Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance discusses how potential outcomes of November general election races could impact the current project to replace the I-5 Bridge
Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today
In the nearly five years since Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and then Oregon Gov. Kate Brown gathered in Vancouver to sign the Memorandum of Intent to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge across the Columbia River, I’ve been surprised and disappointed that the project has proceeded largely without much scrutiny from elected officials in both states. However, that could change depending on a few key races in the November general election.
The two-page Memorandum of Intent was vague in terms of its overall goal, simply citing that the two states would open a joint Oregon-Washington project office that would re-evaluate the purpose and need and permits for the failed Columbia River Crossing (CRC). Each state committed $1 billion to the project (Washington lawmakers have since funded that promise, Oregon’s lawmakers have only agreed to a plan to fulfill that promise).
After the governor’s started the ball rolling, the project was essentially turned over to the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR), a team guided by Administrator Greg Johnson. The IBR team will point to its many advisory groups and community participation programs and events as evidence that it is doing its part to seek input from the community, but since being handed the baton from the governors, the IBR team has essentially worked full speed ahead to fulfill its directive, which is to replace the I-5 Bridge with very little oversight or interference.
Sure, there is a Bi-state Legislative Committee of Oregon and Washington legislators, but they have essentially no power other than the ability to make an occasional comment or two that goes largely ignored. And, of the lawmakers who have sat on that committee, Washington Sen. Lynda Wilson was, for the most part, the only one who repeatedly expressed concerns about elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative created by the IBR team. And now, after not seeking reelection, Wilson is retiring. She will be missed on the committee.
Both myself and Clark County Today (CCT) as a news organization have been accused of being against a project to replace the I-5 Bridge. CCT Owner and Founder David Madore was an outspoken critic of the CRC during his years on the Clark County Board of Commissioners (now Clark County Council). Former CCT staff reporter, current content contributor and legislative candidate John Ley is largely considered one of the foremost authorities on the project as well as transportation issues in Southwest Washington.
I am not going to speak for others, but I will say as for myself, I’m not opposed to a project to replace the I-5 Bridge. At some point, it needs to be done. I wish a third crossing over the Columbia River would be done first, or in conjunction with an I-5 Bridge replacement in a larger project that would better and more efficiently address transportation congestion issues while also being a better steward of taxpayer dollars. So, I don’t oppose A replacement. I oppose THIS project (as is) and a quick trip to the CCT tab of archived transportation stories will give you an encyclopedia of reasons why. At the top of that list is my belief the $6-7.5 billion current price tag is unnecessary, especially considering the $1.99 billion cost of the light rail extension into Vancouver.
The November election
It is in that context that I draw a focus on the upcoming November general election. There are at least three key races that I and others are watching that could impact the amount of scrutiny and opposition future lawmakers provide for the current I-5 Bridge replacement project.
The first is the 3rd Congressional District race between incumbent Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Republican Joe Kent. Perez is an outspoken proponent of the current project and one of her main campaign themes was that she was an integral part of the successful effort to secure federal grants for the project totaling more than $2 billion.
Earlier this month, Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez was one of the elected officials to speak at an event on the Columbia River to celebrate a $1.499 billion award, the largest announced to date under the Federal Highway Administration’s Bridge Investment Program. In December, she also claimed credit for helping to secure a $600 million grant for the project, the largest ever under the Mega Program.
“When we brought $600 million home to replace the deteriorating, functionally obsolete I-5 Bridge last year, I promised to keep fighting tooth and nail for every federal dollar possible. It’s the only way to ensure we feel the benefits of our tax dollars and get this colossal undertaking done,” said Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez. “By bringing back nearly $1.5 billion for this project, we’ll be strengthening our local economy, honoring the trades, and keeping drivers, commuters, and truckers safe and on the move. I brought Secretary (Pete) Buttigieg to the bridge to show him the dire need for replacement firsthand, as well as stressing the importance of this federal grant whenever we spoke. We’re now one major step closer to getting the I-5 Bridge replaced and powering good, family-wage trades jobs in Southwest Washington.”
