
The cost of the proposed 1.9-mile extension of TriMet’s MAX Yellow light rail line into Vancouver is presently close to $2 billion, or $1 billion per mile
John Ley
for Clark County Today
The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program is proposing a 1.9-mile extension of TriMet’s MAX Yellow light rail line into Vancouver. The price tag is presently close to $2 billion or $1 billion per mile. Is this the world’s most expensive light rail extension? It’s five times the per mile cost of their Orange Line, which included a new bridge over the Willamette River.
Many Washington residents are aware of Seattle’s $54 billion ST-3 project. It was projected to build 62 miles of light rail, two new Bus Rapid Transit lines, and extend the Sounder commuter rail line. But eight years later, the cost estimate has nearly tripled to $148 billion.
Sound Transit is opening its 8.5-mile, $3 billion Lynnwood Link Light Rail Extension on Labor Day weekend. The cost is $353 million per mile.

A quick trip around the world will offer cost comparisons between light rail, heavy rail, and high speed rail systems.
A recent news report touted seven of the world’s biggest rail megaprojects under construction. At the low end of their list of rail projects was Tel Aviv’s $13 billion light rail system. It consists of three lines totaling 56 miles, or $232 million per mile.
Melbourne, Australia was listed next, spending $19-22 billion on a 56-mile rail network around the city. That equates to $340 million to $393 million per mile.
Israel will build a heavy rail line involving three separate lines running about 93 miles. The price tag is estimated at $40 billion, or $430 million per mile.
The Grand Paris Express is Europe’s largest transport infrastructure project and will double the size of the Paris Métro when it is complete. The price of this is estimated at $48 billion for 120 miles of new heavy rail transportation, or $400 million per mile.
The Chuo Shinkansen project involves building a 177.7-mile high-speed, superconducting maglev rail line between Tokyo and Nagoya in Japan. The price is estimated at $64 billion, or $360 million per mile.
Britain’s second high-speed rail line, HS2, is currently under construction but running over budget and behind schedule. The $122 billion project is 140 miles long, or about $870 million per mile.
The California high-speed rail project connecting Los Angeles with San Francisco is well known as the world’s biggest budget buster. It currently is estimated to cost $128 billion to complete the 171-mile line. If it comes in at that figure, it will cost about $748 million per mile.
Honorable mention also goes to Honolulu’s $10 billion light rail system that has been plagued with cost overruns and delays. The pared-down project will travel 18.6 miles at a cost of about $537 million per mile.
TriMet’s most recent new light rail addition was the Orange Line to Milwaukie. The 7.3-mile line cost $1.49 billion, or $204 million per mile. A new bridge over the Willamette River was included in that cost.
Oregon and Washington taxpayers should question what they are getting for the world’s most expensive light rail project costing $1 billion per mile?
Also read:
- Expect delays on eastbound SR 14 West Camas Slough Bridge for annual inspection, SaturdayAnnual inspection will close the eastbound lane of SR 14 in Camas.
- C-TRAN seeks public’s input on September 2025 Service Change ConceptsC-TRAN is gathering public input on 2025 service changes, including new routes and expanding its on-demand ride-share, The Current.
- Expect delays on eastbound SR 14 for safety repairs, April 2Expect delays April 2 on eastbound SR 14 for guardrail repairs near Camas.
- Belkot files suit against Clark County, alleging civil rights violations, breaches to open meeting lawsClark County Councilor Michelle Belkot claims she was removed from the C-TRAN Board of Directors after she intended to vote to protect taxpayers Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot filed a lawsuit in Skamania County Superior Court against Clark County on Friday, citing violations of the Civil Rights Act, Open Public Meetings Act, and Quo Warranto …
- Clark County hosting April 10 open house about the Northeast Delfel Road realignment projectClark County to host April 10 open house on Delfel Road project, replacing signals with a roundabout.
Thanks for an article seemingly researched by a sixth grader. First off, this isn’t news, it’s scaremongering by John Ley. Belongs in Opinion section, even though it’s still a crap article and dumb opinion.
