IBR program releases Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

The IBR program’s Draft SEIS shows a $7.5 billion project, with only a slight reduction in I-5 traffic expected.
The IBR program’s Draft SEIS shows a $7.5 billion project, with only a slight reduction in I-5 traffic expected. File photo.

The Executive Summary seems to indicate after spending $7.5 billion, a price tag that is expected to increase next summer, there will be only 5,000 fewer vehicles on I-5 than if nothing was done

John Ley 
for Clark County Today

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) released its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) today (Sept. 20). It is “supplemental” because there is a previously approved EIS that the IBR team is basing the proposal on. Citizens can review the Draft SEIS, the executive summary and the technical reports that informed it. The documents are now published, and the 60-day public comment period is open Sept. 20 through Nov. 18, 2024.

This shows clearance for maritime vessels of the proposed structure offering 116 feet of clearance, compared to the current structure. Note the top of the bridge is lower than the current Interstate Bridge. Graphic courtesy of Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
This shows clearance for maritime vessels of the proposed structure offering 116 feet of clearance, compared to the current structure. Note the top of the bridge is lower than the current Interstate Bridge. Graphic courtesy of Interstate Bridge Replacement Program

The $7.5 billion project includes a “no build” option for comparison with what the various “impacts” are for the various options presented. Most of the charts don’t show “current” numbers for comparison of today versus the 2045 traffic, travel times, and vehicle numbers, etc.

The Executive Summary seems to indicate after spending $7.5 billion, a price tag that is expected to increase next summer, there will be only 5,000 fewer vehicles on I-5 than if nothing was done. 

Currently, there are about 10 and one half hours of traffic congestion on the I-5 corridor. After construction with only one auxiliary lane, the DSEIS reports there will be 13.75 hours of congestion, a 31 percent increase. But instead, the report only compares the “no-build” option in 2045 to show a decrease.

There is a single deck option (much wider); a double deck option, and an option with a movable span, like the current bridge. There is also an option to move the location of the new structure a little farther west, impacting more homes and businesses.

There are numerous options on various components of the project. This graphic shows the overall project and lists many components with multiple options like park and ride facilities, alignment options, and bridge configuration options. Graphic courtesy Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
There are numerous options on various components of the project. This graphic shows the overall project and lists many components with multiple options like park and ride facilities, alignment options, and bridge configuration options. Graphic courtesy Interstate Bridge Replacement Program

IBR Administrator Greg Johnson wants people to review the roughly 10,000 pages and offer input to the program. “If you like it, comment. If you hate it, comment,” he said.

There are two major controversial components for Clark County citizens – tolling and light rail. Johnson told reporters the financial plan includes tolls which would pay back borrowed funds ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion. The amount of the tolls will be determined by a subcommittee of the two states transportation commissions. Clark County’s Roy Jennings is one of those members.

The other critical component to many people in the path of the project, is how many houses and businesses will be impacted. There will be between 43 and 76 residential units displaced. One design option (Modified Locally Preferred Alternative with I-5 mainline westward shift) would result in the loss of 76 residential units, while the other design options would displace 43 units.

The red dashed line shows areas of Vancouver that will be impacted by the proposal. One option moves the alignment of the bridge 40 feet to the west, impacting even more properties. Graphic courtesy Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
The red dashed line shows areas of Vancouver that will be impacted by the proposal. One option moves the alignment of the bridge 40 feet to the west, impacting even more properties. Graphic courtesy Interstate Bridge Replacement Program

Between 36 and 39 businesses would be displaced. One design option (Modified LPA with I-5 mainline westward shift) would result in the loss of 39 businesses, while the other design options would displace 36 businesses. The Waterfront Park-and-Ride Site #3 Option would result in one additional business displacement, the IBR reports.

Many of these residents and businesses are concerned about the government simply “taking” their property. The IBR reports “acquisition of property would typically occur through negotiated purchase or eminent domain.” They expect the “Permanent Acquisitions Area Acquired” to be 36.5 acres.

Ray Mabey, assistant program administrator, told reporters that they expect a 35 percent increase in total “person throughput” compared to today. This would include people in privately owned vehicles (POV), freight haulers, transit riders, and “active transportation” riding bikes or walking.

The Modified LPA is allocating 54 percent of the bridge surface area to transit, bikes, and pedestrians. Only 46 percent is for POVs and freight haulers who will be paying all the tolls.

Mabey shared they expect a 3 percent reduction in vehicles on I-5, when compared to the “no build” alternative. This equates to 5,000 fewer vehicles in 2045. But more importantly, the IBR is projecting the current 143,000 vehicles will increase to 175,000, a 22 percent increase. 

In the failed Columbia River Crossing, it was predicted that 35,000 vehicles would divert to I-205 if only I-5 were tolled. One wonders what the numbers are for I-205 traffic in the current proposal.

The timeline for construction indicates the entire project could take from 9 to 15 years. 

There is a 62-page Executive Summary, a table of contents, plus four chapters, appendices, and technical reports sections. “The text of the Purpose and Need has not been edited from its original wording, except for references to the name of the Program.”

