America’s $7.5 BILLION Battle To Rebuild A Collapsing Bridge

[@jonrau5988]

Two bridges aren't enough Columbia river crossings for the Portland/ Vancouver region. Adding one between Troutdale and Camas and another between West Vancouver and Scappoose would give the area more crossing options, which would spread the traffic load over a larger area, and provide more chances that a connection would remain after an earthquake.

[@TheWokeWarlock]

^^^ THIS!!! As someone who has lived in Washington and Oregon (except that 1 year I lived in California which we won’t talk about) for my entire life, currently live outside Vancouver Washington, and have traveled this bridge my entire life.. (I am 43 for reference)… I have been saying they need a crossing at Scappoose and at Troutdale!! Also they need to run the MAX over the I-5 and 205 bridges. Finally, someone with the same thought process 👍🏼

[@geoffreyallison1560]

Yes EXACTLY! - Thank you so much! Your right.

[@rick4580]

@@jonrau5988 Sounds great except that building a 3rd bridge would require building a 3rd freeway, which would probably cost something like $50 billion, if not more. And it still wouldn't solve the problem that the I5 bridge is about to fall into the Columbia.

[@cheese-qw9vd]

If vantuckians didn't clog the roads, we wouldn't need another bridge. #tollwashington

[@TheWokeWarlock]

@@rick4580 bridges and freeways are not mutually exclusive…. What are you on about?!? Only 2 of the bridges, out of like 10 bridges, crossing the Willamette, are freeways. This is a strange comment to me. There are great spots to put in bridges. They could even go harder in my opinion. Build one at 164th, one at 192nd, and one at Camas where the 14 swoops onto Lady Island. The other direction could use more than just the Scappoose bridge as well, But Scappoose and either Camas or 192nd seem the most viable and logical next steps.

[@jackfrost8439]

Oregon and Washington have spent enough money studying and bickering over the bridge it could have been built and paid for by now. Politics rules once again.

[@johnjay5143]

Back when it was 1/10'th the price .

[@OxbigMr]

Exactly, it is so pathetic the way our politicians have butchered this and cost our area billions.

[@yogidemis8513]

This engineer guy who's been building bridges for years, came up with a solution for way less and Washington and Oregon told him to get lost, they ain't looking for a solution that will cost less, they want it to cost as much as possible so they can have a reason to raise taxes, fees or whatever!!

[@rick4580]

@@yogidemis8513 Does this engineer guy have a name? I'd be interested to see his plan.

[@nikij.6058]

Absolutely. It’s disgusting!

[@pauldavis1943]

WA now has a 10 billion dollar budget gap. Bridge will be replaced when it falls into the Columbia River

[@cydkriletich6538]

Sadly, yes. Just like seriously needed traffic control signals, such as Stop signs at dangerous intersections. It seems people always have to die first. Then the signal or new bridge finally is in place. Too little too late for the dead.

[@booterone1]

sleezy spent all the funds on his pet projects and left the southern and eastern sides of the state holding an empty bag

[@elwoodblues9613]

I was a lifelong Californian, then moved to Free America when the Bay Area embraced Fascist tyranny. And I can remember two precedents to @pauldavis1943 's statement: the Bay Bridge's roadway and I-880 in West Oakland that collapsed in the 1989 earthquake, and another earthquake causing the Santa Monica Freeway in LA to collapse. All three were fixed within two years, the Oakland one was replaced entirely. No one drowned, but if this interstate bridge was to see a collapse, vehicles and people WILL drown. This is not the time to say "I'm voting to halt this bridge project until you do 'this'."

[@consco3667]

The Democrats have done us dirty in WA

[@Trag-zj2yo]

Politicians are more interested in posturing than effective decision making. In the process wasting millions on endless studies.

[@pdxyyz4327]

Add solar power, and windmills, and make sure it forces the overpriced MAX system on Vancouver WA. The I-205 bridge is a good design use that as a starting point.

@@pdxyyz4327 Yes, 205 is a common design they use out East along I-95.

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ please somebody tell me how much has been spent on the bridge studies and how much went to things unrelated to the bridge

[@rick4580]

@@Trag-zj2yo The bridge would have been finished years ago if Clark county hadn't voted against it the last time. And do you know what WSDOT did with the funds that they would have used to build the CRC if Clark county hadn't voted against it? They rebuilt SR520 and the Evergreen Point bridge instead.

[@rick4580]

@@pdxyyz4327 Are we gonna do it again where the bridge has to be exactly the way a vocal and unreasonable few want it or else? Cause their lack of sensible compromise is the only reason those studies got wasted without a bridge built.

[@platt0701]

The problem is that the proposed new 7.5 billion dollar bridge doesn't make traffic any better. The propasal has 3 lines North and 3 lines South.....the exact same as the old bridge! Make the bridge so it can handle fuure traffic needs!

Currently it's a draw bridge which allows ships and barges to pass by - It can take up to 20min in traffic to get through that one bridge. Yes, 4 lanes would be nicer as they have 4 lanes on I-5 going to Sacramento and Stockton. Portland need open lanes that allow traffic like the 205 in East Portland or 295 in Jacksonville, FL. In real life, Portland doesn't have very many freeways as Oakland even though it does have the industry and hills to move around.

[@jimwjohnq.public]

3 NB & 3 SB lanes of which 54% will be dedicated to light rail, buses, bicycles & pedestrians.

[@joshhancock3163]

The bridge is also adding lines for the max, as well as significant improvements for bikers and pedestrians. I cant remember, but it also may include dedicated right of ways for bus transportation as well. Having these additional modes will offer alternative methods to driving to decrease traffic

[@paamodt7170]

And it doesn't address the bottleneck at the 405 & 84 interchanges

[@owenthornhill9671]

More lanes only cause induced demand, including light rail, which will get thousands of cars off the bridge per day. We need alternatives to car's for transport

[@mikewilkinson4588]

Im assuming that studying the problem makes alot more money than building a new bridge.....

