Washington and Oregon will not have to build a bridge with a movable span to accommodate tall marine vessels when it replaces the aging Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River, the U.S. Coast Guard decided on Friday.
Instead, the states can go with a less expensive fixed span that provides 116 feet of clearance above the river. The savings from this design will be welcome news for the states, which are confronting rising cost estimates for the multibillion-dollar project before construction is even underway.
Coast Guard officials informed elected leaders and transportation officials in the two states Friday that it issued a “preliminary navigation clearance determination” that is good for three years.
The approval “will eliminate the only stoplight on Interstate 5, put an end to commute interruptions, and save millions in construction costs,” said U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington.
“The vast majority of the maritime community agrees that the new bridge design will not only allow river commerce to continue but also improve safe passage down the river,” added Cantwell, the senior Democrat on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees the Coast Guard.
Cantwell had pressed Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Commandant of the Coast Guard, for a decision by Jan. 16.
“This is the right decision for our economy, and for commuters who use this bridge every day,” Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, said in a statement issued by the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. “A fixed span bridge has overwhelming support from the maritime industry, businesses and community groups.”
Oregon’s Democratic Governor Tina Kotek, in the same news release, said the bridge replacement program now has “the clarity it needs to advance and position us to build a safer, multimodal river crossing and corridor that will serve both states for generations.”
Washington state Sen. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds, said he was “really excited to see that the Coast Guard listened to the communities. We’re one step closer to getting this bridge replaced.”
Liias, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, said this is “a really critical decision point” that allows planners to drill down on what the bridge might look like and the costs.
Not everyone cheered Friday’s news.
“I’m disappointed. The Coast Guard’s job is to protect navigation not only for today but for the future,” said Washington state Rep. John Ley, R-Vancouver, an ardent project foe. With a decision that will lead to less clearance under the bridge, “you are truly restricting marine traffic in a big way.”
The existing bridge rests on wooden piles in potentially unstable soils and is in danger of collapse in a major earthquake. One span is over a century old. Its design is known as a movable span. When tall vessels travel under it, traffic is stopped and a section is lifted to create a clearance of 178 feet. It is lowered once the vessel has passed through.
A fixed span has always been the official first choice of Washington and Oregon. Supporters of the project predict fewer crashes, faster commutes and more transit options when the new bridge is done.
While Friday’s announcement answers one major question, others, such as what the bridge will cost, when construction will begin and when traffic will finally drive on it, remain unknown.
Program managers are looking to get federal government sign-off on an environmental review and a record of decision so contracts can be negotiated this year. Once rolling, construction is expected to last until at least 2032.
Compensating companies
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and former Oregon senator Mark Hatfield first discussed the need for replacing the bridge in 1992, though it wasn’t until roughly 20 years ago that preliminary engineering and environmental work started.
Because the height of the bridge could affect ship traffic on the Columbia River, the U.S. Coast Guard is one of the federal agencies with sway over permitting.
There’s been concern about how the Coast Guard might act since 2022, when it responded negatively to an initial permit request, saying a fixed span would “create an unreasonable obstruction” for taller vessels for the service life of the bridge.
But it didn’t say “no.” Instead, it outlined concerns and gave the two states time to respond.
That came in October when the two states and the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program submitted an updated Navigation Impact Report reiterating the argument that a fixed span bridge “is the best design option” and would continue to provide access for 99% of river traffic.
Washington and Oregon also told the Coast Guard that they are prepared to pay $140 million to four businesses that would be directly affected by the lower bridge height because they own or operate vessels that navigate the Columbia River, or manufacture products shipped under the interstate bridge.
Agreements were negotiated with each company. The two states cited the pacts in their effort to convince the Coast Guard that the agency’s navigation concerns had been resolved.
The affected companies are Thompson Metal Fab, Inc. and Greenberry, which are fabricators, JT Marine, a marine shipyard services company, and Advanced American Construction, a company that partners with Vigor Marine Group on marine construction.
Records obtained by the Standard show the two states agreed to pay $89,990,000 to Thompson, $46.9 million to Greenberry, $2.2 million to Advanced American Construction and $2 million to JT Marine.
State and project officials view the payments as cost-effective because a movable span would be more expensive to build, by an estimated $500 million to $1 billion before inflation. Money to the companies would only be paid if contracts are signed and construction begins.
John Rudi, chief executive officer of Thompson Metal Fab, sent a letter to the Coast Guard in December endorsing a fixed span.
“The agreed mitigation will preserve the jobs and manufacturing capability in Clark County and the Portland Metro area,” he wrote. “We are also members of the community and recognize the need for a bridge as proposed by IBR.”
Friday’s decision is the second time the two states secured Coast Guard support for a fixed-span. It happened in 2013 when the undertaking was known as the Columbia River Crossing. The project also had a record of decision from the federal highway and transit administrations, allowing it to proceed.
Political opposition and funding challenges stalled the project at that time. Both the earlier approvals from the federal government have since lapsed.
Rising price tag
For the past couple years, project planners have said the price tag for replacing the bridge ranges from $5 billion to $7.5 billion, with the likely figure of around $6 billion. And they’ve said constructing a movable span would be $500 million more than a fixed-span.
In September, legislators said they anticipate the total could reach $10 billion based on rising costs with other projects.
Project planners have been recalculating the estimate for months.
Joe Cortright, a Portland economist and project critic, said earlier this month that the revised expense could range between $12.2 billion and $17.7 billion based on public records he obtained and shared with reporters.
Funding is coming from several sources. Each state has committed about $1 billion. Tolls — which will be imposed in both directions on the existing bridge starting in 2027 and managed by Washington — are relied on for a minimum of $1.2 billion. Oregon has a moratorium on any tolls other than the bridge.
Federal grants totaling $2.1 billion were awarded last year under the Biden administration.
Planners are pursuing $1 billion from the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program. This would help pay for a 1.9-mile extension of light-rail from North Portland to a future station near Evergreen Boulevard in Vancouver, Washington. A decision on that funding isn’t expected until the project is further along.
The question of cost should become clearer in the coming weeks, Liias said.
“We know it will be more than the resources we have,” he said Friday. “We will have to figure out how we phase it.”
He has previously said work may need to be delayed for some of the nearly 30 separate items — from new bus shelters to off-ramp improvements — in this endeavor.
Finding the money is going to be a long-term challenge, Ley said.
“At the end of the day, whether the price is $12 billion or $14 billion or $17 billion, the two states do not have the money,” he said. “I don’t know how they can get it.”
Oregon Capital Chronicle reporter Mia Maldonado contributed to this report.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.