The city of Portland is preparing public comments to submit on the proposed Interstate Bridge‘s design by the end of September.

On Thursday, the Portland Design Commission sought consensus on what changes they would like to see in the early bridge designs.

Chairman Brian McCarter focused on how the bridge will connect with the Vancouver Waterfront at the north end. A shared use ramp from the bridge to the waterfront appears to be “quite a journey,” he said.

“I’m having a struggle with the configuration being this long,” he said. “Is this the only way to do this, or could this be enhanced by some stairs, some elevators at strategic locations?”

Brenda Martin, major projects and transit manager for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, said a connection should be made between the light rail and a shared path for bicycles and pedestrians, given their close proximity.

Commissioners also discussed whether the design details of the bridge landings should differ on the Oregon and Washington sides. Commissioner Zari Santner said the bridge doesn’t need to look the same on both sides.

McCarter agreed, as long as it’s cohesive, he said. “Variety is great as long as it’s within an overall story,” he said.

McCarter also pushed for transparency in the bridge railings, so users can see outside the bridge.

Commissioners will consider and likely vote to approve a letter to the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program at their Sept. 18 meeting.

Construction on the bridge is expected to last 15 years, with 24 construction packages up for bid. The total project was estimated in 2023 to cost $5 billion to $7.5 billion. That range is expected to grow when Interstate Bridge project officials release an updated cost estimate later this year or early in 2026.

The post Portland weighs early design changes for Interstate Bridge appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

By Chris Regan
Environmental manager, Interstate Bridge Replacement program

For over a century, the Interstate Bridge between Oregon and Washington has been a vital travel and trade route for regional, national and international economies. With one span of the existing bridge now 107 years old, the current structures are vulnerable to earthquakes and no longer meet the needs of modern commerce and travel.

A pivotal milestone

In 2019, governors in both states directed the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation to launch the bi-state . The IBR program draws upon years of past work from a previous bi-state planning effort called the Columbia River Crossing that was suspended a decade ago. Since 2019, the program has been building on past work to identify what has changed since previous planning efforts. The urgency to replace the aging twin spans of the Interstate Bridge has only grown, and now, we approach a pivotal milestone with the upcoming publication of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

The Draft SEIS will analyze the potential benefits and impacts of completing the program in three key areas: transportation (river, road and air navigation), community (including cultural resources and neighborhoods) and environment (such as climate impacts, ecosystems and water quality). This document does not identify final design of program elements; rather, it examines the proposed IBR multimodal investments plus design options such as bridge configurations, the alignment of and connections to I-5 through downtown Vancouver, potential park and ride facility locations and auxiliary lanes.

The Draft SEIS addresses the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA was created to encourage community members to be a part of a federal agency’s decision-making. It is designed to: 1) ensure that the agencies involved in the project consider potential environmental impacts, 2) keep the public informed about key decisions being made and, 3) analyze the impacts and benefits of moving forward with an approach IBR is referring to as the “locally preferred alternative” vs. doing nothing and making no program investments.

We want to hear from you

The Draft SEIS includes a 60-day public comment period that begins once it is published in the Federal Register in late September. It will be the most comprehensive opportunity for the public to review and provide comments on details about the IBR program, and we will be working to notify the public in many different ways once the public comment period begins.

There will be many topics in which you can provide your input (such as, “I prefer the shared use path next to the light rail line since it is separated from high-speed traffic”). If we’ve overlooked an important area of concern, we want to hear about it so that information can be included in the decision-making process.

��Including all voices

For the past several years, we have been collaborating with local, state and federal partners to align the program with regional priorities. We have hosted freight forums and are working alongside the Portland and Vancouver ports to ensure the needs of regional commerce are appropriately addressed in our program. Our community engagement efforts are specifically designed to capture a broad range of perspectives and priorities.

We are committed to minimizing barriers and ensuring the Draft SEIS is easily accessible to community members. This includes ADA-compliant documents, an online document search function, the executive summary translated into eight languages,��ASL interpretation and more. Our goal is to ensure that everyone, including equity priority community members, can contribute their input. This approach is vital to ensuring that the program’s outcomes reflect the priorities of the communities on both sides of the Columbia River.

When the public comment period is complete, the input we receive will be used to update the technical analysis, refine design options and inform future design work. These outcomes will be documented in the Final SEIS and Federal Record of Decision, which provides approval to move to construction, that are anticipated in mid to late 2025.

How to provide your feedback

The IBR program will host in-person and virtual public hearings in Portland and Vancouver, along with other community engagement activities during the 60-day comment period (all of which will be listed on our page). While you can comment at the public hearings, there are additional ways to participate. Once the comment period opens in late September, you can complete a , email to draftseis@interstatebridge.org, leave a voicemail at 888-503-6735, or send a letter to Interstate Bridge Replacement, 500 Broadway, Suite 200, Vancouver WA 98660. Language interpretation and ASL services can also be made available upon request. It is important to note that for a comment to be included as part of the formal record, it must be submitted in one of the official ways and cannot be accepted until the 60-day comment period begins.

Comments provided should be constructive and specific. Generally speaking, this means offering suggestions on what the program could do better, or what it should not do, and why. They should be as clear, concise and specific as possible (for instance, “The bridge designers should consider including…” instead of ��“I don’t think we should build a bridge…”). Comments that are solution-oriented and which provide suggestions and examples will be more effective than those that simply provide an opinion without identifying information from the document that informed the feedback.

