In response to Bob Ortblad’s letter, “Tunnel would be safer than bridge” (Our Readers’ Views, Aug. 24), thank goodness they didn’t choose a tunnel.
With the Columbia River navigable depth of 27 feet at the Interstate 5 Bridge and upriver, a tunnel roadway would have to be at least 75 feet under mean low tide by my estimates. That would create approaches much greater than 2.7 percent. The tunnel would be totally shaded, with water draining into it from its approaches and freezing for longer periods since coldest air would accumulate in the tunnel.
All accidents are horrific, but one can’t drive faster than conditions allow. Anyone who is sliding in the snow and ice is driving too fast. Some studded tires and/or chains are appropriate under such adverse road conditions.
As for the I-5 Bridge replacement, I worry that replacing six lanes with six lanes won’t make anything better. And, are we giving condemnation powers to an out-of-state entity because of Multnomah County’s light rail addition? I fear that light rail is the only reason the bridge is being replaced. Because of that, you can say goodbye to downtown Vancouver.
