I live in Portland, Oregon. It's a city both defined and divided by a river. The Willamette River carves a path from the south of the city up north, where it joins the Columbia River, separating Downtown Portland from its eastern bedroom communities. There are at least 9 bridges which traverse the Willamette within Portland's city limits. One of them, called the Sellwood Bridge, was built in 1925, and is currently being rebuilt.
I'd like to compare and contrast this rather mundane infrastructure project with another bridge that was built between 1933-1937. None other than the Golden Gate Bridge, connecting San Francisco and Marin County. There was nothing mundane about that project. And it remains to this day one of America's foremost civil engineering and architectural achievements.
Portland's "new and improved" Sellwood Bridge will not make any such splash, or garner such accolades. People won't pose for pictures with it as a backdrop, nor will postcards be mailed to family or friends by vacationers, regaling in shorthand how they visited the Sellwood Bridge while vacationing in Portland. It will simply be a utilitarian, two way span over a lazy, muddy river, spanning about 1,200 feet of water that is, at the deepest point in the channel, perhaps 30 ft deep.
Here's the Golden Gate Bridge:
And here is a link to what Portland's new Sellwood Bridge will look like when it is completed. When you get to the web page, just click on the upper middle pic and prepare to have your breath taken away by its utter lack of majesty.
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/...
Why compare these two bridges, you might ask? They are clearly in two different leagues. You might as well compare the Alabama Crimson Tide football team to Fresno State. Except for one thing. Well, actually...a few things. When the Sellwood Bridge is finally completed, sometime in 2016, it will have taken almost as long to build as the Golden Gate Bridge did. And the total cost, in "today's dollars", as they say, will boggle your mind when compared to the Golden Gate. As an engineering feat...there's literally no comparison between the two. At the time the Golden Gate was being proposed and designed, the challenges in terms of span length, water depth and currents...as well as the fact that it had to be high enough above waterline to accommodate naval and commercial vessels, led some to suggest that it was nearly impossible to do within any semblance of a reasonable amount of money. But build it we did. And while it is certainly utilitarian, there is nothing pedestrian about the Golden Gate Bridge.
The differences between these two bridges are stark on many levels, but they also serve to shine a light upon just how much we, as a society, have changed over the past 75 years. We are no longer a "Can do Society." We have evolved into a "We can do that after years of local wrangling over cost sharing, endless feedback from local 'stakeholders' and aggrieved single issue cranks, and several construction delays and cost over-runs" society. We are nowhere near as agile and bold as we once were. We are almost like those mosquitoes you see pictures of that became trapped and frozen in tree sap. Stuck interminably in amber. Bureaucratic amber. Political amber. Fiscal amber. Regulatory amber. Cultural amber. (What about bikers? Pedestrians? Will there be dog watering stations? Wheelchair access?) "Just do it", as a slogan, has been supplanted by "Just hold on a minute."
It even has a name for it, coined by author and Brookings Institute member Jonathan Rauch: Demosclerosis. In medical terminology, sclerosis refers to the hardening of soft tissues within the human body. Rauch's term demosclerosis refers to a similar hardening and loss of flexibility within the body politic.
Let's go back in time to when the Golden Gate Bridge was designed and built.
The need and desire for a bridge spanning the Golden Gate Straights, a narrow, windy and turbulent passage separating the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay, traces back to the late 1800’s. It wasn’t, however, until after the city rebuilt in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and fires of 1906 that the concept took hold, and seemed within reach from an engineering point of view (if not quite yet from a financing POV). The new impetus to consider constructing a bridge was derailed, however, by the onset of WWI.
After the conclusion of that war, focus was again given to the project. After studying the various pros and cons, San Francisco’s City Engineer approached Chicago based engineer Joseph B. Straus and asked him to prepare and submit an initial plan addressing feasabilty, costs and design. Strauss’ proposal was submitted in 1921. He assured the city that indeed he could build such a bridge, and that he could do it for somewhere around $25 million.
The project was debated for another 8 years before it was finally approved and given the green light. There was a surprising amount of opposition, in retrospect, to building the bridge. Some of it came from expected quarters, and some from unexpected ones. Amazingly, though, all during this time the only means of getting from San Francisco to Marin was either by boat or by ferry. That remained the case until 1937, when the bridge was opened, and there are without doubt elderly San Franciscans even today who can remember a time before the Golden Gate Bridge.
The War Department opposed the bridge because of the naval base in the Bay, and concerns that a bridge might impede naval ship traffic. Commercial shipping interests had similar misgivings, as San Francisco was a major trade port. Fiscal conservatives balked at the price tag and were skeptical of Strauss’s ability to complete the bridge within budget. The vested interests in the ferry system were adamantlt opposed to the bridge, and those interests were none other than the Southern Pacific Railroad...probably the most influential business lobby in the State at that time. Some environmentalists, such as the movement existed at the time, feared that the bridge would mar the landscape and be a source of “visual pollution.” And then, just as the project was green lighted, there was a stock market crash on Wall St, and the onset of the Great Depression.
