Burnside Bridge Earthquake Readiness Project
 

...continues at the Oregonian.

Seems like this would be the perfect time to address West Burnside and turn it into a one way couplet with Couch extending from the East Side over to the West side of the river. Especially if the bridge is replaced, the alignment could be shifted to allow the existing bridge to be used during construction. Shift it somewhat north and transition Couch/Burnside on each side onto the bridge and make them a couplet on both sides.

Or go crazy and build a bridge a city block wide with roads at the boundaries and a new bridge park that connects the West and Eastside waterfront parks with a greenspace bridge across the river. Just have to get rid of that pesky road on the eastside that is in the way.

I think the main thing about the Burnside bridge worth keeping are the cool castle-like towers. I'd think those could be removed and stored somewhere for re-attachment to a replacement bridge.

East Side Waterfront! Removal of Marquam Bridge, I-5 and ramps to Morrison. New Burnside Bridge can have an onramp connection and signal to stop cross-traffic traffic for bikes/peds. Protected bike lane on bridge and... what a beautiful new park we have.

How is it possible to have no mention of the Marquam bridge in that report? Did I miss it? I did a search but didn't find it in there. Is the plan to have it collapse so we can then start from scratch and get something less god awful?

That's an interesting idea, but extending Couch has problems on both sides. One of the West side the Skidmore / Old Town Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It's hard to imagine a design that would have an acceptable level of impact. On the east the development at the Bridgehead effectively now precludes extending Couch. The main resident entrance into Block 67 is planned to be onto the Couch Pedestrian Plaza.

ODOT owns and maintains the Marquam Bridge. It's not Multnomah County's responsibility.

Condition of the Marquam as reported by Transportation for America.

Gotcha. That explains it (among other things).

I find that superstructure to be anything but super.

This would be my biggest concern, the bridge itself isn't anything special structurally, but the towers on the bridge are iconic and should always be a part of the design of the bridge.

Funny thing, I actually don't mind the Marquam Bridge, it is a great example of an undertruss bridge. It isn't a spectacular design, but I don't mind it.

...continues at the Oregonian.

Burnside Bridge Earthquake Simulation Animation
 

:cheers:

Yikes.

Don't watch that video before bedtime.

My reaction was, yep, that is pretty much what I already knew. I am hoping we can secure funding for a new Burnside Bridge soon for this very reason.

...continues at the Business Tribune.

Found this presentation given a few months ago. It looks like options of preserving the bridge or a seismic retrofit are being ruled out, with only a complete rebuild or hybrid (rebuild of major portions of bridge and approaches) likely to move forward.

Slide 42 shows some options for a rebuild on the current alignment, or alignments to the north and south. It's hard to imagine either of those moving forward given the impacts they'd have at the approaches.

I feel like the north and south options were those after thoughts where someone was like "we only have the rebuild in the current location, quick, someone draw some lines on the map to make it look like we thought about alternatives."

those other alts would conceivably allow the current bridge to stay open for traffic for much of the construction phase. similar to when they set up the old Sellwood bridge off to the side during construction. it's not a small consideration.

http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/bu...d-for-impending-earthquake/283-528926339

(continues)...

...continues at the Oregonian.

https://www.kgw.com/article/weather/eart...283-86986308-6c40-4217-a00c-4f6a9fd81d51

...(continues)

That would be a drastic change to an iconic bridge. It will be interesting to see what this new era of the Burnside Bridge ends up looking like. Personally I am really excited to see what happens now that they seem to be set on the long span design, which did make the most sense for a number of reasons.

Presentation [5MB] to the Landmarks and Design Commissions

I was just thinking about this project today and wondering what the results from the survey were. I like that basically we all agree what the bridge should look like. I hope they go with the single arch design because I think the cable stay style would just get confused as being the Tillikum Bridge.

I like both, complete replacement, options. Upgrade for the long run. I like the twin arches for that area.

For such a prominent spot along the waterfront you would think something more world renowned iconic look would be made

Both of these options would be quite iconic for that stretch. A bridge first and foremost must function correctly before it can have any specific iconic look. In this case, it is three bridges in one because of the three stretches it has to cross.

I'm kind of liking the tied arch design. The cable stay design will look like a larger version of the Tilikum Bridge and the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge in Boston.

Oh yeah, also a good point about Boston. I was driving over the Burnside today thinking about how cool the arch design would look.

paywall: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/202...ss-lane-other-cost-cutting-measures.html

...($continues$)

^The full article also significantly downplays the big cuts to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in this round of cuts.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2022/...ne-tunnel-solves-two-traffic-issues.html

Readers respond: One tunnel solves two traffic issues

I wish this could become reality.

If we were to spend billions on a tunnel from Goose Hollow to the Lloyd District I feel like it should be for the MAX.