[@shanewelch8616]

Tell us you don’t know what an environmental study is 😂

[@victoryrider]

It's easier for politicians to say they're working on getting things done. That way they have to keep getting reelected. Ifvthey actually did anything they wouldn't have anything to run on

[@gavincurtis]

Humans make great progress until politicians get involved.

[@bradford65]

Yeah, we need a king.

[@makingtechsense126]

Most people don't have a problem with replacing the bridge, the problem is that certain factions keep ballooning the project by forcing in their pet projects and agendas which add billions to the cost.

[@epa316]

It’s extra fun being parked on the I-5 while they lift this antiquated old relic to allow a ship to pass. It gives us about 20 minutes to sit motionless and reflect on why this bridge wasn’t already replaced.

[@aaronatwood9298]

As someone who lives in Clark County. We don't want light rail. Portland horrendous crime ride that light rail. We want 4-5 lanes each way. The Columbia river crossing, we voted no because of the light rail and no maximum cost. We don't want tolls, this isn't the east coast. Your "bottleneck" is the last on and off ramps with no weave lanes. But the true bottleneck is further south through Portland where I5 is at 2 lanes each direction. What needs to happen is bridges be built from Ridgefield to Hwy 30 and another bridge from Sr14 to I84 in Camas or Washougal. But what do I know, I only travel those bridges every day.

[@justincase2291]

At a "modest" $3.00 the people that cross the bridge for work every day will have to pay around $1600.00 a year to go back and forth to work. Let's dwell on that "modest" amount. I'm already hearing $18.00 to $20.00 from some people. Toll's are unfair to the people that use it the most.

[@Markmedina75]

Add income tax to that and you can see how Washingtonians working in Oregon get hammered.

[@justincase2291]

@@Markmedina75 How they got around taxation without representation I haven't figured out.

[@mikebrase5161]

I crossed that bridge everyday for 15 years. So glad I moved away.

[@TR-zx1lc]

Another key point is the relative placement of the swing-span on the Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 9.6 is aligned with the lift span of the Interstate Bridge, both close to the WA shoreline, despite the tallest part of the Interstate Bridge being near the middle of the river. Due to the two bridges being relatively close together in terms of navigation, there are many times when a vessel that could easily pass under the middle of the Interstate Bridge, must instead use the lift span, due to the difficulty of maneuvering from the center of the river, to the extreme Northern side of it, in a fairly short distance. This is especially important for larger barges. Therefore, it is crucial to replace the BNR Bridge as well.

[@smachendree]

Oregon has waisted almost $100mil on this plan for decades. It's been a cashcow for "visionary's" and vanity project for the Portland mayors that come and go, and a city council that can't find their buts with both hands! No matter what they come up with, the cost, there's no room to get around the Mota Center, city exists, and connections to I-84 [one of the worst stretches of road on all of l-5. Just getting the new bridge started on the Washington side will mean tearing up 1/2 a neighborhood and a dozen or so office/ businesses. There's a chunk of change!

[@opheliadeclines]

Oregon needs it like a fish needs a bicycle. But Washington needs it!

[@timothyhayes2935]

Stunned that Oregon has dysfunction.

[@rick4580]

@@smachendree Oregon doesn't need this bridge, Clark county does. And Clark county needs to wake up to that fact. Otherwise, keep playing games like you're doing here and like happened last time and Clark county can spend the rest of their lives sitting in traffic while Oregon DGAF. Just sayin

[@backroadsofeasternwashington]

@@rick4580the traffic snarl is on the Oregon side

[@cheese-qw9vd]

Because OREGON wants it and WASHINGTON keeps fuckin it up because they dont think theu cause traffic when they do EVERYDAY. WASHINGTONIANS caused this issue. #tollwashington

[@TASTEGROUND]

a bridge that old and still standing is incredible

[@johnorenick9026]

Yeah. Engineers expecrt 50-60 years out of a bridge built with Portland cement. Remember the millions spent repairing the Interstate bridge 20-odd years ago, and rebuilding the Burnside more recently? Throw enough money at it, and you can keep anything standing.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

Funny all the traffic is on the Portland side. North bound traffic breaks up as you pass the threshold of the bridge. I think before any bridge gets built Portland needs to get the traffic flow fixed with more direct lanes and less merging lanes on the I5 corridor. With three left, right, left merges creates terrible bottlenecks. New bridges will do nothing to address this. Whoever designed the freeways through Portland probably died while stuck in Portlands traffic jams.

[@chugwaterjack4458]

One of the chief 1986 ODOT designers of the interchange on the south end of the current bridge didn't even have a drivers license.

[@platedlizard]

That because most of the traffic is from Washington commuters going too and from work. There's not much congestion in the morning on the Portland side, but there is on the Washington side. The congestion on the Portland side happens during the evening rush hour, when Vancouver residents are going home.

[@CommonSense823]

@@platedlizardit has nothing to do with where the traffic is coming or going. It has to do with an on ramp right at the start of the bridge and a bridge that has to be to step to see what’s ahead of you. Everyone jams on their breaks until they get to the crown of the bridge and sees there is no reason to slow down.

[@rick4580]

@@patrickradcliffe3837 The bridge and the tight merges from the adjacent ramps are the bottlenecks. They are what all freeways looked like back in 1960s. The bridge replacement will include auxiliary lanes that will fix this problem.

[@HuskyKMA]

That's because the bridge isn't the cause of the traffic problems, it's Portland's terribly designed off/on ramps.

[@sonofrobert]

The Army Corp of Engineers hasn't even approved the design..lol

[@Nonyabiz69]

Let's hope they won't because the IBR is a retarded designed.

[@davidrahrich3404]

Ikr, nothing should even be on design unless it can accommodate maritime traffic.

[@evan8654]

Walking over this bridge is terrifying, the path is very narrow and you can really feel it flex with all the heavy trucks.

[@CBECK73]

We don't need a state of the art bridge. Just a safe simple span is all we need .

[@Gigi-xr3qs]

homeless housing in incorporated into the bridge?

