with the USCG’s vertical height clearance REQUIREMENT for essential marine river traffic.
At an estimated and ongoing cost of up to $1,000,000 a day, it seems so strange that this IBRP proposed bridge is still being allowed to drag on! It just doesn’t make good sense to continue wasting all this money. Just as happened with the previous proposed CRC bridge, I think the work on this very similar proposed bridge needs to be paused or stopped for good.