Seattle resident and engineer Bob Ortblad submitted a letter to the editor urging local officials to reconsider the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program’s bridge‑centric plan. Ortblad contends that the current I‑5 bridges should remain in place for local traffic while an immersed tunnel would provide a safer, toll‑free crossing for regional travelers.

Why a tunnel could be better

According to Ortblad, an immersed tunnel would eliminate the need for new tolls that could burden commuters and businesses. He also points out that a tunnel would reduce traffic congestion on the existing bridges, preserving their role for local traffic and emergency vehicles.

Cost savings

The letter cites estimates that a tunnel could save hundreds of millions of dollars compared with the expensive bridge alternatives proposed by the IBR consultants. Ortblad argues that these savings could be redirected to other critical infrastructure projects in the region.

Examples from elsewhere

Ortblad references several international cases where citizens rejected large bridge projects in favor of alternatives that protected historic sites or the environment, including Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, Vancouver’s Fraser River, and Antwerp’s historic city center.

Next steps

Ortblad calls on the Bi‑State Tolling Subcommittee and other decision‑makers to review the tunnel option before finalizing the IBR plan. He emphasizes that it is not too late to adopt a solution that aligns with fiscal responsibility, community safety, and environmental stewardship.

Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.