Plans build for bridge to bypass Hoover Dam

The engineering that created Hoover Dam has shone for 63 years as an example of design at its best.

But the engineering that went into the two-lane highway snaking across the top of the dam has not withstood the test of time.

In fact, the federal government is considering a $200 million solution to what is considered one of the worst highway bottlenecks in the Southwest.

It's almost a daily occurrence: traffic backed up for miles, waiting to cross the Colorado River on U.S. 93. At midday during the summer, it can take two, sometimes three, hours to cross the dam.

"That road was designed to handle 1930s-era traffic -- nothing like we are experiencing now. I can honestly say I have never seen a traffic bottleneck as bad as those I've seen at the Hoover Dam," said Terry Haussler, project manager for the proposed Colorado River bridge project.

Last year, President Clinton designated $41 million toward the creation of a new bridge.

The Federal Highway Administration is examining three alternate four-lane routes to build a bridge across the Colorado River. Two possible routes, Promontory Point and Sugar Loaf Mountain, would run parallel to the dam -- the Promontory route 1,000 feet upstream and the Sugar Loaf option 1,500 feet downstream. A third bridge under consideration, Gold Strike Canyon, would be built about a mile downstream.

The Sierra Club of Southern Nevada objects to all three alternate routes in part because they would disrupt wildlife habitat.

"These plans just don't make any sense," said Randy Harness, conservation chairman for the Sierra Club. "These roads would destroy valuable habitat for bighorn sheep and desert tortoises."

The Sierra Club is advocating diverting some traffic 23 miles farther down the river through Laughlin. They support this because it would require a widening of the U.S. 95 corridor instead of building new roads near the dam.

But Haussler said such a plan is a bad idea.

It would cost about $200 million to widen 55 miles of U.S. 95 in Clark County so that it could accommodate the additional truck traffic, he said.

"It would be an awful trucking route because there are many steep grades along it. Also it adds 23 miles onto the routes the trucks are taking now. That may not mean much to the Sierra Club, but for those of us concerned about transportation, that means a loss in productivity. In fact, we have calculated that route would mean a loss of $750 million in productivity over the next 20 years."

Even if trucks were diverted to cross the river at Laughlin, many motorists would opt to cross at Hoover Dam and the current traffic bottleneck would continue, he added.

None of the plans under consideration call for shutting off traffic on the dam entirely. But advocates of building a new bridge say it would mainly be tourists who would choose to take the slower route with its breathtaking view.

Indian groups also have expressed concerns about a new bridge.

Two of the proposed routes -- Promontory Point and Sugarloaf Mountain -- would disrupt archaeological sites that include such things as arrowheads, grinding tools and chippings from stone implements, said Jim Bard, an Oregon archaeology consultant retained by the highway administration.

Bard said extensive interviews have been conducted with elders from the Paiute and Hualapai tribes to learn of their concerns.

"What we look for is specific cultural concerns. For example: Is there a mountain that they consider sacred? Are there hot springs where medicine men performed ceremonies? A view itself could be considered sacred."

Much of the Indian concern with this particular project focuses on the Colorado River itself.

"The Indians call the river the 'Grandfather.' Based on our interviews, they seem evenly divided on this project. Some are concerned about what environmental impact the new construction might have. On the other hand, some are concerned about a truck carrying hazardous material falling into the river if a new bridge isn't constructed."

"There is a real problem with trucks on the approach to the dam," Haussler said. "Trucks have fallen off the roadway as they approached the dam."

The hairpin turns near the dam are not designed to accommodate large trucks.

"Those roads originally were built so construction equipment could get to the area where the dam was being built. It wasn't a planned part of a highway system. Trucks have to take those turns going 8 mph. On a good day cars can go as fast as 20 mph," said George Wallace, an engineer for the Arizona Department of Transportation.

The planned bypass would accommodate traffic traveling as fast as 60 mph. Construction on the bypass could begin as early as 2002 and be completed by 2007.

There will be public hearings this week on the proposed construction. In Boulder City there will be a meeting from 5 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at the Community College of Southern Nevada, Room 100. There will be another public hearing Thursday in Las Vegas from 5 to 8 p.m. in the Clark County Government Center, Room 3.

One of the factors that will be considered is how a bridge would alter the historic views from the dam, said Bill Crawford, chief bridge engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation.

"Some people may be concerned that the view from the dam won't be the same as it was when it was built in the '30s," he said. "That is one factor we will have to consider when we decide on what route to take."

When Hoover Dam was constructed, it was in a relatively obscure portion of the United States, Crawford noted. Now more than 11,000 cars a day drive across it.

"Phoenix and Las Vegas have grown into large cities. The population of the Southwest has continued to go up, and that route has become increasingly important. That dam just isn't able to handle that much traffic."

archive