Kent, on the other hand, is opposed to this project and he has also questioned the role Gluesenkamp Perez has played in securing the federal grants, stating that her efforts amount to writing a letter to the transportation secretary (Buttigieg).
“Marie Perez and I have serious disagreements about the I-5 Bridge project,’’ Kent told Clark County Today Thursday evening. “Perez insists that light rail be included as part of the bridge project, even though Clark County residents have voted it down three times. I will oppose light rail, which would accelerate the spread of Portland’s crime and drug problems onto our doorstep.
“While Perez voted to give billions of our tax dollars as gifts to foreign countries that despise us, she believes that the bridge should be funded by a toll that disproportionately penalizes Washington residents, particularly those who commute to work in Portland,’’ Kent added. “I believe the I-5 Bridge project, as part of a major interstate commercial thoroughfare, should be funded directly by the federal government through the taxes we already pay.
“And what do we get for the billions in new taxes that Perez supports? We replace a heavily congested three-lane bridge … with another three-lane bridge,’’ Kent stated. “How is this supposed to solve anything?’’
Kent is a proponent of taking a much larger perspective and approach when it comes to the region’s transportation issues.
“I believe we need a complete renovation and restoration of the historic Interstate Bridge,’’ Kent said. “But we also need an additional bridge that is part of a ‘ring road’ that diverts commercial traffic on the I-5 around Portland and Vancouver, so heavy trucks and long-distance travelers aren’t competing to cross the same bridge as Portland commuters.
“I’ll be the leader in Congress who puts the residents of Washington’s 3rd District first in fighting for this much-needed bridge project, unlike Perez, who puts Democrat interests in Portland first and her constituents in the 3rd District dead last,’’ Kent concluded.
Washington legislative races
There are two legislative races in Washington state that could also see opponents of the current I-5 Bridge replacement gain seats in the legislature. The aforementioned John Ley, is squaring off against Democrat John Zingale in the race for state representative, position 2 in the 18th Legislative District. A central point of Ley’s campaign is no tolls and no light rail on the I-5 Bridge replacement.
“No tolls, no $2 billion light rail,’’ Ley’s candidate statement in the voters’ pamphlet reads. “We need more Columbia River bridges to reduce traffic congestion and improve freight mobility. $7.5 billion builds multiple bridges. Demand value for taxpayer dollars.’’
Last week, I shared with you news from the Aug. 12 Clark County Republican Party Central Committee meeting, during which Rep. Paul Harris, a current Senate candidate in the 17th District, offered endorsements of fellow Republicans, including Ley.
“I am pleased to announce my enthusiastic endorsement of John Ley in the 18th Legislative District,’ said Harris, who went on to praise Ley’s work raising awareness of the current I-5 Bridge project. Harris currently has a seat on the Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee. He said if Ley is elected in November, he would happily give up his seat on the committee and help Ley take his place.
“John has worked tirelessly throughout Southwest Washington to earn your vote, especially on the I-5 Bridge replacement project,’’ Harris told the CCRP PCOs. “There’s no other individual, probably, who understands it more than John. He understands the transportation challenges we face. I am on the IBR (committee) and I believe John knows more than I do about that. And I sit in those meetings and I follow his information very much.
“John is uniquely qualified to help us to shape the future of the 18th District and Southwest Washington,’’ Harris added. “I look forward to having the opportunity to work with John in Olympia and call upon the House Minority Leader (Drew Stokesbary) and representatives to appoint John to the IBR (committee). To be quite frank, I’m the caucus chair who assigns committees, and I will be leaving the IBR to John.’’
Harris also offered support for Brad Benton in his Senate race in the 18th District. Benton is the son of former state senator Don Benton, who was instrumental in getting the CRC killed in July 2013 by a Senate vote in which Benton and other Republicans narrowly defeated the CRC effort.
