Although Columbia River Crossing planners were told last week by Govs. Chris Gregoire and John Kitzhaber to abandon pursuit of one particular design for a new Interstate 5 bridge, there are plenty of new positives that keep the message from sounding negative.
“We have instructed executives at the Departments of Transportation to discontinue any further design work on the open web box girder bridge type and begin an expedited review of the three bridge types developed by the panel,” the governors announced in a prepared statement.
We’ll concede we’re not engineering experts on exactly how this thing should be built. We’ll concede we were good with the last design because the project needed to keep moving forward. But we consider ourselves experts at expressing frustration on how long this has been taking. OK, we have three new options. Let’s pick one and get started! And to accelerate that effort, here are a few positives to keep in mind:
The governors’ joint order was based on advice from outside experts. As we’ve noted all along, it’s good to have total strangers — but totally informed experts — reviewing the new bridge project. No doubt, those 16 members of the Bridge Expert Review Panel (led by Utah-based consultant Tom Warne) have no political ax to grind. We even suspect that — as outsiders — they might have been perplexed by all the high-pitched emotional controversies that have surrounded the CRC’s work for several years now.
All three remaining designs are cheaper than the old CRC plan. As Erik Robinson reported in Friday’s Columbian, the composite deck truss bridge would be about $100 million less, the cable-stayed design would save about $40 million and the tied arch design would cost $10 million less.
Each of the new designs is expected to require fewer bridge piers in the river.
We believe each of the three plans is relatively attractive, functional at worst, perhaps iconic at best. By contrast, the former design had many people scoffing at the appearance of a “beached aircraft carrier.” Our attitude about the new bridge has never been too firmly rooted in appearance. The Interstate 205 Bridge, after all, is far from iconic, but everyone who uses it appreciates it.
The No. 1 goal of this project — eliminating the absurd (for an interstate highway) bridge lifts — remains on track. Each of the three plans has the required 95-foot clearance for passing ships.
The governors are united. Never take this for granted, because Washington and Oregon in other ways are highly competitive. It’s good to see Gregoire and Kitzhaber recognize that, for this bistate project, gubernatorial harmony is crucial.
Don’t get us wrong, this project is nowhere near the homestretch. Several unresolved issues linger. For example, why is the Pearson Airfield airspace considered an obstacle when the current bridge-lift towers were grandfathered in as exceptions to that restriction? We hope the CRC can obtain FAA approval for whichever bridge design is ultimately preferred. Also, we hope a straighter upstream path is kept on the table for awhile because that route likely could have less impact on downtown Vancouver.
It’s time for local politicians on both sides of the Columbia River to follow the governors’ example. Hackneyed, over-studied and long-since-resolved complaints should be set aside. The time for micromanaging — paralysis by analysis — has passed. Pro-third-bridgers, pro-tunnelers and pro-do-nothingers should climb aboard or at least get out of the way.
Experts from distant places have spoken. Experts here at home remain hard at work. That’s why the current state of the CRC, even with this recent course correction, should be viewed as positive.