��Join the process

In our work to ensure that the community understands how to make their voice heard, we are providing opportunities to learn more about what to expect in this document to help ensure people are prepared to participate.

To learn more about the upcoming public comment process and how community input can impact program outcomes, please join us for our next equity roundtable, “,” on Tuesday, Sept. 10, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The event will be live-streamed and available for replay on our YouTube, LinkedIn and Facebook platforms.

Chris Regan is the environmental manager for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. Contact him at 503-897-9218 (Oregon), 360-859-0494 (Washington) or info@interstatebridge.org.

The post Shaping the future Interstate Bridge: Your voice matters | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Active transportation refers to transportation that involves people walking or using a bicycle or other types of nonmotorized, wheeled devices. Along with transit, active transportation is a key element that would classify the , a federally funded transportation project, as a multimodal one. It is also a priority of state and local governments on both sides of the Columbia River that are striving to provide accessible, inclusive, and affordable transportation options for people of all abilities and economic situations.

The Interstate Bridge, across the Columbia River between Portland and Vancouver, is neither desirable nor accessible for all active travelers. This is why the IBR program team is working to replace this century-old bridge with a modern, seismically resilient structure that provides safe, equitable and efficient transportation options, including active transportation, high-capacity transit, and motor vehicle travel.

A focal point of the IBR program is equity, and that means emphasizing safety for all travelers through the program area, regardless of how they travel. By creating safer active transportation facilities alongside transit routes and roads, people from all socioeconomic backgrounds have access to efficient and affordable travel options.

Recent research already shows the effects of existing disparities. For example, a 2021 Oregon Department of Transportation and Portland State University analysis titled showed that BIPOC (Black, indigenous, people of color) residents experience a higher rate of pedestrian injury compared to the statewide average and that racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian traffic fatalities.

The same disproportionate impacts to equity priority communities can be found when considering the impacts of climate change. This is why we are working to shift trips from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles to transit, walking, biking, or rolling by providing attractive and direct active transportation facilities. Doing so will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally and improve air quality in program-adjacent communities, thereby promoting healthier lifestyles and health equity.

Accessibility is paramount to an equitable transportation system, particularly when it comes to active transportation. That means creating an inclusive user experience for people at all mobility levels, as well as those facing physical, visual or hearing challenges.

A strong emphasis on multimodal transportation, and active transportation in particular, is expected to provide equitable transportation options that currently do not exist, or are not ideal, thereby addressing the diverse needs of all travelers. Active transportation investments planned for the IBR program will improve safety and connectivity for travelers not only along the Interstate Bridge, but also along east-west streets crossing the interstate in program area neighborhoods.

How, you might ask, do we intend to do that? First, let’s examine the existing Interstate Bridge. Each span includes a multiuse sidewalk that is barely four feet wide and hangs off the outside of the bridge structure. As active users cross the bridge, they are near high-speed vehicle traffic, exhaust fumes and roadside debris. The narrow sidewalk does not permit walkers, cyclists or wheelchair users to comfortably pass each other. By contrast, the replacement bridge will feature a shared-use path that will be wide enough for two-way travel for bicyclists and pedestrians and be separated from vehicle traffic by a barrier.

The IBR active transportation component will improve connectivity to existing active transportation facilities, as well as transit routes throughout the program area. We intend to improve the existing shared-use path that currently runs from the Expo Center Transit Station to Hayden Island, while also connecting existing paths, sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the river.

While it is still too early to tell exactly what these new facilities will look like, or what shape they will take, we do know they will be designed using best practices and following current jurisdictional standards that have been adopted by our program partners, including the cities of Portland and Vancouver. In addition, the program team is studying ways to incorporate area history and culture into the physical design elements, including bridge aesthetics, artwork and other amenities.

We are also striving to preserve and enhance natural features, focusing on views both from and toward the new bridge, while working within the constraints of the bridge structure to maintain structural integrity and safety.

Active transportation works in tandem with high-capacity transit service as part of a multimodal corridor. Our planned transit investments are being designed to interact and connect with new or improved transit stations at Expo Center, Hayden Island and in downtown Vancouver with new light rail and bus-on-shoulder service providing cross-river travel options that currently do not exist.

Providing safe and comfortable active transportation routes benefits everyone. It benefits travelers who do not have access to a car or who prefer to walk, bike or roll instead of drive. And by reducing demand for driving, everyone benefits from better air quality and reduced pollution.

Finally, active transportation provides an equitable mobility option for all community members, particularly those who may struggle with the financial burden of automobile ownership.

Details on the location of the new or improved active transportation facilities being studied by the IBR program team will be included in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement set to be published later this year. When that happens, stakeholders will be able to provide feedback on the active transportation improvements.

In the meantime, please join us for our next equity roundtable, “Pathways to Active Transportation: Strategies and Solutions,” from 6 to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21. This virtual event will explore how the IBR program team is pursuing multimodal transportation infrastructure investments through the inclusion of accessible active transportation (bike/walk/roll) facilities. Panelists will discuss their experiences and approaches that support active transportation planning. Then a Q&A session with the audience will follow. To learn more, go to www.interstatebridge.org/calendar.

Natalie Owen is the active transportation lead for the Interstate Bridge Replacement program. Contact her at 503-897-9218 (Oregon) or 360-859-0494 (Washington) or info@interstatebridge.org.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Active transportation is integral to bridge replacement project | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Interstate Bridge replacement project moved forward on Thursday, after two big stamps of approval were delivered.