A year into the Depression, neither president Hoover nor California’s Governor Young could allocate any significant funds for the bridge, so it had to be financed almost entirely at the local level. Construction Bonds were proposed, put on the ballot, and passed by voters by a 3 to 1 margin, even though the amount of the bonds equalled almost 75% of the value of all the real estate in San Francisco County at the time. Such was the unanimity of public opinion regarding the benefit of building this bridge, and the willingness to shoulder to fiscal burden. There was little bickering over who should pay for...rather, an acceptance and willingness to pay for it themselves. “Just do it.”
And do it they did. Construction began on Jan 5, 1933. That was 5 days before my Mother was born. It took a mere 4 years to build. The bridge was completed in April of 1937, ahead of schedule and some $1.3 million under budget. How long has it been since anyone has heard of a major infrastructure project like this being completed sooner than planned, and at a less than estimated cost? It almost never happens these days. The original Bonds issued for construction were completely retired in 1971, paid for by bridge tolls over the years.
There are a lot of fascinating details that one could go into with respect to the history of the Golden Gate Bridge, but I will defer to our own resident California historian Dave in Northridge to do that diary, perhaps. I just wanted to sketch out the scope of the project here, and point out the obstacles in its path. Upon the bridge’s completion and opening to the public, Joseph Strauss had this to say:
“The Golden Gate Bridge, the bridge which could not and should not be built, which the War Department would not permit, which the rocky foundation of the pier base would not support, which would have no traffic to justify it, which would ruin the beauty of the Golden Gate, which could not be completed within my costs estimate of $27,165,000, stands before you in all its majestic splendor, in complete refutation of every attack made upon it.”
The project took a toll upon Strauss’ health over the years. He was exhausted, both physically and mentally. In the midst of construction he encountered personal/emotional difficulties, divorcing his wife and remarrying a young singer nearly half his age. He disappeared for almost 6 months in mid project, leading to rumors of a mental breakdown. After the ribbon cutting ceremony, he moved to Arizona in order to rest and recuperate for the ordeal. He died just a year later after suffering a stroke.
Now...let’s flash forward to the present, and look at an exceedingly more modest infrastructure project. Portland’s own “Sellwood Bridge.”
The original Sellwood Bridge was built in 1925...12 years before the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge. So there were no feasability studies that needed to be done, or questions as to whether it even could be done. It already had been done. The only issue facing this bridge was that it was too old, too inadequate for modern vehicle traffic, and it was quite literally falling apart. Chunks of concrete have been falling off of it into the river below for several years now.
That a new bridge was needed was beyond debate. All that was left to debate was who would pay for it, firstly, and what would the design entail, secondly. When the Golden Gate was being proposed, everyone in both San Francisco and Marin Counties instantly knew that they would benefit. A handfull of other northern Bay area counties also perceived the economic benefit of a bridge spanning the Golden Gate Straights, and ponied up some money for the project.
Here in Portland, there are 3 counties that comprise the metropolitan area at large. The Sellwood Bridge only gets about 30,000 vehicles travelling over it per day, compared to more than 108,000 vehicles on the Golden Gate. Owing to its location at the southern border of Multnomah County (Portland), however, the vast majority of bridge users on the Sellwood live either in Washington or Clackamas Counties. The Portland Metropolitan area is essentially a tri-county jurisdiction. Over the years that the need for a new bridge has been discussed here, a major sticking point has been how to, and who will pay for it. Neither Clackamas nor Washington counties, the main beneficiaries of the bridge, had much of any appetite to chip in for the reconstruction cost (A cost that would have been as low as $5 a year for Clackamas residents). After years of bickering, Portland’s (Multnomah County) commisioners basically threw in the towell and obligated their residents to be virtually solely responsible for financing the new bridge. That is how our city government rolls.
The Sellwood Bridge that is being replaced was reknowned mostly for its safety designation: Most people acknowledged that it was difficult to access, narrow and lacking in safe pedestrian crossing lanes, but it was also fairly well reported that the bridge earned only a rating of two out of 100 upon it’s last safety inspection. I’ve only crossed this bridge 3 times in the 11 years I’ve lived here. That’s mostly because it is inconvenient, but it also has to do with the fact that there’s every reason to choose another bridge crossing if at all practical, given the state of the bridge itself.
Once the bridge’s crumbling nature and structural deficiciencies were last officially noted at the conclusion of an inspection, and a major crack was discovered, it took 6 years of hand wringing, hair pulling and design debates to initiate a replacement. That compares to 8 years for the Golden Gate Bridge, where no bridge existed previously, and serious questions existed as to its feasability to begin with given the currents, channel depth, winds, commercial ship traffic and engineering capabilities of the day.