This plan alone would be the greatest idea Portland and Tri Met ever did. The max is soooo slow from the Lloyd district to goose hallow almost makes it not worth to take. This plan should have been done a long time ago

Hi all! I just created an account, but I've been a lurker/non-poster here for a while. I work as a structural engineer here in town. This past week I was bored (what's new) so I wrote the Oregonian piece above. Didn't think they'd actually publish it!

Here's the rest of the plan. Fleshed out some of the details last night. Iain, I actually fully agree that a MAX tunnel should be the first priority. But it wouldn't solve the seismic connection problem, and, well, good luck getting that money from ODOT. But this morning I started wondering if it wouldn't be possible to do both.

The Alaskan way tunnel had a 52' inner diameter. If that is increased to 57', it becomes possible to add a third level at the top. See sketch at the link below. The tunnel area increases by 20%, so it is a jump, but not a huge jump. And definitely cheaper than boring a separate tunnel.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFzZ5KC3jWWfU_3YYEHjQg4cD3uIun9Z/view?usp=sharing

Where would the tunnel go? If there's a transit component, I think the logical station locations are Lloyd / NE 12th (at beginning of tunnel), Burnside / NE 2nd, Burnside / SW 6th, and Providence Park. The western terminus of the tunnel would be near the SW Jefferson exit ramps. The NE 2nd / Burnside station would connect to a central eastside light rail line along the waterfront.

See PDF at the link below for a sketch of the central eastside (yes, I'm aware this is quite nerdy, but I had fun making it).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z30TUQjbi_1X9XP2JINB9vNoe3NFj1Cs/view?usp=sharing

The east side freeway would be removed, and only ramps would remain, lowered to run in a trench. There would be one lane and a breakdown shoulder in each direction. The freight railroad that currently runs down SE 1st St. would be rerouted and lowered to run parallel with the freeway ramps. The total width of the trench would be ~75 ft., but it would be broken into three spans. This means that ODOT wouldn't have to pay for the highway caps. The blocks could be sold off individually, with developers taking responsibility for building the caps. With 25' spans, it would be no different than building on top of an underground parking level. Of course, in this case, the developers wouldn't get the benefit of having a parking level below. But with prime riverfront property, I think it would pencil. If necessary, zoning could be adjusted to allow for more stories to compensate the developers.

All of this was inspired by my (perhaps irrational) hatred of the central eastside freeway. I've seen other proposals to do away with that section of freeway, but most of them aren't convincing. Capping the highway in its current location wouldn't work since it's at grade. Lowering it while maintaining operations would be a logistical nightmare and incredibly expensive given the width and spans. A deep bore tunnel is a non-starter because of all the ramps. Much as I'd like to believe that simply removing it is an option, I'm skeptical. Funneling all of the region's N-S traffic, E-W traffic, S-E, and N-W traffic across the Fremont bridge is, I think, unrealistic.

So, to summarize: A 57' diameter tunnel that accommodates light rail and highway. Let's round the cost up from $3.3 billion to $4 billion due to the larger diameter. It's worth noting that Trimet (those excellent stewards of public funds) were batting around a $4 billion figure for their own, separate, tunnel. Let's round up again to $5 billion for all the miscellaneous stuff. Trimet can pitch in $2 billion, Multnomah county can pitch in $1 billion, ODOT can pitch in $1.5 billion, and we're basically there!

I should note that I don't actually expect this to be taken seriously, and I did this mostly for my own entertainment. Posting it here since some of you may find it interesting. I do wish we were having more of these big-picture conversations, though.

[Iain, I recognize this is very off-topic, feel free to move as appropriate]

Above post made me so wet.

Then we can give Portland Streetcar the Yamhill/Morrison and 1st Ave alignments?

Too bad the article didn't mention your credentials.

https://www.multco.us/multnomah-county/n...easures-earthquake-ready-burnside-bridge

Multnomah County

Commissioners approve cost-saving measures for an Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge

https://www.multco.us/s3/files/styles/me...CopyrightHDR_20220324_.jpg?itok=3TDXPEOr

March 21, 2022

On Thursday, March 17 the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a plan to significantly reduce the cost of the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project.

Without the cost reductions, the project is estimated to cost more than $1 billion. The cost-saving measures approved by commissioners will reduce the project’s costs by as much as $215 million.

“I think the work that you’ve done to get to this place, with going through the numerous committees and groups has made this project all the more better and stronger,” Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury said. “And have a lot more community buy-in.”

As part of the new cost savings, commissioners approved a bascule movable span, a westside girder approach and reduced the width of the bridge. The current Burnside Bridge is a bascule bridge, which rotates open to provide unlimited clearance for river traffic. It also preserves the existing view corridor.

County Public Information Officer Mike Pullen said there was broad public support for the bascule and girder but mixed support for narrowing the width.