First, the Executive Steering Group unanimously said “yes” to advancing the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) into the next phase ­– the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement process. Then the Bi-state Legislative Committee overseeing the project came to a consensus to accept the LPA.

The concept calls for construction of a new bridge able to withstand a major earthquake with three through-traffic lanes in each direction, an auxiliary merge lane in each direction, and space to accommodate light rail for extension of service from Portland to Vancouver, Washington. The LPA is a modification of a plan formed for the previous Columbia River Crossing project that fizzled.

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is the next critical step in the process. Greg Johnson, administrator of the bridge replacement program, said the team hopes to thereafter have answers to many of the project’s looming questions regarding cost, layout, design, and bridge type.

The process is expected to continue into mid-2024, when the federal government is expected to deliver a record of decision.

Cost concerns

The program team plans to have both a cost estimate for the project and a financing strategy by early November, Johnson said.

“Taking us from that 10,000-foot views of a finance plan,” he added, “hopefully down to a 500-foot view of the cost and where things are trending towards.”

In the Executive Steering Group meeting, Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle asked Johnson for assurance that the program team will ask the federal government to cover one-third of the project’s cost ­– $2 billion.

“All along we’ve always had the assumption that it (financing) would be a third federal, a third states, and a third tolling,” McEnerny-Ogle said. “If my mathematics is correct, if the state of Washington puts in a billion and the state of Oregon puts in a billion, then the other two-sixths – the third ­– from the federal government would be requesting $2 billion from them.”

“I will go you one better,” Johnson responded, indicating that the team will likely seek $2.5 billion from the federal government.

Three grants – each earmarked for megaprojects and major bridge projects – are being sought at this time, Johnson added. However, limitations exist: The team is allowed to seek money to cover half of the cost of only the new bridge – estimated at around $1.5 billion – and not the entire project, which includes a 5-mile corridor. But for each grant the team plans to ask for the maximum amount allowable under the rules, he said.

Alignment possibilities

In this next phase, Johnson said the team will start to evaluate side-by-side and stacked alignment options.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a preliminary determination that at least a 178-foot clearance would be needed for a fixed bridge. The program team had proposed a fixed height of 116 feet.

The team is working with the Coast Guard, Johnson said, and discussing trade-offs for a possible movable bridge. If the new Interstate Bridge ends up as a lift bridge or bascule bridge, it would be one of the largest of its type in the world, he said.

Future work

The team remains on schedule to break ground in late 2025, Johnson said. During the environmental impact phase, a community workforce benefits committee will be formed with members of the Executive Steering Committee and representatives from union and nonunion organizations.

“This is like climbing Mount Everest,” Johnson said. “We’re at base camp. We are nowhere near the summit. We have a lot of work to do. But getting to base camp is a significant step and it prepares us to make a successful climb the rest of the way.”

The post Interstate Bridge replacement project rolls ahead appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Interstate Bridge replacement project saw major wins this week when all eight partner agencies – Portland City Council, Vancouver City Council, C-TRAN, Metro Council, the Port of Portland, the Port of Vancouver, and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) – voted to move the project forward.

This follows TriMet endorsement of the project on June 22.

With the approval of the modified Locally Preferred Alternative the project can move into the Environmental Review Process, which is not expected to occur until mid-2024.

However, officials didn’t approve the LPA without some skepticism. Major Ted Wheeler expressed concern about the bridge’s height and the city’s squeezed position between what the U.S. Coast Guard would like – a higher bridge – and what the Federal Aviation Administration wants – a lower bridge. TriMet board member Ozzie Gonzalez, who voted against the LPA in June, said the project was “not perfect, but something.” Metro Councilor Gerritt Rosenthal said his vote is an “extremely reluctant ‘aye’” before the council approved the LPA on Thursday afternoon.

Each group added conditions of approval to their endorsement for the project. However, none of the conditions will be binding, like seen in Portland land use reviews, rather are an indication of what each party would like the program to address. Metro Councilor Mary Nolan voted against the bridge due to this.

Partner agencies votes:

• TriMet Board of Directors: 4-1 (Ozzie Gonzalez opposed)
• Vancouver City Council: Unanimous approval
• C-Train Board of Directors: 8-1 (Karen Bowerman opposed)
• Port of Vancouver Board of Commissioners: Unanimous approval
• Port of Portland Board of Commissioners: Unanimous approval
• City of Portland: Unanimous approval
• Metro Council: 6-1 (Mary Nolan opposed)
• RTC: 10-3 (Gary Medvigy, Leslie Lewallen and Karen Bowerman opposed)

“For too long … we have sat on our hands and said that that river is a dividing line,” Metro Counselor Christine Lewis said. “And we’ve got to get beyond that because our economy won’t progress. Our equity and climate goals can’t progress unless we figure out what Vancouver means to Portland and what Portland means to Vancouver.”

Under the current proposal, the new Interstate Bridge would include three travel lanes, one auxiliary and two shoulder lanes in each direction. A new light rail line would also extend from the Portland Expo Center over the bridge to Evergreen Boulevard in Vancouver, bringing the MAX system to southwest Washington for the first time.

A partial interchange on Marine Drive and a local bridge to Hayden Island would also be added, as well as updated pedestrian and bicyclist connections.

Although all partner agencies voted to endorse the modified LPA, most of the final design has yet to be decided, including cost. Interstate Bridge Replacement program administrator Greg Johnson said they hope to have numbers for the public sometime in November or early December.

The Executive Streeting Group meets at 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 21.

