91ÊÓƵ

If Seattle were to stop work on its Alaskan Way Viaduct project and start over, the city would lose more than $1 billion, according .

The monster project could be a lesson to Portland, which has long been planning the Columbia River Crossing project. The Portland project would replace the Interstate 5 bridge over the river and add freeway lanes and interchanges on both shores. Price estimates for the Portland project go as high as $4.2 billion.

Seattle’s project, with a price tag of $3.1 billion, would replace the elevated portion of State Route 99 near Elliott Bay with an underground tunnel. Other highway work and improvements to the sea wall would be included in the project.

The Seattle project, like Portland’s, is highly politicized. Both have staunch opponents and supporters. In fact, Seattle ballot initiatives are planned that would put parts of the viaduct project up to a city-wide vote. But the Seattle project, which has actually begun construction, would be far more expensive to scratch now. About $650 million has been spent on the project already, and hundreds of millions more are committed or would be lost if the project was roadblocked. From the Seattle P-I:

State Rep. Judy Clibborn, the Mercer Island Democract who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said she didn’t want to speculate on how state lawmakers would proceed if the tunnel project were to stall. But, she is concerned about how an initiative could delay the project, she said.

“When you have already spent $650 million, and have the deep-bore tunnel contract ready to go and signatures on utility and right-of-way agreements, that is a strange time to say we’re going to do something different,” she said.

At some point, the money spent on a project reaches a point of no return, a point where reimagining the project as a whole becomes unfeasible.

The Columbia River Crossing has not yet reached that point, but it could be well on its way. More than $100 million has already been spent on the project, and the team behind it is only in the planning stages. Planning started in earnest in 2005; the Seattle project has been in planning stages since as early as 2001, but earnest planning began in 2009.

The Columbia River Crossing project appears to be dragging on. Every aspect becomes a debate. Should the bridge be replaced or not? Will tolling be necessary? How many lanes? None of the debates ends with firm resolutions, and if one does, it can easily be recanted. After months of discussion over a preliminary bridge design, one was selected, but then later rejected.

This back and forth can go on for a while, but the Seattle example should be a lesson that decisions must be made with some degree of commitment. At some point, changing one’s mind becomes very expensive.