Iconic Clark County journalist Marvin Case offers his insight into the battle to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge
Marvin Case
for Clark County Today
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that a third bridge over the Columbia River should be a higher priority than rebuilding the existing I-5 structures, and if that is not feasible, then the expensive light rail component should be replaced with bus rapid transit.
Vance might as well save his breath, ink and arguments. The fix has been in for years.
Those of us opposing light rail on I-5 have explained our reasoning over and over. Above all, it would be very, very expensive. Every time a rider got on and paid a fare of $1 or $5 or so, taxpayers would fork over many times that amount, maybe $30 or more. That’s a guess. I haven’t seen any actual calculations recently.
Despite the cost, light rail from Vancouver to downtown Portland is a slow go. Once a rider travels from Vancouver to the Expo Center in Portland, it’s another 30 minutes to downtown Portland due in part to the many stops on Interstate Avenue. Add 10-15 minutes to get from downtown Vancouver to the Expo Center and you have a 45 minute travel time. Compare that to the current C-Tran bus schedule which takes travelers from downtown Vancouver to downtown Portland in 24-31 minutes. That would be even faster with a dedicated bus lane on a new bridge.
There are also arguments about TriMet debt. In addition to the annual maintenance and operations costs that Clark County residents would be stuck with, how much existing TriMet debt would they shoulder as well?
So the discussion becomes: why do proponents favor a costly and slower mode of transportation? Public officials and others who favor light rail despite high cost and inconvenience should explain their reasoning. Yes, there would be many jobs during construction. Is that the reason? Why should we have to guess at such important matters? Would the Vancouver mayor be willing to send a column to Mr. Vance and other area media to explain her reasoning? What about Clark County councilors? Would they go on the record with their arguments?
I agree with Editor Vance on one thing for sure: a third bridge is a much higher priority than rebuilding the existing I-5 structures where justification focuses only on the vague notion that the bridges would not withstand a major earthquake. Fact is, I often travel across the bridge. Delays are not on the bridge. Delays are due to all the merging traffic before and after the bridge. Once drivers reach the bridge northbound, it’s clear sailing. The same cannot be said for southbound traffic which faces enormous delays getting through Portland — delays that would not be mitigated by a new bridge. Those planning a new bridge need to tell the public about estimated travel times with and without replacing the existing structures.
The current arguments about the removal of Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran board are only symptomatic of the larger problem: the fix is in. Major issues such as expensive light rail will be decided by un-elected bureaucrats who think they know best. Would officials be willing to put this whole mess to a vote of the people?
Marvin Case may be reached at marvincase@msn.com.
Also read:
- Opinion: Simultaneous left turns
Doug Dahl explains how Washington law directs drivers to make simultaneous left turns by passing to the left of each other in an intersection. - Judge grants C-TRAN injunction against WSDOT
A judge ruled that WSDOT cannot withhold grants from C-TRAN while the agency’s board composition review process continues. - Opinion: TriMet’s fiscal cliff continues to be a warning to Clark County and Oregon residentsRep. John Ley’s opinion column details TriMet’s worsening finances, warning Clark County residents about the risks of any financial ties to the transit agency.
- Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s ridiculous rampBob Ortblad critiques the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s latest shared use path ramp design and questions the purpose and cost of the project.
- Opinion: Why you can’t bribe your way to a low fixed span bridgeJoe Cortright argues that the Coast Guard is unlikely to approve the IBR’s proposed 116-foot fixed span, citing longstanding navigation requirements and past conflicts over river clearance.
I agree with Marvin Case completely. This last paragraph “boils my blood “.
The current arguments about the removal of Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran board are only symptomatic of the larger problem: the fix is in. Major issues such as expensive light rail will be decided by un-elected bureaucrats who think they know best. Would officials be willing to put this whole mess to a vote of the people?
Only in a Democrat controlled legislature, county and city council would this happen. The totally ignore that we have voted this down three times. They do not care about our Constitution protections against “big brother” telling us how to lead our lives. The eight week study “Biblical Citizenship” at Radiant Church in Camas and at Hillcrest Nazarene in Salmon Creek, document how God established civil government, after the flood and instructed Noah how to run civil government and established “stewardship” requirements on His people, which now includes us, to make sure government comes from the “consent of the government”. Our Democrat majority in the legislature, county and city council government need to take a step back, and remember our three votes that said no to IBR Light rail.
Mr. Case, where will you and Mr. Vance land this third set of bridges? There on the other side of the Columbia are the sovereign people of Oregon that I believe barely want the four bridges that fall in Multnomah county, let alone add another one or two depending on the design.
Also have you asked Mr. Ley and his constituents in Camas and Washougal who wants to give up their river side property to accommodate your desires? What about the decrepit slough bridge? How much to bring it to standard?
Finally, Mr. Case what would you have us vote on? I can’t think that Uncle Sam is going to give much credence to a vote from a county that wants to set policy on a road that connects three states and three countries.
Thank you, Marvin!
You are spot on. The fix IS in.
Vancouver’s Mayor & Council have sold their souls for a few pieces of silver. Or in this case, for a lid over I-5 at Evergreen, for a redesign of roads & public areas on the south end of downtown, and most importantly, for all the “Transit Oriented Development” they can be allowed to create next to the light rail line.