Look, I get it. The cost is huge. Comparing it to the costs elsewhere isn’t helpful. I have no idea what was included in these projects and the scope of them. Actually do an article that looks at the question that the article ended on would be more helpful and serve a better civic duty. What are we getting for $1 billion for light rail? What does that cost include (does it include the stations and the park and ride build, or is it purely rail car and rail cost?)? Instead of the lame comparison to elsewhere, give us more details and data of what we are doing for $1 billion. Then I can decide and say “hmmm seems a bit much, did they look at alternatives?” or “seems reasonable because X Y and Z are definitely needed to do light rail and help with the development of our community.
I also want to preemptively state that I don’t want to read about how “light rail will bring ‘Portland problems’” as some code to scare people about homelessness and crime. Shut up with that. Housing affordability and addiction are issues everywhere; look around you. The presence of those issues has no relation to adding mass transit options to our community. Those ”problems” can drive, walk, and ride a bus across the Columbia now, so adding light rail isn’t going to change that.
We need a new bridge.
Mass public transit is good and serves our community. It supports the low and middle class. It’s better for the environment. Buses and light rail should be compared for costs. The IBR project’s portion for mass public transit should not take on the costs of TriMet elsewhere. I hope it isn’t and this is the question to ask and position to advocate for, in my opinion. So, what is $1 billion for light rail include?
The IBR is a huge and expensive project. I believe if you read all the articles on this subject by multiple writers, and there have been dozens, your great questions would be answered. The voters have said NO three times to light rail and yet the project just keeps getting bigger and more expensive..
This entire “project” is absurd, as the U.S. Coast Guard will never allow the Columbia River to be closed at Vancouver for this bridge. Neither will the Army Corps who is responsible for maintaining the navigation channel, because neither of the dredges used will fit under the proposed bridge.
I wouldn’t say the project is absurd. The bridge is needed. But I also don’t understand how they have gone this far without clearance from the Coast Guard.
John Eicholtz —
Both ODOT and WSDOT say the current two bridge structures are “safe” for at least the next 50 years.
What is truly needed, is a 3rd and 4th bridge and transportation corridor over the Columbia River. Our Regional Transportation Council identified this reality in their 2008 “Visioning Study”.
The Portland metro area has the nation’s 12th worst traffic congestion because they have refused to build new vehicle capacity. It’s been over 40 years. We are long past due for a western bypass to I-5, as well as a link to I-84 east of I-205.
…but light rail is not the answer.
With rework of existing I5 infrastructure where it adapts to the needs of Light Rail in Washington, adds another $250 million.
To read comments that call the authors writing crap, are completely unjustified.
One element of the cost to include or not TriMet’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) is what the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) would cost without TriMet’s LRT included in the project. Another element is when delay occurs, as a direct result of defying what the Coast Guard and Army Corp of Engineers require in clearance for navigation, that is not met when TriMet’s LRT is included.
This can delay the project a couple of years, and balloon out inflated construction cost $2 or 3 billion.
But there is also a cost for TriMet’s LRT in that all of the over-runs in costs, when they gets added to the Toll Rates. The low- and middle-income commuter who cannot get from their home to work with LRT, can find the cost of Tolls they will have to pay double and that is just because of including TriMet’s LRT.
But even worse yet in cost of what is revealed in origination and destination studies of Clark County residents that commute on I-5 corridor. Those studies show in irrefutable data that TriMet’s fixed rail LRT service cannot get the commuters to where they need to go coming out of Clark County. This is more than just a “first and last mile” problem it is also the time lost out of people lives, attempting to make LRT work. They can experience multiple transfers, waiting for the next transit connection all of this is more than problematic.
The cost to create the needed in infrastructure and equipment is closer to $3.5 billion in public money, you know that Free Money.
If LRT is included on the IBR, the real operating cost to have that seat available surely will be between $50 to $100 per seat. Ridership will not cover the expense of operation.
TriMet ridership numbers from their performance reports show that they handle less than 1% of the incidents of travel generated. Ticket sales revenues are very low and that is result of discounted tickets and very high number of riders that don’t buy tickets period. That adds to the staggering difference of revenue coming in and fully encumber cost to provide each of those seats. LRT trains just run with so few riders, that TriMet eliminated many of their runs and on those routes, they are going to have buses.