The post Officials green-light advancing Interstate Bridge Replacement program appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The history of transportation infrastructure in the United States is fraught with a checkered past of forcing families to move from their homes to make way for new construction. The Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 was envisioned by the Eisenhower administration as a system of 41,000 miles of new, limited-access highways across the country. On paper it was an ambitious leap into the future for a post-war America that demanded unprecedented mobility. In practice, however, construction of these new roadways often ran through thriving Black communities in cities across the country.

Portland was no exception. The Albina community in inner Northeast Portland was bisected by construction of the Memorial Coliseum and then Interstate 5 in the early 1960s. This occurred less than two decades after the 1948 Vanport flood, which destroyed hundreds of homes near the Columbia River and displaced what had been up to then the city’s largest Black community.

The widespread practice of eminent domain in Black neighborhoods also occurred in my home state of Michigan, where I experienced firsthand the resulting impact on families and communities across America. One of my earliest memories starting at the age of four was of moving three times in a year-and-a-half after the Michigan State Highway Department bought – then demolished – our family home to make way for a road-widening project. As a child, it seemed like an adventure. But it was hard on my father, who for years reminded me of this injustice as I charted my life’s work in transportation infrastructure.

The impacts on minority communities and their personal stories that are passed on from one generation to the next ring clear to me. I have reflected on my family’s personal experience to help guide my work in transportation leadership positions in both the public and private sectors, including in my role today as IBR program administrator. The commitment from both the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to get it right this time and center equity to guide the IBR program was one of the key factors that interested me in accepting my position.

The advantage of history is that one can learn from the past and avoid repeating injustices. In our work toward replacing the aging Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River with a seismically resilient multimodal structure, the IBR program is centering equity in both process and outcomes. Through comprehensive and equitable community engagement, we are pursuing a solution that prioritizes safety, reflects community values, addresses community concerns, and fosters broad regional support.

Our community engagement program is spearheaded by a trio of advisory groups, including the Executive Steering Group, comprised of representatives from 10 partner agencies with a direct delivery or operational role in the multimodal transportation system around the Interstate Bridge; the Community Advisory Group, represented by balanced community membership from both Oregon and Washington; and the Equity Advisory Group, which provides the IBR program with guidance and input on the program’s processes, approaches and decisions that may affect historically underserved and underrepresented communities.

Community input informs every aspect of the IBR program. Along with the virtual public meetings of our advisory groups, the IBR program also regularly elevates community engagement efforts through online open houses, community briefings, listening sessions, community working groups, and meetings with community-based organizations, among other outreach tools. Over the past year, we have had more than 29,000 interactions with community members, and this number continues to grow. A comprehensive summary of our most recent community engagement initiative is available at .

In centering equity, the IBR program seeks to ensure opportunities for equity priority communities to realize the program’s economic and transportation benefits, and commits to not furthering harm to these communities. We are amplifying the voices of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC), young people, older adults, and persons with disabilities.

The program is currently exceeding the mandatory disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) participation goal of 15 percent set for the existing consultant contract. As program work moves forward, additional DBE goals will be set for future contracts. As we reach construction, our ambitious DBE program will be critical as we work to maximize participation of these firms. There are many woman-owned and minority-owned businesses in the region with the expertise needed to build the replacement bridge, and we aim to support such businesses in achieving DBE certification to make way for them to work on the IBR program. We also aim to cultivate talent by drawing from apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs.

This month marks the 105th anniversary of the opening of the first span of the Interstate Bridge – a different bridge for a different time. In our work to replace the Interstate Bridge with infrastructure that provides equitable transportation options for all travelers, including individuals who rely on public transit and active transportation (biking, walking and rolling), we will continue to foster all voices in the program area.

The IBR program is working to identify and gain consensus on a draft-modified locally preferred alternative (LPA) this spring and summer. The LPA will undergo additional analysis as part of the federal environmental review process. The goal is to begin construction in 2025; work is expected to take around seven years. When we cut the ribbons on the new Interstate Bridge, I want folks around the country to recognize the IBR program as a model for carrying out large transportation projects and centering equity and inclusivity from beginning to end.

To listen to firsthand experiences of transportation infrastructure displacement and learn more about how the IBR program is centering equity, I invite you to view our Black History Month virtual roundtable on Friday, Feb. 25, from 5:30 to 7 p.m. I will be joined Portland City Commissioner and IBR Executive Steering Group member Jo Ann Hardesty, Vancouver NAACP President and IBR Community Advisory Group member Jasmine Tolbert, IBR Executive Steering Group Co-Chair Ed Washington, IBR Principal Equity Officer Johnell Bell, IBR Equity Advisory Group facilitator Roberta Hunte, and IBR Executive Steering Group facilitator and roundtable facilitator Millicent Williams.��To learn more, go to .

Greg Johnson is the program administrator for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. Contact him at 503-897-9218 (Oregon), 360-859-0494 (Washington) or info@interstatebridge.org.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post OP-ED: Equity is at the center of Interstate Bridge Replacement program appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Greg Johnson joined the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program in July 2020. He was hired to do what his predecessors could not: get Oregon and Washington officials, environmentalists, the trucking industry, commuter advocates and federal transportation funders to agree on a project to replace the bridge carrying Interstate 5 across the Columbia River.

Johnson most recently served in early planning for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a structure now under construction that will span from Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

Earlier this month he appeared during a Metro Council meeting that resulted in the group approving allocation of $36 million for Interstate Bridge engineering and planning.