On his campaign website, the younger Benton clearly states his “no tolls, no light rail’’ opposition to the current project.
“A decade ago the people of Southwest Washington spoke and made it known that they did not support a new Columbia River Crossing that included extending light rail into Vancouver,’’ Brad Benton’s campaign website stated. “Recently there have been renewed efforts to defy the will of the people and bring light rail to our side of the river. Brad staunchly opposes the extension of light rail. Parking and traffic are so terrible in Portland that when he worked there he was forced to ride the MAX on a daily basis. He knows firsthand that bringing light rail to Vancouver would create a one-way super highway for Portland’s out of control homeless problem. He supports infrastructure options that include a new I-5 bridge, with expanded lanes, and he thinks we must focus on an additional river crossing, but under no circumstances will he support any option that includes the addition of outdated light rail. Additionally, he will not support any plan that includes any form of tolling. These ridiculous tolls would add to the millions in Oregon State taxes already paid by Clark County residents. Any form of tolling will disproportionately penalize citizens of Southwest Washington who work in Oregon.’’
What can be done?
What can three new candidates who oppose the current I-5 Bridge replacement project accomplish if they are elected remains to be seen. One thing worth noting is that when asked for advisory votes, Clark County citizens have opposed light rail all three times, with two of those votes taking place since 2012. It’s also very believable, even without significant evidence, that a majority of Southwest Washington residents oppose the tolls needed to help pay for the current project, especially if those tolls were needed to pay for the $2 billion light rail element of the replacement project.
It is my hope that at the very least, these three candidates turned elected officials will ramp up the scrutiny of the current project and get other lawmakers to join in the conversation, much more so than has taken place in the past five years.
Also read:
- Letter: Cruelty comes in many forms
A letter to the editor discusses political fear tactics and Medicaid funding concerns, urging clarity in public discourse. - WA’s latest budget outlook shows $845M decline in projected revenue through 2029Washington state’s budget outlook projects an $845 million revenue decline through 2029, impacting future fiscal planning.
- Let’s Go Washington files second initiative to uphold parental rightsLet’s Go Washington files a second initiative aimed at protecting parental rights, targeting HB 1296 and SB 5181 in response to concerns over school policies.
- Republican budget leader says drop in revenue forecast confirms need to limit spending, avoid new taxes
Washington’s revenue forecast dropped by $845 million, prompting calls from Sen. Chris Gildon and others to limit new spending and avoid new taxes. - Council member Belkot: Will pursue legal counsel if she is not reinstated to C-TRAN boardClark County Council faces public outcry over Michelle Belkot’s removal from the C-TRAN board, with calls for reinstatement and legal action.
The only event that can derail this bridge project is a change in Governor. We need a Republican in the Governor’s office. Would Reichert stop it….who knows. But he can’t stop it by himself.
Wow, your editorial covered a lot of topics!
Alas, your political recommendations don’t work for me. Perhaps especially, the thought of a scion of Don Benton, the most corrupt blood sucker to ooze from our county’s muddiest political depths, brings chills to my soul.
Likewise, Joe Kent parrots haters who would bring change for the sake of change. His unofficial motto appears to be “If’n Marie’s fer it, I’ma agin it.”
Now the bridge. Ken, you regularly skip over the part about how one of the primary reasons we need a new bridge is safety. When the inevitable earthquake occurs, it would be nice to have an I-5 bridge still standing. We can squabble about the rest of the details later.
And enough already with a third bridge talk. There’s no one in Oregon (the other end of an interstate bridge, remember?) showing enthusiasm for a bridge and all its infrastructure. And when highway engineers illustrate the 4-6 lane highways needed to feed a bridge, any desire to build a third bridge will vanish. Want to explain to Camas/Troutdale or Ridgefield/Rainier and county residents in between how and where we wipe out communities so we can build another freeway?
So let’s just buckle down and complete a new I-5 bridge, OK?!