Another cost is in what TriMet wants, where they want Clark County residents to pay operational maintenance costs. The annual cost of this can be in the millions of dollars. But that is not everything in that TriMet currently has a massive unfunded retirement and health obligation that is earned by their employees. With TriMet coming into Clark County residents of Clark County can now be on the hook, after the marriage is consummated.
Will LRT into Clark County increase crime rates, and people only have to look at what happened in Clackamas County. The Clackamas County Sheriff Department can give statistics of what is now the highest area of crime, and it is around the Clackamas Town Center. This is where the name came from, “Crime Rail” and it is the direct result of Light Rail going to this location. These are just facts of impacts of having LRT to the Clackamas Town Center.
Prior to COVID it was estimated that 18% to 20% of the TriMet LRT ridership did not buy tickets. The numbers of people riding LRT without buying tickets has increased, and lot of them are just increases in the numbers of the homeless and houseless. But the percentage spiked as the ridership has fallen in those who buy tickets. This reduction in ridership is because less and less have employment that can be accessed through commuting using LRT. The places of work have changed, with virtual office and massive relocation of businesses and HQ getting out of Portland proper are a major factor. The non-professional worker, the tradesmen and commuter, has known that fixed rail does not work. Bus and LRT has never been a workable solution, but for a few.
Uber just announced a new Jitney Type Service that they are testing with electric vehicles that can pick someone up at their house and take them where they need go, and they make a profit, and the cost to the tax payer in comparison to TriMet or C-Tran in the difference is scary in it potential, where it makes much of Public Transit, as we now know it, “Obsolete”.
Thanks Paul. You should author an article because this is what is needed in looking at the project’s components and costs. I think there’s a space in our community for public transit, but I’m not sure light rail is the best option here. I don’t see what is so wrong with the current system of bus transit over the bridge.
The original article is still crap and not news.
John Eicholtz — there are DOZENS of article on the Clark County Today “Transportation” tab, highlighting most of the issues Paul mentioned. If you want all of them in one article, it could run the equivalent of 15-20 pages long. Most people won’t read an article more than 1,000 words. But I will post a much longer, referenced document, with links to references.
What does this even mean?
Whatever the progressive liberals want, we should aim to do the opposite. Everything they touch turns to s–t. They downplay the idea that making it easier for people that don’t own cars to quickly and efficiently get to Vancouver is inviting crime, not to mention that the Max line routes in Portland are the highest crime areas. Progressives are completely ignorant of concepts like unintended consequences. Yes, we need a new bridge, but we don’t need to import Portland culture to Vancouver. “Live where you work and work where you live” should be the mantra to address increasing bridge traffic volume. Also, let’s not forget, when liberal ideas don’t work, you’ll never hear a peep out them telling all of us how wrong they were. They just move on to creating the next s–t show. These people do not deserve our attention. They are always wrong about everything.
Can’t believe can voted for this
Citizens rejected the 2012 CTRAN ballot proposition to raise the sales tax to extend TriMet MAX light rail into Clark County. Every city in Clark County, and the limited county area allowed to vote rejected the proposition. In 2013, citizens again insisted on a public vote on light rail, prior to spending funds on light rail. Both these votes have been ignored by the Vancouver Mayor and many city councilors, the Ridgefield Mayor, Battleground City Councilor Adrian Cortes who voted for light rail as a member of the RTC board, and some Camas city councilors. The Clark County Council majority has been opposed to light rail. The consultants, WADOT and ODOT , and METRO are all intent on light rail, no matter what citizens support, no matter the cost. Even if it costs over 50% of every toll dollar to pay for the cost to toll every vehicle, that waste of taxpayer dollars is OK with the governors of WA and OR, and congresswoman Marie Perez who is pushing this project in spite of the waste. Tolls are not limited, and apparently the sky is the limit for the cost of a new bridge with gold plated light rail.
John Eicholtz want “all the facts” in one article. Most people won’t read that many words. But here’s a very good start.
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:
I am writing in opposition to the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement program’s (IBR) application for federal funding. This includes The National Infrastructure Project Assistance (MEGA) discretionary grant program, the Bridge Investment Program and FTA Capital Investment Grant funding via the IIJA or other federal funding sources. Many citizens in the Portland metropolitan area oppose the current proposal.