[@beaumartin4438]

@@Gigi-xr3qs They'd love that. They're trying to turn Vancouver into homeless housing.

[@kennydings3879]

They are studying your comment right now 😂

[@engineeringoyster6243]

For every government official involved in this project, it will be a once in a lifetime project. So they are all motivated to make it impressive, fancy and pretty.

[@rongroth]

“Safe, simple span…” Watch the lawsuits fly when a bridge built on the cheap falls into the river.

It is amazing the third bridge that takes you from Oregon to Washington near I-5 is the Lewis and Clark Bridge an hour North along Highway 30. Wow.

[@310McQueen]

The "Ranier Bridge" if you live in Washington, or "The Longview Bridge" if you live in Oregon. :D This bridge is itself over 90 years old.

[@rickr2837]

@@310McQueen And it is not at all convenient. Getting to/from I-5 via the Longview/Ranier bridge involves travelling US30, a two-lane road with many slowings due to towns and villages. And...if you get behind a vehicle that feels 35-40 mph is quite fast enough, good luck finding a safe place to pass.

[@Bobyoudontneeemyname]

@@rickr2837uh no, people drive that entire route 60+ mph everyday

[@chrismcfarland738]

Don’t replace it. Add to it! Too much commerce is reliant on one bridge. If that goes down, we’re screwed.

[@furthereast6775]

It's the politics and bureaucracy. I worked on the previous failed effort. For what they spent on meetings and studies, other more rational local governments have actually built bridges.

[@rick4580]

@@furthereast6775 the previous effort failed because the people in Clark county voted that they prefer sitting in traffic. No other reason.

[@MarvinThiessen]

@@rick4580 They wisely said NO to light rail, I don't blame them. Portland has a woody for light rail, minus armed security of course.

[@CommonSense823]

@@rick4580you are on a string of the most uneducated and unintelligent takes on this subject. By all means, keep going.

[@freetorobandloot]

Why the f does it cost $7.5 billion to build this thing? This goes to show how stupidly inefficient, slow and expensive infrastructure projects in the usa are. Just look at the CA high speed rail. From inception to completion will take more than 3 decades. Just unbelievable!

[@SynchroScore]

Would be a lot faster and cheaper without all the people suing to stop the project from proceeding.

[@platedlizard]

Because Washington state keeps kicking its heels and screaming even though they need this bridge more than Oregon

[@CommonSense823]

@@platedlizardBecause Oregon politicians demand light rail be included, even though nobody wants it except the politicians who stand to get the kickbacks for demanding it be included.

[@RCenal]

More than likely some of that money is going to politicians pockets

[@johntrottier1162]

Oregon state legislature and the Portland city government have been trying to ram this bridge down the throats of Vancouver residents for something like the last 20 years. They have spent millions in taxpayer dollars in publicity campaigns and endless studies. So why is this project so hard? Because Oregon and Portland have invested millions upon millions into a light rail system that was supposed to solve the traffic congestion problems on I-5, I-205 and Highway 26. It failed utterly to reduce congestion and cannot even break even with it's fares, instead becoming another drain on the tax base. In addition, once committed to light rail, Oregon stopped any meaningful form of freeway expansion, even in the face of expanding suburban sprawl, and just made a bad congestion problem even worse. So Oregon insists on including a massive light rail component in the bridge design and putting Washington tax payers on the hook for "future costs". They keep using the old argument that we don't need more lanes on the bridge because light rail will prevent congestion. On the Washington side of the river, we have watched this light rail project stumble and bumble for over 30 years. We have seen that light rail has never lived up to the hype. We know this is just another boondoggle. We have no wish to see our tax dollars be sucked into that black hole. Until a bridge is designed to accommodate Washington's needs as well as Oregon's we will fight the project tooth and nail.

[@Bobyoudontneeemyname]

Then pay for it all yourselves.

[@rongroth]

If Oregon wants light rail, they can pay for it and put a train station in the middle of the bridge at the end of the line. Both sides would then be happy.

[@johntrottier1162]

I guess I need to add some extra information. Oregon does not just want to run light rail into Vancouver and put an end terminus there. They want Washington to start funding at mid-span and then build out a complete light rail system in Clark county. When complete that system would require billions of Washington tax payer money to build, but then the plans require that the ENTIRE light rail system (including the Washington side) be controlled by Metro in Portland. So Portland Metro would decide what part of the budget Clark county needs to pay, and Clark county would not have enough political juice to say NO. That should make things a little clearer as to how a bridge could cost so much. The size of the bill Washington residents would have to pay is simply stated as "to be determined"

[@Apes_love_BMX]

This is all true. I live in Oregon and can't stand the Lite Rail agenda.

[@CommonSense823]

@@Bobyoudontneeemyname Refund the income taxes Washington residents pay and see how that works out for Oregon.

[@loganrowland6978]

The main problem with the I5 bridge traffic is you have and offramp and on ramps that all stop or start basically right on the bridge. If you moved or got rid of those on and off ramps pretty sure traffic would clean up and straighten out pretty good. Steel guirder bridges are a stupid idea have to repaint them every other year thats a horrible idea.

[@motor2of7]

$7.5B is absurd

[@hollowaang5284]

Politicians dump 4 times that amount to promote their political campaigns.

[@platedlizard]

For a bridge that important it really isn't

[@motor2of7]

@ the Gerald Desmond bridge in LA Harbor was recently built for $1.5B. Yes, 7.5B is absurd.

[@CommonSense823]

@@platedlizardlook at what the Glenn Jackson bridge cost. It’s absurd.

[@RCenal]

​@@platedlizard Yeah it is

[@pnachtwey]

The real bottleneck is in Portland where I5 narrows to 2 lanes each way.

[@robgronotte1]

That's in a very dense area which would be really tough to expand and require knocking down tons of buildings.

[@jordivarela7160]

“Just one more lane bro. That’ll fix traffic. Just bulldoze these homes and spaces and we’ll finally fix traffic!!!!!”

[@hollowaang5284]

​@@jordivarela7160 It's gonna have to happen sooner or later.

[@CommonSense823]

@@jordivarela7160you’re so right. It makes so much sense to have more lanes in Woodburn than in Portland where two interstate freeways intersect. 🙄

[@jordivarela7160]

@@CommonSense823 Take a look at any other highway in any other state. The only meaningful way to reduce traffic is to encourage alternatives to driving. Mega highways haven’t worked because cars will fill them up no matter what. And it also increases maintenance costs the more lanes that are built.

[@charleshof6394]

No bought there is a need to replace or add to the ability to handle more traffic. One of the things not addressed in this video is residents that live or work on Hayden Island & Jantzen Beach. Some 5,000 people live on both sides of the current bridges.

[@smachendree]

Not only does l-5 bridge needs replacing, but there's only 2 bridges west of I-5 all the way to the coast and going east to Glenn Jackson Bridge, it's more than 60 miles to the next bridge, and it's 2 lane, no double axels and a max of 9 tons. There needs to be serious thoughts about another heavy bridge over the river because, if one ever does collapse, travel will come come to a dead stop for years.

[@Jarl_Thidrandi]

I think you are forgetting the 205 bridge. It's only a few miles down the road from I-5.

[@MUUKOW3]

​@@Jarl_ThidrandiThe Glenn Jackson is the 205 bridge.

[@rongroth]

⁠​⁠@@Jarl_ThidrandiHe said the Glenn Jackson Bridge. That IS the 205 bridge.

[@missd369]

​@Jarl_Thidrandi Which is also very congested.

[@davel7794]

$7.5 Billion? This is why our cities are deteriorating. Our global competitors would do this for a small fraction of the price and get it done in a year.

[@Jeremyho439]

Green energy are the biggest donors of Biden and his Democratic Party. $7.5 billion produced 7 charging stations are operational across four states. $2 trillion proposal focuses on switching over to clean energy sources.

Civil Engineers just finished the Bay Bridge Revamp about 10 years back, this project should be much much easier and less costly it seems.

[@Azazel2024]

Portland is literally the home of lefty theft and corruption so no

[@viewtouchpointofsale73]

All of the pieces/components of the Oakland Bay Bridge were built in China and assembled here by American labor, supervised by the Chinese engineers who designed and manufactured the bridge.

[@hollowaang5284]

Tolling I-5 is the dumbest idea ever.

[@Ratryggva1090]

Who is getting the kickback?

[@OfficerMcNastty]

Very underrated video ! Everyone here in Vancouver just wants a bridge without tolls or a drawbridge if possible.. just a simple drive would be nice to Portland without traffic jams all due to the old bridges design

[@davidsilver4339]

Even with tolls, there probably won't be toll booths...it will likely be electronic, as it is on the Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay Bridge.

[@RegenTanzer1]

People of Vancouver love the tax-free shopping in Oregon compared to what sales taxes they must pay in Washington. A toll sounds right!

[@rick4580]

It's never going to happen without tolls. Because the people who actually use and benefit from the bridge should be the ones paying for it.

[@rick4580]

​@@RegenTanzer1it's weird how something like 25% of all Clark county residents travel to Oregon every single day for work and tax-free shopping, but they'd rather spend hours and hours in traffic than pay a small toll.

[@Bigfoot14000]

@@rick4580 Well, don't forget that those Clark County Washington residents who commute to Portland for work pay Oregon income tax or 9% on their wages, for which they receive pretty much no benefit. One could make the argument that this 9% tax is sufficient to justify free passage on the bridge to and from the office.

[@johnjay5143]

The reason for this sure isn't because the I-5 bridge is going to collapse it's a ploy to expand the amount of travel that can occur with a new one . Just to make it more palatable for the mass of interlopers to move on in . And the new bridge will be more like 15 billion before it's all said and done with barely more travel capabilities... If any . Kalifornication anyone ?

[@scottzema3103]

Um you can keep the Kali part; otherwise.....okay!

[@randymarks4011]

The last time I went to Portland was the last time I'll ever go to portland, what a dump.

[@jonallen1985]

Honestly, I blame the people that run Oregon for the drastic decline of our state and for the people that say, let the homeless people do whatever they want

[@engineeringoyster6243]

@@jonallen1985 I’ve been scoping a train trip to Portland to spend a day at Powells bookstore. But I’m concerned about walking the few blocks from the Embassy Suites hotel to Powells. Last I did something like this was about 20 years ago.

[@KOrnhOliO1]

Yup, it's amazing how different it is 10 - 15 minutes drive from Portland, yet completely different! I live in Beaverton... Right on the cusp of SW Portland. We've never, ever had ANY issues with camping (overnight camping is against the law so there's zero of it! Seriously, none at all.) The crime rate in Beaverton is a small fraction of what it is in SE, NE, or N Portland. There are reports out for crimes showing what part of town has what number of crimes and it's SHOCKINGLY different in a great way in both SW Portland and Beaverton. A glaring difference! Another reason I love SW Portland and Beaverton is the lack of a grid of streets! In SE, NE, and N Portland all the streets are on like a piece of graph paper! Seriously, parallel streets going north and south and east and west! Boring as F! In SW Portland and Beaverton it's exactly the opposite! Almost no parallel streets. The streets wind around in abstract patterns of uniqueness! Much less boring and monotonous. Randomly they go from place to place winding this way and that a way, but completely random. Fun! I find it incredible how different one side of the river is from the other! Except for downtown Portland, which is rumored to be much better than it was during COVID.

[@engineeringoyster6243]

@ Over the decades I’ve noticed that natives enjoy a lack of grid streets since they know where they are going. But before the days of Google Maps, a system of grid streets were much easier for people new to the area to navigate. I’m a boring engineer who prefers a grid with numbered streets. Much of the Seattle area names Avenues for North-South and Streets for East-West.

[@julielindholme9584]

Bridge helps no one when the roads are not dealt with! We are so beyond tired of the BS, the thought of paying for it into perpetuity with tolls, or the thought of ridiculous light rail bringing the criminals in from Portland!

