In his recent opinion column, Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance takes a critical look at the $7.5 billion I-5 Bridge replacement project, raising key concerns about its impact and effectiveness. Many in the community question whether the current plan will truly reduce traffic congestion, while others believe the high cost is unjustified. The inclusion of TriMet’s light rail into Vancouver remains a controversial element, and some argue that a third Columbia River crossing would be a better long-term solution.
As the debate continues, we want to hear from you! What do you think is the biggest issue with the current plan? Vote in this week’s poll and make your voice heard!
More info:
Opinion: Hope for those of us looking for common sense on I-5 Bridge replacement project
Ken Vance discusses growing opposition to the $7.5 billion I-5 Bridge replacement project, highlighting concerns over tolling, traffic congestion, and funding priorities.
Read more
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.
All of the above….
Absolutely…. all of the above.
Indeed, you should have included an “all of the above” choice for this poll. Each and every one of the suggestions show that this is a bridge that shouldn’t be built. Too few lanes (and Portland/Oregon will not widen freeways through Portland). TriMet rail is a total waste of money. Trolley Cars will never provide any reasonable transportation in Clark County — it’s much cheaper to use busses (and they’re not being used as they once were). A third bridge with a bypass to the west of Portland would make the most sense.
the residents of clark county do not need portlands busses and light rail. in my opinion it’s a boondoggle to help trimet. i’m old enough to realize i’ll never see the new bridge but that doesn’t mean my children and grandchildren should have to foot the bill for portlands “mass transit”. yes we need the new bridge but not light rail.
I don’t trust the state of Oregon to not use Washington commuters as their cash cow. They already do by making those who work in Oregon pay income tax, and adding various other taxes for PLO, homeless, preschool, transit taxes etc. Taxation without representation and no accountability for where all that money goes. As people move out of Oregon due to cost of housing, crime and school issues, it will only make things worse. The cost will be so much more to address issues that come up, the lack of transparency, and lack of plans to address congestion etc……I just don’t trust Oregon with how they manage their budget.