Where’s the value? Truly. What problem does this expenditure of perhaps $10 billion taxpayer dollars solve? How much traffic congestion will be eliminated? Is “replacement” reasonable?
Would taxpayers replace the Brooklyn Bridge; or would they maintain and upgrade it as a valuable historical structure? What alternatives have been ignored? What level of transit is needed to serve expected ridership? Can any form of transit actually generate significant ridership for the money expended, to justify a significant transit expenditure?
How often can program administrators, politicians, and bureaucrats tell lies and half-truths, cherry-picking “facts” to suit a predetermined “solution”, before the federal transportation agencies refuse to fund a project? Taxpayers expect government agencies to stick to legitimate, demonstrable standards that enforce rules and actually solve transportation problems.
There is a “new normal” where people work from home, drive their privately owned vehicles, and avoid using mass transit in commuting to work. Nationally and locally, transit ridership is down significantly. We need a project that addresses reality and saves people time, not wishful thinking or a special interest bailout of Portland’s transit agency.
A summary of citizen objections are as follows:
The IBR program is proposing to spend between $5 billion and $7.5 billion (current price) replacing the two steel Interstate Bridge structures across the Columbia River. One bridge is 34 years younger than the Brooklyn Bridge and the other is 75 years younger. In 1958 the original bridge received a significant structural upgrade. Nobody would think of destroying the Brooklyn Bridge. Why destroy the two Interstate Bridge structures? They are on the National Historic Register. The oldest steel bridge still in use in the U.S. was built in 1838.
When you visited the Portland area July 7th, you spoke about saving time being the most important aspect of the Washougal rail crossing project the DOT is funding. From a local news report:
“Buttigieg spoke about people’s most valuable commodity being time, and the Washougal project will help people in that community save time. “That’s why this matters so much,” he said. But he also spoke of building transportation projects that will “serve our children and our grandchildren”.
This is extremely relevant to the IBR because the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) does not save people time. Period.
Presently, the morning commute time from north Vancouver to Portland’s Fremont Bridge takes 29 minutes. The IBR predicts in 2045 it will take 60 minutes. The IBR proposes to replace an over congested 3-lane bridge with another 3-through lane bridge (and one auxiliary lane). If they did nothing (saving $7.5 billion), the “no build” travel time would be 63 minutes.
The IBR reports 28 percent of rush hour vehicles are going zero to 20 mph today. After building the LPA, they predict congestion to worsen to 50 percent of rush hour traffic traveling zero to 20 mph. In addition to failing to improve congestion, environmental pollution will worsen proportionally. Tens of thousands of vehicles stuck in stop and go traffic is horrible for the environment. It fails to save people time which you correctly identified as the most important thing to people.
Oregon State Senator Lew Frederick asked IBR Administrator Greg Johnson “how much time will people save?” Johnson’s response – “not much”.
The I-5 Interstate Bridge is part of a critical trade route for regional, national and international commerce. The real “stop light” for the entire I-5 transportation corridor in the Portland metro area is not the Interstate Bridge but Portland’s Rose Quarter, where I-84 merges with I-5. The interstate narrows down to just two lanes where the two interstates merge in the heart of the city. True insanity from a freeway transportation system standpoint. This is the only 2-lane section of I-5 in an urban area from Canada to Mexico.
In a 2003 Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation & Trade Partnership, ODOT Director Bruce Warner offered the following comparison of river crossings. Portland has two highway crossings and one rail crossing of the Columbia River.
Norfolk had 4 highway crossings & zero rail crossings. Cincinnati had 10 highway crossings and 2 rail crossings. Kansas City had 10 highway crossings and 3 rail crossings. Pittsburgh had over 30 highway crossings and 3 rail crossings. St. Louis had 8 highway crossings and 2 rail crossings.
By any measure, the Portland metro area was behind 21 years ago. We’re further behind today with no plans for a 3rd or 4th bridge.