Recently, Johnson spoke with the 91��Ƶ. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

91��Ƶ: What do you hope to accomplish with the Interstate Bridge replacement project? Or, to put it another way, what does success look like for this project?

Greg Johnson: What I think the program can accomplish for this region is to create a multimodal corridor for folks to have choices about how they choose to cross the river at this location. Currently, it is driven purely by automobile and truck traffic, because if you ride a bike it’s kind of dangerous. It’s narrow. It’s not a pleasant experience. The transit that goes across there currently is an express bus that rides in the same backed-up traffic as the other vehicles.

91��Ƶ: Some people think of this as just a bridge, but it’s really quite a bit of work on both sides of the river. What does that look like – the changes to the interchanges and the distances leading up to the bridge on both sides?

Johnson: So this is a five-mile corridor, split fairly evenly, both in Oregon and in Washington. There are seven interchanges within this five-mile stretch. And this is not a choice that any modern designer of today would have, but these are the circumstances we are blessed with. So we have to make sure that those seven interchanges operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. The improvements to the interchanges – (we’re) looking at auxiliary lanes to separate traffic on the ramps from the through traffic. And that is tremendously important to how this will function appropriately going into the future.

91��Ƶ: In Michigan, you worked on the Gordie Howe bridge. What did you learn from that process that you can bring to bear on Oregon and Washington’s friendly relationship?

Johnson: Yeah, I was involved in the preliminary planning stages representing the Michigan (Department of Transportation) to the Canadian government – both provincial and the Canadian federal government. So it was an interesting process to say the least.

One of the key things was that there is no perfect project. In building an international project, everyone had their hopes and wishes and things that they aspired for the project to be. And we tried our darndest to thread the needle to get to something that both sides can live with. And eventually we did with Gordie Howe.

So, the art of compromise, the art of saying it’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a doggone good solution. That’s the lesson that I bring to this project: that there is no solution that’s going to make everybody happy. But we’re going to make improvements to the seismic ability, to the congestion, to the safety – all of those things are going to be vastly improved with this new construction.

And to our critics on the environmental side, this is going to be a greener segment of roadway than they have seen in projects in the past.

91��Ƶ: We recently heard from (Metro councilors) about their concerns: what they would regard as too large a bridge or too many lanes or too much of a vehicle focus. Do you have any immediate reaction to those concerns from them?

Johnson: First off, I was very heartened by the vote, five to one, and we’ve been talking with individual Metro councilors to have them understand what this program is and what it is not. So I was very thankful that they deemed the project important enough to continue the funding to get to the answers.

But one of the things that we know is that doing nothing or doing something that is going to perpetuate the problems out into the future is just not an acceptable scenario. Some of the questions that they asked, we already have incorporated those things into our models and into how we are approaching and screening our design options.

So I don’t think it’s a problem from our standpoint. It does add more work on some details, but we will get those answers to them, without a doubt, as we are bringing the project before boards and councils … later in the spring for endorsement of the project itself.

91��Ƶ: In Oregon, we certainly hear a lot more from elected officials on the south side of the river. What are you hearing from Washington about what they want out of the project, and are those two compatible?

Johnson: Some of the concerns we hear on the Washington side are related to the commuter experience, because a number of the folks who cross the bridge every day are commuting from Clark County, heading into Oregon for work. Those folks (ask) “Are you going to reduce the amount of time that it takes to cross this bridge?”

What I tell folks is we are beyond the point of building our way out of congestion. We know that that’s a fool’s errand. But what we can do is make this crossing operate better.

We will have a design in place that takes away that if I have a crash, I can move it to the shoulder and quickly get it gone – out of the roadway system. Currently when there’s a crash, it shuts down two lanes of the bridge, and the backups are tremendous. The randomness of some of the bridge lifts – and they’re not random, but they appear to drivers as random because we keep them out of the peak hours – that will be gone. The accidents that are caused by the tight spacing of the ramps, we’re looking to solve that problem.

All of those things add up to a more consistent, predictable trip for folks going across the bridge. And if folks can predict their travel every day, that’s a better experience for folks.

And once again, if we can divert some of the single-occupancy vehicle trips and get those folks onto transit, or folks who now say “Wow, it’s safer and nicer to walk or bike,” then once again that helps the overall traffic going through the corridor.

91��Ƶ: So the new bridge, will it have to lift as well or will it be tall enough that bridge traffic can pass underneath?

Johnson: It will be tall enough. We will not have a lift span on the new bridge. It’ll be much taller, but still not too tall to interfere with traffic going to Pearson Airfield or PDX. But there will be no lifts whatsoever, and we’re doing a river survey to make sure that all of the users now and future users will be able to cross under our bridge without a problem.

91��Ƶ: It was before your time, but of course, the Columbia River Crossing effort ended in failure. And some of those same politics remain in place on both sides of the river. What can you do, what can ODOT do, to avoid the same thing happening this time around?

Johnson: We’ve learned the lessons that happened around the CRC, and we know that having a constant conversation with the state legislators in each state is critically important. So we have the bistate legislative committee that we’re meeting with on a regular basis and keeping them informed of what’s going on. So we are being very, very intentional in our information sharing and keeping them up to speed and being very transparent.

We’re also talking to other members of each state legislature to make sure that they are up to speed because the vote – it won’t just be folks who are who are represented on that bistate committee; it will be the entirety of the legislature in each state. So we’re talking to any and everybody about the importance of this to statewide interest.

