A bridge to our future that could collapse

[Chief]

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/11968125549900.xml&coll=7

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

The Portland-Vancouver area recently participated in a federal disaster-preparedness drill in which the city of Portland saw fit, among other things, to rehearse the safe evacuation of house pets in response to an explosion on the Steel Bridge.

But a more realistic disaster-drill scenario for this area would simulate the effects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake -- magnitude 6.9 and lasting 15 seconds -- directly under the Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River. Then consider this: We could simulate that disaster by simply opening the existing lift spans on the bridge with no public notice and leaving them open for 24 hours, allowing the region to get a bitter taste of what Minneapolis is experiencing in the aftermath of last August's collapse of the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River. That would give the population of the entire region an immediate grasp of how serious a transportation problem we face and the urgent need that exists to replace the aging Interstate Bridge.

Meanwhile, Washington state is faced with its own unfolding transportation crisis as its Puget Sound car ferries have just been pulled from service for millions of dollars in emergency inspections and repairs to their deteriorating hulls. The state currently doesn't have the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be needed to replace the four vessels, which serve as the only public transportation available to many Puget Sound residents.

Which brings us back to the Columbia River Crossing project now deciding the future of the Interstate Bridge. The project could potentially face the same electoral fate as Washington's Proposition 1, the largest transportation tax package ever placed on a Washington ballot, which failed overwhelmingly in the Puget Sound area last month. The mass-transit options under consideration for the Columbia Crossing project continue to be forced upon taxpayers in Clark County when many of us see the transportation priorities in our state much differently than residents of Portland do, and there is a growing sense of frustration that the desires of the voting public are being ignored.

Many voices have called on the Clark County commissioners to sponsor a special election early next year to identify the bridge project's locally preferred alternative before any decision by the Columbia Crossing task force is finalized. And the commissioners are obligated to spell out just how they intend to ameliorate the additional costs to the 60,000-plus Clark County workers who are already paying significant taxes to TriMet and the state of Oregon and who face the grim prospect of being taxed even more to pay for a bridge option they oppose.

The potential crisis we all face -- in the aftermath of the Minneapolis bridge collapse and the unfolding crisis in the Washington State Ferries system -- should help us refocus on the issues at hand and help us consider how close we are to losing everything that's been accomplished so far if the Columbia Crossing task force and Clark County commissioners attempt to bypass voters over the issue of light rail and those voters ultimately respond by shutting the whole project down cold.

Bob Koski lives in Vancouver

[Waterbuffalo]

DOOOO! :-)

What ya doing up at 3am? Can't sleep like me?

Nice article from the oregonian...

[Chief]

"Chief, why is this published in the Oregonian instead of the columbian??"

An explanation is in order this morning because I am already hearing that question via e-mail.

I redrafted the oral comments I delivered to the CRCP Task Force last week, into a roughly 600 word essay in an OpEd format. In previous discussions with the local media, I was told 600 words is the largest article that could be considered, so I reworked my 850 word speech. I submitted it via e-mail to John Laird at the columbian with the proviso: "...and I look forward to any editorial suggestions you may have that will clarify my points and preserve my overall view."

It took only a few minutes for John Laird to respond, saying in part: "We are receiving an abundance of opinions from readers on the subject of the Columbia River Crossing project, and we have a severe backlog of unsolicited guest columns. The columbian welcomes your views on the subject, and if you can submit them in the form of a 200-word letter to the editor, we'll do our best to get it published." Considering the brief amount of time it took Laird to respond, I have reason to believe he didn't bother to even read my submission; he never got past the stated word count and simply rejected it.

I immediately turned around and submitted the same essay to the Oregonian, they responded the day before yesterday with their editorial suggestions, I approved them immediately; all of which lead to the publication of this piece today.

I think the entire situation can easily be understood by reading the columbian's "Letter" section today, and you will see whose regular uninformed opinions on the Columbia River Crossing the columbian really values. In addition, I submit that the very best way for the columbian to work that "...Severe backlog of unsolicited guest columns..." down is to start publishing some of them, on the outside chance that many of them have a better informed opinion than the columbian's favorite letter writer,<a href="http://clarkblog.org/index.php/topic,3358.msg12060.html#msg12060"> Kommander Kneecap</a>.

That's the backstory on this. I am very grateful to the Oregonian for helping get one Clark County civilian's voice out in front of the public.

Stout Hearts!!

Chief

[Waterbuffalo]

There's a backstory? Inquiring minds wanted to read the local "Inquirer" edition....