Transportation architect Kevin Peterson has worked on transportation systems including transit, all over the world. He called the Rose Quarter “the elephant in the room” regarding traffic congestion for the I-5 corridor. Peterson evaluated the project’s traffic projections (2005 and 2008) and offered the following conclusions.
“The I-5 transportation corridor will need at least 5 lanes in each direction in 2030, 2 to 4 years prior to the opening of the IBR’s LPA proposal. The corridor will need at least 7 lanes in each direction by 2045, the date the IBR uses for travel time and traffic congestion comparisons. By 2065, the I-5 corridor would need at least 9 lanes in each direction.”
Oregon’s Cascade Policy Institute recently noted: “The Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, now in its 26th year of planning, will have no effect on traffic congestion because it doesn’t add capacity. We will still have only two bridges over the Columbia River in the Portland region.” They also note congestion relief has been the people’s top priority for 30 years. Yet it will get worse because the Metro regional government doesn’t care what the people want.
PEMCO reported (2018) that 94 percent of people want to use their privately owned vehicles for transportation. An April 2019 Oregon Transportation Commission survey found 51 percent of citizens want to “expand and improve interstates and interstate bridges.” Another 14 percent want expanded arterials. Two out of three people want added vehicle capacity as their top transportation priority.
Former Metro Councilor and senior counsel to Oregon’s Congressman Earl Blumenauer Robert Liberty spoke out against the program. He noted in 2005, the Columbia River Crossing traffic analysis showed no difference between the “no build” and spending $3.6 billion on the LPA, in terms of number of vehicles traveling on the two transportation corridors across the Columbia River. Liberty believed it was not worth the money, then or now.
“Replacing the I-5 Interstate Bridge is not a solution for anything,” states the Cascade Policy Institute. “The entire I-5 corridor from Wilsonville to Vancouver is over-subscribed for about 12 hours per day, and this will only get worse as the region grows.
The Interstate Bridge should be left alone for now, and ODOT should be directed to start planning for two new bridges – one upstream from the Glenn Jackson I-205 Bridge, and one downstream from the I-5 Interstate Bridge. The new crossings would eliminate most congestion on the existing bridges, while providing essential redundancy in the event of a catastrophic earthquake.
The Cascade Policy Institute recommendation mirrors the 2008 Regional Transportation Council (RTC) “Visioning Study”, planning for when Clark County, WA reached 1 million in population. They identified the need for two new bridges and offered two options for each location. Over 100,000 people have moved into the county, now at about 525,000. No planning is under way for even a single new crossing.
A single bridge and transportation corridor will not solve traffic growth and congestion problems. A 3rd and 4th bridge (or tunnel) across the Columbia River are needed. That’s what the data shows. It makes no sense to fund the replacement of a 3-lane bridge with another 3-lane bridge that will immediately be congested the day it opens.
The Cascade Policy Institute mentioned “No other type of infrastructure is artificially constrained this way. When public schools experience a growth in students, school districts build or buy more classroom space. Regional drinking water providers spend billions of dollars on new pipes and treatment facilities to accommodate growth. Only highways are subject to scarcity by design.”
A 2011 CRC Traffic Technical Report showed essentially no difference in the number of vehicles using the I-5 and I-205 corridors after completing the CRC’s Locally Preferred Alternative, than would be under the “no build” option. The expenditure of $3.6 billion would deliver no improvement in vehicle capacity and throughput.
The CRC lied about the number of jobs created. The IBR is painting similar rosy pictures of economic opportunities, without legitimate substantiation. The CRC was labeled “A bridge too false”. Most of the case for the $3.6 billion Columbia River Crossing wasn’t true. The same can be said about the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
In a 2003 Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation & Trade Partnership, ODOT Director Bruce Warner offered the following comparison of river crossings.
Portland had two highway crossings and one rail crossing. Norfolk had four highway crossings and zero rail crossings. Cincinnati had seven highway crossings and two rail crossings. Kansas City had 10 highway crossings and three rail crossings. Pittsburgh had over 30 highway crossings and three rail crossings. St. Louis had eight highway crossings and two rail crossings.
