The latest news from the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program sounds like a bit of déjà vu. It also points out the difficulty of managing competing interests and navigating roadblocks to the planning and construction of a replacement bridge across the Columbia River.
Plans for a new bridge under review by the Coast Guard would propose a 116-foot clearance for vessels, The Columbian reported last week. That is the same height approved by the Coast Guard in 2013, when the proposed Columbia River Crossing project was under consideration.
The current bridge has a clearance of 178 feet when the drawbridge is raised. Therein lies the problem; a major goal for creating a replacement bridge — in addition to increasing traffic flow and increasing transit options — is to avoid the stoppages generated by bridge lifts.
Mind you, nothing has been finalized and no bridge has been designed. But organizers are considering all options as they move the process forward.
“While the bridge design has not been determined, and the Coast Guard has the ultimate authority to permit the final height, the program assumes that 116 would be the minimum height,” program administrator Greg Johnson told The Columbian.
Echoes from the Columbia River Crossing project ring loudly. When proposals were considered before the plan was scuttled in 2013, clearance above the river was a major stumbling block. The bridge must be high enough to allow vessels to pass safely underneath, but it must not be so high as to interfere with air traffic to and from Portland International Airport and Pearson Field.
Seeking a preliminary navigation clearance, officials say, is the first step in the permitting process. A news release from the Coast Guard says it “defines the bridge clearances which have been evaluated and determined to have a high likelihood of being approved by the Coast Guard and to help the applicant refine development of alternatives for a proposed bridge.”
A decade ago, a 116-foot clearance was inadequate for some upriver manufacturers. CRC administrators settled on deals for mitigation payments, including $49.8 million to Thompson Metal Fab, $24.8 million to Greenberry Industrial and $11.8 million to Oregon Iron Works. Those agreements were eliminated when the CRC project failed.
Concerns over bridge clearance also reignite calls for a tunnel under the Columbia River rather than a bridge. But as a 2019 article in The Columbian explained, a tunnel at standard highway grade would emerge somewhere near Mill Plain Boulevard, bypassing downtown Vancouver. It would require a new system of connecting roads on both sides of the river and the purchase of additional land, likely including a portion of Fort Vancouver National Site.
“These connections would also require significant out-of-direction travel for many users, including vehicles, transit, and bike/pedestrian travelers,” one official said.
In other words, building a tunnel would create as many problems as it solves.
As the bridge replacement program moves forward, one of the desires is to not repeat the failures of the past. While discussion of the bridge height raises those concerns, stakeholders say planners have been more proactive about discussing potential problems.
Given the difficulties of meeting the needs of multiple states, multiple cities, multiple transit agencies and a regional government in Oregon, such communication is essential to bringing the project to fruition.