[Chief]

Adding a link to my original remarks...

<a href="http://clarkblog.org/index.php/topic,3352.0.htmll"> Remarks presented to the Columbia River Crossing Task Force, 11/27/07 </a>

[tefen]

Looks good. My only question is why are the two of you up before 4am reading newspapers!?

[Chief]

If you stay up with the Owls, you need to be ready to go scream with the Eagles...

;D

[Waterbuffalo]

Tefen, I see your account on here at 3am or earlier? Unless of course, you forgot to log out.

People should know that I am a night owl and do my best political nonsensical analysis while I am answering a plethora of email and many fine things. Plus I love to do my news gathering runs at 1am when local fire department loves to give me their fine reminder to clear an intersection of barely any traffic off 112th Avenue to get the scene of emergency.

Would LOVE to know what's up in that area to be coming at least once an hour by my bed and blare the horn.

Chief, if you need a place for a certain person to take care of them, can I suggest an asylum off 112th Avenue with a window open year round to make them even more crazy?

And to tefen again, you wonder what keeps me sane at 3am with this going on? :-) Turn on one of the CVTV channels and start taking notes..

[tefen]

I never log out, Sorry.

I think I've logged on maybe once or twice in the wee hours when I can't sleep.

[Waterbuffalo]

If you don't log out, that is why I am seeing your login name on the channels and forums while I am posting in the early wee morning hours.

[karma]

Did any of you read the recent reports about those of you that are night owls and your risk for cancer?? I'm sorry but I love my beauty sleep and know when to say sweet dreams on things of importance. One needs to learn to select their battles?? ;)

[Chief]

I wrote this piece before the rain started up North, so let's see if closing I-5 at Chehalis makes any impression on people down here. I realize that the Vancouver Chapter of CAVE would see nothing wrong with the Interstate bridges falling into the river, but I don't think this example is lost on everyone here in town, and certainly not out in the County.

Chehalis/Centralia residents have been flooded out three times now, and you have to wonder how much longer they will put up with this before they start raising hell about it...

[Waterbuffalo]

With the lack of news coverage for most of the members of Cave-IN, I don't think personally that really care?

They'd rather complain about how high there tax bill is and how unfair things are instead of finding solutions to the problems we have here in Vancouver.

Honestly, I hope a few people at the State government level roast awhile including a couple former governors for not getting that Chehalis section dealt with??? This problem has been going on longer than three times Chief. Its time we finally stood up and told some of the state government to get off their butts, stop spinning their chairs like little kids at the legislative and governors and find a solution.

Now what solutions could we come up with for that area near Chehalis? Probably the most expensive idea was one I heard from state senator Swecker for a 30 to 50 billion truck corridor to one of the cheapest at just a 30 million dollar to fix some leavees. Could we build another section of freeway that might either be higher or in another section that might be a cheaper solution to this?

To all of us here in Vancouver, looks like we're going to have to get our checkbooks out for this and the I-5 bridge.'

[Waterbuffalo]

Here is a nice economic article on the basics of what the I-5 closure at Chehalis River means..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004053482_stormecon05.html

[Chief]

Seriously, if anything exposes the soft white underbelly of the Washington Democrat Party, it's the endless transportation fiascos we've had in this state for years...

[Waterbuffalo]

So Chief, then tell me why the State Republican party can't win against this stupidity or find Good/qualified candidates?

[archangelrichard]

any bridge can collapse, as can there be obstructions along the corridor; which is why it makes more sense to work on a new corridor, not a new bridge.

That said, the Loma Prieta earthquake caused the damage it did because it hit at the precise correct angle and the waves were timed so they matched the bridge and freeways supports - the waves were as far apart as the pillars so ALL the pillars went up at the same time and ALL the pillars came down at the same time. The odds of that happening were infinitessimal, not impossible, so it was ignored during design (the alternative would be to use some randomness in the spacing for the support pillars - but tyhey would have to be significantly stronger and signiicantly more expensive to cover the infinitessimal chance of this kind of earthquake. The odds are like the odds of winning Mega Millions Jackpot.)

[Chief]

The reason I use Loma Preata as an example is because it rewrote the book on earthquake standards for structures such as the I-888 (Nimitz Freeway) that collapsed. The side to side ground movement was reported to range from 4-6 feet; and I cannot imagine the Interstate Bridge counterweight towers standing that kind of violent movement for any length of time, much less 15 seconds worth. The overall material condition of those bridges is such that I am not willing to leave them in place under any conditions.

I do not disagree that we need other corridors, but we simply cannot ignore Interstate 5. It makes no sense to me to continue to live with those bridges in the condition they are in, and continue to study them until they collapse as well. The I-35 span over the Mississippi River was rated 50 on the same scale that the Northbound Interstate span is rated a 5 on. It is irrational to ignore the potential serious liabilities those bridges present to Portland and Vancouver.

It is also senseless to deliberately stop all traffic on the main North South route for the West Coast, indiscriminately for river traffic. It doesn't matter when you open the spans, traffic is hammered for hours afterward, if it recovers at all.

ODOT is about to commence the long awaited repairs of Delta Park, and that will help traffic flow immensely. I realize that the next jam is at the Freemont Bridge, and at the Rose Quarter after that, and the Terwilliger curves after that...

We will never solve all of the backups on I-5, but we can eliminate the worst of them, and manage traffic as effectively as we can. Spending billions on light rail as part of the Columbia Crossing bridge replacement makes no sense to me either, especially if it results in a 35 MPH commute down Interstate Avenue.

We need a replacement bridge for I-5, and a new bridge up around 192nd as well, especially if it results in a new corridor East of I-205. What I don't think we need is light rail on the Columbia Crossing, and we Clark County voters don't need to rush into anything on the advice of either Trimet, Portland's Metro, or the North Portland Alternative 14 Resurrection Society...

Again, follow my simple example, and open both lift spans with no prior notice, and leave them up for 24 hours; then tell us again why we should continue to live with those bridges the way they are. Or better yet, consider what Chehalis and Centrailia just went through for the third time...

[Waterbuffalo]

"Again, follow my simple example, and open both lift spans with no prior notice, and leave them up for 24 hours; then tell us again why we should continue to live with those bridges the way they are. Or better yet, consider what Chehalis and Centrailia just went through for the third time..."


Or consider Highway 26 that on the coast near Vernonia that was flooded out.

Chief, those were good examples. Like John Mckibbon said on one of his speeches during a CREDC luncheon, "Nothing will change until enough pain is applied to the situation." in reference to a no build option during a discussion of tolls on the I-5 bridges.

[archangelrichard]

You both insist on making my case for me. ANY bridge can fall down. Even a new I-5 bridge. If we "follow my simple example, and open both lift spans with no prior notice," we have the effect of losing the new I-5 bridge to the same earthquake; all you have to lose is 1 piece just like the San Francisco Bay Bridge did in the Loma Prieta quake (OK, I was there; it's I-880 alias the old California 17 made famous in Arthur Hailey's novel "Wheels", its old though not as old as the I-5 bridge, very heavy use by trucks and very special circumstances hit it with about the same odds as your winning Mega Millions Jackpot. As Douglas Adams says "Don't Panic)

What we need is a new corridor, a new bridge elsewhere. A new corridor that takes traffic OFF of I-5, I-405, US 26, etc.

Then build a replacement in the existing corridor while you can temporarily redirect traffic to the new bridge, end up with 2 corridors. This isn't a no build, its a smart build; build what will do the most good for the money first

Light rail ...if you don't construct it as a part of the bridge it costs a whole lot more to add it later; light rail should be viewed as adding more capacity to the bridge (I.E. consider it the same as adding more lanes) especially useful if it goes all the way into downtown portland. View my post in a new thread on why do you call it loot rail for more

and the eastside is the wrong place for a new bridge in that (1) you don't have the population to support it and (2) it's the more expensive place to put one because of terrain. Camas, washougal; small towns off the beaten path, and you want to move traffic from SR 14 to I-84 basically, a no-win situation. The problem is I-5 corridor traffic (think Seattle to Los Angeles) as well as Clark county / Cowlitz / etc. to downtown portland

This fixation on the I-5 bridge is holding us back from a discussion on the total transportation needs which is exactly what the big money downtown interestswant, it's in their interest not clark county's citizens; it's a side issue being pushed by certain interests to be the main issue in total disregard of all other interests

[Chief]

Once again from the top Dick, and with emphasis:

Any proposal that leaves the existing Interstate bridges intact, for any reason, is dead on arrival at the Washington State Line.

Sharon Nassett has been pushing this concept for years, and continues to attempt to redifine the BIA, instead of catching up with current events. Looks like you follow that line of thinkig, and good for you!

