PORTLAND, Ore. — When it comes to the new I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, there are still a host of funding issues and design choices to be debated and sorted through before the project's planned 2025 groundbreaking.
One thing is pretty certain: The current twin bridges need replacing. The northbound side was built when Woodrow Wilson was president, and the southbound side was added when Dwight Eisenhower was in the Oval Office. Which means when the next big earthquake hits, the bridge is toast.
The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program team selected its preferred bridge configuration last year and began the federal environmental review process. The review is still ongoing, but there have been a handful of bridge-related developments in the past few weeks that are worth catching up on.
Drawbridge back in the mix
A full bridge design is still a long way off, but the IBR team's preferred alternative settles some high-level details. The plan is for the new bridge to be an immovable "fixed span" rather than a drawbridge like its predecessor.
The fixed span would offer 116 feet of clearance for river traffic — more than what the current bridge offers when it's closed, but less than the 178 feet of clearance available when the current bridge is fully raised.
The U.S. Coast Guard raised concerns in February about how the lower height could restrict river traffic, which prompted federal transportation authorities to order the IBR planners to study a drawbridge option in addition to the fixed span during the environmental review process.
IBR program administrator Greg Johnson told KGW that he's confident that the fixed span design will ultimately win out, and he said the addition of the drawbridge study won't affect the project's schedule.
"External stakeholders want us to move forward with a fixed span," he added.
Oregon lawmakers asked Oregon Department of Transportation director Kris Strickler last month if the Coast Guard could veto the project over concerns about river clearance.
"I'll define that by saying yes, because they have a bridge permit that we have to get in order for us to enter into construction," Strickler said. "So my hope is that it never constitutes a veto authority, though."
Without being asked about the cost, he also said, "Would it cost more? Absolutely. I can tell you unequivocally that the cost of a moveable span is more than the cost of a fixed span. We don't know how much more yet, but it could be upwards of $500 million, just for the bridge portion alone."
A drawbridge that would be raised about 400 times per year would have a negative impact on light rail headways, he added.
The previous attempt at a replacement bridge, the Columbia River Crossing, faced the same clearance concerns. Back then, the project team was able to smooth things over by agreeing to pay about $90 million to compensate companies upriver that needed the full 178 feet of clearance for occasional big river shipments.
Vancouver's mayor reiterated her support for a fixed crossing in an interview last week on KGW's Straight Talk, saying that the upriver companies don't use the full clearance often enough to make it worth preserving.
"Once in ten years? That isn't justification to have the entire world of Vancouver stop (for bridge lifts) ... and the cost would be incredible," she said. "We're trying to keep it down, as much as possible."
Oregon's share of the funding
The IBR team's most recent estimate pegged the cost of a new bridge at a range of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, with $6 billion as the ballpark figure. Washington lawmakers already earmarked $1 billion for the bridge last year, and the IBR team said they hoped to see Oregon make an equal commitment during this year's legislative session.
Lawmakers in Salem appear willing to do that, and are currently crafting their own funding plan that would involve raising $1 billion from bonds — $700 million in bonds against ODOT's state highway fund tax revenue and $300 million from bond sales from the state's general fund.
There's also been talk of capping the total cost of the bridge project at $6.3 billion as a condition of the funding allocation, although that's not a sure thing, and the overall plan is still being drafted.
Still, talk of a cost cap is worth noting because if the Columbia River Crossing project was any indication, costs can get out of control quickly — and it appears that lawmakers want to try to prevent that from happening.
KGW spoke this week to Rep. Susan McLain, D-Hillsboro, who co-chairs both the Joint Committee on Transportation and the Joint Committee on the I-5 Bridge, to ask about the status of the funding plan.
"Right now we are simply committing to being a good partner with Washington, and we are simply committing to the billion dollars to keep us going in this process and keep us on schedule," she said. "The most important item that we can have right here as a goal is to stay on schedule so we can try for federal funding for the infrastructure package that came out."
The amount of money the federal government will kick in is a huge issue, and it's part of why Oregon legislators want to act fast. The IBR team's latest estimates show they're hoping for between $2.5 billion and $3 billion from DC.
"If the state is doing their job, we're going to get this out this session and we hopefully will have something voted on, hopefully by the the beginning of May," McLain said. "And the reason for that is because many of the infrastructure grants, both competitive and non-competitive, that we're interested in garnishing from the federal government package are due in May, so we want to be able to stand right there at the head of the queue."
Tolling on the horizon
A billion dollars each from Oregon and Washington and $3 billion from the federal government still leaves a billion-dollar hole in the budget if the project does end up costing $6 billion. And that gap is going to filled by — you guessed it — tolling revenue.
Just last week, a committee in the Washington Legislature heard testimony on a bill that would allow tolling across the bridge. The bill is mostly ceremonial, because the legislature already gave authorization for tolling in 2012 for the Columbia River Crossing project — but then the project died without being built.
But the current bill has another purpose as well, and that's to ensure that tolling revenue is only used for the existing and future I-5 bridge projects.
"We recognized there would be tolling on this bridge from its inception... (it's) something that needs to be done," said Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima. "(We) can argue about lanes, light rail, etc. We know it needs to be tolled, that's the only way we're going to get it funded."
Four people testified in favor of the bill last week, including Greg Johnson. Another noteworthy supporter was a lobbyist representing grocery chain Fred Meyer, who argued that a new and less-congested bridge would outweigh any toll costs.
The committee also talked about programs for low-income travelers that might offer free crossings or discounted tolls. The current plan also calls for "variable rate" tolling, meaning the prices will be higher during the morning and evening rush hour to try to reduce congestion by discouraging people from traveling at peak times if they can help it.
Washington lawmakers also asked how much the tolls would be, and Johnson replied that it was studying rates of between $1.50 and $3.50 per trip, although the ultimate rate will be set by ODOT and its counterpart in Washington.