[@Nonyabiz69]

100%, we do not want light rail for that cancer to spread into vancouver more than it has already.

[@robgronotte1]

You don't think criminals can take the bus?

[@LaFox23]

God forbid public transportation exist. Lmao, you’re so typical, stay in Washington.

[@Slainshadow42]

So I have a question.. @ 4:24 What is the spacing evident between the support pylons and the bridge itself? Both in the middle pylon and the definitely the right pylon? Even if you look at the left pylon it doesn't fit quite right... There's alotta Air there...

[@marqgunderson1168]

Dock pilings on the near shore where the shot was taken from. A bit of a visual illusion - they're much closer to the camera than the bridge out in the middle of the river. Photographer looks to be on WA side west of bridge approach, facing southeast for the shot.

[@orvjudd1383]

It is a bridge to no where. It has not even been designed to accommodate the much higher traffic flow that is current. Just like the replacement bridge in Sellwood.

[@zaneelliot6963]

Kicking the can down the road, means the bridge will cost more.

[@philipowheeler]

This bridge is not collapsing any time soon. We just need more bridges

[@michaelpjeffries1521]

It is public infrastucture which has served the people well. Nothing lasts forever, a bridges main objective. Is to span something safely. And not collapse at any given moment. Whether idle or in use, it would be missed until a new one is built. With who knows what kind of catastrophe waiting to happen.

[@Azazel2024]

🤣

[@jamesmatthew9584]

I’m supportive of a tunnel and or moving the bridge placement entirely. Industry isn’t located where it used to be and there’s a ton of unnecessary traffic funneled through there simply due to closest access. Also I believe the tolls will have a greater effect on Washington residents working in Oregon. Paying Oregon taxes and no longer getting them returned

[@williammoore7085]

This is not about just building a new bridge , Oregon wants to expand it to accommodate their max train at additional cost as well as dedicated bus lanes separate from normal traffic and then jamb all drivers with tolls and the cost just keeps climbing and with cost overruns they will unfairly burden the taxpayers of both states for years to come, they just have a real problem living within the means that taxpayers give them, why not make a tunnel under the Columbia river ? It would be a lot cheaper but they wouldn't get all the things that they want , bicycle and train and bus traffic. They won't even try to save the taxpayers money .

[@AricBolf]

Funny how fast the I35W bridge got built in Minneapolis after the old one collapsed, and yet this bridge goes on and on for years getting nowhere.

[@Baribrotzer]

Politics. Portland (Democratic) wanted the bridge to carry the Portland light rail system north into Vancouver, and make commutes easier, or at least be able to do so. Vancouver (Republican) wanted it specifically designed so that would be impossible - they were terrified of street criminals riding the train north from the Portland "hood" and pulling home invasions. For real, apparently. Also, there's a small airport nearby on the Vancouver side that limits the bridge's height.

[@AricBolf]

@ i would never ride a train because of criminals, disease, and it leaves you a mile from where you need to go so I’d have to walk that. Just stupid when i could drive a car right to where i have to go. Besides, having a train doesn’t eliminate the need for a car just like busses don’t.

[@Baribrotzer]

@@AricBolf Depends upon where you live, and where your job is. Commuter trains attract new housing, businesses, and employers, because of the ease of commuting. You also might take a bus or carpool at the near and far ends. Part of the point of a train is that it follows principal routes, but traffic jams don't slow it down.

[@joseforeskovich4594]

The I35 bridge in Minneapolis does not span nearly that length and the didn’t have to deal with water traffic. Also, there are three other bridges in the immediate vicinity to accommodate alternate routes for traffic.

[@rick4580]

​​@@Baribrotzerminor correction: Vancouver isn't Republican, Clark county is. And their "argument" that the MAX brings crime is completely ridiculous as it ignores that Trimet and Ctran already exist. The real problem is/was/and will be the tolls, not the light rail. Clark county would rather spend years in traffic than pay for the bridge.

[@Bossbossbeans]

This Bridge will cost more than 3 Brand new Football stadiums....now that's CRAZYY

[@RegenTanzer1]

What would you then suggest? -closing down the bridge entirely-forcing permanent use of the Glen Jackson Bridge ?

[@rick4580]

The cost is for the entire project which is roughly 2 miles for the main bridge plus 2-3 miles of improvements in both directions with several major interchanges and light rail.

[@GilmerJohn]

Well, the publicly owned and paid for stadiums that benefit wealthy owners and players don't make much sense ether.

[@beaumartin4438]

@@RegenTanzer1 Do nothing. All their claims, especially their seismic claims, are lies. Not only has this bridge shown that it can handle anything that's been thrown at it for more than 100 years, including any earthquakes. The bridges they're suggesting now look just like the bridges that have actually collapsed already (Minnepolis, Nimitz, etc.). Save our bridge and stop the liars like the author of this video.

[@elwoodblues9613]

That's it: keep the two green dinosaurs as they are, and use the $7.5B to build a stadium to lure an NFL team! 🤪

[@christianecroy7400]

the 205 Bridge only cost 175 million waste of money sold by fear

[@stumanion3213]

Once those tolls are in place, they will never end.

[@robgronotte1]

That's possible, but there were tolls on the current bridge which ended long ago.

[@stumanion3213]

@robgronotte1 yea, we drove over at 5 cents a pop. Then, after 5 years, the bridge was paid for.

[@mikemph7779]

We need one bridge for each direction of travel, six lanes each.

[@missd369]

It won't help when the freeway is only 2-3 lanes.

[@brucefrohn9834]

Nobody on the WA side wants/needs the MAX train on the bridge. In the late 50's, we had tolls ($0.25) on the bridge that lasted ~5 years & it's been paid off ever since. If the new bridge includes the MAX train, we will be stuck with bridge tolls forever, just to pay for continuous MAX train costs.

