Surface street connectors, overpasses, and interchanges contribute to cost
Last week, the Columbia River Crossing task force proposed options to the public for building a transportation system to better handle traffic and cargo through the roadways from Columbia Boulevard in Portland to State Route 500 in Vancouver.
The conversation continues to be contentious.
"Keeping those bridges in place has not been demonstrated to be a less expensive option," said CRC subcommittee member Scot Walstra. "But whatever it is, there’s going to be a big ticket."
The ticket will certainly be big, but some in the engineering community say the scope of the project is not thoroughly understood.
"I’ve tried to explain the magnitude of the project," said CRC Assistant Design Engineering Manager Frank Green. "This region has not seen a project of this size, I feel pretty comfortable saying ever."
Green said the size of the project gets lost in the talk around the bridge, while neglecting the many interchange and road widening needs along the entire stretch of roadway.
"The disconnect in thinking is that this is a bridge project," said Green. "But that is just one element of the larger picture."
To be sure, the bridge is antiquated in light of modern traffic and projected population numbers. But Green maintains the road system also is not up to speed, and that it is the chief area of concern.
"A big problem is with the interchanges," he said. "People getting on and off the freeway are finding more and more congestion."
To this end, a subcommittee has been formed at the direction of Portland Metro Council Director Rex Burkholder to generate a fourth idea for the project, but engineers at the CRC say any idea they offer will likely be one they have already considered over the past two years.
From their research, the task force has offered three options: doing nothing (an option required by law), replacing the existing bridge with a span that would allow Bus Rapid Transit, or building a supplemental bridge that would allow the existing light rail line to travel to Vancouver.
"Maybe there will be a creative alternative with one more look," said CRC communications director Danielle Cogan, "but I don’t think they’ll come up with anything we haven’t considered in making our recommendations."
Further, Cogan said the notion of the cost of the project is a liquid one that has been cast in stone by the media.
"It kind of burns my buttons, because I say the entire project could cost between $2 billion and $6 billion and the papers write about a $6 billion bridge," said Cogan.
Green also said the cost is a variable that has yet to be determined.
"There is not an option on the table that would cost $6 billion," he said. "Any option we end up with, the cost would be determined by the elements of the project."
The options presented by the subcommittee at the March 12 public hearing are two-fold. Option A provides for improving the interchanges at SR 500, Fourth Plain and Mill Plain Boulevards, as well as the interchanges at Hayden Island and Marine Drive in Portland. As far as the new bridge component is concerned, it would involve adding a high capacity transit lane in addition to three north and three southbound lanes, as well as a bicycle and pedestrian lane. Option B would provide the same configuration, but would have a Bus Rapid Transit lane rather than light rail. Additionally, this option would include interchange improvements at Marine Drive, Hayden Island, SR 14 (to provide I-5 access), Mill Plain and Fourth Plain as well as SR 500. Both options involve removing the existing bridge once the new project is at full capacity.
Both subcommittee options are geared toward reducing congestion, but some say an odd component is the idea to relocate the swing span on the BNSF railroad bridge in order to allow better channel navigation of passing ships.
"The thing about that is, the BNSF line is privately owned," said Cogan. "So even if that was a part of the plan, they could just say no."
Subcommittee members maintain they are trying to put every option on the table, while attempting to avoid interfering with the technical process.
"I’m concerned that what we’re doing here is acting as the engineers," said Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart. "Again, we’re not engineers. It’s our job to come up with a positive alternative that would be workable."
