$4 billion: Too much for this?

Columbia River Crossing Sketch shows what a replacement Interstate 5 bridge, with light-rail tracks under the southbound span, could look like from downtown Vancouver south toward Oregon.

Donald R. Wagner, P.E., Regional Administrator for the Washington State Department of Transportation during an interview at The Columbian newspaper regarding the Columbia Crossing project Wednesday May 13, 2009. (The Columbian, Troy Wayrynen)

There may not be enough money to build a bridge, freeway and transit project costing $4 billion or more, the top state transportation official in Southwest Washington told The Columbian.

Planners and engineers already are looking to slash costs on the multibillion-dollar Columbia River Crossing project, even while the community continues to haggle over bridge design and other sticking points, said Don Wagner, the Washington State Department of Transportation's regional administrator.

Possible cuts include delaying one or more of the interchange projects and slicing off a bridge lane in each direction, he said.

"Just like most of us in the real world, we dream about the car we want," Wagner said in a wide-ranging interview last week. "And at some point, stark reality says, 'Huh. I dream about it, but I don't have quite enough money to get it all today. Maybe I need to take off a few of the options off of this car.' And we are starting those conversations right now."

Wagner said he doesn't believe it's politically possible to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge without extending light rail into Vancouver and predicted the crossing project would be on "life support" if voters shoot down a light-rail measure.

Despite those looming obstacles, there are benefits to replacing the I-5 Bridge, namely a 70 percent to 90 percent easing of congestion at one of the region's most notorious bottlenecks, Wagner said.

Money remains a constant consideration. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski has suggested the region might be looking to build too much. Last month, Kulongoski used a similar car analogy, saying that "some of us like to go into the Maserati dealership" but "there is always the day of reckoning."

Wagner, however, declined to call the crossing project a Maserati or even a Cadillac.

"What we have out there is a good solid Chevy, with a few extra options on it right now," he said.

Removing a bridge lane — a significant revision given the heated battle that occurred earlier this year to get both sides of the river to back a bridge with six lanes in each direction — would save roughly $150 million, Wagner said.

Between $200 million to $300 million could be trimmed from the budget if overhauling the state Highway 500 interchange was delayed, and another $400 million to $500 million could be saved if the Marine Drive interchange in Oregon wasn't rebuilt, he said.

"There would be a lot of unhappy campers, people saying, 'But I thought I would get this?'" Wagner said. "But it would be a safe structure; it would be a functional approach. It would include proper tie-ins of all the interchanges. They just wouldn't have as many lanes on them. You might have to wait in line to get onto the freeway."

Saving another $750 million by killing light rail isn't going to happen, Wagner said.

"The two sides of the river have to come together on what's going to happen," he said. "And on the Clark County side, while there is growing support for light rail, I am going to stop way short of saying that everybody likes light rail because I've certainly had enough people tell me that they don't like light rail.

"But our side of the river seems to be one that says, 'Look, we have to have highway improvements out there or we don't have a project.' On the Oregon side of the river, it's really pretty close to just the opposite. If they don't have light rail, they have no reason to be at the table. And this project can't be built without money coming from both states."

Although there is no requirement for a public vote on either building a replacement bridge or imposing tolls that could cost commuters more than $1,000 a year, a vote will be needed on one or more aspects of light rail.

The federal government is expected to cover all construction costs, but C-Tran will need a sales tax increase or some other revenue boost to subsidize light-rail operations and maintenance. Fares alone won't cover those costs.

State law requires voter approval of a high-capacity transit system and financing plan, a requirement that must be met regardless of how construction and operating costs are paid.

Wagner said he personally suspects there needs to be a broader vote on light rail besides operating costs, but that question is being studied by attorneys.

"Our question is to the legal beagles is, 'Does a vote on the operating levy, does that qualify as the vote spelled out in state law or do we have to add something else to it?'" he said. "And quite honestly, we don't have an answer to that yet."

Even if voters were to reject a tax increase to help pay for light-rail operations, Wagner said there are other options to help pay the light-rail bill — "None of which I'm supporting," he added — including using excess revenue from bridge tolls. There have been doubts about the legality of such a transfer, but Wagner said it appears it would pass constitutional muster.

But he also cautioned that a no vote on light rail would not be an easy obstacle for the crossing project to overcome.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that it's dead," he said. "It certainly means that it is on life support. How I would read it if the public voted no on the operating, there is probably a message beyond the sales tax there. I think it would have to be read as a message."

There doesn't appear to be any requirement for a public vote in Oregon, and Washington residents always have the initiative and referendum process to take matters into their own hands, Wagner said.

One way a bridge could be built without light rail is if there were a disaster, similar to last summer's collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Wagner said. Barring calamity, the process likely will continue to play out as it has for much of this decade, he said.

"We have a bridge that's functioning, maybe not as good as we would like, but it's there, it's safe, it's open, the freeway's moving," he said. "It's not a 520 Bridge up in Seattle that we worry about sinking with the next windstorm. It's not an Alaskan Way Viaduct that the next earthquake may bring down."

Wagner said the existing I-5 spans, opened in 1917 and 1958, are structurally solid.

"About 10 years ago, when we replaced the pulley mechanism that lifts the northbound bridge, we did extensive studies on the steel itself because we got into areas that hadn't been exposed for 70 years at the time," he said. "And the steel was great. In fact, it was thicker than the plans call for. So from that standpoint, they are really quite solid."

But a major earthquake could be disastrous because the bridge is built on 60-foot wood piles driven into the bed of the Columbia River, Wagner said.

"So in an earthquake, a major earthquake of any length, we could get liquefaction out there and the bridges would tend to fall over," he said. "Is that earthquake going to hit next year? 50 years from now? 100 years from now? 500 years? We don't know."

Wagner said he has no doubts the existing crossings are safe, so much so that he drives and cycles across the spans without hesitation.

"If we don't have an earthquake of any magnitude, those two bridges are going to stay there until something hits them," he said.

Replacing the I-5 Bridge and other planned improvements would ease congestion anywhere from 70 percent to 90 percent in both directions, Wagner said.

Initially, both the north and south traffic will flow well, Wagner said.

The crossing's traffic projections for the year 2030 indicate that afternoon rush hour traffic would move briskly — 40 mph or faster — from Going Street in Portland north into Vancouver. But during a three-hour stretch of southbound morning commute, traffic would crawl along at 10 mph or slower across the replacement bridge through Hayden Island and portions of north Portland.

"As most of our people from Clark County will remember, it's worse in the afternoon than it is in the morning," he said. "And that will be removed basically from Going Street all the way north by this project.

"Southbound, upon opening, we are going to be in great shape. It's 10, 15 years later, we're going to start to see some of that backup start getting back up towards the bridge. So day of opening, I would say you are probably going to see 79, 80, 90 percent improvement in your commute, both directions.

"You get out there 30 years, people are going to say, 'Boy we haven't solved the Rose Quarter problem, the I-405 problem.' They're going to be saying, 'We have to get on that, someone has to get on that.'"

Jeffrey Mize: 360-735-4542 or jeff.mize@columbian.com.