[@elwoodblues9613]

Again, precedents. The Golden Gate Bridge bonds were paid off in the early 1970s. The promise was that the bridge would be toll-free after that. It still has tolls, and they're higher than the other bridges in the area. Why? To subsidize the buses from Marin & Sonoma Counties and the ferries from Sausalito, Tiburon, San Rafael, and Richmond. The buses & ferries are little used except for commuting to/from SF. If Portland demands its light rail line to be included on the new bridge, then that means tolls and/or higher taxes into perpetuity. Personally, I'd be for tolls, they're a user fee. With taxes, people who never cross the Columbia River would pay for a bridge they don't use. As for light rail, residents have already rejected it; why expand its footprint to the next state where they won't ride it either?

[@andrewbarnes7230]

This has been an on going thing for at least a decade of more !! There has already been millions spent on "consulting" and still no bridge ! From what i'm understanding the new design isn't tall enough for river traffic, the powers that be are pushing for light rail across it, still 3 lanes in both directions (we already have that) and more space for bicycles and peds ! What should happen, cuz i go from vancouver to portland almost daily, a 4 laner in both directions minus the light rail, cut the bicycle / ped. Down by half and seriously think about another bridge in the Gresham, oregon across to camas, wash. So two bridges

[@SBC97281]

Dollar to doughnuts there is not agreement this round either. Portland would have to accept that new lanes are necessary through downtown for meaningful change. That is not likely. Vancouver would have to accept more light rail that they do not see value of on their side. This battle with two different philosophies to urban mobility has been long in brewing and will not settle until calamity forces the issue. I suspect the Astoria crossing on Hwy101 gets replaced first.

[@oldguy7402]

I live here, on the vancouver side. You succinctly described the exact conundrum we face. Oregon is driven by "mass transit" ideologs, Washington wants traffic congestion relief.

[@NatureShy]

@@oldguy7402Ask LA how their 9 lane freeways are serving them.

[@oldguy7402]

@NatureShy I've been there. I also commuted in SF bay area traffic. I was in the bay area when BART was built. It is a better system than Portland Llight Rail and had a much heavier ridership. It was still slower, more expensive, and less desirable (comfort) wise than commuting in a car. It soaked up money from road repair funds, was not fiscally sustainable (ever increasing share of tax funds) At least when that area built bridges, they eased traffic congestion.

[@bingosunnoon9341]

No lanes through downtown. No way

[@subjekt5577]

I'd rather see a better bypass than more lanes through downtown. It's incredibly fucked up to destroy the most valuable land in an area for ugly and dangerous highway lanes that only negatively impact the surrounding area. I'd rather see them add more BRT and hopefully a light rail to Vancouver than trying to widen the highway even more. Adding more lanes only gets more expensive and doesn't work.

[@neeandertallllatrednaeen6635]

Too little, too late if an earthquake collapses the bridge before the new one is built.

[@jeffwhoag]

They completely ignore the only option that would have the best impact: 1) structurally retrofit the existing I-5 bridges to make them earthquake-safe, and 2) build a THIRD BRIDGE from the WEST side of the Willamette River to Washington. If you live anywhere west of the Willamette river, you know exactly what I mean. Currently, every single vehicle that needs to get to Washington from downtown Portland, to Beaverton, Tigard, and Hillsboro Forest Grove, is forced into downtown, across the Willamette, onto I-5 and across the current bridge. Putting a westside bridge to connect highway 30 near Linnton directly to Washington would move all that traffic away from downtown and off I-5. It's really a no-brainer, and it would be less than 5 miles west of the I-5 bridge. But the bridge replacement gang veheminently opposes this, in favor of their grand plan that this video describes.

[@Bobyoudontneeemyname]

And exactly how many people is that? Putting a new bridge on either side of portland will just increase traffic and the number of people evading taxes.

[@jeffwhoag]

@@Bobyoudontneeemyname Sure, Boby Oudon. Punish people for going to Vancouver, but only if they don't live downtown.

[@chugwaterjack4458]

@@Bobyoudontneeemyname Washington - no income taxes, but sales taxes and vehicle taxes. Oregon - no sales taxes, and low vehicle tax but does have income taxes. The WHP likes to sit along the Jackson bridge and note the cars going south in the morning and north in the evening. No Washington license - get a visit from the DMV

[@bipedaltoolmaker]

@@Bobyoudontneeemyname What taxes are WA. people evading? The income taxes we pay with nothing in return?

[@mbennett67]

Ever stood on this bridge?? It moves and bounces significantly. I worked as a medic for many years.. I hated calls on the I5 bridge.

[@Bigdogfindley]

I'm at an age now where I'm less concerned about what they decide to do, but I used to cross that bridge nearly every day for a decade, and it was always a nightmare. The traffic was overwhelming, and drivers would cut each other off right in the middle of the span. It's absurd how long they've been debating this issue. All the additional features they keep proposing for "convenience" just inflate the costs. Light rail? That's a pipe dream with negligible passenger numbers, much like the airport line. If you want light rail to Vancouver, build a dedicated bridge when you've got the funds. The real priority for the I-5 bridge should be commercial traffic. Everything else - light rail, pedestrian walkways, bike paths - adds unnecessary expenses with little return. Moreover, they should seriously examine the traffic bottlenecks in North Portland. That area is a mess, and all they do is apply temporary fixes that only serve to drain more money from taxpayers without solving anything.

[@terrypeters8880]

it is now a three lane bridge on both sides and the new one will be a three lane bridge on both sides that is lower than what the Coast Guard requires. Just another ripoff of the taxpayers and those that would be paying the tolls.

[@johnnyrebel3340]

Truth is. This old bridge would likey out live the new bridge.

[@matts2581]

We all wait in anticipation around here... ...believe me. Hvae been for decades. :| Thank you for the review of this important subject. :)

[@DANA-cj3et]

There is a reluctance/refusal to add any additional lanes to the proposed replacement bridge. Without additional lanes, the replacement makes little sense. 3 lanes are simply inadequate and will not gain the necessary support..

[@bingebri]

I hope they have the wisdom to plan ahead for future growth by providing enough lanes on each side. I think planning for future light rail use on the bridge would also be a smart move. Tolls suck and would slow everyone down. I would prefer a tax increase over tolls. Make the bridge high enough so they won't need to raise and lower sections while traffic waits. Do it right the first time, agreed?

