Brush Prairie resident Bob Mattila doesn’t favor light rail, but he says if we can’t have a new I-5 Bridge without it, it should be put on the newer existing bridge
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
If we are ever going to get a new I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River, we need to start using some common sense in designing it. The biggest problem, I think, is the pipe dream of putting light rail on it. I don’t favor light rail, but if we can’t have a new bridge without it, put it on the newer existing bridge, the southbound one, or on the railroad bridge, a mile downriver.
The Coast Guard wants a clearance of 178 feet. The Federal Aviation Administration, (the two airports), wants 116 feet maximum height. Anything higher would make it too steep for light rail. The 178 feet might conflict with the airplane traffic from the two airports on both sides of the river. Leave the light rail off and try to get the Coast Guard and the airports to compromise with maybe 150 feet, or something similar.
Almost everything we do consists of compromises, so it’s time to make some reasonable compromises to get the bridge built, or it will never get done. I-5 veers to the east on both sides of the river so build the first new bridge on the east side. First build one bridge wide enough for five lanes. Then remove the existing northbound bridge, using the new bridge for the Northbound traffic, and build the second, (Southbound), bridge in its place with five lanes.
Bob Mattila
Brush Prairie
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.
Bob –
Interesting.
Regarding “The Federal Aviation Administration, (the two airports), wants 116 feet maximum height. Anything higher would make it too steep for light rail. The 178 feet might conflict with the airplane traffic from the two airports on both sides of the river.”
The top of the current bridges is above 200 feet, and the FAA doesn’t have a problem with the current bridge height.
Just a thought.
Research the tunnel from Denmark to Germany. And the numerous other bridge projects in Denmark. Why is it so expensive in Washington/Oregon to get a relatively small bridge built? Honest question. Just would love an explanation.
We do NOT need to replace this existing bridge so long as Portlandia REFUSES to make the required upgrades to it’s currently inadequate highway system. What’s really needed is a NEW bridge east of the current 205 bridge and maybe a NEW bridge south of the Longview bridge. Portlandia is the problem, NOT the bridge.