“Bridge replacement project.” That phrase contains two assumptions, neither of which can be justified.
There’s no doubt that communication between Portland and Vancouver needs to be improved, but does that necessarily mean another bridge? How about a tunnel? Admittedly tunnels tend to be more expensive than bridges, but a tunnel under the Columbia River would have advantages. It wouldn’t interfere with river traffic, it wouldn’t create an aviation hazard, and it might require less infrastructure improvements than would a new bridge. The feasibility of a tunnel is both an engineering and a geological question.
Next consider the word “replacement.” Why aren’t we using the word “supplement”? The northbound span was built in 1917 and greatly upgraded in 1958. The southbound span was built in 1958. Compared with the Brooklyn Bridge, built in 1883, and the Golden Gate Bridge, built in 1937, the I-5 bridges aren’t old. And they have functioned without a major incident or safety problem for 65 years. Admittedly they have faults, such as narrow lanes, but that’s no reason to scrap them.
Let’s not repeat the CRC debacle. We need to consider all options. Most of all, we need to get the professionals involved. And please, no more pretty pictures of imaginary bridges.
