Congresswoman states: ‘My community didn’t ask for bells and whistles – we want durability and congestion relief’
On Thursday (Oct. 3), Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) released the following statement regarding recent tolling proposals for the new I-5 Bridge:
“When I came to Congress, I made it my priority to fight for every federal dollar possible to replace the I-5 Bridge and reduce burdens on local drivers – and we’ve been successful in bringing home nearly $2.1 billion for this project.
“Not replacing this bridge is not an option. It’s been rated functionally obsolete, has skyrocketing operational costs, and endures 7-10 hours of congestion daily as the worst trucking bottleneck in the state – not to mention it could be brought down by an earthquake.
“We’re going to replace this bridge with Southwest Washington labor and American-made steel – and we’re going to build something we’re truly proud of that we can pass down to our kids and grandkids.
“But my community didn’t ask for bells and whistles – we want durability and congestion relief. We want to support the family businesses and farmers that move $132 million of freight across the bridge each day. It’s critical that our communities’ interests are heard by the state and local legislators who make these decisions. I will always fight to bring back our federal tax dollars for those voices of our community to be heard.
“I’ve urged the IBR Program to prioritize these values in the final bridge design by increasing vehicular capacity and using federal resources effectively to limit tolls – but this week’s tolling proposals make me deeply concerned about Southwest Washington drivers bearing a disproportionate burden of this project.
“I encourage folks to submit public comment about the bridge design to make our values heard – and I’ll continue to urge the IBR Program to prioritize traffic relief, tolling reductions, and a cost-effective bridge.”
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design. - A sub-district vote could be a way to go to pay O&M costs associated with light rail
Clark County Council members heard details on how a voter-approved C-TRAN sub-district could be created to fund long-term operations and maintenance costs for light rail tied to a new Interstate Bridge. - Letter: British Columbia’s new immersed tunnel can solve Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $17.7 billion problem
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel similar to a project underway in British Columbia could significantly reduce costs and impacts associated with the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
Replacing a bridge does not reduce congestion! Building a third bridge reduces congestion. Not too hard to understand!
Dave — exactly right.
The reason Portland has the nation’s 8th worst traffic congestion, is a lack of vehicle capacity.
Portland had a dozen bridges over the Willamette River. We need more than two bridges over the Columbia River!
John Ley, well stated, Thank You!!!