View_of_Burnside_Bridge_operator_tower_and_Portland_sign.jpg
Multnomah County

Earlier this year, Multnomah County was considering 26 different options for how to renovate or replace the Burnside Bridge in case of an earthquake. They've now narrowed those options down to nine, which were debated yesterday at an Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge stakeholder meeting. Nearly 30 people representing numerous affected parties throughout Portland met to discuss the future of one of the city's key bridges. The stakeholder group is made up of around 20 members who provide input to the county on its plans for the bridge.

Since 2016, the county has been planning to either renovate or replace Burnside Bridge to protect it from collapse in a major seismic event. According to county documents, construction or retrofitting is planned to begin in 2024, but first, the nine options will go to the public for commentary.

The existing nine options were scored based on seismic resiliency, use of non-motorized transport, connectivity, equity, expenses, and effects on nearby buildings, parks and housing. Several options for all-out replacements scored poorly, most notably tunnels and very tall fixed bridges, both of which were deemed disruptive to the surrounding areas and would be more difficult for bicyclists to use.

“It’s about connectivity—we’re not just trying to get people through as fast as possible,” said Jeff Heilman of Parametrix, an engineering company involved with the project.

The tall fixed bridge options wouldn't need to open periodically to allow marine traffic through, but they would extend much further into the city on each side, potentially even disrupting the West Side's park blocks. A tall bridge would also require "five story tall" swirls of bike paths on both sides of the river. (Those sound like a hellish nightmare for bike commuters; luckily for them, this option's now out of the running.)

The nine options that will be brought to the public fall into four categories: a seismic retrofit of the current bridge, a complete replacement bridge that would echo the Burnside's current orientation, a replacement with a "wishbone" orientation on the east side that would bring in traffic from two separate roads, and a dual-bridge replacement with separated facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians running on a separate bridge nearby.

Of those four categories discussed at the meeting, the most controversial was the wishbone. Mark Ginsberg of the Street Trust—a bicycling, pedestrian and public transit focused non-profit—suggested such a set-up would draw car traffic to SE Ankeny, which is currently a low-traffic neighborhood greenway. Such a shift would be harmful for bicyclists and that historic bike route, he said.

Dan Yates of the Portland Spirit was concerned that the county hadn't sufficiently considered a tunnel option, and proposed alternative versions that would be less expensive and less disruptive. But county officials said there were legal issues with disrupting salmon habitat that would make a tunnel unviable.

The county plans to bring the remaining options to the public for discussion in the summer. Those interested in contacting the county regarding its plans can do so here.