91��Ƶ: The most recent cost estimate for the project that we’ve seen was $4.5 billion. Is that kind of the ballpark estimate?

Johnson: Yeah, that’s our latest thinking on an estimate for cost. But once again, as soon as we get through this spring, we will have a better idea of what we’re going to build. Right now we’re probably at the 10,000-foot level.

So right now we think we have a ballpark that we’re operating in. But once again, time is not the friend of inflation. So we know that time and keeping on a schedule is tremendously important to have a cost-containment effort.

It doesn’t mean is that we’re going to skip any steps, but it does mean that we’re going to be very intentional and paying attention to our schedule. The old saying about time being money – time is money in this case.

91��Ƶ: In the other big interstate project in our area – the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project – they’ve had to revise upward their cost estimates over time. It went from a few hundred million dollars to well over $1 billion. And I was wondering if you anticipate cost estimates rising for the Interstate Bridge as well, given the cost of steel and concrete and labor and all those inputs?

Johnson: We’re paying close attention to the construction pricing indexes, both regionally, nationally and internationally. So we’re tracking that, and that is a part of our estimates.

We are partnered with the Rose Quarter because we need to understand what they are going to be doing in their timelines. Because, once again, we’re going to be looking at the same pool of labor to get these things done. So we’re paying close attention.

91��Ƶ: Do you expect that the Interstate Bridge will be tolled?

Johnson: I do. If you look at projects of this size across the country, almost to a project, tolling plays a part because when you’re talking billions of dollars, and the transportation budget for each state is a fraction of that, this would decimate the abilities of both states to do their normal business, if they put all of the resources they have into this project.

As it is, we’re going to make the making a large ask of each state between $1 billion and $1.2 billion for the local match of this. The federal dollars, we think we’re well positioned. But we know that those two sources will not cover the entirety of cost related to this. So tolling is a reality of projects of this size across the country.

We understand that there are some folks who have to cross this bridge every day, and some will be low-income folks. So we’re looking at how we can make tolling equitable.

91��Ƶ: There has been discussion of tolling on the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project and also on I-205. Have these been looked at holistically, that tolling could be coming to all these interstates and how they interact with each other?

Johnson: We are looking at the tolling scenarios that ODOT is projecting for I-5 and I-205, and so all of our modeling and scenarios reflect that.

On our bridge, our primary goal is to raise revenue to pay for a portion of the bridge. But we also know that by having variable-rate tolling, we will be accomplishing some of the goals that we have of driving behavior, and having people take trips at different times rather than at peak periods.

91��Ƶ: I just want to ask about the physical footprint of the bridge. I’m sure you’ve heard the story of how the original building of I-5 cut through the Black community in Albina and North Portland. How do you minimize the footprint of the bridge on both sides and avoid disturbance to neighborhoods?

Johnson: We’re looking at that issue very carefully. We have an Equity Advisory Group that meets on a monthly basis that holds us accountable for design efforts.

There will be some unavoidable impacts – but we’re trying to make those impacts as least as possible by doing smarter things.

To minimize footprint, sometimes you will see straight vertical walls instead of slopes. We are looking at all of those ways to have as small an impact as possible. We know on the Washington side, Fort Vancouver is very sensitive to tribal governments. So we’re trying to have as small of a footprint as we cross through that area. But we know we’re going to have impacts. We know that there will be unavoidable things, but we will be seeking to mitigate those things and make sure that folks are well informed as to what we are looking at for options and that their voices are heard and reflected in those final outcomes.

91��Ƶ: Will there be light rail on the bridge?

Johnson: That’s one of the big questions that we are working on, that we are modeling. Currently, both C-TRAN and TriMet have members embedded in our team that are helping us work through those issues. But we’re hoping later this spring, we will have a recommendation of what is to be constructed for high-capacity transit.

We also know that this is probably the one and only opportunity to have high-capacity transit across the river at this location. So we’re being very, very careful and very deliberate in how we are looking at these issues. It is tremendously important that we get it right – so more to come on that.

We think it’s more than likely going to be a hybrid, because previously, C-TRAN was not operating bus rapid transit at the time of the CRC. Now they have two very robust lines and a third in the works, so we know that Bus Rapid Transit is a viable way to move a lot of folks. So we’re looking at those issues very carefully.

91��Ƶ: Do you expect the bridge will have dedicated lanes or dedicated space for bicyclists and pedestrians?

Johnson: Yes. Under every scenario that we are looking at, there will be an expanded facility for biking, walking and rolling – for what’s termed “active transportation.” But not only that – we know that just having a facility that crosses the river is not enough. We have to tie into existing facilities and make sure there are connections and easy ways for folks to access the facility crossing the river.

91��Ƶ: During construction, will the existing Interstate Bridge remain up? How are you planning for traffic impacts during construction and what is the fate of the existing bridge if a new one is built?

Johnson: Right now, the game plan is to have the existing bridge remain in service until the new bridge is built. And there will be a time when we’ll have to shut down to make a tie-in, and it will be a partial shutdown. It will be so disruptive to the flow of traffic in the area, so we’ll incentivize any contractor to make that connection and move traffic to the new bridge as quickly as possible.

But the old bridge will be there until we get traffic switched, and then we will piece by piece remove the old bridge and recycle parts of it. We hope that we’ll be able to incorporate other parts into other useful things on the project footprint, such as crushing concrete for things as simple as armoring slopes so we don’t get erosion – things of that nature.

