Bob Ortblad reports that the IBR’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement includes 26 technical reports, but a critically important geotechnical report is missing, and the IBR has offered no explanation
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) is hiding a serious “boulder” problem that threatens the feasibility of the IBR’s Columbia River bridge design. IBR’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement includes 26 technical reports, but a critically important geotechnical report is missing, and the IBR has offered no explanation. I filed a Public Disclosure Request and obtained IBR’s “Geotechnical Data Report” dated May 2024.
The IBR plans to support its bridge with a dozen piers. Each pier will need eight supporting shafts for a total of 96 in-river shafts. These shafts will be steel pipe piles 10-foot in diameter and up to 250 feet long. IBR plans to use a giant oscillating machine to twist piles back and forth, sinking them into about 200 feet of sandy sediment down to a solid Troutdale Formation.
IBR’s “Geotechnical Data Report” describes the encounter of many boulders and cobbles in a 200-foot layer of sediment. The report referenced boulders 106 times and cobbles 175 times. In 2012, the Columbia River Crossing spent $4.2 million to test a few piles and a single shaft. Malcolm Drilling Co. tried to sink a single 10-foot diameter steel casing down 250 feet on Hayden Island. In a trade journal, Malcolm Drilling recounted its failure to sink this test shaft due to boulders.
“The Columbia River Crossing Test Program,” 2013
“However, during excavation and casing installation of the 10- foot diameter shafts, an unknown layer of very dense boulders in a “fixed condition,” resulted in damage to an installation tooth ring to the point that excavation to the planned shaft depth was impossible.”
IBR also plans to install 1,775 temporary 24-inch and 48-inch inriver piles to support a giant oscillating machine as it tries to sink 96 in-river 10-foot diameter shafts.
In 2012, each shaft was estimated to cost $1.25 million. Today, each shaft will cost $2.5 million. If many boulders are encountered the cost per shaft could soar even higher. The cost of bridge drilled shafts is very unpredictable ranging from $250 million to $500 million.
An Immersed Tunnel alternative that the IBR has fraudulently disqualified needs no drilled shafts saving up to $500 million. An Immersed Tunnel is supported by the displacement of its weight similar to a floating bridge.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle, WA
Supporting documents (click for PDF’s):
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘I’m more than just a little skeptical that IBR officials are doing everything they can to limit the cost of this project’
Ken Vance shares his concerns over rising costs and limited contractor interest in the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. - Letter: ‘IBR has relied on this video to instill fear in the public and government officials to promote the construction of a new bridge’
Bob Ortblad questions IBR’s use of a seismic video and urges a shift toward tunnel alternatives in this critical letter to the editor. - Troubled TriMet and fleecing taxpayers with LRTJohn Ley analyzes TriMet’s ridership decline and what it signals for post-pandemic public transit in the region.
- Lawsuits associated with Michelle Belkot’s removal from C-TRAN board in holding patternsTwo lawsuits tied to Councilor Michelle Belkot’s removal from the C-TRAN board are awaiting court dates and could impact a key vote in July.
- Plan for overnight lane closures on I-5 near Ridgefield, May 12-23Drivers near Ridgefield should prepare for overnight I-5 lane closures May 12–23 during bridge work on the Pioneer Street overpass.
As long as taxpayers are stuck paying the bill, PLUS interest on the “loans”, PLUS “unanticipated” cost “over-runs”, why would the IBRP care? A new bridge isn’t needed. What is really needed is at least two more cross river bridges. But, since the decision to replace the bridge has already been made, taxpayers are going to take it hard.
Thank you Bob Ortblad for your continued digging into the facts and details of the IBR’s proposal.
Details like this should have been exposed by the program prior to the DSEIS public comment period.
This highlights one of many problems caused by Greg Johnson and his team, as they bury vital information deep within their 12,500 pages of their DSEIS.
PLEASE TELL ME. Is there ANYthing HONEST towards the people, in ANY Government Project? The DIShonesty is over-whelming!
Ok, MetaWorld2, please sit down, get a glass of RonRico 151, and put your feet up, because the answer to your question is NO. There are NO consequences for (s)elected government office holders or their most friendly bureaucrat toadies when they skim tax money and “re-route” said funds to their “special” non-profits, when they deliberately pass laws that are un-Constitutional, when they squander tax money on “projects” that any sane person that can add 2 plus 2 and get 4 would say is a boondoggle that shouldn’t be funded, and, of course all they do is LIE to the people that are paying their wages (taxpayers). Nothing new about that either. Unfortunately it has been going on since the Bank of England bought our “representatives” and “senators” to “bless” us with central banking and the british fractional reserve banking system.