HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2018, 5:55 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Quote:
Burnside Bridge ideas narrowed to 4 options as county seeks ‘earthquake ready’ crossing



Multnomah County has narrowed its list of ideas for replacing or retrofitting the Burnside Bridge, a project it says is necessary to make sure at least one downtown Willamette River bridge could survive an earthquake, to four options.

According to a draft document published Aug. 31, the county wants to further study the following: Seismically retrofitting the 1926-era structure; building a new bridge without a lift span; replicating the drawbridge in the same height and location; or building a new drawbridge while splitting westbound traffic into a separate approach to address a growing bottleneck at Northeast Couch Street.

All of the options would cost more than $500 million to build. The Burnside Bridge was chosen as the best option to invest in because the street runs 17 miles in between Gresham and Washington County and could provide a significant life-line for the region if a Cascadia Subduction Zone rupture ravages the city.

According to the county, the current bridge is not expected to survive following a magnitude 8 or greater Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. A simulation of the expected earthquake destroying the bridge has been viewed in 96 countries and watched more than 74,000 times.
...continues at the Oregonian.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2020, 5:23 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
https://www.kgw.com/article/weather/...c-4f6a9fd81d51

Quote:
Burnside Bridge task force recommends 'long span' design, no temporary bridge
The Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge task force looked at four types of bridges and has chosen the long span alternative for the replacement bridge.
KGW.com
Author: Jeff Thompson
Published: 9:27 AM PDT June 16, 2020
Updated: 9:51 AM PDT June 16, 2020

PORTLAND, Ore. — In the interest of making the upcoming Burnside Bridge replacement resilient to a major earthquake, a task force on Monday recommended moving forward with a long span bridge alternative.

The recommendation came after 18 months of work. The task force and a Multnomah County project team have met 16 times to discuss alternatives for the Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project.

The long span bridge would replace the existing bridge in the same location and alignment, said Multnomah County spokesperson Mike Pullen.

"The long span alternative has the fewest support columns of four alternatives that were studied," Pullen explained. "Fewer columns avoids costly construction in geotechnical hazard zones near the Willamette River, and restricted spaces between lanes of Interstate 5 and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the east side."
...(continues)
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2020, 5:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2021, 10:36 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Presentation [5MB] to the Landmarks and Design Commissions
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 6:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 5:01 PM
Tykendo Tykendo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 372
I like both, complete replacement, options. Upgrade for the long run. I like the twin arches for that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 7:48 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
For such a prominent spot along the waterfront you would think something more world renowned iconic look would be made
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2021, 8:12 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 7:20 PM
uncommon.name's Avatar
uncommon.name uncommon.name is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
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.
__________________
Passion for Landscape and Architectural photography. Check out my flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 6:11 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncommon.name View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2022, 1:30 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
paywall: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...-measures.html

Quote:
Task force signs off on Burnside Bridge replacement with one less lane, other cost-cutting measures
Updated: Jan. 25, 2022, 3:58 p.m. | Published: Jan. 25, 2022, 12:48 p.m.
By Jayati Ramakrishnan | The Oregonian/OregonLive

A Multnomah County committee voted on Monday to advance plans for a new, earthquake-resistant Burnside Bridge that would have one less lane for cars than the current bridge and made other tweaks to the project’s design in the hopes of saving taxpayers about $240 million.

But most members of the Burnside Bridge Community Task Force who voted Tuesday night said they were not eager to narrow the bridge — cutting one traffic lane from an earlier design and shrinking a shared path for bicyclists and pedestrians — and only did so because they are anxious to move forward with plans for a structure that would be a lifeline in an anticipated Cascadia earthquake, in which other bridges would likely collapse or be rendered impassable.

The project has already been pushed back a year. Now construction would start at the earliest in 2025.

The committee, made up of 20 community members, including representatives of walking, pedestrian, bike groups and neighborhood associations, voted on three changes that county employees came up with to reduce costs on the bridge from nearly $1 billion, down to somewhere in the $700 million to $800 million range.
...($continues$)
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2022, 1:34 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
^The full article also significantly downplays the big cuts to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in this round of cuts.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2022, 6:20 PM
Tanaka07 Tanaka07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 111
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2...ic-issues.html

Readers respond: One tunnel solves two traffic issues

I wish this could become reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2022, 6:25 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
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.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2022, 5:23 AM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2022, 1:01 AM
Jakz Jakz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 37
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/1dFz...ew?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/1Z30...ew?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]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2022, 10:53 PM
dizflip dizflip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 103
Above post made me so wet.

Then we can give Portland Streetcar the Yamhill/Morrison and 1st Ave alignments?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2022, 5:03 PM
Rob Nob Rob Nob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakz View Post
I work as a structural engineer here in town.
Too bad the article didn't mention your credentials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 9:08 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
https://www.multco.us/multnomah-coun...urnside-bridge

Multnomah County

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



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.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 1:19 AM
PacificStates PacificStates is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 55
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.