The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program looks a lot like a rerun of the Columbia River Crossing. You remember that fiasco, don’t you? Some $175 million down the tubes with nothing accomplished.
The very name, “Bridge Replacement,” tells you there’s a problem. The name assumes the answer. Maybe what’s needed is a supplement, not a replacement, to the existing I-5 Bridge pair. That raises some questions. Is the pair safe as-is? Or do they need nothing more than a little hardening and some maintenance? Or are they so dangerous that they should be torn down tomorrow? This is an important issue, and the two states involved should hire the best bridge engineers in the country to inspect the bridge pair.
And is a bridge, either a replacement or a supplement, the right answer? How about a tunnel? Bridges tend to be cheaper than tunnels, and tunnels have their own problems. They require the right geology, and tunnels under a river require long lead roads. But modern tunnels can accept as much as six lanes of traffic, three each way, and they don’t interfere with river traffic. They should be considered.
The foregoing are, in the main, engineering issues. And they present geologic questions. Before we spend a lot of money on public hearings and special studies, we need to get the professionals involved.
