Height a question for new Columbia River bridge
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Seven years after the start of planning, the height of a proposed Columbia River Crossing is still up in the air as planners face a permit deadline for the new Interstate 5 toll bridge between Portland and Vancouver.
Engineers are redesigning the bridge to increase the clearance for ship and barge traffic.
Changing the height affects other aspects of construction such as highway grades, size of onramps, and even Pearson Airfield flight paths. In addition, construction costs increase with the height of the bridge.
Planners must settle on a height before the Jan. 30 deadline to file the permit application with the Coast Guard, The Oregonian reported Tuesday.
In March, after $140 million had been spent during seven years of planning, the Coast Guard said the proposed 95-foot clearance was too low and would block some ships or loads carried on barges.
The Coast Guard must approve the height of bridges on navigable waterways.
Planners have been analyzing possible bridge clearances, calculating effects and costs at each increment. They're narrowing in on a decision of 115 or 116 feet, the newspaper said.
At those clearances, light-rail and Interstate 5 grades would increase slightly. Bridge foundations might have to expand, but not enough to require a new environmental impact statement, planners said.
Still, the $3.5 billion price tag would jump $30 million, not including mitigation expenses to cover upriver businesses.
The river now has more than 2,600 commercial users, and between nine and 11 might be affected at the 115-to-116-foot clearance, officials said. Managers are talking to the businesses.
At 116 feet, the dredging vessel Yaquina could pass below the bridge. But at 115 feet, the bridge could block the dredge used by the Corps of Engineers to maintain shipping channels.
Project managers were confident at a legislative hearing Tuesday at the Oregon State Capitol.
"This is a mega-project, it's a massive project," said Pat Egan, chairman of the Oregon Transportation Commission. "We're going to keep after it, and this is a project that's going to move forward."
In addition to the Coast Guard permit, bridge planners need approval and funding from the Oregon and Washington legislatures and the Federal Transit Administration.
The project is aiming for a Coast Guard permit in mid- to late 2013 and a construction start in 2014, Kris Strickler, CRC Oregon director, told the legislative oversight committee.
The span would save travelers a total of about 6.8 million hours a year stuck in traffic, create 4,200 jobs and avoid a potential loss of two existing bridges in a catastrophic earthquake, Strickler said.
Opponents attending the hearing said afterward that bridge finances and traffic projections don't add up.
"Our biggest concern is the toll revenues," said William "Chris" Girard Jr., president and chief executive of Plaid Pantry convenience stores.
Revenue estimates depend on vastly inflated traffic projections, he said. Revenue shortfalls would force toll increases, that would cut traffic further. And taxpayers, not bondholders, would be liable.
"I've got 70,000 customers a day that are going to make up the difference," Girard said.
Engineers are redesigning the bridge to increase the clearance for ship and barge traffic.
Changing the height affects other aspects of construction such as highway grades, size of onramps, and even Pearson Airfield flight paths. In addition, construction costs increase with the height of the bridge.
Planners must settle on a height before the Jan. 30 deadline to file the permit application with the Coast Guard, The Oregonian reported Tuesday.
In March, after $140 million had been spent during seven years of planning, the Coast Guard said the proposed 95-foot clearance was too low and would block some ships or loads carried on barges.
The Coast Guard must approve the height of bridges on navigable waterways.
Planners have been analyzing possible bridge clearances, calculating effects and costs at each increment. They're narrowing in on a decision of 115 or 116 feet, the newspaper said.
At those clearances, light-rail and Interstate 5 grades would increase slightly. Bridge foundations might have to expand, but not enough to require a new environmental impact statement, planners said.
Still, the $3.5 billion price tag would jump $30 million, not including mitigation expenses to cover upriver businesses.
The river now has more than 2,600 commercial users, and between nine and 11 might be affected at the 115-to-116-foot clearance, officials said. Managers are talking to the businesses.
At 116 feet, the dredging vessel Yaquina could pass below the bridge. But at 115 feet, the bridge could block the dredge used by the Corps of Engineers to maintain shipping channels.
Project managers were confident at a legislative hearing Tuesday at the Oregon State Capitol.
"This is a mega-project, it's a massive project," said Pat Egan, chairman of the Oregon Transportation Commission. "We're going to keep after it, and this is a project that's going to move forward."
In addition to the Coast Guard permit, bridge planners need approval and funding from the Oregon and Washington legislatures and the Federal Transit Administration.
The project is aiming for a Coast Guard permit in mid- to late 2013 and a construction start in 2014, Kris Strickler, CRC Oregon director, told the legislative oversight committee.
The span would save travelers a total of about 6.8 million hours a year stuck in traffic, create 4,200 jobs and avoid a potential loss of two existing bridges in a catastrophic earthquake, Strickler said.
Opponents attending the hearing said afterward that bridge finances and traffic projections don't add up.
"Our biggest concern is the toll revenues," said William "Chris" Girard Jr., president and chief executive of Plaid Pantry convenience stores.
Revenue estimates depend on vastly inflated traffic projections, he said. Revenue shortfalls would force toll increases, that would cut traffic further. And taxpayers, not bondholders, would be liable.
"I've got 70,000 customers a day that are going to make up the difference," Girard said.
definetly keep WSDOT out of any prime roll
So, in 7 years and $140million in studies and they didn't take into account what the tallest vessel needing passage was going to be?
Â
Who's running this show, Paula Hammond?
Not to mention the cost overruns if Kiewit gets the job. Imagine the faulty girders, bad pavement and collapsing columns that company will get paid to build, then get paid again to rebuild them.
The very fact that the planned new bridge is not high enough to allow some of the existing vessel
traffic to pass under the planned bridge shows exactly how ignorant, or stupid government
agencies are. Some of those river vessels pass through the locks at the dams clear into Idaho.
I say it would be a blast if they made it a draw bridge and watch the back ups happen every few hours.
 @wynooheeman The existing bridge has a section that raises vertically to allow
taller vessels to proceed up river. With only about seven vessels that require the
opening of the bridge, there are very few times that the bridge opens. The new
bridge does not make allowances for those vessels. One of those vessels is
a US Coast Guard Vessel used to maintain the depth of the river to insure other
vessels sufficient depth for commerce through the other upstream ports.
Oh my, then we will get around to the trivial details about how to pay for the new bridge. It's been in the planning for 7 years, wonder how much all the planning has cost the states. This is another prime example of a project that is going to go forward without the money to pay for it and then justify a raise in taxes after the fact.
Just don't let Kiewit do the work...
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth Liberal: "...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people â their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties â someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then Iâm proud to say Iâm a 'Liberal'." - John Kennedy
Â
Considering what the conservatives have become these days (whiny, complainers because they lost), I'd rather be a liberal.
Â
And, BTW, just what are you trying to say: "Absolute mindless liberal ignorance. Oxymoronic."?  Your statement makes no sense.  If "liberal ignorance" is an oxymoron are you saying all liberals are intelligent?
@the unvarnished truth anything to help collapse the economy.