The purpose of this editorial was to provide a Clark County perspective of things. Sorry that doesn't jive with your views, but your're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm backing off a single syllable of what I said in this OpEd.

[Waterbuffalo]

"and the eastside is the wrong place for a new bridge in that (1) you don't have the population to support it and (2) it's the more expensive place to put one because of terrain. Camas, washougal; small towns off the beaten path, and you want to move traffic from SR 14 to I-84 basically, a no-win situation. The problem is I-5 corridor traffic (think Seattle to Los Angeles) as well as Clark county / Cowlitz / etc. to downtown portland"

I do have a problem with part of this statement. Where is most of the new building of Clark County going to be? If you have been following the discussions between the City of Vancouver and Clark County governments, they are planning a huge massive increase of population north and central areas between Camas, NE Vancouver (orchard area and NW Camas) and north central Vancouver that includes minehaha, 78th street, 99th street, Padden expressway and many other ears in between there near 134th street that have not been developed.

There are some areas along I-5 that can be redeveloped like Highway 99 but for the most part most of the areas you describe on the west side are all ready developed out or are included in the UGA and most of these areas of the west side of Vancouver also don't have the population to support light rail at this current moment.


I'll agree with one sentence you posted above, I-5 between Los Angeles and Seattle is a nightmare in many areas outside of the metropolitan areas, think Redding, Salem, Portland, Vancouver, Eugene-Springfield, Sacramento. The problem is that either building Light Rail or more lanes for traffic is still going to be a bundle of cash.

If you look at the I-5 bridges at the ages they are at, some thing needs to be done with them, no matter if we have our squabbles about Light Rail or more lanes along the current infrastructure.

"What we need is a new corridor, a new bridge elsewhere. A new corridor that takes traffic OFF of I-5, I-405, US 26, etc.

Then build a replacement in the existing corridor while you can temporarily redirect traffic to the new bridge, end up with 2 corridors. This isn't a no build, its a smart build; build what will do the most good for the money first"

If I look at your first statement in this sentence, the history of Vancouver will not allow a new bridge over Vancouver Lake. Do you know how hard the Port of Vancouver is having with the environmentalists and bird watchers about expanding the port in this area? Richard, you can take it to the bank that there is no way in hell that your going to get a bridge built over or on one of the last great areas of Clark County that hasn't been overbuilt with a lot of housing.

Add to this fact, in the 1996 flood of Vancouver lake, it came up to Fruit Valley Road in many different areas and took many businesses out. If you think the Federal government is going to allow someone to build a bridge or corridor through a flood plain, your crazy..

[archangelrichard]

Waterbuffalo: Please look at a map. The areas you talk about for new building are not significantly east of 205; orchards is basically at 205 or north, Battle Ground is north, and the rest of the growth is WEST of that; only the camas area is east of that and it's not that big even when grown. Further, where would you build a bridge to? what is the destination? This whole thing makes no transportation sense.

You make the comment that "most of these areas of the west side of Vancouver also don't have the population to support light rail at this current moment." what does this refer to? Who said it does? Where? I said "Light rail ...if you don't construct it as a part of the bridge it costs a whole lot more to add it later; light rail should be viewed as adding more capacity to the bridge" what does that have to do with putting light rail in "these areas of the west side of Vancouver"

You say "If I look at your first statement in this sentence, the history of Vancouver will not allow a new bridge over Vancouver Lake." Actually the freeway would be through the south side, elevated, and climb to cross the columbia. Vancouver will build it - at some time - if only because there is no other way. Building a new I-5 bridge does not add any lanes through downtown portland or around it; and THAT is the need. To that transportation need, a new I-5 bridge is a luxury (alright, I think it is a very urgent luxury but a logically, mathematically, it is a luxury nonetheless.)

And you speak of "the Federal government is going to allow someone to build a bridge or corridor through a flood plain," Guess what? The Columbia River is the flood plain; ANY BRIDGE IS A BRIDGE THROUGH A FLOOD PLAIN! DUH! Do you read your own comments? With one like this, I sincerely doubt it.

[Chief]

Once again from the top Dick, and with emphasis:

Any proposal that leaves the existing Interstate bridges intact, for any reason, is dead on arrival at the Washington State Line.

Sharon Nassett has been pushing this concept for years, and continues to attempt to redifine the BIA, instead of catching up with current events. Looks like you follow that line of thinkig, and good for you!

The purpose of this editorial was to provide a Clark County perspective of things. Sorry that doesn't jive with your views, but your're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm backing off a single syllable of what I said in this OpEd.

