Cost cutting, no tolls, no light rail, and not enough lanes highlight councilor’s preferences
John Ley
For Clark County Today
Members of the Clark County Council received an update from the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) during their Council Time meeting Wednesday. IBR team member Frank Green shared updates on bridge financing as well as the release of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) which the public can now comment on through November 18. The nearly 12,500 pages of the document contains a great deal of information, with specific details often hard to find.
Councilor Karen Bowerman criticized all the comparisons with the “No Build” alternative. “No one supports the no build alternative,” she told Green. She prefers comparisons with legitimate alternatives the people of Clark County would like to see, like a bridge without light rail or even better, a third bridge that would reduce traffic congestion. Bowerman wanted more details of traffic diversion, mentioning people are already talking about “the I-205 parking lot” since it will not be tolled.
Councilor Glen Yung noted that no mega project ever came in on budget. “If the project comes in over budget, what gives?” he asked. Would the program raise tolls or cut parts of the proposal, he inquired?
Councilor Michelle Belkot asked for the status of discussions with the U.S. Coast Guard, which is demanding a bridge clearance for maritime traffic of at least the current 178 feet of clearance. Belkot also pushed back on replacing a 3-lane bridge with another 3-lane bridge.

Green responded with answers that for the most part, have been heard before. Negotiations with the U.S. Coast Guard are going well, as they hope to reach agreements with three up river fabricators and one vessel owner over mitigation, so they can proceed with their planned 116 foot clearance for marine vessels.
“Tolls wouldn’t be the only source” of revenue he told Yung, if costs go up. Green said the program would look for additional sources of federal money, while not eliminating going to the state legislatures for more funding.
On replacing the congested three-lane bridge with another three-lane bridge, Green indicated the auxiliary lane will allow the through lanes to actually act like through lanes. He said the current bridge without auxiliary lanes only effectively has one to one and one half through lanes, because of all the merging and weaving.
The IBR is sticking with the previous Columbia River Crossing (CRC) adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The pitch was to save time and funding, starting with where the previously failed project left off.
That’s where Councilor Gary Medvigy pushed back. “The CRC failed for good reasons,” he said. He lamented that the IBR is pursuing a project “with all the bells and whistles” that adds multiple billions to the cost. It’s possible to build a more simple project at a much lower cost. He noted the people do not want tolling and a lower cost project would avoid the need for tolls.
He mentioned asking a question at an RTC meeting a while back. “What did you learn from the CRC failure?” The answer was telling, Medvigy said. “We learned to talk to people in different ways,” was the response.
Medvigy lamented that the IBR team members say they’ve interacted with 100,000 people, but appears to have ignored and not acted on the people’s concerns. He hopes the program staff would actually act on the people’s concerns and modify their proposal to better align with what the people want.
He began his remarks about light rail. “There’s so much angst over it,” Medvigy said. “In part it’s legitimate because people are afraid of it,” referencing safety concerns related to crime happening on or near MAX stations.
“The sheer cost – we’re hearing a billion dollars per mile, the most expensive in the world,” he said in likely reference to a recent Clark County Today article. He noted people in East County and North County won’t likely use it. Medvigy says light rail is a whole project, in and of itself, and should therefore be separated from the IBR proposal and done later.
Councilor Gary Medvigy provides a list of issues and feedback to Frank Green of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program during an hour-long workshop discussion regarding the proposed project. Video courtesy ClarkCoWa via YouTube
Medvigy noted “$2.5 billion of swag” that could be spared from the project in order to save money. He prefers a simple bridge replacement for around $1 billion, or saving the current, “iconic bridges” and using them as a local connection with Hayden Island.
“We need additional crossings,” he stated emphatically. Medvigy noted all the numerous agencies had caveats, or disagreements with the proposal. He emphasized the TriMet demand for Clark County to pay for operations and maintenance of the light rail.
Medvigy closed by encouraging people to make the most of the opportunity to make comments on the DSEIS. They can click here and enter comments, or send them via email to DraftSEIS@interstatebridge.org. People can also mail them to 500 Broadway Suite 200, Vancouver, WA 98660.
Also read:
- Letter: ‘Something is wrong when our vote means nothing’Bob Zak challenges the political handling of the I-5 Bridge project and urges voters to demand accountability.
