A concept to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Columbia River received its first level of approval, though local lawmakers feel it doesn’t represent their constituents.
During a meeting on July 21, the Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee approved the locally preferred alternative (LPA), taking another step in the multi-billion-dollar project to replace the aging Interstate 5 bridge that spans over the Columbia River.
Interstate Bridge Replacement Project (IBRP) Administrator Greg Johnson said it’s been a “tremendously busy year-and-a-half.” The locally preferred alternative received a unanimous vote from the executive steering group at the meeting.
To continue, the project needs to craft its first draft of a federal environmental review, which could take a year and a half to two years. Construction of the new bridge could begin by late 2025.
“We are climbing Mount Everest and we are at base camp right now,” Johnson said. “We will be doing more studies, more plans, and seeing more authorizations as we move into this next step.”
Johnson recalled the work that was completed on the Columbia River Crossing, a project from a decade ago that lost its footing due to a lack of state funding. Among new changes, the current project requires a higher clearance of the bridge’s span, which will be higher than the 116 feet of clearance off of the Columbia River that was initially planned.
Johnson said he will continue to have conversations with businesses located upward of the bridge who could be impacted. He said fewer than 1% of the loads under the bridge require more than a 116-foot clearance.
In order to be eligible for federal funding, a mass transit component is necessary. Light rail, alongside bus rapid transit, were under consideration for that requirement, though staff said the benefits of light rail are greater.
Information presented to the legislative committee shows light rail options would be eligible for more funding from the Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant, though bus rapid transit would cost less overall and federal funding would make up slightly more proportionally.
IBRP Assistant Program Administrator Frank Green said at a previous meeting that a preliminary cost estimate shows the replacement would cost between $3.2 and $4.8 billion. Alongside federal grant opportunities, he said the project would seek state-level funding in 2023. Washington state already committed $1 billion in funding during the Legislature’s 2022 session.
Johnson acknowledged the divisiveness the bridge replacement has caused.
“We’d probably be diving on a new bridge now and at a billion dollars’ less cost,” Johnson said. “As we talk about fiscal responsibility, there’s a lot of ways that comes to bear.”
Oregon State Rep. Lee Beyer noted there are a few critics who are outright against replacing the bridge.
“We are not making a decision today. We don’t have the information to make a final decision today,” Beyer, D-Springfield, said of the project. “But what we do have is the concept and I think there is a concept … that we need to replace the bridge.”
Washington State Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, said “to delay moving forward serves absolutely no one in our region.”
North Clark County representatives were more critical of the movement.
“We have good neighbors. We should be working with them, but this is not our LPA,” Washington State Rep. Brandon Vick, R-Vancouver, said. “And we’re the ones spending the money, representing for the constituents, and we’re going to have to answer for this at the end of the day.”
He later added, “We’re here, and we’re not walking away, but we also have some serious concerns about where we are.”
Washington State Sen. Ann Rivers echoed concerns following the failed Columbia River Crossing (CRC), a previous bridge replacement she helped put an end to a decade ago.
“When I restarted this a few months after the CRC … I had very high hopes that we would learn lessons from the failures of the CRC,” Rivers said. “And … at this point, I’m not sure that we really have. When we had our list of things that were important, it’s sort of like, this was done, and then it was presented to us, and I don’t see very much of what we have (changed).”
Rivers ultimately supported the committee’s latest bridge concept.
“Today, I know we have to do something. I just wish we were putting our best foot forward and I just don’t really feel like this is it,” Rivers said.
