Tom —

Your instinct is correct — let’s actually “fix” the problem by adding NEW vehicle capacity. The existing bridge could be given a “seismic retrofit” for a small fraction of the $5 billion price tag they will potentially spend.

But Greg Johnson will respond that the MOU signed by the two governors, requires a “replacement” of the current bridge, in spite of the fact that it does NOT need to be replaced.

Johnson will tell you they can only focus on the 5 mile “bridge influence area”, which defined the previous project. A real leader would change the discussion, and talk about his team “could” design and build a new, 3rd bridge in the 5 mile bridge influence area, that would actually add vehicle capacity and help solve the traffic congestion problem.

Yet Johnson dances to the tune of WSDOT and ODOT. They are writing the checks to the IBR and Johnson.

WSDOT and ODOT are happy to deflect discussion, pointing to their legislatures, and to Metro and RTC, and Portland and Vancouver.

In the end, “nobody” will be responsible for this huge waste of taxpayer money.

The article highlighted “how” they are pushing this through. Johnson’s team will NOT give the elected legislators an up or down vote. He doesn’t want to show any opposition. He wants “a sense of the will of the body to go forward”. Pure politics, as in the July “non-vote” will be framed as “You don’t want to kill this $5 billion project that will create tons of jobs and bring economic wealth to our region”.

And the politicians will mainly be happy to rubber stamp the “choice” of the Johnson bureaucrats and avoid a tough “up or down” vote.

Lynda Wilson laid it down at the Bi-state Bridge Committee meeting. Now we will see if she follows up and can get any fellow legislators on the committee to support her call for an up or down vote on the “choices”, and an “up or down vote” on the final solution.

Thank you, John. Is this the time to bring up a seismic retrofit and a third bridge for the same price to the Bi-State group?

Tom —

Thank you for the thoughtful response & especially for the research on the population growth details.

RE: “ they are being led to conclusions and not having the options addressed”

You are spot on here — the staff and Greg Johnson “lay down a path” that focuses the discussion on what is put in front of the ESG or the CAG or the Bi-state Bridge Committee.

Senator Lynda Wilson did a good job trying to focus the discussion on important issues. She should have had more “help” from fellow legislators.

“What is SUBSTANTIAL demand” she asked, relating to transit demand. The IBR team & Johnson did not provide an answer.

I have asked the IBR team for the specific numbers, and they refuse to provide them. They point the finger to WSDOT and ODOT; and to Metro and the RTC.

They appear to be able to make many, many unfounded statements of “fact” that simply are not true or accurate.

We all know “demand” for transit service fell off a cliff, due to the pandemic lockdowns. But as I have highlighted in many other articles, C-Tran ridership peaked in 1999 and is down over 1.7 million annual passenger boardings. And that was BEFORE the pandemic decline.

TriMet ridership peaked roughly a decade later, in the 2009-2012 time frame. That is both on buses and on light rail.

Portland area population has grown by roughly 250,000 in the past decade, yet actual transit ridership has declined. There is no “demand” for transit by the people TriMet and C-Tran are supposed to “serve”.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23102/portland/population

It appears you have exposed one more “untruth” made by the IBR team regarding people of color moving to Clark County. Thank you for digging into the details, via the US Census Bureau.

They have misled the people about the seismic risk — painting a picture of “eminent collapse” of the bridge when “the big one” hits. Yet as we have exposed, the real experts at the M9 Project inform us that the odds of a “mega quake” on the order of an 8.0 to 9.0 in magnitude, is only 10-14 percent in the next 50 years. A smaller quake off the coast of southern Oregon or northern California is only 37% in the next 50 years. And that would not impact the Interstate Bridge or the Portland metro area.

The one thing Greg Johnson and his team have been truthful about, is that THIS project will NOT save people driving in cars any TIME.

That SHOULD be causing all the politicians to throw out the STOP red flag. They should be saying, “I will NOT spend $3 billion to $5 billion of the people’s money, when you are not solving the #1 problem they want fixed!”

Sadly, the light rail special interests are driving this project. The failed CRC was “a light rail project in search of a bridge”. This IBR project is nothing but a resurrection of that failed project.

The failed CRC was “a bridge too low”. Last week, it was revealed the Johnson team is proposing another “bridge too low” at 116 feet of clearance for marine traffic on the Columbia River.

Keep the information and perspective coming. THANK YOU for serving on the Community Advisory Group, and trying to ask good questions and demanding answers. Sadly, “they” rarely provide anything but political spin rather than the “data” they promised.

2020 Total Population 503,311
Percentage White Alone 86.1% (433,351)
2010 Total Population 425,363
Percentage White Alone 85.4% (363,260)

Increase in Total Population 77,948
Increase White Alone 70,091
Percent of Total Population increase that was White Alone 89.9%

This is certainly different from the “facts” presented and used as the basis of decisions by the Bi-State Legislative committee, among others. This discrepancy has been brought to the attention of the IBR staff more than once. Does it now have a life of its own because it leads in the direction staff desires?

Recently we have been informed that the staff has identified lots of money that may be available at the federal level for this project. A year ago when the infrastructure programs were initially being debated, I wrote both governors and the federal representatives in this area (four senators and two representatives). The few responses I received (neither governor) informed me that these projects were local and that they had no influence on any current or potential projects. Apparently something has changed. I do not care who gets credit as long as this area is able to make improvements. But this does raise a question (or should). We have been told that if there were more than three through lanes in each direction travel times could be reduced, but that the budget does not allow for this. Since there is a great possibility that more fund will be available, shouldn’t the designs allow for this potential? If a delay of six months for final design approval would allow for a better bridge or two that reduces travel time, wouldn’t that be a good decision?

John, thank you for your informing us of the issues surrounding crossing the Columbia and for asking the questions. But, John, it appears that Greg Johnson could answer these questions in his sleep. He was hired for many reasons, but the major one was his experience. This is not his first bridge. Shouldn’t these questions be asked of the members of the Bi-State committee? Aren’t they the only ones who can truly make a difference? The rest of us have input only as far as the staff allows. Case in point – all the groups were asked for their input on a myriad of transit options (I think there wee eleven) and the desire seemed to be to decide on a first choice. Yet when the issue of Hayden Island access to I-5 was broached, staff put that together with Marine Drive access and reduced the options to two and again asked for the favorite of the groups. Does that make sense? The Marine Drive/Hayden Island access is being presented separate from the access at MLK and Delta Park even though they all feed into the solution. Perhaps the Bi-State committee could go to the top of the Pink Building on a weekday afternoon and look north and east. Would Marine Drive and Hayden Island being joined make a difference in the travel times for the metro areas?

Just thinking, John.