Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance vows to return to a focus in an upcoming series of stories and columns in coming weeks and days on the solutions for the current transportation mess that we are mired in
Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today
You’ve read a lot from me in this space of the many things that I don’t like about the proposed Interstate 5 Bridge replacement project. I feel like I have been remiss in not mentioning the thing I dislike most about the project. And that is, the fact that it seems to have stalled discussions about better and more urgent alternatives.
In 2014, some very wise elected officials were successful in killing the failed Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project. The CRC was a $3.5 billion “light rail project in search of a bridge,’’ according to an Oregon Supreme Court justice. It called for $8 tolls and would have provided just a one-minute improvement in the morning, southbound commute. Over $200 million was spent on the project, of which it was reported $140 million would have to be repaid to the federal government if something wasn’t built.
Fast forward five years to November 2019, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown gathered at the Vancouver Waterfront to sign a Memorandum of Intent that would resurrect the CRC. The current proposal is for a project that will replace the existing I-5 Bridge with the same number of lanes and after at least $6-7.5 billion (new cost estimates are expected later this year) is spent on the project, the transportation congestion issues in the corridor will be largely unimpacted. In addition to that, Southwest Washington residents will have TriMet’s light rail jammed unwillingly down our throats, the 1.83-mile extension into Vancouver accounts for more than $2 billion of the overall price tag.
The governors’ Memorandum of Intent formed the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR). Both Washington and Oregon pledged $1 billion to the project. The Washington legislature committed its share of those funds, the Oregon legislature has committed a portion and pledged to come up with the rest. I have written many times in opposition to elements of the IBR’s Locally Preferred Alternative which essentially is the same as the CRC. I know the bridge eventually needs to be replaced, but this price tag is too big and it’s only getting bigger. And, Southwest Washington residents have voiced their opposition to the light rail extension and pending tolls in multiple advisory votes. First and foremost, area residents want the transportation congestion issues addressed and this project doesn’t do that. The IBR reports it’s the top priority for 70 percent of citizens.
I’ve been covering this issue since before Clark County Today was launched in September of 2016. Growing up in Skamania County, I’m also old enough to have experienced the impact of the opening of the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge in 1982. It was a life-changing event for many of us. Travel times were reduced, convenience was increased and traffic congestion decreased.
Even before the I-205 Bridge opened, there were studies and discussions of the need for additional crossings over the Columbia River. One of the most recent came in 2008 when the Regional Transportation Council provided a “Visioning Study’’ that identified the need for not just one but two additional crossings over the river separating the two states. The current RTC traffic congestion report states the Interstate Bridge reached peak capacity in the early 1990s and the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge did so in the mid-2000s. In August 2019, the RTC board conducted a review of the 2008 “Visioning Study.’’
At that review, then-Rep. Vicki Kraft said, “We can’t kid ourselves. We have to have more crossings. For our commuters, for our freight, our economy. So I believe we do have the power to provide leadership, engage them in this conversation, and now is exactly the time to do it.’’
“It was my pleasure to work for what we Clark County residents need, and that is legitimate relief of traffic congestion,’’ then-Councilor Karen Bowerman said.
In a document provided by the Clark County Council, transportation architect Kevin Peterson scrutinized CRC traffic project data that came from two Washington studies between 2000 and 2007. He identified that by 2060, there would be the need for nine lanes in each direction on the I-5 corridor and eight lanes in each direction of the I-205 corridor. That indicates 17 total lanes would be needed across the Columbia River just 35 years from now. There are seven today.
Portland has a dozen bridges across the Willamette River over about a 12-mile area. Each serves different communities and spreads the transportation burden among many smaller corridors. At a legislative town hall held in Battle Ground in May, Rep. Orcutt pointed out that there are five bridges over the Cowlitz River in Cowlitz County serving a population of 100,000. There are 525,000 or so residents in Clark County, plus over 2 million in the Portland area.