Currently it costs $1.2 million (annually) to maintain (the existing) bridge, and that cost is only going to go higher as inflation creeps up. Some folks have asked why don’t we just leave the old bridge and use it as supplemental? It’s a very expensive bridge to maintain and keep in place. And then, it still would be seismically vulnerable.

91��Ƶ: How about outreach to contractors? Have you begun that process yet?

Johnson: Not in a structured way as of yet. Contractors have been knocking at the door, wondering where we are in the process. So we’ve – on an ad hoc basis – answered those questions about where we are in general. But once we start getting to a point where we have a more defined project, we’re going to bring in contractors to get them fully up to speed on what this is so they can start their planning processes, because this is going to be such a large undertaking. It’s going to absorb a lot of local contractors and attract a lot of national and, potentially, international contractors who will want to be a part of this. So those conversations will probably start in 2023.

We know the workforce is going to be key critical. So we’re going to be working with the industry – both the labor unions as well as the contractors – to set up pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs. We’re going to be working closely with (I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project team members), since they will be getting started before us, to make sure that folks can go seamlessly from pre-apprenticeship to apprentice to journeyman in the span of the lifetime of these two projects.

So we’re looking for folks to build careers. That’s one of the challenges in the construction industry is we have a lot of people aging out. So we have to find new blood and new ways to bring a more diverse face to who is working on projects.

91��Ƶ: Is there anything you would like to add?

Johnson: One of the things I’ve been stressing to all of the partners, to the community members in our advisory groups, is we cannot let perfect – the perfect project – be the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as a perfect project. But there are some very good projects that are out there and some very good ideas for this one that can improve the circumstances.

The post Building relationships to build a bridge appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council on Thursday approved $36 million for engineering and planning a new Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, but also passed guidance demanding transportation agencies work to reduce vehicle travel, conduct new traffic forecasts and analyze health impacts.

The decisions illustrated Metro’s divided role as a regional planning agency whose council has deep misgivings of approving a mega-bridge that would encourage behavior that worsens climate change.

“We’re basically saying we can’t tolerate a bridge that’s 10 or 12 lanes wide,” Councilor Shirley Craddick said. “It doesn’t work. It’s not healthy, and it’s not good for the health of our region and our state and, of course, our world.”

The council’s decisions Thursday allow planning for the Interstate Bridge replacement project to move forward, while putting the Oregon and Washington transportation departments on notice that Metro will not accept a massive bridge focused on vehicle capacity.

Ahead is a June vote on a “locally preferred alternative” for the bridge design. Some councilors hinted they may not support a bridge that doesn’t meet Metro’s goals.

Council President Lynn Peterson said the resolution laying out Metro’s expectations for the project is meant to provide clarity for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and its driving agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation.

“This is something that wasn’t done last time and sets a higher bar for how we proceed as a region, and with our partners,” Peterson said.

Councilor Mary Nolan said she would not vote to approve the project if it doesn’t meet Metro’s expectations.

“We need the project to meet these standards to earn our approval,” she said. “It is as much holding ourselves accountable to what we’ve promised the public that we expect from this project, and to give clear advance communication to our partners, who I consider to be partners in this project.”

Nolan and Program Administrator Greg Johnson, who appeared remotely from an airport terminal, engaged in a tense back-and-forth. Nolan told Johnson a slight revision of the Columbia River Crossing would be rejected.

“You understand then that the Metro Council is telling you that a little tweaked version of the old (locally preferred alternative) is not going to cut it with us?” Nolan said.

“I do understand that,” Johnson replied. “But I need everyone to understand that this is a bistate program with eight individual partners that each have individual needs. So we hear you loud and clear and we are going to seek to meet the concerns and commit to the things that we can to get this project (moving) forward.”

The amendments adopted by Metro were little different from those proposed by a coalition of community groups including The Street Trust, 1,000 Friends of Oregon and No More Freeways. The Metro Council heard hours of public testimony that was mostly critical of the bridge project.

“We are pleased to see the Metro Council, as a partner of the Interstate 5 Bridge Project, create clear goals and accountability mechanisms to meet the region’s goals for a sustainable, healthy and effective transportation system,” the coalition stated in a news release. “We hope open communication and precise analysis of the options on the table��will help��ODOT and the IBR leadership right-size this project and create high-quality multimodal transportation and positive community impacts.”

Metro, in its resolution, requested an “investment-grade” traffic analysis for the project. That step is usually taken later in a project timeline. Metro councilors, following demands from critics including economist Joe Cortright, asked for the analysis now to make sure the bridge’s size follows traffic modeling with tolling in place.

Metro officials also requested check-ins every 30 days with the project team to make sure the bridge design is on track.

The post Metro sets guardrails for bridge replacement appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

New design options are on the table for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.

The Executive Steering Group met Thursday morning to discuss the options and come to agreement on the project’s next steps.

“In the past meetings, we have had concerns about the fast pace,” Vancouver (Washington) Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said, “but we’re committed to working towards a wonderful solution.”

The goal is to replace the aging bridge carrying Interstate 5 across the Columbia River with a modern, seismically resilient structure. This is the second attempt by Oregon and Washington to replace the bridge that is made up of a 104-year-old span and a 63-year-old span. The Columbia River Crossing project essentially ended in 2013 after Washington and Oregon legislators were unable to agree on a funding plan.

Now, after almost a year of discussions addressing issues such as traffic congestion, climate change and resiliency, Executive Steering Group members – Portland and Vancouver city officials, public transit agency and state transportation department representatives, and community members – are seeking solutions. The aim is for construction to start in 2025.

