Interstate Bridge replacement proposal hits major milestone with state, local endorsements

Eight government boards have endorsed the broad strokes of a plan to replace the Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River, advancing the project to a federally mandated environmental review.

The concept calls for a span over the river with three through-traffic lanes and an added auxiliary merge lane in each direction, as well as a light-rail link to Vancouver and a separate bridge for local traffic from North Portland to Hayden Island. It would eliminate the current bridge’s vertical lift — a point of contention for its impact on river traffic — and parts of the Hayden Island interchange. The plan also calls for tolling to help pay for the project and discourage travel during high-traffic hours.

With the bridge’s environmental review, planners said, would come more details about the specifics of the project, including its price tag and what it will look like.

Headwinds remain for the massive bridge project.

Funding sources haven’t been settled. The proposed bridge would cost several billion dollars. The bridge planning team intends to apply for large federal grants this summer, seeking funds earmarked for mega-projects and major bridges.

Greg Johnson, the program director for bridge replacement program, said the team is in something of a rush to get the project approved because of the timeline to apply for those grants.

“These are competitive grants,” he said. “If we don’t take our project and show alignment to our federal partners, that will put us behind in this cycle. And as politics change, we may not have that second bite of the apple.”

Johnson said planners planned to seek at least $2.5 billion from the federal government. Oregon and Washington’s state governments are each expected to contribute $1 billion to the project. (Washington’s legislature has already earmarked its share.) Roughly another another third of the project cost would come from tolling revenue.

Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard, which must issue a permit for construction on a new bridge to begin, has told planners that the proposed height of 116 feet is too low for some river-faring vessels. The Coast Guard has called for at least 178 feet of vertical clearance.

That may prove a major hurdle if bridge planners and the Coast Guard can’t come to an agreement. In an earlier push for a replacement bridge that failed for lack of funding in 2014, Oregon and Washington agreed to pay $80 million to three upriver companies who would lose access because of the proposed bridge.

Construction of a new Interstate Bridge could include changes to the Hayden Island interchange. The island is only accessible via the current Interstate Bridge.Interstate Bridge Replacement Program

A computer rendering of a road design.  A gray line cutting across a green patch, showing park and natural areas, and a brown patch, showing buildings and developed areas.  A blue shows the river in the foreground.

A rendering of what construction north of the new proposed Interstate Bridge could look like, including an added light rail line.Interstate Bridge Replacement Program

Some legislators on a two-state legislative committee that accepted the locally preferred plan on Thursday expressed hesitation over advancing the proposal. Oregon Rep. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, said she worried that studying only one bridge concept could delay the project if the disagreement with the Coast Guard isn’t resolved. Washington state Rep. Brandon Vick, R-Felida, meanwhile, said he was concerned there would be little opportunity for lawmakers to influence the direction of the project once the study is underway.

Renewed efforts to replace the bridge have faced dogged opposition, both from people who want to see a bigger structure that will ease traffic congestion, and from environmental and transportation activists who believe the proposed bridge is too wide and will invite more traffic, floating climate change goals.

The Just Crossing Alliance, a group of nearly 30 climate and transportation advocacy groups, has pushed for bridge planners to consider a lift span or a tunnel to reduce the ground-level impact of a bridge built to 178 feet, as well as the difficulty such a bridge would pose for pedestrians and cyclists.

Chris Smith, an activist with the group No More Freeways, said a bridge at the proposed height of 116 feet, or even higher, would also require the rebuilding of at least the first two intersections on either side of the bridge to accommodate a gradual incline .

A lower bridge with a lift span would allow freeway work to the north and south to be completed later, freeing dollars for other transportation projects.

“The big concern is that this project will soak up so many dollars there will be no money for other things like orphan freeways and other things not getting the attention they need,” Smith said.

Johnson, the administrator of the bridge replacement program, said the team had ruled out phased construction.

“As a matter of fact, it makes construction inefficient and thus more costly,” he said. “We think a comprehensive program to include all these projects is the way to get this thing done.”

During previous decade’s abandoned planning for a replacement bridge, planners studied an array of different options, including a lift-span bridge and tunnels. The latest version closely matches what that effort identified as the most feasible approach.

Johnson said they chose not to reexamine those abandoned options because the same downsides remain.

“We can’t get over or under the railroad on the other side with a tunnel and still connect to State Road 14 and downtown Vancouver,” he said. “And tribal governments have said it’s unacceptable to cut a 200-foot-wide swath into the bottom of the Columbia River.”

While most of the local and state government boards voted unanimously to endorse the project, councilors for the Metro regional government heard more than an hour of testimony before their vote last week, with all but a few speakers urging them to vote no until they’ve consider other alternatives. Councilor Mary Nolan cast the lone “no” vote.

Robert Liberty, a former Metro councilor and land use attorney, told board members that they were committing themselves too early.

“You can tell yourself you’ll give in today but be tough later, but there won’t be a later,” he said.

Economist Joe Cortright, a vocal critic of both bridge proposals, said the newer version repeats the mistakes of the Columbia River Crossing. And he said the government bodies are approving a plan with insufficient detail from project planners.

“They’re planning to widen the freeway for five miles and rebuild 12 interchanges,” Cortright said. “They say they’re adding just one auxiliary lane, but look at the actual plan. You can fit 10 to 12 traffic lanes into a 164-foot-wide structure.”

The elected officials who signed off on the project said they believed they had found acceptable compromises that would balance climate harm, freight movement and seismic resiliency concerns.

“We can’t get hung up on the perfect,” said Metro Council President Lynn Peterson. “The perfect is not within reach, because everyone’s is a different perfect.”

The environmental review is expected to begin later this year. If approved, construction on the bridge isn’t expected to begin before 2025.

— Jayati Ramakrishnan

— Elliot Njus