Local View: Choose best bridge for future

Choosing what kind of bridge will span the Columbia River between Vancouver and Portland is an important decision that will last for a century or two. Beyond a shadow of doubt, the best choice is a cable-stayed bridge. Not because it will look better, but because it will function better for the people on it, the fish beneath it, and for the tax- and toll-payers footing the bill.

The Washington and Oregon departments of transportation have recommended a “composite deck-truss” similar to the Marquam Bridge over the Willamette River. Supposedly, it will cost $50 million less and be less risky to build, while the cable-stayed option is depicted as an aesthetic luxury. While it is certainly true that the cable-stayed would offer a landmark connection between our cities and states, the reasons supporting the cable-stayed are all practical.

The cable-stayed bridge is likely more fish-friendly. With its longer spans, it requires only three piers, all of which would be built in the deepest part of the river, farther from critical habitat near the river’s shoreline. The deck-truss design demands at least 10 piers and likely 12, many of which will land near or in the highest-value, shallow habitat.

Though a deck-truss bridge certainly can be built to our seismic zone standards, nobody knows for certain just how devastating our long-overdue Doomsday Event will be. From Loma Prieta, Calif., in 1989 (which caused a section of the Oakland Bay Bridge to fail), to Santiago, Chile, in 2010, to New Zealand and Japan just this year, each major earthquake teaches engineers new lessons. But with its inherent flexibility, bridge design experts conclude that a cable-stayed bridge is far better equipped to survive nature’s surprises.

Critics of the cable-stayed bridge claim that choosing it will require a lengthy Federal Aviation Administration approval because of its proximity to Vancouver’s Pearson Field. They also claim that choosing the cable-stayed design will necessitate reopening the National Environmental Protection Act review, another potentially lengthy process. But the expert Bridge Review Panel appointed by the two governors explicitly discounted the difficulties with the FAA: a cable-stayed bridge would still be safer for the airport than the current bridge. And given these new bridge alternatives are different than the bridge originally approved, NEPA review is likely either way and certainly is required before any reasonable option is ruled out. Indeed, choosing the deck-truss bridge almost guarantees a NEPA appeal and, considering strong community opposition, lawsuits as well.

Although advocates for the deck-truss type are likely to say that it can be prettified, the Bridge Review Panel took great pains to dismiss any such notion in its report: “the basic structural form and project constraints limit the range of potential modifications of this bridge type.” Plus, any aesthetic add-ons will drive up the cost. Furthermore, the deck-truss bridge may not be much less expensive than the cable-stayed bridge anyway: the deck-truss costs already may be underestimated if the bridge follows the longer curved alignment and adds additional piers as depicted in the most recent DOT recommendation report. To date, CRC has not provided written cost estimates for this variation of the deck-truss design.

Popular choice

It would appear that the elected leaders of both Vancouver and Portland want the cable-stayed bridge, as do the majority of residents of all adjacent neighborhoods. To date, public testimony overall has reflected a strong preference for the cable-stayed design. Indeed, at its March meeting, the project’s Urban Design Advisory Group unanimously endorsed the cable-stayed design over the alternatives.

There are times governors should listen to their staff. And there are times they need to listen to their constituents. Over the past seven years, the Oregon and Washington departments of transportation have held hundreds of committee meetings as well as larger public meetings that, together, have cost taxpayers more than $110 million. Yet, despite all of this, the governors felt they needed to hire an expert review panel to clean up the mess.

If adopted, the DOTs’ current bridge choice is almost certain to create more dissension and mistrust among taxpayers. In our opinion, the cable-stayed design will fare better. For sure, it will be prettier. But on so many other, more important levels, it’s also smarter.

Jeffrey Stuhr is founding principal of Holst Architecture in Portland, past chair of the Portland Design Commission, and co-chair of the Columbia River Crossing Urban Design Advisory Group. Mark Masciarotte is principal of DSG Associates in Vancouver, chairman of the Pearson Field Aviation Advisory Committee, and co-chair of the CRC Urban Design Advisory Group.