“This has been almost a quarter of a century conversation going on in this area,” IBR Program Manager Greg Johnson said. “We are at one of the inflection points.”

One of the three proposals for a replacement bridge is the 2013 design with two five-lane bridges side by side and dedicated pathways for public transit, bicyclists and pedestrians underneath.

Another proposal is a variation of the 2013 design, with a different on-ramp configuration and a less curvy bridge alignment. This bridge would be less complex to construct than a curvy structure, and also make a North Portland Harbor bridge replacement project less complex.

The third option’s alignment would not be side by side. Northbound and southbound lanes would be stacked, and flanked on either side by transit lanes and a pathway for bicyclists and pedestrians. This bridge would have a smaller footprint over waterways and have fewer foundations in water compared to the other options.

A total of 10 possible public transit configurations were presented. They included high-capacity light rail, rapid bus service or combinations of both.

IBR Program leaders have asked the Executive Steering Group to select one of the bridge proposals by early 2022. While members on both sides of the state line agreed to consider the options presented, they expressed skepticism over the desired timeline. More time is needed to individually assess the options, ask follow-up questions and reach a consensus, they said.

“I don’t necessarily think that goal represents a fair opportunity for the communities to be able to weigh in on options as well as the transit agencies to be able to give effective feedback on what those transit options that are modeled are,” said Shawn Donaghy, chief executive officer of C-Tran (the public transit agency of Clark County, Washington).

Steve Witter, TriMet‘s director of engineering and construction, expressed agreement with Donaghy.

Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty emphasized how the bridge could impact the region’s climate goals.

“It needs to demonstrate how it won’t contribute to more 124-degree days like we have experienced this last summer,” she said. “It needs to demonstrate how it won’t contribute to elevated rates of asthma and hospitalization for Black and brown Portlanders, which normally are the recipients of the negative outcomes of freeway activity.”

Metro Council President Lynn Peterson requested more details from the IBR Program team about how the proposed tolling of the bridge and an increase in public transit options would impact vehicle demand. Also, she requested future land use options be considered for both sides of the river.

The Executive Steering Group’s recommendation is expected to be presented, along with input from public surveys and community groups, to the bistate legislative committee overseeing the bridge replacement. Construction contract requirements, including participation goals for minority-owned, woman-owned and disadvantaged business enterprise firms, would potentially be issued between late 2023 and mid-2024.

The post I-5 bridge replacement options under discussion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Most participants in a late 2020 survey agree there’s a need for a new Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Washington. However, they don’t agree on how to pay for it.

In commissioned by the joint Oregon-Washington Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, 52 percent of respondents said charging tolls would be an acceptable way to pay for the bridge’s construction and maintenance. Another 42 percent were opposed, with 31 percent registering strong opposition.

Residents in Clark County, Washington, were both more likely to say they would use the bridge and less willing to pay tolls.

The survey results were discussed at an Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Executive Steering Committee meeting on Wednesday. is made up of transportation and community leaders in the Portland and Vancouver areas.

The survey canvassed 917 registered voters in Clark, Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties. Conducted by FM3 Research, it had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

Some members of the Executive Steering Committee were most interested in what the survey didn’t say. Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty questioned why the survey asked about tolls but not congestion pricing – a measure favored by economists and environmentalists for reducing vehicle trips during peak times.

“I’m surprised that we didn’t act ask people about alternatives like congestion pricing, which is something that we’ve been talking about forever in this region,” she said. “It just feels a little slanted when you give people only one option.”

Future surveys could ask about congestion pricing, project spokeswoman Kimberly Pincheira said.

“That’s certainly an excellent point, very well taken,” she told Hardesty.

Survey respondents largely agreed with the need for a new bridge. Asked to rate the bridge replacement program from 0 to 100 – with a higher number indicating a favorable reaction – the average rating given was 72.5.

Traffic congestion topped voters’ concerns, with 68 percent saying it is very or extremely concerning. A major earthquake followed distantly, with 51 percent very or extremely concerned.

The Executive Steering Committee is one of three bodies formed to plan for a new bridge. The others are a Community Advisory Group and an Equity Advisory Group. The groups form a “three-legged stool” to support the project, facilitator Deb Nudelman said.

Project planners should get started on procurement and contracting policies now, Metro Council President Lynn Peterson said, “so people who want to work on this project can know our values up front.”

The existing Interstate Bridge was built in two stages – the initial span was opened in 1917 and a second span followed in 1958. A previous push to build a replacement bridge, then called the Columbia River Crossing, foundered amid acrimony between Oregon and Washington officials.

Leaders in the two states have taken pains to evenly divide the committees between Washington and Oregon representatives. The 12-member Executive Steering Committee has six members from each state. Each committee also has representatives of marginalized communities.

Much has changed in the past 15 years, committee members said. Jack Burkman, a Port of Vancouver commissioner, said the port has grown from providing 1,600 jobs in 2005 to 4,000 today. Clark County likewise has grown and become more diverse, he said.

Interstate Bridge replacement boosters have not entered into decisions about the bridge’s design or function. Transportation leaders are scheduled to present to the Bi-State Legislative Committee in late March and again in May.

That schedule is tentative, said Chris Regan, a Washington State Department of Transportation official who is serving as environmental manager for the bridge replacement project.

“We’re not going to advance bad decisions just to stay on schedule,” Regan said. “If we need the time, we’ll take the time.”

The post Officials discuss bridge replacement project appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.