My guess is that it is the latter that is the most attractive to them. Two & three story buildings suddenly become 5 & 6 story “mixed use” developments that deluver triple the property tax dollars into city coffers.
As you noted, construction jobs are attractive. But we would benefit from similar construction jobs building a 3rd and 4th bridge over the Columbia River.
It is those two new bridges, one west of I-5 and the other east of I-205, that have been both envisioned & needed for decades. The 2008 RTC “Visioning Study” is merely the most recent effort pointing out those needs.
People want to save time. Freight haulers want to save time. Time is money to them.
The current proposal only promises to waste scarce taxpayer dollars and leave people stuck in even worse traffic congestion.The IBR says HALF of rush hour traffic will be stuck going zero to 20 mph by 2045. Morning travel times will double.
My hope is that the new leadership in our nation’s capitol will pull the plug on this collossal waste of money.
Otherwise, the fix is in. Clark County residents especially will be faced with more than a decade of bridge construction, TOLLS, humongous traffic diversion to I-205, and an even more unaffordable tax burden.
The solution is for voters to say “no way” and begin replacing elected officials who don’t represent the true will of the people.
Mr. Ley,
A teacher once gave me the sage advice that, “choices are always ‘choices between’ not ‘choices for or against.'”
As you know, any viable analysis between alternative policy options requires an actual comparison of those options using the same metrics and methods. I consistently see you providing comments (such as the one here, citing the 2045 traffic projections) that do not provide any comparative context about the performance of your alternative options.
So, what are the performance characteristics of your proposed alternatives? Can you show the comparative traffic flows and performance for them (or for a “status quo”) option? Comparative long-term maintenance costs? Are there comparative cost-benefit, life cycle, or product value chain estimations that you would point to as supporting the alternatives?
It seems to me that the IBR, whatever its faults, has taken a reasonably comprehensive approach to showing how their proposal falls in that larger comparative context. At the very least, they’ve made their assumptions and estimates explicit?
I think that, in order to make an informed policy decision, we should be able to review yours with the same scrutiny. I’d appreciate it if you could share your the analyses supporting both your critiques and the relative performance of your selected alternatives.
A teacher once gave me the sage advice that, “choices are always ‘choices between’ not ‘choices for or against.’” . Yeah, another way of saying that is: “choosing or voting for the LESSER of two evils…” you still end up choosing or voting for EVIL, and as Mr. Case has explained, the “fix” is already in, and the (s)election(s) have already been made, and as another sage once said: “It’s a BIG club, and WE ain’t in it”.
Forthright —
Here’s a great deal of “data”, much from the IBR team, some from our Regional Transportation Council, and some from our transit agencies.
Let’s start the discussion with facts and data.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/a-data-driven-interstate-bridge-solution-50-years-into-the-future/
Forthright —
Here is more data & facts. The two Columbia River bridges act as a system handling cross river traffic needs. Transportation architect Kevin Peterson scrutinised the CRC’s data and provides the number of total lanes needed to handle projected traffic for 2030 & 2050.
The IBR chooses to ignore these numbers and obvious need for more vehicle capacity over the Columbia River.
Our Regional Transportation Council (2008) identified the need for two new bridges over the Columbia River– one West of I-5 and one East of I-205. They provided two options for each bridge.
The IBR and special interest politicians ignore these realities in the current proposal.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-a-data-driven-response-to-governors-inslee-and-brown/
Dear Mr. Ley,
“ The two Columbia River bridges act as a system handling cross river traffic needs.”
Just how much of our tax dollars did the committee spend on “consultants” and “studies” to come up with this stunning proclamation?
A few pieces of silver? Can you prove the various councilors have profited from their actions? That’s pretty big talk from a guy who pled guilty to two misdemeanor election fraud charges with an Alford plea.
Mr. Ley, you are probably the last guy in the state who should question anyone’s motives. It’s pretty obvious that you’ve spent more than a few pieces of silver to cover your bad choices and to slur another set of politicians by inferring they are on the take is beyond the pale.
I could not agree more, Mr. Case. I especially feel that we need a 3rd bridge, at least, BEFORE we replace the I-5 bridge. If we try to divert all traffic from the I-5 bridge onto the 205 bridge when construction starts, we will have total gridlock throughout the area. Nothing will be moving.
Great article Mr. Case. You had me up until you suggested Mayor Megalomaniac-Ogle explain herself to anyone. That’s just not going to ever happen.
Also, I have personally voted loot rail down all three times it showed up on my ballot. How many more times do I have to say “NO!”??
5 Gold Stars for “LOOT Rail”….. wow… 😉
Thanks. I have the heart of a little boy.
Pickled.
In a jar, on my desk.
I cannot own the phrase “loot rail”. The credit rightly goes to long time Vancouver resident Larry Patella, (Cdr., USN, (Ret)), who coined the phrase back during the original Columbia Crossing Project….
That Marvin Case guy is a pretty sharp cookie and an honest hombre. If he says we need a third bridge and no light rail, then darn it we need to listen. I don’t even need to read his arguments because I know he’s right!!