At the first Bi-State Bridge Committee meeting of Oregon and Washington legislators in the fall of 2018, Rep. Orcutt (Republican, 20th District) asked the legislators to tie any replacement of the I-5 Bridge to a new third bridge crossing over the Columbia River. Orcutt isn’t the only lawmaker who has approached this conversation with a common sense perspective.
In 2022, two bills were introduced as “An act relating to studying the construction of a third bridge over the Columbia River between southwest Washington and Oregon.’’ House Bill 2034 was introduced by Representatives Brandon Vick and Larry Hoff (Republicans, 18th District) and Robert Southerland (Republican, 39th District). Senate Bill 5934 was sponsored by Senators Lynda Wilson (Republican, 17th District), Ann Rivers (Republican, 18th District) and John Braun (Republican, 20th District).
In his first session as a legislator, Rep. John Ley introduced House Bill 1559, which addressed tolling on Interstate 5 bridges spanning the Columbia River. Ley also introduced House Bill 1869, which would prohibit the expenditure of Washington state funds for any capital costs of a transit agency created pursuant to the laws of an adjacent state. Both bills remain in the transportation committee.
No elected official has spent more time scrutinizing the I-5 Bridge replacement project more than Ley, who began his research years before he was elected to the state House of Representatives. Rep. Orcutt is also a key lawmaker in the search for sanity and common sense when it comes to transportation projects in the region. Unfortunately, several allies for the cause – including Sen. Wilson, Reps. Kraft and Liz Pike and County Councilors Bowerman and Gary Medvigy – are no longer in elected positions. We need other elected officials to step up and show the courage of the aforementioned group. I contend there is a void of such vastly needed leadership on this issue and in recent years there’s also been a lack of a discussion from a 30,000-foot perspective about the bigger picture.
I took this walk down memory lane on this issue for the purpose of informing you I am going to once again attempt to be part of the solution and not the problem. I will still join Ley and others in scrutinizing the I-5 Bridge replacement project. That is important. I’m still praying for some common sense intervention at the federal level that will either fix what is wrong with this project or stall it altogether. But, I’m also going to return to a focus in an upcoming series of stories and columns in coming weeks and days on the solutions for the current transportation mess that we are mired in. Please stay tuned.
Also read:
- Letter: Has $450 million been wasted on a bridge that’s too low for the Coast Guard with a foundation too costly to build?
A Seattle engineer questions whether hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a bridge design he argues is unnecessarily risky and costly compared to an immersed tunnel alternative. - Opinion: Transit agencies need accountability not increased state subsidy
Charles Prestrud argues that Washington transit agencies face rising costs and declining ridership due to governance structures that lack public accountability. - Opinion: Does tailgating cause speeding?
Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl examines whether tailgating contributes to speeding and explains why following too closely increases crash risk with little benefit. - Free fares on New Year’s Eve is a big hit with C-TRAN riders
C-TRAN’s New Year’s Eve free-fare program provided extended late-night service and a safe transportation option for riders across Clark County just after midnight. - Four Western WA counties granted $6.6M in federal funds for road safety programs
Four Western Washington counties will receive $6.6 million in federal funding for road safety projects, including an EMS pilot program in Clark County.
Let’s be honest here. It’s Oregon’s beta liberal party of treason members that have prevented a bridge from being built. If it wasn’t for Neil Goldschmidt and Vera Katz, and if we had had common sense conservative leadership back then, for the money blow torched on light rail, we wouldn’t still have this problem.
We would have a new I-5 bridge, an expansion of I-5 at the Rose Quarter, an expanded I-205, a West Side bypass from Banks to Wilsonville, and we’d still have four lanes on Interstate Ave and SE Tacoma.
Plus, the Tilikum bridge would have been for ALL vehicles. All Portland needed was to add more buses. Oregon legislators insist on (as you say Kenny) “jamming Clark County with light rail.” If I lived there, I’d fight it too.
