🎧 Is the IBR’s New Bridge Actually More Dangerous?
Bob Ortblad believes the IBR’s proposed bridge will be more dangerous than the existing bridge
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
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Bob Ortblad
The Washington State Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Transportation both have a “state safety engineer.” Both of these engineers have Ph.D.’s and years of experience. On June 7, 2026, I sent them an email requesting a professional engineering opinion on the safety of the design of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s (IBR) bridge and approaches.
Zero response!
The IBR claims its new bridge will be safer than the current bridge. I believe it will be more dangerous.
- Most dangerous will be the Vancouver bridge approach. Cars and trucks driving north will descend a tight S-curve on a north-facing -3% grade that will frequently be wet or covered with black ice. Vancouver has 175 rainy/snowy days annually and 156 potential frost days, which can lead to black ice.
- Existing bridge approaches are on the ground, but the IBR bridge approaches will be elevated for about 1,500 feet on both banks, making black ice more frequent and dangerous.
- Two existing cloverleafs have safe grades, with down for entering the freeway and up for exiting the freeway. The IBR design is reversing these safe grades to a dangerous down for off and up for on. IBR’s off-ramp to SR-14 will also be very steep with a tight curve.
- Seven months a year, IBR’s Bridge will have crosswind gusts of over 50mph that can blow over a semi-truck, RV, or travel trailer.
The IBR fraudulently disqualified a safer immersed tunnel alternative that would have no S-curve and be weather protected. An immersed tunnel would also be less costly (eliminates the need for 96 costly drilled shafts and 1,775 temporary piles). An immersed tunnel could be built faster (fabricated on land, less dependent on in-water work window), would be more earthquake-resilient, reduce freeway noise and elevated freeway blight, and preserve the current bridges (saving $390 million in demolition) for local traffic.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle
Also read:
- Opinion: Supreme Court Position 7 – Will they guard the dam, or let the tax flood through?
Four candidates compete for the seat that will likely decide the fate of Washington’s new state income tax. - Opinion: Democrat Charter commissioners vote against Charter amendments that support affordable housing, wait what?
Rob Anderson calls out Clark County Democrats for opposing two Charter amendments he says would have advanced affordable housing. - Letter: Local politicians have ignored repeated votes against light rail and a county resolution opposing light rail
Clark County voters rejected light rail in 2012 and again passed a 68% advisory vote against it in 2013 — but the fight continues. - Letter: ‘Our local leaders should be advocating and making those opportunities countywide to translate into housing opportunities for our veterans’
A Clark County Army veteran argues HUD-VASH vouchers fail veterans when landlords countywide won’t accept them. - Opinion: C-TRAN outpaces TriMet – Strong finances and growing ridership, but a cautionary note on costs and efficiency
C-TRAN’s farebox recovery has dropped from 17% in 2017 to just 4.2% in 2025, even as reserves top $201 million.
wpDiscuz