“Basically a theme that we heard from the public is if money was no object, we prefer the wider bridge you originally proposed: but we don’t want to prevent the project from getting built,” Pullen said.

Andrew Holtz, the Multnomah County Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizen Advisory Committee chair shared his concerns with narrowing the bridge width during public comment.

“The budget plan casts the choices between a skinny bridge and no bridge at all, that is a political calculation,” Holtz said. “Getting adequate funding is harder than settling for inadequate funding, but it’s worth the fight, climate action is not optional.”

“This is not the ideal thing that we would be wanting to put forward, but it is with the reality of where costs are right now, the impacts of inflation and what we know we need to prioritize for this project in getting a bridge that will help Portland and Multnomah County stay as whole as possible, and recover as quickly as possible, after a Cascadia event,” Commissioner, Jessica Vega Pederson said.

The Burnside Bridge is nearly 100 years old and is a major connection between the east and west sides of the Portland-metro area.
County engineers say the current bridge would not withstand a magnitude 8+ Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake that could hit the Pacific Northwest region at any time.

The Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project will replace the existing bridge with a new seismically-resilient crossing, so that it can be immediately used after a major earthquake.

“It’s been 322 years since the last major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and studies show there is a one in three chance of a major earthquake happening in the next 50 years in Oregon,” County Project Manager, Megan Neil said. “This is why the county has invested in the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project whose purpose is to really provide that one downtown bridge that’s going to be seismically resilient for our community to use.”

At the onset of this project, Multnomah County conducted a feasibility study of more than 100 options, including tunnels, ferries, double-deck bridges and other bridge options.

Four bridge alternatives from that study were recommended for additional evaluation in the Environmental Review Phase. This phase studies various environmental impacts the project could have on the surrounding area.

The County asked the community to weigh in on the preferred alternative of the four options through a public engagement process. The Replacement Long Span was chosen as the most feasible option for having the lowest cost, its seismic resiliency and the fewest environmental impacts.

The County then asked community members for thoughts on the type of long-span structure they would like to see built for the project. The options included girder, truss, tied arch and cable-supported structure. It also included bascule and lift choices for the bridge’s moveable span.

In early 2021 County leaders raised concerns about the project’s overall costs due to various external factors, including pandemic-related inflation, and asked project leaders to find ways to reduce the cost of the project. The team found the three important cost refinements totaling roughly $200 million that the commissioners approved on Thursday.

Project managers will now put together a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement which will be released in late April. The document describes the impacts of the cost-saving measures. There will be a public comment period before the Federal Highway Administration reviews the environmental impact statement.

In late 2022, the project will publish the final environmental statement and complete the planning phase. Design of the new bridge is expected to start in late 2022. Construction would begin in 2025 and last four to five years.

It frustrates me that it takes us a decade (or more) to plan and complete a simple bridge, mostly out of jealousy while watching other parts of the world build so quickly.

The Alaskan Way viaduct tunnel was already, at 52 feet in diameter, the largest bored tunnel ever constructed on earth. It ran into a myriad number of problems not the least of which was that the thing broke down partially due to its size and required 2 1/2 billion dollars to dig it out just so they can re-launch it. Building an even larger tunnel is not only completely unnecessary for a city Portlands size to have the largest tunnel in the world, but would introduce major risk in such a project and would also drain Oregon‘s transportation budget for the next 50 years at the state level and possibly even federal matching dollars.

And as much as I hate sitting in traffic when I occasionally have to drive to Hillsboro, I don’t think spending billions of dollars for a roadway tunnel of a mile and a half under downtown Portland is the best use of funds… Particularly when you know it’s going to be tolled a significant amount, it’s not gonna serve nearly as many people as a train line could. A highway tunnel under downtown Portland will essentially be a gold plated roadway for wealthy commuters.

Maybe get The Boring Compamy to build a privately funded hyper loop for you.

If the city and state ever get to the point to wanting to do a serious tunnel route under the downtown, I would hope it would be for underground light rail.

This + a dozen doughnuts. Building hyper-expensive road infrastructure is counterproductive to climate goals.

...continues at the DJC ($).

Is this the design they decided on?

The CM/GC team for design through construction hasn't really begun designing, as far as I understand it. A high level breakdown of the schedule is here:

https://www.multco.us/earthquake-ready-burnside-bridge/design-phase

Not exactly, but it seems likely they're going to wind up either a tied arch or a cable-stayed bridge at the east span, a bascule for the center span, and a girder at the west span. Between the tied arch and cable-stayed it looks like the tied arch is less expensive, so most likely it will wind up looking something like that rendering.

Hopefully this is a very prominent design. One recognized around the country. This location is just to perfect for it not to be

Bridge designer Beam Architecture has joined the design team.
https://www.beam-architects.com/projects/

Well that's a good sign... they have designed some stunning bridges around the world.