Hayden Island resident Sam Churchill says the current proposal to replace the I-5 Bridge is ‘a 20-year-old plan’
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured park (with 1,000 others). I agree the bridge needs to be replaced. I understand the need to eliminate the lift. I appreciate the constraints that civil engineers must deal with. Thank you for all your work. It’s a tough job.
But the current bridge plan hurts economic development on BOTH sides of the river. It’s a 20-year-old plan. Much has changed in 20 years. Autonomy. Tunneling. EVs. Community awareness.
Will decision makers be judged harshly when the $7.5 Billion project goes south? Where’s the money in a Trump administration?
– Van pools are cheaper and faster. NO parking. NO express trains (1 track).
– Eliminate Max to Vancouver. Saves $2 billion upfront (and the 90% subsidy).
– Park & Ride in Vancouver? Gimme a break.
– IBR REQUIRES building 5 miles of freeway AND steep access ramps — in EXTREMELY earthquake prone sandy soil.
The eight-lane Vancouver, BC tunnel planned for under the Fraser River, is comparable. It costs $4.1B total … and NO toll!
This doesn’t BEGIN to count the REAL impact for Hayden Islanders.
– The closing of 15-20 businesses on Hayden Island.
– The elimination of two dozen homes.
– A toll that KILLS the Hayden Island Mall.
The proposed bridge and freeway is expensive. Obsolete. Lower the cost. Enhance livability and access. Save the waterfront. An immersed tunnel is one possible solution. Why BUILD another Alaskan Way?
PLAN on autonomy. Make it mass transit free during commute times. Half the cost of IBR. Half the congestion.
Sam Churchill
Hayden Island resident
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.