Reducing traffic congestion

The top concern citizens have expressed that they want addressed is reducing traffic congestion and saving time in their travels. The IBR reports: In 2005, 280,000 vehicle trips crossed the Columbia River daily (northbound and southbound) in the PortlandVancouver metropolitan region, of which 134,000 used the Interstate Bridge. By 2019, the total number of vehicle trips that crossed the Columbia River had increased to 313,000 per day, of which 143,400 used the Interstate Bridge. Vehicle trips include those made in single-occupancy vehicles, high-occupancy vehicles, trucks, and transit vehicles (buses).

The program notes that traffic demand over the Interstate Bridge is expected to increase by 25 percent by 2045. Vehicle-hours of delay on truck routes in the Portland-Vancouver area are projected to increase by more than 90% over the next 20 years. Growing demand and congestion will result in increasing delay, costs, and uncertainty for all businesses that rely on this corridor for freight movement.

Yet, the current proposal adds no new through lanes to the bridge, and the locally preferred alternative (LPA) has only a single auxiliary lane for merging and weaving. Furthermore, 54 percent of the bridge surface is for transit, bikes and pedestrians. Only 46 percent is allocated for private vehicles and freight haulers.

There is an option that shifts the I-5 mainline up to 40 feet westward in downtown Vancouver between the SR 14 interchange and Mill Plain Boulevard interchange. A different option that eliminates the existing C Street ramps in downtown Vancouver is being evaluated.

Clark County Today will continue to research the roughly 10,000-page Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and continue to provide coverage.


Also read:

8 Comments

  1. Anne ONeill

    Sorry John. I would love to write a long comment on your story but I need to read 222 pages everyday for the next 45 days (10,000 pages) so I can make public comment. I know they really want to hear from the citizens or the “draft” would have been an unreasonable amount of pages. War and Peace is 1300 pages. Good grief!

    Reply
  2. Charles

    I bike commute from Portland to Vancouver. So many Clark County residents complain about car traffic going in and out of Oregon, but the amount of single occupancy cars I bike past in the afternoon commute that are sitting at a dead stop trying to go over the I-5 Bridge is staggering.

    Perhaps instead of bashing the project for trying to add other modalities to reduce traffic, John Ley and CCT should consider trying to encourage people to carpool or other methods to reduce traffic going over the bridge.

    Reply
    1. John Ley

      Charles — It has been over 4 decades since a new bridge and transportation corridor has been built. The population of the Portland metro area has DOUBLED. So if population (and the number of cars on the road) has doubled, what do you expect to happen when no new transportation corridors and bridges have been built.

      Do you object to the fact that Portland has a dozen bridges over the Willamette River? Please explain why you think there should only be two bridges over the Columbia River.

      Reply
      1. Charles

        I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think there should only be 2 bridges over the Columbia, because I sure didn’t say it. Seems like you’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t object to a new bridge. I think a new bridge east of 205 should be seriously examined. I object to Clark County residents who choose to drive solo across the bridge every day to work and then complain about traffic, and who also refuse to consider even the possibility of alternate modalities to commute.

        Reply
        1. Shannon Nickelsen

          I support a bridge from Troutdale to west side of Camas. This was planned years ago & then never happened. This would help reduce traffic crossings into Oregon on 205 & I-5. We do not want light rail & the people have voted this down time & time again.
          I do not support a $7mil. Bridge that decreases the amount of vehicles that can pass. A new bridge should be bigger to support the traffic needs & projected growth, not smaller.
          I do not support tolls.
          No land should be taken from private property owners without paying fair market value. No eminent domain!!
          Why would it take 9 plus years to build this bridge?
          These are comments I’ve came up with by reading only segments of the I-5 proposal’s.
          It’s really poor planning and instead of building more businesses, houses & massive apartment complexes why didn’t the elected county officials consider the traffic problem’s all these new homes would create.
          Traffic has become a real nightmare during peak rush hour & traffic accidents are up.
          I sure hope a sensible & thorough plan is drafted that the citizens would gladly support.
          Thank you,
          Shannon Nickelsen

          Reply
  3. Marilyn Graham

    I hope you build this new bridge before it collapses and people get killed. I’ve lived here 25 years and heard how a new bridge would be built for all 25 years. Is this a killer bridge ready to collapse if not replaced soon.

    Reply
  4. RCxyz

    I suspect much of the reduction in bridge crossings will not be because of light rail but rather because of people avoiding the tolls. I know that I will go to great lengths to avoid the tolls. However, I will not risk my life by riding on their ‘crime rail’ system.

    Reply
  5. Margaret

    Per this article, the public comment period ends Monday Nov. 18 at 11:59 PM. I read that Rep. Marie Perez has asked that the deadline be extended, and I agree it should be.
    “between 43 and 76 residential units displaced…
    Between 36 and 39 businesses would be displaced.. They expect the “Permanent Acquisitions Area Acquired” to be 36.5 acres.
    Many of these residents and businesses are concerned about the government simply “taking” their property. The IBR reports “acquisition of property would typically occur through negotiated purchase or eminent domain.” They expect the “Permanent Acquisitions Area Acquired” to be 36.5 acres.”
    Have these homes and businesses been contacted to comment? This is the link to read info and comment by 11:59 Monday Nov. 18
    https://www.interstatebridge.org/updates-folder/supplemental-environmental-impact-statement/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *