Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance shares a critique he received from Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Administrator Greg Johnson

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

I received a critique of one of my columns recently and the feedback wasn’t good. There wasn’t an atta boy or a job well done anywhere in the feedback. The criticism came from Greg Johnson, administrator of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR).

In the nine years since we launched Clark County Today, I believe we have published more content about the Interstate 5 Bridge replacement project than any other topic or issue. And I am happy to admit that most of that content has scrutinized virtually every detail of the project, which will cost taxpayers as much as $7.5 billion (a current estimate that is expected to increase with an announcement later this year). Much of that content has been opinions by many different writers, including myself. And those opinions are overwhelmingly critical of the proposed project.

“I am writing to express my deep concern regarding recent opinion pieces published on your website containing multiple inaccuracies and defamatory statements about myself, the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and others,’’ Johnson wrote to me on June 3. “I fully support the role of a free press and respect the importance of diverse viewpoints, but there is a critical distinction between opinion and disinformation. I take issue with being accused of unethical behavior when these allegations have no basis in fact and are contrary to my long history of serving the public.’’

This obviously started an exchange of emails between Johnson and myself. Over the years I’ve had opportunities to interact with Greg and those interactions have always been respectful and professional. When he spoke at the C-TRAN Board of Directors meeting last week, he opened his comments by saying that he doesn’t have “horns,’’ meaning he is not the enemy. I’ve never considered him the enemy. He’s a guy who has spent 42 years in the transportation industry and he’s been hired to build a bridge. He’s also been directed by the governors and other elected officials from Washington and Oregon to build it with a light rail extension. He’s attempting to achieve the goal he’s been tasked with achieving. So, even though I disagree with many of the elements of the project that he is overseeing, I agree that he doesn’t have “horns.’’

That said, he is the enemy from the standpoint that he’s trying to spend far too much of the taxpayers’ dollars for a project that will result in a light rail extension that most of us in Clark County don’t want. And, it will do virtually nothing to improve our traffic congestion issue.

Getting back to Johnson’s initial email to me, he was vague in his description of the opinions that Clark County Today has published. So, I asked him for specific columns and specific examples of the misinformation that he claimed we were publishing. He took considerable time to respond to my inquiry, and his response centered on just one opinion, a column that I wrote and we published the week before his original email to me.

The column centered on a previous opinion written by Rep. John Ley that led to a conversation between Ley and radio host Lars Larson on The Lars Larson Show. Anyone who has read our coverage of the I-5 Bridge replacement project in the past nine years knows that no citizen or elected official has devoted more of their time researching and scrutinizing this project than Ley. His tireless work is likely what got him elected to Washington’s House of Representatives. The amount of documents and information involved in this project are considerable. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement alone is some 12,000 pages. None of the rest of us have spent anything close to the hours that Ley has pouring over all that documentation and information.

Johnson’s specific complaints  

Because Johnson took considerable time to provide me with the specific examples that led to his general complaints of Clark County Today and myself, I felt it was important to provide his responses here for the record. If I wrote this column and offered only bits and pieces of Johnson’s response, I believe that could be considered a disservice. So, I apologize for the length but I felt it was important to include the comments in their entirety. 

Excerpt (quote) from my column:

“Number one, the vehicles TriMet is already contracted for are in the range of $4-5 million apiece,’’ Ley told Larson. “And number two, all the vehicles they’ve ordered are replacement vehicles for worn out light rail vehicles. So in reality, they don’t need any of these for the Interstate Bridge project; and the price tag is in the $4 to $5 million range. It’s an outrage. And the thing that ticks me off the most is that Greg Johnson and the Interstate Bridge Replacement (program) team turn a blind eye to this, and therefore they are complicit in all of this scam or fraud. If nobody checks up, if nobody demands receipts or contracts or anything, in a sense it becomes as much as you can steal, as much as you can get away with.’’

Johnson’s response:

“As a public project, the IBR Program is held to strict accountability standards to prevent the misuse of public funds,’’ Johnson said. “The allegations that the IBR Program and our partners are engaged in misconduct are not grounded in fact or supported by evidence. I will address each of the bulleted claims cited in your article to provide clarity.”

(Excerpt from my column in red followed by Johnson’s response):

TriMet’s $4-5 million light rail vehicles are intended as replacements, not for the new bridge project.

• “It seems there may be a misunderstanding here — no vehicles have been purchased yet for the IBR Program’s proposed transit investments,’’ Johnson said. “The existing contracts for light rail vehicles referenced in the article were never intended to support the IBR Program. They were purchased as part of a contract that was executed in 2019 to replace the oldest light rail vehicles in TriMet’s fleet and to support increased service for the A Better Red project. Additional vehicles will be needed to support IBR transit investments.
• “Extending the MAX into Vancouver to Evergreen Boulevard will result in higher demand for the Yellow Line than what currently exists today. Currently, the Yellow Line connects the Portland downtown core to a residential area. Ridership is expected to increase with construction of IBR investments because the Yellow Line would connect two downtown cores, increase frequency of current service, and have improved connections to C-TRAN’s regional bus service. In order to help meet forecasted demand for the IBR Program, it is estimated that 19 light rail vehicles will be needed for the anticipated level of service on the Yellow Line extension that is included in IBR Program investments. That level of service will continue to evolve as assumptions are refined. The level of service eventually put into place on day of operation will reflect the best knowledge we have at the time.’’