- IBR only has single firm interested in managing the project to replace I-5 BridgeRep. John Ley reports on serious concerns with the I-5 Bridge replacement project, including limited contractor interest, rising tolls, and a 15-year timeline.
- Busy pavement season ahead on Vancouver streetsThe city of Vancouver is set to repave and preserve 76 lane miles across 20 neighborhoods in summer 2025, with ADA upgrades and community notices throughout.
- State representative: Expect sticker shock when Interstate Bridge project officials reveal price, tolling plansAt a town hall in Battle Ground, Rep. John Ley warned of major cost increases and tolling burdens tied to the Interstate Bridge replacement project.
- Opinion: Washington state lawmakers increase the cost of driving – againBob Pishue of Mountain States Policy Center argues that new vehicle and fuel taxes in Washington will raise driving costs while diverting funds away from roads.
Well as usual, CCT issues a polemic instead of an even semi-unbiased article. Rather than clear reporting, instead CCT cherry picked the negative comments and queries of a few (of whom Councilors Bowerman and Medvigy are the stars).
No, not “All” county residents fall in line behind the duo. No, not everyone thinks a third bridge should be plonked somewhere over the Columbia. without any consideration for infrastructure. And no, not everyone thinks a “no-frills bridge”… whatever that is…is a great idea.
And let’s stop pandering to the false narrative that light rail promotes crime. For two hours+ that I’ll never get back, I Googled, Silk-searched and Binged in vain for studies nation wide showing how light rail promotes crime (briefly, yes, there are instances when under-policed lines suffer, but essentially criminals are not willing to hike, for example, from a downtown Vancouver terminus to Yacolt, Battleground or even mid-Heights to rob, steal or sell drugs). So stop it.
And gird your of loins for tolls. They are a universal method of providing user-pay revenue. We had tolls in the past. They’re part of our future. So buck up, kiddo.
Tolling, to fill in funds to build a replacement Interstate Bridge, and when it is paid for, they end it but that is not what the political leadership in Oregon want. They want those bad Washingtonians, who pay Oregon Income Tax, to pay maybe $15.00 one to go across this new IBR. The problem is that the costs are going up and up and up and the financial commitments from: Federal and State Governments appear to be maybe $3-Billion short and using the mythology Washington used up north it is easy to extrapolate, what will have to happen. Tolling Back Bonds will require adequate revenue. It is easy to see Toll Rates of $15.00 one way. The working poor will be hit hard and if they are part of the commuters, TriMet’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) has little or no possibility of being an alternative, as it cannot get 99% of the commuters to where they need to go. TriMet’s LRT has got dangerous that TriMet now has 450 new transit police. The immediate area around the Clackamas Town Center as an example, has the highest crime rate by a massive scale over the rest of Clackamas County. The drug pushers historically go into and out of this area on Light Rail. One in four, don’t buy tickets to ride of TriMet’s LRT and those who do buy tickets, don’t create enough sustainable ridership to pay for operating costs. The cost to provide a seat on TriMet’s LRT is now over $100- dollars, when all of the fully encumbered costs are added in. New and very affordable Micro electric vehicles, with 100 range will let people go place to place with intelligent routing. In the next 5-years the old technology transit will be totally obsolete. The transportation planners know this, and they know that they do not have a fix as to how to add capacity to the I-5 Corridor between Portland and Vancouver. They need a secondary corridor and figure out how to get light and heavy track traffic out of I-5 and on to a secondary corridor. They should look at what they did with I-84 and how they used Sullivan’s Gulch, where Union Pacific had their railroad tracks. I-84 went in and worked and got expanded and now there is an east to west way to move freight in and out of the core of the City of Portland. From my old house, I used to go up and down Fruit Valley Road sometimes paralleling the BNSF railroad tracks. This parallel to what Portland did putting in I-84 and this right-of-way (ROW) again an ideal location for a westside bypass, that can use that (ROW) and when coupled with the replacement of the 1907 Swing BNSF Railroad Bridge. There is adequate ROW to connect all of the way to Oregon State Highway 30, in NW Portland. Connecting links off of this bypass corridor would connect to 90% of industrial Portland, where the jobs are.
Thank you for the information. Please submit this as a letter to the editor so more people will read it.The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement public comment period is open thru Nov. 18, 2024.See Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) pagehttps://www.interstatebridge.org/updates-folder/supplemental-environmental-impact-statement/
Well said, Margaret!
We welcome more input and perspective from citizens!