[@pnwamerican5610]

They want to add a very expensive train and they aren't going to move traffic any faster according to their current plans, then they would if they just left the bridge there. And that's before you get to the fact that the Coast Guard hasn't signed off on their plans and they know it

[@platedlizard]

The commuter train we want to add will absolutely help with that , of it would if Washington didn't underfund its public transit.

[@CommonSense823]

@@platedlizardthe trolley has almost zero paid ridership. It’s entirely a boondoggle project that only provides kickbacks to connected politicians, nothing of value for the community. There’s a reason the trolley system was paved over decades ago.

[@missd369]

Washingtontonians don't want the light rail train (which would connect to the existing system that crisscrosses Portland metro, including the airport). Many people live in Washington but work in Oregon.

[@CommonSense823]

@ what does working in Oregon have to do with riding light rail? Ridership of light rail in Portland is almost entirely unpaid homeless people getting from l e side of town to the other. Paid ridership doesn’t sustain the system, not even close. It’s not used for, nor intended for, commuting work.

[@ironcladranchandforge7292]

I was starting to go over that bridge back in the 1970's when traffic came to a hault. The center span was lifted to let a ship go under then subsequently got stuck!! I was sitting in traffic for an hour and a half while they fixed the bridge. I've been over that bridge thousands of times. It needed replacement 40 years ago.

[@ralphbieker8104]

@@ironcladranchandforge7292 “POOR BABY”, YOU NEED TO LIVE AND WORK IN WASHINGTON OR OREGON…PROBLEM SOLVED !

[@mapgar1479]

A highways to boulevards project without tolling would be the best option.

[@dianemarshack9215]

I'm old enough to remember when they put in the second span in the early '60s, we paid a toll of .20 everytime we went over it we had 5 yrs to pay it off, we got it paid off early

[@christinaloy8505]

They need to plan for the future. The area is only growing. The population is growing faster than the infrastructure can handle. Charging a toll is another problem as commuters already pay taxes in 2 states. They have a long, hard time ahead.

[@87Benz-tf9qs]

I have drove over that bridge and ran my boat under it countless times.

[@chrislane5677]

One of the popular misconceptions about Portland is that its citizens are anti-government because we protest like it’s a hobby. Not true. We love taxes, we love that we have three government institutions within the city limits (Portland city council, multnomah county, metro) that prevent anything from being accomplished because they’re protecting their turf. Way too much government leads to this mess.

[@krisr2181]

We don't want light rail on the WA side, the bridge needs to correct the bottleneck, and not have any tolls. Neither Oregon or Washington state is listening to the people who live there and will get stuck paying the bill for something we don't want in the first place.

[@Bobyoudontneeemyname]

Or you could just live where you work and pay your property taxes.

[@CommonSense823]

@@Bobyoudontneeemynameyou could always refund their income taxes as long as your being intellectually dishonest.

In this location, a tunnel would be much better. At exactly mm3 in Washington, is the ideal place to start. All crossings of the Columbia are EAST of Portland. If you draw a straight line from Salem, OR to Longview/Kelso WA another INTERSTATE crossing is needed that passes WEST of Portland. There is a very narrow bridge (1 lane each way) between Longview WA & Ranier, OR that was built in the 1920's, but that too, is outdated and needs replacement. The new INTERSTATE is needed connecting north or south of Kelso/ Longview WA on I-5 where land is still farm/forest going to Wilsonville Oregon on I-5 where land is still farmland.

[@cobaltfog]

Bureaucrats and engineers have spent entire careers just on planning, the CRCP was over 20 years to get nowhere. These days, Washington's spent everything they could've spent on it and more, it's second only to Sacramento in crazy spending plans.

[@georgejdvorakii9664]

Collapsing bridge??? Yes it is built on wood pilings. Agreed it is NOT a good idea but where is there evidence the bridge IS collapsing? If it was/is collapsing, or was in danger of collapsing, it would be closed in a instant. Like so many youtubers you peddle fear and half truths. From you story no design has been selected yet. Without a design no cost can be estimated. I say estimated because no builder has summitted a bid (cost) yet. You projected costs are wishful thinking. As to funding you reference "projected" federal funding. Good luck with that. Remember the feds pulled out a earlier proposed project. As to earth quake proof... NO bridge is earth quake proof. Look what happened in San Francisco in 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake when the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland collapsed. That was from a magnitude 6.9 earth quake. Keep in mind the San Francisco area is VERY earth quake conscious. They have LOTS of experiences to remind them. Japan is the most quake prone place on this earth. They can't build bridges that with stand earthquakes either! Where did you come up with the idea a new (better) bridge would "reduce" traffic. Past project have proven just the opposite. Do more home work. Peddling fear never helps a logical discussion!

[@TsarNick1995]

It's not fear. It common knowledge, and common sense. One of the spans in almost 106 years old.

[@bryandamkaer3646]

What about Columbia Cemetary which sits along side the current freeway?

[@leonply]

The bridge could have been replaced more than 30 years ago, but so many people were upset that it would do away with their "pretty and historic bridge." The arguments, political nonsense and lack of sense have made this project a complete nightmare.

[@danr8502]

I did a 180 on this bridge one late night.. Lucky n one hit me ! I did get turned back around!

[@dakinechips]

1st of all, the new downtown that supports it is up and running. Amd the new off ramp has begun deconstruction. So it will be interesting to see if this progression continues into 25'

[@maschwab63]

How about high weight trucks and High Speed rail in the center of the lower deck, upper deck Cars, RVs, pedestrians, bicyclists on upper deck?

[@themajormagers]

There was a toll that was to repay the money used to construct it and was to be removed when the bill was payed off. The toll lasted past that point as the politicians liked the money. No toll is needed and we don't want a repeat of the overly long toll. Make it affordable.

