Bob Mattila offers his proposal for an I-5 Bridge replacement project

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

If we are ever going to get a new I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River, we need to start using some common sense in designing it. The biggest problem, I think, is the pipe dream of putting light rail on it.

Bob Mattila

I don’t favor light rail, but if we can’t have a new bridge without it, put it on the newer existing bridge, the southbound one, or on the railroad bridge, a mile downriver. Because of the added weight of putting light rail on the bridge, the added weight of the tracks and the train, that in itself doubles the cost of the bridge because it has to be made earthquake proof. The few times there would be bridge lifts could have express buses take the place of the trains. The clearance height for river traffic now is 72 feet.

Some of the Industrial Fabricating businesses upriver, (East) of the present bridge have been or will be compensated for the lower clearance of 116 feet with the newer bridge than the 178 feet with the present bridge in the raised position.

I-5 veers to the East on both sides of the river, so build the first of two bridges on the East side of the present bridge with enough room for five permanent northbound bridges.

Then temporarily put three lanes in each direction. Tear out the present northbound bridge and build the new southbound bridge in its place with five lanes. This would be much simpler and could be done much sooner and much cheaper than the present plan that has been in the expensive and unworkable planning stage far too long with no real end in sight.

Bob Mattila
Brush Prairie

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Don’t fall for the illusion of voter control on income tax expansion
  A House amendment requiring a referendum before any income threshold change was voted down 45-51.
• Opinion: Don’t fall for the illusion of voter control on income tax expansion
  A House amendment requiring a referendum before any income threshold change was voted down 45-51.
• 
  POLL: The IBR project is described as only 30% designed and 30% funded after more than six years of work. How confident are you in the current management of the IBR program?
  IBR’s cost has climbed from $3.2–$4.8B to $15.2B while the project remains 30% designed and 30% funded.
• 
  Opinion: Two bridges, one expanding bill
  Bracchi traces how the IBR’s estimated cost grew from roughly $3B to $14.4B as Vancouver’s Bridge Shelter adds millions in annual operating costs alongside existing homelessness programs.
• 
  Opinion: WFSE demands a ‘fair’ contract — but workers and taxpayers can’t see the numbers
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues neither state workers nor taxpayers can evaluate what is “fair” when wage proposals and their costs remain undisclosed.