Republican lawmakers from both sides of the river are concerned that the project to widen I-5 between Portland and Vancouver and replace the Interstate Bridge is too focused on non-drivers.
In comments made Monday during a meeting of the bi-state legislative committee for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR), Washington lawmakers questioned the wisdom of devoting lanes to walkers and bicycle users, and one wondered whether bike riders should have any access at all. And an Oregon House representative floated the idea of tolls for pedestrians and bicycle riders.
These are not random elected officials speaking out of their lane: these are influential legislators on important transportation committees that decide the fate of billions of taxpayer dollars.
The IBR is estimated to cost upwards of $7.5 billion, with $1.1 billion each coming from the states of Oregon and Washington and the rest split between tolls and federal grants. The project will widen five miles of I-5, build seven new freeway interchanges, and replace the existing bridge over the Columbia River (see graphic below). Despite delays due to traffic modeling disagreements, permitting negotiations, and environmental analyses, IBR Administrator Greg Johnson said at Monday’s meeting they are “steaming toward a path” of construction in 2026.
“I have a concern that we’re paying more attention to modes of transportation that are not at the top of mind. We need to be paying attention to, and directing our building of this bridge, according to the majority of what the bridges should be used for, which would be traffic and freight.”
– Lynda Wilson, Washington state senator
Monday’s meeting was a chance for Johnson and other project staff to convince lawmakers that the project is doing great and moving forward as planned. There was a real “nothing-to-see-here” vibe to the presentations from project staff. As for legislators, beyond pointed questions from Oregon House Rep. Khanh Pham about modeling projections and concerns voiced by Washington reps about the possible loss of buildings on the Vancouver riverfront due to the freeway’s wide footprint, the most notable exchanges were, surprisingly, about bicycles.
Washington Senator Lynda Wilson, a Republican who represents the 17th district that includes rural Clark County, doesn’t seem to think that bicycle riders, transit users, or walkers are “traffic.”
“Traffic remains below 2019 levels and transit is actually lower than that. So I think we cannot lose sight of the fact that we’re building this big bridge with this big train on it to move very few people —and the important thing is that we have traffic moving,” Wilson said during the meeting.
Sen. Wilson also expressed concern about figures she read about in a story published in The Columbian on May 23rd, that despite the new bridge being almost three times as large as the existing one (208 feet of surface area compared to 75 today), it will devote only 55% of its lane space to “cars and freight” versus the 89% currently devoted to those modes.
Johnson knew what Wilson was getting at: “We’re not neglecting the highway mode,” he said, in a diplomatic but forceful tone. Johnson explained that while the new bridge will still have three through lanes for car and truck drivers, they will be wider (12 feet instead of 10 and-a-half today), there will be two auxiliary lanes, and four, 12 to 14-foot wide safety shoulders (in addition to the light rail and bike/walk lanes).
Then Johnson offered a question of his own: “Folks who believe we can widen this thing and put more through lanes in it, I ask the question: ‘What do you want us to tear out, Fort Vancouver or downtown Vancouver? Because if you widen and put more through lanes, that’s exactly what you will end up doing.'”
Then later in the meeting when Johnson was sharing a series of bridge visualizations, Wilson asked another question.
“Biking, walking, rolling, whatever you want to call it, ‘active transportation’, we can do that [on the bridge] now,” Wilson said, as if to question the wisdom of funding a major bikeway upgrade. “I would like to know what percentage of the rolling, walking biking is happening now compared to traffic?” she added, once again making it clear that in her mind, bike riders are not “traffic.” Then Wilson dropped all pretense:
“I have a concern here that we’re paying more attention to modes of transportation that are not at the top of mind, right? We need to be paying attention to and, and directing our building of this bridge, according to the majority of what the bridges should be used for, right? Which would be traffic and freight.”
Once again Johnson was ready with a quality response:
“I have walked across the bridge back-and-forth 42 different times. And it is an unpleasant experience on the best day. You have very narrow walkways, you have folks who are hauling bottles and cans on large conveyances on that pathway. You can’t hear well because if someone is coming they have to basically holler to get your attention for you to slide into the truss members. So the current bridge does not encourage walking or biking… I’ve been a bike rider all my life, and I refuse to ride across the bridge.”
Then Johnson made it clear that it doesn’t matter what his personal opinion is because quality bike and walk facilities are called for in the project’s adopted “Purpose and Need” statement so the project is obligated to build them or jeopardize federal funding.
“So we’re not neglecting any mode,” Johnson repeated. “We’re making sure that we’re building something that if you choose not to be in a car, you can safely have an enjoyable trip across this bridge.”
A few minutes later, Oregon House Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis followed-up on Wilson’s comments. Boshart Davis is a Republican who represents rural Willamette Valley, owns a trucking company and is co-vice chair of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation.
Rep Boshart Davis was also hung up on how much space on the new bridge would be allocated to non-drivers. “As we’re talking about that great percentage of space [going to bikers and walkers] — which in my mind says money and costs — in that aspect, is that part going to be tolled?… We’re talking about a $7 billion budget and how we’re paying for the project. Is it equitable across the modes of transportation, and the people actually using the bridge?… I want to make sure that as we’re paying for the system, that we are looking at equity, as we’re talking about it all the time.”
“We’ve heard the question of whether there will be tolling for bicycles or pedestrians,” Johnson replied. “I’m not aware of situations across the country — or even across the world — where bicycling or walking is tolled. We’re trying to create options to to decongest the freeway system and that would be at odds with that purpose.”
Then Johnson took it a bit further as he sought to reset the narrative. “The thought that the biking and walking is an add-on is a misnomer. This is part of the Purpose and Need of this project. So as freight is a part of the Purpose and Need, so is biking and walking a part of the Purpose and Need. We can’t pick and choose which Purpose and Need statements we’re going to meet and which ones we’re not.”
Beyond their clear bias against and misunderstanding of people who can’t or don’t want to drive, the comments of Sen Wilson and Rep Boshart Davis are in part motivated by cost concerns, which became clear when Wilson asked Johnson to give her the total dollar amount the project will spent on the “extra lanes” for biking, walking, and transit. (As in “extra” because they’re non-essential.)
Even the bi-state legislative committee’s chair, Washington House Republican Ed Orcutt, got in a dig at bicycling and walking. Orcutt challenged Johnson’s reference to biking and walking as an important component of the project: “There’s about 308 miles of I-5 in Oregon, and I believe 280 in Washington. You say part of the need for this project is bike/ped. Can you tell me how much bike/ped is allowed on the other 590 miles of I-5 in Oregon and Washington?”
And again Johnson kept his cool while responding to another bad faith question. “Representative,” Johnson responded, “one of the one of the issues is that we have very limited crossings of the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver area. So when we have an opportunity to connect biking and walking facilities on each side of the river, that was part of the Purpose and Need that was established and agreed to by the transportation partners. So once again, we can’t ignore it… this is a unique opportunity that would be missed if we ignored the bike/walk community at this location.”
It’s good to know Johnson won’t be cowed by these legislators. But it’s not good to know we have such high-ranking public officials in positions of influence over transportation funding who suffer from such intense windshield bias.