[@jonathanwbecker3073]

Born and raised in Portland till left for Army service 1972 just build the thing move traffic to 205 and build it

[@kevinjohnson7374]

They’ve been trying to do this for 30 years! It will never get done. In 1995 it was going to cost 350 million and they said it was too much and look at where we’re at now!

[@rongroth]

“Pay me now or pay me later.”

[@Josh-of-all-Trades]

... the graphic at 2:33 in this video of the bridge lifting looks quite a bit more like Portland's Steele Bridge, and less like the Interstate Bridge. But we get the point.

[@rpestess]

Several of the design options did not show any lift capability for passing river traffic.

[@davidrahrich3404]

The new bridge needs to be 5 lanes in each directions and it needs to be tall enough to let maritime flow without a lift span. Any additional items light rail and pedestrian traffic need to be in addition to the five lanes.

[@fairbanksbrian]

It's kind of nutty to not extend the light rail from Delta Park into Downtown Vancouver. You have to look at needs for the next 100 years, not just the next 10.

[@joshhancock3163]

more alternatives to driving across the bridge will decrease traffic congestion, not more lanes. more lanes never works

[@charlespeterson778]

Vancouver doesn't want Portland's homeless

[@fairbanksbrian]

@@charlespeterson778 To my thinking, the additional time to do the bus to rail transfer would be more of a problem for working folks with strict show up times at work. On the other hand, I don't see that as a serious problem for homeless folks commuting to begging locations.

[@MUUKOW3]

​@@joshhancock3163Yeah right ,that's like telling people less bathrooms at a concert is better and people should just wear diapers

[@MUUKOW3]

Maybe in the next 100 years we will have our jet packs but the climate true believers think we are all done in 20 sooo .

[@vernonhurley1300]

Silly question here. How damn low does your typical airline fly? You better be higher than a couple hundred feet by the time you're anywhere near that bridge. Plus it not on a direct flight path like the one in North Bend Oregon.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

The Columbia reaches the Pacific because their is a missing volcano -- which is not in the way. All significant faults run North-South -- so a Tunnel makes perfect sense. One imagines replicating the ditch&fill scheme used across the Bay Area for BART back in the '60s. You could easily craft your sections in Puget Sound -- and float them on over during sweet weather. Getting across the 'bar' at the mouth of the Columbia may be a deal breaker, though. The Europeans have quite a few recent projects that point the way to an elegant solution.

[@chugwaterjack4458]

The center section of the Fremont Bridge was fabricated in Japan and barged over, right across the bar at Astoria, then lifted vertically into the remaining center gap

[@jbauern57]

I heard / read that the politicians wanted to also add mass transit to the bridges

[@cheftekniqakabuletteborn8127]

as a portlander we need this bad

[@tommunyon2874]

I try to get across in the wee a.m. hours.

[@justinwilson4454]

The short comings are the on ramps and exits right at the bridge

[@StrikeTheRoot]

The I205 Bridge was built in 1982 for about 555 million adjusted for inflation. the fact that anyone needs 7 billion to build a bridge that should only cost 500 million is exactly why nobody should trust government to do anything, let alone build bridges and roads.

[@RCenal]

Whoa $7.5billion Holy crap

[@davidbeaumont5629]

Sorry I should’ve said that I was on the Mackinaw bridge back in the 70’s and reading the history of how and why it was designed, I think the bridge over the Columbia river should be of the same design -- we don’t need to spend countless years and money redesigning something that has a proven record

[@phillips8315]

The problem is that the New Bridge isn't going to make traffic better. The replacement is only going to make an old view into a new view. I'm not in support of an i5 columbia bridge replacement, but to add bridges between fairview, oregon and Camas, Washington and connect SR500 WA to HWY 127 OR thru sauvie island. Once the new bridges are in place, then a new i5 bridge will be acceptable. Hopefully the politicians will realize that congestions need to be relieved not redesigned.

[@bipedaltoolmaker]

There was a Fairview/Vancouver bridge on the ballot 10 or so years ago. WA. approved, OR. declined. Butt hurt after the cancellation of the last I5 bridge fiasco.

[@durgan5668]

Toll rates will be set jointly by members of Oregon and Washington transportation commissions. They’ll work off recommendations from a subcommittee composed of two commissioners from each state. Several possible rate scenarios are under review. These have one-way rates ranging from $1.50 to $3.55 with higher prices during peak travel times. Washington will oversee toll operations and drivers will pay through the Washington State Department of Transportation Good to Go! electronic toll system. There will be no toll booths. *quoted from The Columbian*

[@TeeDee-j9u]

They should build the bridge like the Freemont bridge.

[@timothyearp631]

So, if they do toll the bridge there are a lot of people who will stop crossing the river for work. If you live in Vancouver and work in Oregon, you already loose because you now need to pay Oregon's income tax, and now a toll too?

[@ralphbieker8104]

WE MIGHT NEED A NEW BRIDGE, BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE ARE WAY TO MANY “FINGERS IN THE COOKIE JAR” !!! NO MORTAL CAN NEVER PROTECT AGAINST MOTHER NATURE !!! “TOTAL SCAM”…

[@highrx]

The value of the easiest means of travel only gets admired when you can’t use it. It’s akin to, trying to flip the light switch on when the power is out. Unfortunately, stuff gets old and rotten. Nobody wants a repeat of previous bridge disasters.

[@J-berg]

As a Portlander, I refuse to pay tolls or increase my taxes just to benefit Washingtonians more than myself. A majority of people causing rush hour traffic on the bridge live in WA to avoid higher property tax in OR, but still work in OR and buy their goods in OR to avoid sales tax in WA. Dont worry I'm sure we will waste a few hundred million more on "studies" before anything happens.

[@Bobyoudontneeemyname]

Exactly

[@OlysGarage]

Oh don't forget, pay your stupid income tax too... Stop crying!

[@TsarNick1995]

Working in Oregon mean they also pay the 10% Oregon income tax.

[@williamdusseau7583]

Discounts for the less fortunate is good, but why not premiums for the grossly fortunate. Example: Charge Musk $1,000,000 per crossing, unless he wants to fund the entire project.