The first budget projection for a replacement bridge here in Portland was in the neighborhood of $269 million. All along the planning stages of this bridge, Multnomah county has been scavenging for every penny of federal funding it can possibly get to pay for this project, which is their job, and I have no issues with that ongoing endeavor in the least. By the time the planning/designing phase of the Sellwood project was completed, cost estimates rose to $330 million. Current estimates put the project at coming in at around $308 million.
I only mention it because when the Golden Gate Bridge was finally given a thumbs up, the national economy was in the tanks and everyone knew that outside funding would not be forthcoming. The project went forward, nonetheless, with remarkably little public acrimony of the cost.
Now we are in January of 2014. After 6 years of planning, of financial wrangling, of designs put forward and sent back to the drawing board because one group or another had an objection to what had been designed or left out of the design, we are 2 1/2 years into the construction phase. Construction of the bridge began in fall 2011, and the project is scheduled to be completed in Spring of 2015. That will be roughly 3 1/4 years, as compared to 4 years for the Golden Gate Bridge. As for cost comparisans...the Golden Gate was built for about $27 million, which in today’s dollars is equal to roughly $1.5 billion.
But The Golden Gate, when built, was the longest single span suspension bridge ever built to date. At almost 9,000’ in length, it traversed a mile wide ocean channel, whose depth is some 300 ft, with eddying currents. In order to accomodate both commercial and naval traffic, the Golden Gate had to be built at an average height of 220 ft above water level, with safety netting below the construction sites to protect workers who might fall. The Sellwood bridge is about 60 ft above water level, and designed to handle much less traffic. Suspension bridges, such as the Golden Gate, are much more dynamic and complex than cantilever bridges, such as the Sellwood. A cantilever bridge is fixed...rigid. A suspension bridge flexes with both weight and wind, making it much more complex from an engineering point of view, and therefore more costly.
When Strauss designed and ultimately buil his Golden Gate Bridge, he had a lot of challenges to face and things to take into consideration as the project progressed through its stages towards completion. These, however, were not among them. (the following comes from a press release by the contractor in charge of the Sellwood Bridge):
-Of 179 subcontracts awarded for work on the bridge, 99 have gone to companies owned by minorities, women, or people with disabilities.
-To date, 14 percent of money spent on contracts has gone to minorities, women, or people with disabilities, a number that is inching toward project leaders' goal of 20 percent.
I don’t mean to denigrate the above details by pointing them out. I simply mention it because it is part of what separates these sorts of civil projects undertaken decades ago from those done today. It is part of what slows everything down. Gums up the gears. Makes things more costly. More time consuming. More contentious. More tortuous.
We don’t build so much anymore as we debate about it. Talk about it. Hold meetings about it and invite speakers to address the the committee. Listen to this, listen to that...some of it good, and some of it ridiculous. But never, ever actually say to anyone that their input is ridiculous...just listen to them, let them have their say, and call the next speaker to the podium.
Do your environmental studies, as per the law, and pray that some salamander isn’t discovered to have a nest on the proposed construction site. Or, even worse, some archictural artifact from all of 100 years ago, let alone 300 years ago.
If the proposed project doesn’t have any discernable impact upon Native Peoples’ fishing rights, consider yourself lucky. But that doesn’t mean some group of non-native, but equally vocal group of sports fishermen, or kayakers, or birders won’t find some grounds for opposing the plan. No matter how vital the project might be to the overall economic picture regionally...if it inconveniences even one icecream store or vintage clothing retailer...you better plan on some public comment delays and negotiating. And then there is the whole matter of who does the work, and what color their skin is or whether they stand or squat to pee.
These, increasingly, are the challenges to actually doing things. It’s not the task in and of itself. That is what Rauch calls Demosclerosis.
When The Golden Gate was built, we didn’t suffer from this affliction. We do today. And that’s why the recently rebuilt Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco and the East Bay took some 6 years longer and billions of dollars more than originally forecast. It happens everyday, in every city throughout the country.
Upon the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, in 2012, several newspaper articles were published that questioned whether or not such a bridge could even be built today, with a few of them suggesting that the answer is no. For myself, I have often said that if JFK were president today, and we had yet to put a man on the moon, he would never be able to put forth the sort of national goal he did in 1960 and get widespread acceptance of it.
We are mostly incapable of such feats these days. Not because we lack the technology or engineering prowess. We lack the unanimity of purpose. We lack the identity as being one people.
Today, we are a constellation of self interests and self identities. And every public project...be it a major sewer project in Portland or a subway project in Boston or anything anywhere...as soon as they are proposed, they are like a hapless, lame animal that has slipped into a pirhana filled river. It might make it back up onto the bank, but it will never look the same.