Despite that, the I-5 Bridge replacement project would be billed at $15 million per vehicle for 19 vehicles, not needed for the 1.8-mile MAX light rail extension. 

• “The transit estimates for IBR started with costs that other regional transit projects have experienced for vehicle purchases on other facilities but inflated to the future to account for risk since we are not yet under contact for vehicle purchases,’’ Johnson wrote. “The $14.4 million projected cost per vehicle for the IBR Program is the high end of a conservative cost estimate accounting for escalation driven by inflation and other factors. The currently identified estimates may not be the final cost but is the best estimate we have until we have a contract for the vehicles.
• “The contract TriMet executed in 2019 had an initial value of $147 million for 26 light rail vehicles, or $5.653 million per vehicle. The four light rail vehicles for A Better Red were purchased through an option on that contract, increasing the order from 26 to 30 vehicles, with the additional four vehicles costing $4.859 million each. The lower cost of these four vehicles is attributable to the one-time design and production setup costs that were contained in the original order of 26. As another regional example, Sound Transit in Seattle made a more recent light rail vehicle purchase in 2024, exercising an option for 10 additional vehicles at a total cost of $66 million, or $6.6 million per vehicle.
• “For IBR, the estimated costs include escalation and contingency. Applying a conservative annual escalation factor of 5% to TriMet’s 2019 cost of $5.653 million per vehicle results in a cost of $10.154 million per vehicle for the expected 2032 year of expenditure. Current IBR estimates also include a contingency on all transit costs, which contributes to the cost estimate of $14.4 million per vehicle. This accounts for uncertainty with price and timing to purchase given that we are still in the planning/environmental phase of the program.”

Ley claims the plan defrauds not only local taxpayers but also the federal government, which would provide up to $1 billion of the $2 billion transit component.

• “This is a serious accusation that we do not take lightly,’’ Johnson wrote. “Public agencies and the officials that represent them are held to strict policies that ensure accountability and transparency in our work. The assertion that the IBR Program is scheming to defraud local taxpayers and the federal government has no basis in fact. Spouting unsubstantiated claims does not make them true.” 

C-TRAN’s board has recently questioned the project’s funding, especially TriMet’s demand for an annual $7 million in maintenance and operations funding. Ley says C-TRAN could kill the light rail component and potentially the entire project if it withdraws support of the “modified Locally Preferred Alternative.”

• “The conversation at hand is not whether C-TRAN supports the Modified LPA; it is around the sharing of operations and maintenance costs,’’ Johnson wrote. “The Modified LPA was developed based on screening results, modeling data, technical considerations, input and feedback from partner agencies, program advisory groups, and the broader community. The eight local Program partners, including C-TRAN, all agreed in 2022 to move forward with the Modified LPA.”
• “There is ongoing coordination with TriMet and C-TRAN to align on assumptions to meet the requirements of the Capital Investment Grant process. This includes funding for transit operations and maintenance, which will support a variety of transit elements including maintenance of elevated structures, system safety and security, stations, facilities, elevators, transit vehicles and more. The current estimate represents the highest level and frequency of service that could be identified for the corridor. More details remain to be determined that will inform refinements to cost estimates as we approach operation.”

Ley believes federal law doesn’t require a transit component for bridge funding and that a vehicle-focused bridge would still be eligible for federal money. Existing C-TRAN buses serve current and likely future demand for transit.

• “The IBR Program has a variety of funding sources committed that assume the  investments identified in the Modified LPA,’’ Johnson said. “Changing key elements of the Program could result in reopening the funding sources already identified for the Program.
• “The grant agreements required to access the $2.1 billion in federal funds for the Mega Grant and Bridge Investment Program (BIP) Grant were fully executed and signed earlier this year by ODOT/WSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). All elements of the Modified LPA are assumed in the scope of the $2.1 billion in MEGA & BIP grant funding. Removing elements of the Modified LPA would change the scope of the program, result in the need to renegotiate the grant agreement terms and put the region at risk of losing a significant federal investment.
• “The Program also plans to apply for $1 billion in Capital Investment Grant (CIG) New Starts funding. Without light rail as the high-capacity mode, the Program would not be eligible for the CIG New Starts funding, and it would reduce the program’s competitiveness for future high-value funding requests.”

Moving forward

Clark County Today is going to continue to scrutinize the I-5 Bridge replacement project and I’m going to continue to publish opinions that are critical of Johnson’s vision for the project. In my email exchange with him, Johnson offered significant cooperation. I will enthusiastically accept that invitation.

“I’ve come to expect and welcome that level of scrutiny,’’ Johnson wrote to me. “My door is always open for honest conversations — so people can ask us the tough questions and demand transparency. We stand by our facts and are proud to operate in full view of the public.

“Accountability is not only essential to our work, but a core value shared by the dedicated IBR staff whose mission is to deliver this Program for the people it’s meant to serve,” he said.