Project Update: July 2001

Purpose and Need for Project Defined

The following statement defining the purpose and need for a new crossing was developed and reviewed by project advisory committees and members of the public. It will be used to compare and evaluate alternative crossing facilities.

Purpose: The purpose of the project is to improve multi-modal movement of people and goods across the Columbia River between the Bingen/White Salmon, Washington and Hood River, Oregon communities.

Need: The project must satisfy a variety of transportation and other needs, including:

• Provide capacity to safely accommodate traffic.
• Maintain linkages to other roads and facilities.
• Meet future transportation demands.
• Address social demands and economic development objectives.
• Accommodate all modes of travel, including cars, freight, bicycles, pedestrian and river navigation.
• Address safety concerns and conditions.
• Overcome current roadway and bridge deficiencies.

Objectives: A new crossing also should satisfy these additional goals:

• Improve cross-river multi-modal transportation of people and goods.
• Meet current standards for river navigation if any new facility is constructed.
• Avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to the natural, built, and aesthetic environment.
• Be financially acceptable and support local economic development.
• Avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts on cultural and historical resources.
• Maintain the integrity of the interstate highway system.

Consultants and staff have reviewed and evaluated the following six corridors:

• West, connecting I-84 near the west Hood River interchange in Oregon to SR-14 in Washington.
  
  
• City Center, connecting from the 2nd Street interchange in Hood River to SR-14 in Washington.
  
  
• Existing Low, approximately the same alignment as the current bridge.
  
  
• Existing High, approximately the same alignment as the current bridge at a higher elevation; connecting from Button Junction to Jewett Boulevard (SR-141).
  
  
• East A, connecting Koberg State Park in Oregon to Bingen Point in Washington.
  
  
• East B, located east of the East A corridor, near Reese’s Mill in Washington.

Based on a preliminary screening summarized on the facing page, it is recommended that the following alternatives be evaluated in more detail. All have low or moderate impacts related to three or more criteria.

• City Center. This corridor has relatively moderate impacts related to three of six criteria—impacts on the natural, built and aesthetic environment, historical and cultural resources and improving multi-modal transportation across the river—and low impacts on the interstate highway system.
  
  
• Existing Low. This corridor has the lowest expected impacts overall, with low conflicts related to three criteria and moderate conflicts for the other three.
  
  
• East A. This corridor has moderate impacts related to two criteria—improving multi-modal cross-river transportation and impacts on the local economy—-and low impacts related to cultural and historical resources.

The following corridors are not recommended for further study. All have high impacts related to three or more criteria, including the stated purpose for the project.

• West. This corridor has high impacts related to all but one criteria.
  
  
• Existing High. This corridor has high conflicts related to three criteria, including the natural, built and aesthetic environment and the ability to improve multi-modal cross-river transportation (project purpose).
  
  
• East B. This corridor has a high degree of conflict related to five out of six evaluation criteria.

The advisory committees and the regional administrators of the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation have concurred with these recommendations.

Criteria: Potential to conflict with the following objectives for the project		Corridors:
		West	City Center	Existing Low	Existing High	East A	East B	No Action
Improve cross-river multi-modal transportation while adequately accommodating river navigation			1	1		1
Minimize impacts to the natural, built, and aesthetic environment			1	1				NA
Minimize impacts to recreation activities			1	1
Minimize impacts to cultural and historical resources				2
Be financially acceptable and support local economic development
Maintain the integrity of the interstate highway system
Should the corridor be considered further in the project's development?		NO	YES	YES	NO	YES	NO	YES
High Conflict Moderate Conflict Low Conflict NA Not applicable [1] Would be less for a tunnel   [2] Would be higher for a tunnel

 

In the next phase of work (Tier II), these specific types of facilities are being studied in more detail:

• Tunnels, including:
  • “Cut-and-cover,” a shallow tunnel generally used only over dry land.
  • Immersed tube, built and placed in a trough in the river bottom.
  • Bored, created by boring a hole underneath the river.
• Bridges, including:
  • Re-use of the existing bridge with improvements, as a stand-alone facility, or a companion to a new facility.
  • New floating bridge.
  • New low-level bridge with a “lift span” similar to the existing bridge.
  • New high-level “jump span” bridge that would meet horizontal and vertical navigation clearance requirements without a liftspan.

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2008, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated January 16, 2008.