I’ve lived in SW Portland for most of the past 50+ years, and I’ve come to hate liberals with a passion. They’re almost as ignorant as they are indignant and arrogant, and they have no business being in positions of leadership. The have the collective hive mind of a child. Thanks for speaking up Kenny, and we miss you on sports talk radio.
Reverend —
Great bit of history and appropriate information.
Yes, Portland would be a very different place if their “war on cars” never got started 50 years ago.
We are now faced with trying to fix the huge transportation system deficit. That means ending the war on cars. It means plugging the huge hole, created by TriMet, where they spend nearly $2 billion a year, but passenger fares cover less than 10% of operating costs.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion!
Mr. Ley,
I have to question your own genuineness on this topic. Eight months back I emailed to your legislative box, a quite feasible design proposal not publicly proposed, which would provide ALL of the desired benefits of vested parties, but for the local construction contractors whom the DOT selfishly favors. You see, the hybrid proposal significantly reduces project costs. Imagine that, more public benefits at less cost; not really hard once you realize the level of ineptitude and cronyism that goes into government designs.
You didn’t bother yourself with a ‘thank you’ reply, let alone an all out ‘eye opening’ appreciation.
I suspect your ONLY pet peev about the current proposal is with any inclusion of rail transit. Yet, there is SO much wrong, beyond the plan’s rail insertion. I agree, it is absurd, but so is most ALL of the proposal.
It is feasible to include rail in a proposal that is far less costly, and more beneficial for all needs. It is also sound engineering.
I flew into PDX in the early 90’s for a work project. My driver drove me south on 205 to Wilsonville. I remarked what a nice highway and little traffic!!! My driver said some say a waste of money.
Today, 30+ years later a different story,,,,Traffic and massive development!
Look at Ridgefield, WA, today!!! It was the same situation in the early 90’s. Little development, now wall to wall developments, besides in-n-out and Costco!
Build another bridge across the Columbia from Camas to Gresham!
If another bridge was built that linked I-5 in North Clark County down through Camas and across the river to link up with I-84 near Troutdale, what do you suppose commercial trucks would be willing to pay in tolls to completely bypass all of the traffic in Portland?? Their savings in fuel would be significant.
I suspect you could put a significant dent in the cost of the bridge with commercial thru-truck tolls alone.
As a related point of perspective……..
Italy has just approved a plan to build the longest suspension bridge in the world, linking Italy and Sicily across the Straits of Messina. The bridge would be a bit over 2 miles long with an enormous tower on each side to keep the waterway open. In addition to the roadways it will include a full sized rail line that will link Sicily with Berlin by rail eventually. Said to be open by 2030.
The cost?? 13.5 Billion Euros, or about $15.6 Billion……
Instead of making it so expensive and elaborate. Give it 5 lanes with a single bike lane that people can also walk on. No light rail no toll
Anne, now crying to the public “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” – she needs to go NOW – RECALL!
A replacement bridge in my lifetime? NO!
After attending a few city meetings and listening to City of Vancouver Council members & the representative from the City of Vancouver DEI department (DEI department is playing a huge role in the CRC planning process). The City of Vancouver officials are planning on having light rail be a vital part of the CRC. The citizens of Vancouver have voted down the addition of light rail multiple times & these officials are not listening to their constituents. It’s time the citizens of Vancouver voice their wants & needs louder so these deaf city officials hear their voices.
City of Vancouver city manager & the DEI department gone overboard on the programs and messaging. These city officials are changing the look, feel & culture of our once beautiful city. Vancouver over the past few years has become an extension of Portland and its woke culture. Very sad!
The City’s current budget includes a bit over $500,000 in just salaries for DEI Staff. The DEI Director is paid on the same scale as the City Attorney.
