Leadership change and sharp drops in transit projections raise new questions about the future of the I-5 Bridge project
The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program is facing renewed scrutiny after Administrator Greg Johnson announced he will step down at the end of the year and the project team slashed its transit ridership projections by 84 percent. The updated figures, along with major cuts to operations and maintenance estimates, have fueled public frustration and legislative concern over the accuracy of the project’s earlier claims. Critics argue that years of planning and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have failed to produce credible answers about ridership demand or congestion relief. With confidence in the project waning, this week’s poll asks: what should happen next for the I-5 Bridge replacement effort?
More info:
Opinion: The IBR guts transit ridership projections by 84 percent and O&M costs by over half
John Ley writes that the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has slashed its projected transit ridership by 84 percent, raising questions about accuracy, leadership, an...
Read more
Also read:
- Opinion: Too deep to drive – flooded roads
Doug Dahl explains why even shallow water on roadways can be dangerous for drivers and outlines the risks of hydroplaning and driving through floodwaters. - C-TRAN takes no action on Board Composition Review Committee’s directive
After a long executive session, the C‑TRAN board took no action on a 4‑3‑2 board composition proposal that has divided Vancouver, Clark County and the small cities. - Opinion: Sound Transit – No cause for celebration
Charles Prestrud argues Sound Transit’s costly light rail expansions have failed to boost overall ridership or ease Puget Sound congestion. - 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.
The “leadership” on this project, such as it is, that really needs replacing is Vancouver City Clowncil. They are the only “leaders” in the County that have consistently pushed this nonsense for over a decade, and have failed over and over again.
Even with the unflagging assistance from the local “Pravda” print media, (remember the front page headline “You Like Light Rail!”,,??) and help from President Auto-Pen’s mis-administration, they still could not bully the rest of the County to go along with it.
Start over, and flush another $500 Million down the toilet?? I don’t think people realize just how big of a rip-off this has consistently been. Exhibit “A” in my book is that Greg Johnson was pulling down $300,000 a year in salary, plus benefits, and look what we got for our money.
Before we start this nonsense over again, we need to re-start City Clowncil with as many fresh faces as possible. The current crew has no credibility left on any project of any magnitude and needs to be replaced as soon as possible, first.
Please cut costs. Lite rail should be moved to 205 and go to the airport or drop it. If that is a no go then drop the whole thing until different politicians are elected.
If there were any perceived benefit to Clark County people would support it. I believed from the start of the Columbia Crossing Project that the best light rail project would be to build the Red Line from PDX up the I-205 right of way, all the way to the Clark County Fairgrounds, with as many strategic stops along the way. Eventually the Casino might be interested in paying for the line to continue up their way as well.
That’s a pretty broad outline, but it makes more sense than bringing the Yellow Line into downtown…
*Replace leadership: Need to represent all users and tax payers.
*Scale way back and cut the fat. Review costs are obscene. (How many reviews have been done?)
*An unbiased review, including users and tax payers, needs to be done…open to the public, not behind closed doors where “deals” are made).
Add a completely new bridge different location. Upgrade I-5 and make I-5 more pedestrian and bike friendly.
With all the bickering in Vancouver I don’t think this will be built until bridge collapses.
How do the Elected Officials in our City of Vancouver and our County continue to get in wrong Especially missing the lack of benefits of Light Rail and the veiled threat of the city of Portland and their attempt to dump their debt on us!
My major beef with the Interstate Bridge Replacement project was that it started with a false premise — that replacing the bridge would alleviate the traffic problem. That is patently false — the backup begins and ends at the end of the bridge in Portland. I don’t care how many lanes they put in on the bridge, the problem will remain on I-5 in Portland. What’s needed is to have another bypass (like I-205) to either the east of 205 or the west of 5 that would route through traffic around the Portland congestion. That should be built before the old bridge is upgraded or replaced. This would free up I-5 in Portland for local traffic, while allowing drivers going south or north of the city to do so more efficiently. The old bridge needs to be upgraded or replaced because of its age but this needs to be done as part of a comprehensive plan to repair the Portland bottleneck on I-5.
I am also opposed to including Light Rail on any of the bridges. There is currently bus service from the WA side to Cascade Park that fulfills the need (which I believe is much less than stated in the plan). It adds horrendous expense for not much return on investment. The current transit system (at least on the WA side) operates below its designed capacity (according to C-Trans’ own figures).