The “seismic risk” is not a current threat. The 6.8 Nisqually Quake in 2001 did no damage to any Portland area bridges. The second Interstate Bridge structure was completed in 1958, just 8 years prior to the completion of the I-5 Marquam Bridge just 7 miles south in Portland. These structures are deemed “safe” by both ODOT and WSDOT.
Randall O’Toole has been examining transit for decades and is known as the “Anti Planner.” He talks about “strategic misrepresentation” as a form of lying on light rail and these mega projects. He notes they over-project transit ridership and under-estimate costs in a 2022 column, Lie Rail Supporters Keep On Lying.
Almost every light-rail project ever built has cost far more than the original projections. Cost overruns are so systematic that Oxford researcher Bent Flyvbjerg says they are “best explained by strategic misrepresentation, that is, lying.” Other lies included overestimated ridership numbers and the claim that light rail is “high-capacity transit.”
A 2022 article by Charles Marohn in the publication Strong Towns, shows how the game is played. He calls it “engineering malpractice.” He also labels seeking public input: “engagement theater.” The IBR has been full of engagement theater, creating the appearance of reaching out to citizens, but ignoring their input.
The Portland MAX light rail is currently limited by almost all trains needing to cross the 1912 Steel Bridge over the Willamette River. During rush hour, there is a light rail train crossing the bridge every 90 seconds. There is no ability for TriMet to add new light rail trains to expand light rail service for the IBR or any other service. Furthermore, the Yellow Line only travels at 14 mph – far too slow to be a viable alternative for interstate commuters.
.
Additionally, “when” the major earthquake hits, the Steel Bridge in Portland will be damaged or destroyed, eliminating light rail service as a transportation option. One possible “solution” would be to underground the MAX light rail via a tunnel under the Willamette River or to build a separate, new seismically sound bridge. TriMet is currently evaluating a tunnel option, but has no plans or ability to fund the tunnel.
TriMet’s MAX light rail is limited to just 2 light rail cars in a train, due to the short length of a downtown Portland block. Adding a 3rd or 4th light rail car would block downtown Portland intersections, bringing traffic movement to a standstill. Until the light rail is either underground (a subway) or elevated, this restriction will remain the achilles heel of MAX to truly grow their light rail system.
Voters in both states have rejected light rail. In 2019, Oregon voters rejected a new TriMet Southwest Corridor light rail line. Clark County voters repeatedly reject light rail. In 1995, Clark County voters rejected light rail. In 2013, 223 out of 228 Clark County precincts rejected the CRC and its light rail and tolls.
The CRC and now the IBR is “a light rail project in search of a bridge”. These were the words of an Oregon Supreme Court Justice. Gov. Jay Inslee told citizens “no light rail, no bridge” in 2014. Representative Earl Blumenauer in 2019 demanded light rail or nothing. “It’s a deal breaker unless it’s there”
An I-5 Transportation Trade Partnership report two decades ago said: “Oregon interests required emphasis on a multi-modal solution * * * because of the difficulty of accommodating [traffic] demand through a highway-only expansion of I-5,” Clark County interests “needed a highway element because the land use patterns of Clark County require[] a system with greater dependence on auto access.” They said a 10-lane bridge performed the best.
In 2010, “Metro staff developed a forecast of the growth that would be induced by a full build out of the CRC project, with a 10-to-12-lane bridge, light rail line and $2 rush-hour tolls each direction.”
C-TRAN’s operating costs for its BRT system are 34 percent cheaper than the operating costs (per boarding rider) for the MAX light rail. TriMet’s MAX costs are $8.24 versus C-TRAN’s $5.44 BRT cost per boarding passenger.
The current proposal which mirrors the failed Columbia River Crossing, is loaded with unnecessary pork barrel spending for the $2 billion light rail component. They demand 19 new light rail vehicles for a 3-mile extension of an existing line. TriMet’s recent “Better Red” 10-mile light rail extension only added four new light rail vehicles. An oversized expansion of TriMet’s Gresham maintenance facility is also included, which is roughly 10 miles outside the project area. TriMet is replacing 19 worn out light rail cars in this project that will serve their entire light rail system, not the project’s 3 mile extension of a current line.