[karma]

To leave the old bridge in place is stupid if it's unsafe? But again I still don't see how they are going to put the new one in without taking the old one out and the height is what concerns me with the gorge winds???

[tefen]

Karma, I think they bulldoze the Inn at the Quay, build the new bridge there, route traffic onto it, then destroy the old bridge.

As for height and gorge winds... The I-205 bridge is high enough not to be a lift span, and it's even closer to the gorge. So that concern has been addressed before, right?

[Chief]

Updating...

I'm very pleased to say that I just got back from meeting Mayor Pollard for a cup of coffee and a good conversation Downtown. We spent about 45 minutes discussing a number of things, mainly issues surrounding the columbia crossing Project, and my thoughts about it in this OpEd, and the oral comments I delivered to the Task Force.

I did not take notes, because this was not an interview. I'm not going to divulge the things we talked about, instead I will say that it was a productive conversation, and I am very glad to tak to the Mayor on a one to one basis like that. He and I share a number of concerns, and realize that while we disagree on some things, we both recognize the things we do see eye to eye on...

I'm still waiting for a reply from the County....

[Waterbuffalo]

Well I think its time i stepped foot in the hallowed halls of the County and see how things are going on down there. Might be interesting to see what Steve has to say..

[archangelrichard]

Lets all say the following holy mantra "Any proposal that leaves the existing Interstate bridges intact, for any reason, is dead on arrival at the Washington State Line." All praise the holy bridge

actually, I never said that; I said it shouldn't be the #1 priority. (a) replacing that bridge builds not one more lane of traffic in the corridor (b) that corridor has to cross 2 rivers which means that in an earthquake you have to worry about at least 2 bridges collapsing, not one.

You shouldn't refer to the Loma Prieta earthquake without knowing what actually happened.
1. on the Bay Bridge one end of a section of roadway fell to the lower level. It was designed to happen this way. They are called expansion joints for a reason.
2. further inland on I-880 (the old California 17 - Nimitz freeway) sections of the upper deck fell (pancaked) onto the lower deck. This took very special circumstances.
First the earthquake had to happen exactly where it did - 5 miles north or south and the angle would have been different.
Second, the frequency of the waves had to be exactly the distance of the support pillars, no faster or slower.
What happened to the freeway was that all the pillars went up and down in unison; bouncing the freeway sections like a bunch of trampolines except concrete does not bounce or flex, it cracks and breaks. IF the angle had been different the pillars would have risen and fallen individually which would have tilted the sections but not bounced them. If the frequency had been different, again you would have tilted the sections back and forth but not stressing them in the middle. The odds that an earthquake happening as it did where it did are astronomical; like those or your winning mega millions.

A better comparison, and closer to home, would be Mount Saint Helens, 1980. This raises questions like how much damage was done to the bridge by that earthquake and eruption, and I would guess that it has been examined many times in the ensuing 27 years. Mount Saint Helens was a 5.1; do you understand what that means? It means that a 6.9 happening here is extremely unlikely as before that much pressure can build it would be released much as leaving a light lid on a pot of boiling water will have the water nudge the lid off a bit and release rather than a heavy tight lid which contains the pressure until enough builds to launch the lid across the room.

Seriously, if you aren't going to objectively examine the facts, why blog? why not just announce to the world that you are the anointed one and this holy bridge must be built as you wish. If youdo have facts, like a damage report on the bridge from 1980 that shows serious damage that closed the bridge which would justify your fears, lets se it (anyone remember it closing for repairs? I thought not)

There is a forest and trees issue here; the forest is the transportation needs of a metro area of well ovr a million people over many square miles, the tree is one bridge. Right now all our eggs are in that one basket (I-205 notwithstanding) and that is a far more dangerous scenario because you have a whole corridor for accidents to happen that could close that corridor. It's not a bridge to our future, it,s a corridor to our future.

[LouisWu]

Time's up. Say goodby Dick.

[karma]

Richard, what a fitting photo! :D
Louis, thank you!!

[Chief]

Louis took out the trash, and the ass-hat is my contribution....I've never been accused of religious extremism over a civil engineering project before, so I think this one deserved a nice going away present for coming up with one that neither louis or I have ever heard before. And believe me, between us we have heard just about everything that internet trolls have to offer...

Looks like a good fit too!

;D

[Waterbuffalo]

Oh well.. Some one will come back and do that again probably real soon.