Agree, but it will do little good. The city government envisions most of today’s vehicle drivers will enthusiastically drive, bike, scoot, or walk to the train station ( or all the way to Portland) then take light rail to somewhere in Portland, then get to where they wanted to go somehow. The light rail fare will not deter as the vast majority of operating costs will be covered by “modest” increases in sales and property taxes and tolls. Humbug.
i5 from the river to Lake Oswego exit both directions won’t be able to support any more volume of traffic. I get that they’re replacing century old bridges; but from WA exit 5 all the way to Lake Oswego needs to be widened 😂
Bridge #3 needs to connect to SE 192nd Ave.
Bridge #4 needs to connect from NW 78th street, across (the dead) Vancouver Lake, over the river, across Sauvie Island, tunnel through Forest Park, and connect to Cornelius Pass and 185th in Rock Creek.
I think, if we’re being realistic we have to also consider that for at least the next 3.5 years, there will likely be zero federal dollars flowing into blue states for construction projects. Prior Congressional approval of funds appears to no longer be a guarantee that those funds will be available.
The current Interstate bridge is “functionally obsolete” but is not physically unsafe. Functional obsolescence simply means that the lane widths and shoulders no longer meet current highway standards. (e.g. The bridge does not have “shoulders” for disabled vehicles to pull out of the lanes.) With reasonable maintenance, the bridge is physically safe to operate for many years into the future.
Since Portland refuses to widen I-5 as it passes through the constricted areas within the center of the city, increasing the capacity of the Interstate bridge would only marginally improve traffic flow, if at all. I note that most of the congestion is in the northbound direction where multiple heavily used onramps enter I-5 in the last couple of miles before the bridge. (Northbound flow could be improved by additional lanes crossing the river.) Note: I have experienced this type of congestion on the SF Bay Bridge (eastbound) and at the Caldecott Tunnel (eastbound). It is simply a fact that heavily used “last minute” onramps just before constrictions on the main highway lead to congestion. (This is also noticeable on I-205 heading north in the afternoon.)
In the 1970s and 1980s, there were plans to build a new crossing west of the existing interstate bridge with freeway extended west of Portland connecting up with I-5 near Tualatin, kind of a mirror image to I-205. This plan was well developed until the “freeway revolt” that occurred around that time. It would be most reasonable to update that plan to accommodate the many years if interim development. It would do more to relieve traffic congestion and move considerable through traffic to pass around Portland rather than travel through the center of town, as occurs today.
Of course, this supposes that common sense would prevail.
Pete —
Extremely well said and spot on with your research and facts. Thank you!
Let’s be more honest about the I-5 bridge replacement. It is all about money. Money that the “city fathers’ of Vancouver will lose, if the replacement and light rail doesn’t go through.. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the two existing bridge crossings over the Columbia River, are woefully inadequate to serve the increase of growth and population that this area is experiencing. To limit the transportation options, also limits economic growth in Clark County. Two new bridges would be necessary to meet those needs. Both Oregon and Washington would financially benefit from having a new East Bridge and a new West bridge, both built on the order of the I-205 bridge. But until those “city fathers” back off on their determination to realize their personal financial goals, our communities will continue to suffer the lack of roads, businesses and jobs.
I have suggested many times in the past to spend the money on family-wage jobs and industry in Vancouver. It will reduce the bridge traffic by at least 80%(?). No tolls and no more OR taxes…Just happy residents!
I agree we need a third bridge. I also believe we need a robust high speed train system like most other western counties. If you have been to those countries and experienced them, you know what we are missing. Progress is important and creates jobs. It will cost us money no matter what. Let’s get on with it.
This project is a scam. They can’t build a new bridge where I5 is because it would need to be to big and go the length that would not give access too downtown Vancouver . The bridge has to be a specific height for boats to transport material from Vancouver industrial complex. This would make the bridge to go to salmon creak. Which would not give access too downtown, sr 500 Hwy 15… they have already researched this 20 years ago. This is a scam. Yes we do need a new bridge but it will need to be a 3rd bridge no toll bridges and no railway!