91ÊÓƵ

Key aspects of the Columbia River Crossing project were agreed upon this week, but larger questions are now being raised about the overall functional design of the proposed bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Wash.

Important questions about the number of lanes and what type of intersection should be used at Hayden Island have been answered. Now, however, there are new concerns about whether the open-web design that has been used for the bridge creates too many engineering challenges. The hurdles could slow the processes to file an environmental impact statement and to secure money for construction.

“The open-web design, as presented here, would be unique,” said Tom Warne, chairman of the Independent Review Panel, charged by the governors of Oregon and Washington to evaluate the bridge project. “We’re not saying it can’t be built, and we’re not saying it’s a bad design; we’re just saying it’s a unique enough design that it’s going to take further testing to move ahead.”

Jugesh Kapur, a Washington state bridge engineer, met with government engineers in Japan last year who used the open-web design for two bridges. While the bridges’ designs are not exactly the same as the one proposed for the CRC, they did face many of the same engineering problems.

“They said it was difficult because nothing had been built like that before, so they had to do a lot of testing to get their confidence level up, and learn how everything went together and how to erect it,” Kapur said. “They said they would not like to experience going through such a project again.”

Kapur said he thinks the design can be done over the Columbia River, providing enough testing is done to gain the confidence of those involved in designing and building it. But he pointed out that the concept of using steel in conjunction with concrete is still new.

“Even if it moves forward I think it will be very expensive in the end,” Kapur said.

The open-web design is the third design for the Columbia River Crossing. The first two featured a stack, with light rail and pedestrian traffic traveling on the lower deck of the bridge in an enclosed area – an approach that raised safety concerns.

The open-web design keeps the stack, but opens up the tunnel on the lower deck by using steel members to create an open web between the two levels. The steel members hold the lower and upper decks together and help transfer weight from traffic to the columns.

The connections, or joints, where the open web attaches the lower portion of the bridge to the upper, are drawing concern. Because the design has never been used for a bridge of this size, the Independent Review Panel wants to be sure the connections can resist the transportation loads the bridge is expected to face.

Don Wagner, Washington director of the CRC project and an engineer, said the report isn’t telling the CRC team anything it didn’t already know.

“The joints, where the steel meets the concrete, (are) a stress point, but until now we didn’t know how wide the bridge was going to be, and testing these joints is an expensive process,” Wagner said. “Now that we’re in agreement on how wide it’s going to be, we can do a final design on the joints.”

The joints will be stress-tested out of house, Wagner said, at which point they’ll know whether they got the design right, or if they need to reengineer.

“I think there is a small chance that when we do the testing we might find out that we are not going to be able to do this type of bridge,” Wagner said.

Wagner said it is unclear how much testing will be required before such a determination can be made.

“(The CRC project team) wanted to have a record of decision on their report by January of 2011,” Warne said. “We don’t think they’ll be able to do all of our recommendations and have a record of decision by January 2011.”

Wagner said a six-month delay on the report could substantially delay the start of construction, but he doesn’t think taking an extra month to get things in order would hurt the project’s timeline. Wagner also is concerned that starting a conversation about another type of bridge could lead the government to wait before seriously evaluating the project’s environmental impact report because of possible changes.

Catherine Ciarlo, transportation policy director in Portland Mayor Sam Adams‘ office, said she understands that the bridge’s design is complicated because of all of the factors that needed to be included in the project. But she and Mayor Adams, as well as Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt, believe the time has come to bring a project manager and a “top caliber” designer on board in order to take the next step. Similar comments were included in the IRP report.

Wagner said that no one has ever “jumped up and down” over the design, but he added that even people who are now calling the bridge ugly, once agreed it was the best design for the building envelope.

But the architectural design is not the only threat to a delay of construction; money also is a major factor.

“I think the economy is not the greatest right now. Both states have some tough money issues and we’re going to be asking for money to fund this project,” Wagner said.

Carley Francis, spokeswoman for the Columbia River Crossing project, said government officials believe that the federal transportation appropriations bill could be ready to roll next year. CRC stakeholders are hoping that $400 million from the bill could go toward project construction.

Francis said the CRC team is in the process of drafting for the governors a new work plan that addresses suggestions by the panel and the council.

“Some of the main goals are to be far enough along in the process by the time the transportation appropriations bill comes around to ask for funding,” Francis said. “Having the design more specific and having a single, clear voice for the project is important for having the conversation with the state and federal governments about funding the process.”