You can have a million lanes on the new bridge but unless you add multiple additional lanes for many miles in both directions all the new multiple lane bridge will do is create a traffic headache worse that one can imagine. Building additional bridges spreads out the traffic. No idiot light rail. No sidewalks, no bike lanes. Just have 4 or mode simple bridges across the Columbian. Seems like a no brainer.
John, there’s no such thing as a simple no-brainer bridge over the largest river flowing into the eastern Pacific Ocean. You’ve obviously not thought this through. Get back to us when you’ve done some simple research.
Mike S —
When will “the big one” happen, that you’re so worried about?
The experts at the M9 Project ( UW) predict only a 10-14% chance of it happening in the next 50 years. Put another way, there’s an 86-90 percent chance it will NOT happen in the next 50 years.
Thank you so much Ken Vance for saying about your wish for a third Bridge first!! A third bridge first is not mentioned in news articles as often as I deeply believe it deserves to be.
Another crossing over the Columbia River FIRST could make such a HUGE positive difference in reducing the congestion problem that can be experienced in our daily traffic flow here. Looking further ahead, it would help prevent some of the delays and the expected increased traffic congestion for 7+ YEARS, for thousands of travelers during I-5 bridge replacement construction work. Any plans for diverting a lot more traffic to the I-205 alternative route sounds very concerning to me! A third bridge first makes such good sense. Or a tunnel. It really doesn’t need to create world-wide admiration or awe. A modest, no frills alternative crossing should be far less expensive to build. It would provide another emergency lifeline route across the river as well. That’s two big pluses I can see for it.
Excerpted: I am not going to speak for others, but I will say as for myself, I’m not opposed to a project to replace the I-5 Bridge. At some point, it needs to be done. I wish a third crossing over the Columbia River would be done first, or in conjunction with an I-5 Bridge replacement in a larger project that would better and more efficiently address transportation congestion issues while also being a better steward of taxpayer dollars. So, I don’t oppose A replacement. I oppose THIS project (as is) and a quick trip to the CCT tab of archived transportation stories will give you an encyclopedia of reasons why. At the top of that list is my belief the $6-7.5 billion current price tag is unnecessary, especially considering the $1.99 billion cost of the light rail extension into Vancouver.
A third bridge on the West side is needed to better manage freight traffic from the Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver heading west. As it is, trucks hauling freight from the I-5 bridge, go to the Ports and have to return to I-5 to head west, which creates a bottle neck on I-5.
There are many low cost ways to reduce bridge lifts that can be implemented today, while adding a third bridge. None of these feasible low cost options have been implemented to reduce congestion, and reduce bridge lifts.
*Stop allowing personal bridge lifts for recreational vessels like large sailboats at 6 PM on weekdays
*Modify the lift section on the rail bridge west of I-5 to better align with the high point of the existing I-5 bridge to reduce as many as 90% of bridge lifts according to The Common Sense Alternative II plan.
*Remove the HOV Lane on I-5 heading North in the section leading up to I-5 bridge, the only one on I-5 in the state of Oregon. Open all the lanes to all traffic, improving congestion. On I-5 South, there is no HOV lane, tends to be less congestion most of the time.
I do not support lite rail in anyway. I do support John Ley and Joe Kent’s position on IBR. I do hope that the election will bring more scrutiny on this project. The cost to this project is obnoxious. The Democrat party is always “increase cost of living and raise taxes to cover”. Why not build a bridge that is high enough to accommodate all river traffic. Look at the bridge at Astoria, OR. A comment was made about “double decker” buses. Who pays for this stuff? We do. C-Tran is always using our money to the greatest extent possible with no proven results on ridership. I am astounded at the lack of ridership. I live in Hazel Dell close to where the transit mall is. Have you ever seen a bus with more than 10 people on it? I have not. I am out once in a while during the commute and still I do not see a bus with more than 10 people riding. I do see totally empty buses running their route. What a waste of our money. Like I said, Democrat run. We need change at every level of government. No change is unacceptable.