This appears to be fraudulent misrepresentation at best. Washington taxpayers should not be footing any of the bill for replacement of 13 percent of TriMet’s 145 vehicle light rail fleet, nor paying for any of their maintenance facilities in Gresham. The federal government should not be paying this as part of the IBR funding. They can bail out TriMet with other federal monies if they want to do so.
The US Census Bureau reports that people using mass transit to commute to work remains 38 percent below pre pandemic levels. Put another way, 97 of 100 Americans do not use mass transit for daily trips. Both Portland’s TriMet and Clark County’s C-TRAN report transit ridership is only about half the peak more than a decade ago.
In a 2023 survey conducted by TriMet, 60 percent of people who use the transit system at least several times a week would not recommend the metro area’s transit system to a friend or family member. The same survey also found and a majority of TriMet riders in the survey cited other riders’ behavior as a reason they feel unsafe while riding.
O’Toole supports a polycentric transportation system. “While TriMet carried 42 percent of downtown workers to and from their jobs in 2018, downtown held less than 10 percent of all jobs in the urban area. Outside of downtown, TriMet carried just 3.4 percent of workers to and from their jobs. Though Portland has been celebrated as “the city that loves transit,” the reality is that TriMet provides terrible service to 90 percent of the region’s workers and job centers.”
He notes Hillsboro had 83,000 jobs, Beaverton had 64,000 and Gresham more than 37,000. Downtown Portland currently has the highest office vacancy rate in the nation. O’Toole recommends a nine-hub system with up to five buses per hour. It would cost no more than TriMet is spending on bus operations. Furthermore, “average bus speeds would nearly double, and speeds between hubs would be nearly triple light-rail speeds, thus attracting far more riders than TriMet is carrying today.”
Voters also don’t want tolling as a means of funding either the IBR or on Oregon freeways. Currently, Oregon citizens are collecting signatures for IP-4 (now IP-31), which will require a Vote Before Tolls can be placed on any Oregon road. This was expected to be on the November 2024 ballot until Oregon Governor Tina Kotek issued an Executive Order prohibiting ODOT from collecting tolls until at least January 2026. In March, the Governor canceled the RMPP tolling and paused everything else except IBR tolling discussions.
The IBR incorrectly discounted the option of an immersed tube tunnel (ITT) as a possible alternative. Engineer Bob Ortblad revealed the IBR over-estimated the amount of dredging required by a factor of four. The IBR said they would need to remove almost 8 million cubic feet of materials and dredge to a depth of 80 feet. Ortblad’s calculations indicate at most 2 million cubic feet of dredging material and a depth of only 45 feet.
Improper consideration of various alternatives should disqualify the project from federal funding consideration. Allowing grossly inflated transit ridership numbers (30 to 50 fold) should disqualify the project from consideration, and speaks to the lack of professionalism of project leaders.
In 2014, the region was offered a “fixed price” bridge over the Columbia River east of the I-205 bridge for $860 million. This demonstrated that a cost effective bridge could be built, saving taxpayer dollars and adding vehicle capacity over the river. Transportation architect Kevin Peterson estimated a 3rd bridge would reduce I-205 congestion by 15-20 percent.
The current bridge structures could be repurposed as a “local” connection, for slower moving vehicles and serve as a “collector distributor” envisioned in FHWA requirements. It would allow for a nearly level structure (compared to the much higher IBR LPA) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. This would save roughly $200 million or more from the cost for the demolition and dismantling of the historic bridge structures.
Either an “express” bridge over the river or an ITT would add vehicle capacity to the I-5 corridor. That added capacity would reduce traffic congestion. A third bridge west of I-5 would add capacity, remove many freight haulers from the current bridge, and provide flexibility and redundancy. Portland has a dozen bridges over the Willamette River. We need more than two bridges over the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver metro area.
The IBR’s Greg Johnson says “you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion.” You certainly won’t if you’re refusing to try. ODOT proved him wrong by eliminating four hours of congestion on I-5 south of Portland simply by adding an auxiliary lane from OR 217 to I-205.
ODOT was proposing to add one lane to I-205 for a 7-mile stretch of the freeway. They project it will reduce traffic congestion from 14 hours a day to just 2 hours a day, as part of their Abernethy Bridge I-205 project. Sadly, ODOT’s inability to manage transportation project costs has caused them to either pause or cancel multiple Portland area transportation projects, including the 7 miles of new freeway lanes on I-205.
