[downvotetruth]

> having required 26 million pounds of concrete

the height restriction alone should have been reason enough to go with a tunnel, but how could CA miss an opportunity for construction waste /s

[jeremyjacob]

I believe they chose a bridge to create a more uniform natural path across the freeway so that the animals will be more likely to utilize it. There’s already an overpass a half mile to the south that would allow a crossing over frontage roads but because it’s not obvious and wild enough, animals still cross on the freeway.

[downvotetruth]

The first sentence is almost completely subjective, and the leading fact in second sentence gives the best evidence against an overpass in this thread. The only thing that is going to make this more obvious to the mountain lions would be a few more dead deer carcasses as a result of the car lights! lets jump off the side into oncoming hidden traffic behavior.

[jmye]

You’d think the right thing to do would be to pick the option wildlife is most likely to use, and that there was research and decision-making that went into that above and beyond “tons of concrete”.

Do you think that didn’t happen, that you’re significantly smarter about wildlife bridges than the folks who planned this one (who were, apparently, too dumb to ask a question you thought of sixty seconds after reading about the amount of concrete used), or just deeply into throwing shade, deserved or not, at CA at every half-imagined opportunity?

[downvotetruth]

No, I do think that happened and that the underpass was the more reasonable solution; why Caltrans required due to the bridge’s size and cost to have its completion be reliant on donations from the public.

[cruffle_duffle]

Perhaps rephrase as “designed as an underpass”. These things already are funnels for prey. I doubt a lot of wildlife is going to feel comfortable going through a tunnel. Humans don’t like going through tunnels to cross highways…

Because I agree about the cost of these things. They should be designed to be inexpensive so we can put them everywhere (eg: i90 through cascades… there is only 1 of these and it’s on the east side of the pass).

It annoys me greatly how seemingly over engineered and expense these are. We put a huge fence that divides the entire mountain range. These bridges should be all over.

That being said I’m pretty sure a lot of research goes into designing a wildlife bridge that animals want to cross. I think there was a practical engineering YouTube video that covered it. Turns out each species has their own preferences and peculiarities when it comes to this sort of thing. So to counter my own argument… it does no good to build a ton of these if no animals will actually feel comfortable using them.

Maybe they should fund some kind of wildlife outreach program and give brochures and flyers to the local wildlife explaining how to use their new overpass…

[toast0]

> Maybe they should fund some kind of wildlife outreach program and give brochures and flyers to the local wildlife explaining how to use their new overpass…

For the Snoqualmie bridge, (some of) the local wildlife trespassed to use it before it opened, so I'm not sure if they need to do much outreach.

I think the better projects include post construction observation and reasonable minor modifications to help encourage use; typically adjustments to fencing or maybe some earth works.

[firefoxd]

You might enjoy learning more about these projects from Practical engineering: https://youtu.be/5mYpQWPtfpo?si=riybniIFEjbwDMWQ

[downvotetruth]

I already saw that video and my comment reflects what he states that underpasses usually cheaper than overpasses like this (9:10); given that fact more (culverts - 9:30) could be built for the more numerous non-apex species that do not lend well to being diverted miles to such a monstrosity. Of the listed species expected to benefit from this crossing including bobcats, coyotes, gray foxes, birds of prey, skunks, rodents, American badgers, American black bears, fence lizards and mule deer only the mule deer have may be having herding behavior causing carelessness to not use such an underpass.

[toast0]

Tunnels are probably more expensive than overpasses. At best, they might be comparable cost.

Especially if you want to do the work with minimal disruption to the highway.

[downvotetruth]

Cutting and covering a few lanes at a time would not have cost $92 million. Even better, a horizontal drill would have less chance of lane closures than the bridge option.