For roughly 50 years, over 20 reasonable ideas have been proposed for new crossings of the Columbia River according to local citizen Chuck Green. “The I-205 Bridge was opened almost 40 years ago. Since that time: Clark County’s population has grown 261 percent. Cross-Columbia River vehicle traffic has grown 239 percent. Cross-River Transportation Capacity has grown 0 percent.
In summary, the IBR is far too expensive with an unknown cost increase to be revealed in a year. It fails to fix the one problem people want solved – saving time and reducing traffic congestion. After spending more than $7.5 billion, people will waste at least an additional 30 minutes being stuck in traffic congestion each morning. That would add 125 hours a year of lost time for hard-working citizens.
The proposal is “a bridge too low”, failing to meet the current let alone future needs of our maritime industry. The Coast Guard demands a bridge at least 62 feet higher. The IBR wastes one quarter of the money on a light rail extension that cannot carry enough people and travels too slow. Voters have rejected it multiple times. Why spend $7.5 billion on the IBR when $1 billion would do. (The Hood River bridge replacement is $520 million).
Project leaders are misleading the community regarding multiple aspects of the project and disregarding legitimate transportation needs. It’s been over 40 years since new vehicle capacity and transportation corridors were added to the region. Let’s not waste valuable federal dollars on a project that does nothing to help the average citizen.
What is needed are new bridges and transportation corridors as part of a polycentric transportation system. Portland has a dozen bridges over the Willamette River. We need more than two bridges over the Columbia River. This is the only way to reduce traffic congestion and improve freight mobility.
Every major city in the world has numerous “ring roads” for traffic to bypass the crowded inner core. That practical logic must be applied to the Portland metro area. Serve the people and deliver legitimate value for taxpayer dollars by demanding the two new bridges over the Columbia River identified multiple times over the past 30-50 years.
As you said, saving time is people’s most valuable commodity. Let’s fund a project which actually delivers exactly that, not the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. Please stop funding any aspect of the current IBR. There is no value for hard-working citizens on both sides of the Columbia River.
Sincerely,
John Ley
Thanks John. Wonderfully explained and written and I hope everyone takes the time to read it.
I welcome your responses to all those facts, that you requested.
Thank you, John Ley! You have covered such a lot of important factors in this letter! I hope it will be seen and appreciated widely. And soon!
This article should be posted on it’s own please. Excellent summary.
I have just moved to Vancouver from south Puget Sound and have taken interest in the proposed IBR project. I don’t think the article provided a valid comparison of this project to others simply on the basis of cost per mile without including the myriad of factors which affect the cost of light rail projects especially when this project must cross a major body of water. On the other hand I really appreciated the historical background and detailed critique of the project in John Ley’s comments. Since I have not lived in the area I found John’s lengthy letter to be an excellent primer on the issues and alternatives to the proposed project.
Joel — thank you for your kind comments.
The “Transportation” tab will take you to dozens and dozens of articles about every facet you can imagine, regarding the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. It will also offer articles about mass transit, both Clark County’s C-Tran and Portland’s TriMet.
There are also many articles about Oregon’s planned tolling scheme, which has the long term goal of tolling all major area highways and freeways. Additionally, there are numerous articles about Washington state’s five tolling systems, and plans for tolls on the replacement Interstate Bridge.
Liberals never do their homework, or look at the big picture. This whole project is designed to change our behavior, to get our cars off the roads and reduce our use of fossil fuels to ‘save the environment’ at a cost of $1 billion per mile and a sales tax increase. Has light rail elsewhere actually served to reduce traffic congestion, or get cars off the roads? The answer is NO. All I ever see when I drive past a the light rail station on the I-205 off-ramp to Powell St. are homeless people and tents. Your tax dollars at work.
As a life long citizen of Vancouver Wa. I am opposed to light rail in Vancouver. We already have a failed mass transit system. C-Tran isn’t solvent and never will be. We don’t want another cash cow sucking up our hard earned money while bringing more drug runners and thugs into our city.