States agree new I-5 bridge should have a toll
PORTLAND, Ore. - You might want to start getting used to the idea of paying a toll if you drive Interstate 5 over the Columbia River on a daily basis.
Both Washington and Oregon have agreed to turn the new I-5 bridge into a toll bridge and want to create a bi-state tolling commission with a representative from each state to decide on a toll rate and system.
The toll money would help pay for the bridge, called the Columbia River Crossing.
The bridge, a $3.5 billion project, has been a political flashpoint on both sides of the river. It is strongly supported by business groups - which want to speed the flow of commerce - and labor unions, whose workers would build it.
Proponents say the existing bridge is too small, choking the flow of commuter and freight traffic, and would likely collapse in a large earthquake.
Critics say it's a waste of money and poorly designed. Many of them say it would fail to get the necessary permits from the U.S. Coast Guard because of a concern there wouldn’t be enough room for ships to pass beneath it.
States agree to tax people.. shocking!
Great... 'Cause THAT'S not going to make traffic even worse...Â
It's going to be an awful expensive pedestrian bridge then. Who, in their right mind, is going to pay a toll estimated to be about $8.50 one way? Who, in this economy has an extra $85.00 - $100.00 laying around to pay for tolls?
Everybody who uses the I-5 bridge will just switch over to the Glenn Jackson.
 @theobserver Or just get a job in Clark County, and you rarely need to cross the bridge. Look at the savings for you and a job for an Oregonian. A win-win in my view.
yep me included
Use our tax dollars more wisely and we might have money to take on a project of this size without charging a toll.
@Pointblank you're right, by eliminating corporate welfare and tax breaks for the wealthy, along with cutting the military budget in half (which wouldn't affect soldiers ability to fight one bit, but would eliminate useless jet projects (F-35/F-22 anyone) along with other "black projects" that do little but suck up money) and we could easily afford this bridge.
Will there be a toll on pedestrians and bicyclists?
 @Dirtman and the max train!
Excuse me! The states didn't agree to anything! A panel of governor appointed suck ups agreed! Put the question to the people and I'll bet you that it gets turned down with a large margin!
Hope there is money to engineer reinforcement of the Glenn Jackson Bridge because its usage is going to go WAY up !!!
@Rob C 503 They'll add a toll to it as well. Last time there was toll talk it was one of the conditions. Since I only drive that route to get further north, I'll just make the trip through Longview.
 @JTesla No, I think that was one of the areas of contention, whether or not to toll the Glenn Jackson as a condition of the CRC. I believe they were not going to toll it. It they toll that one, they might as well toll every bridge that crossed the Colombia into Washington. That would be the Astoria bridge(again), the Longview bridge, Biggs Junction bridge, and a few other as well. But politicians greed know no bounds, so anything is possible.
$3.5 billion project? Ha! Not on your life. It will be well above that amount.
What most folks don't realize is Clark county is the 4th largest source of income for the entire state of Oregon. On top of that those of us who work in Oregon pay your state income tax without any benefits or return, in fact our tax money goes into the "geneal fund" where it's wasted who knows where. It's called taxation without representation, you'll probably remember a revolution was started awhile back because of that very thing. I personally pay Oregon about $3000 every year in taxes for which I get nothing in return. I've submitted the idea several times to divert all that income tax money collected from the Washington folks directly to pay for the bridge, then at least we have something to show for it, and with that amount of revenue it should get paid for fairly quickly, seems like a win win, so far those in charge have yet to respond. I'm sure the Oregon politicians don't like that idea because it would lower their slush fund of pork project money.
 @Lowlevl No one is making you pay Oregon taxes. You choose to, by working in Oregon.
@Lowlevl You have a choice not to work in Oregon. You are not being held hostage. Go find a job in Washington and while you are at it, go shop in Washington and pay the sales tax to support YOUR state.
 @Lowlevl Actually, back when tolls were collected on the I-5 bridge (before I-205 was open), that was the agreement between Oregon and Washington. Washington residents working in Oregon didn't pay income tax because, in part, they were paying the tolls to help support bridge construction. At the same time, Oregon residents who shopped in Washington weren't charged a sales tax, either.Â
Â
Some how the strategy for that hasn't worked itself back into the equation for the new bridge and I'm disappointed to not hear them even discuss it as an option. I would think that at least a reduction in Oregon income tax should be warranted.
Â
After all, who'd pay for the bridge (aside from the general "taxpayers" response) if all of the Washington residents working in Oregon quit their jobs? Businesses (like my husband's) who have substantially more employees in Washington than Oregon, might cut a deal with the state and move their entire business over here, too. Then, at least , Washington and Clark County would collect the appropriate revenues and the money would be lost on the tolls.
@Lowlevl Funny thing about Taxation w/o representation...No one is forcing anyone to work in Oregon that lives in Washington. They are making a choice that taxes them without representation. If it is not liked, they can feel free to leave their job in Oregon for sure. Not even close to the same thing England and the Colonies had going on.
If you drive I-205 get ready for traffic to double or triple as people take that bridge instead of paying the toll!
Good idea. We can charge the folks from Washington to drive here to shop. Californians can leave Oregon for free.
 @david_42Â
Â
Â
Yes Californians can leave for free.
Â
Indeed I will pay some to leave. Too many have arrived here from California and I would argue the source of many of the cities woes.
Â
 @JGalt @Repoman @david_42Â
Â
You obviously did not live here before 1985. If you had you would know that our schools weren't failing, the Willamette did not get sewage overflow and our mayor was an ACTUAL hipster (before being a hipster was cool) who rode his bike to the office.
Â
It was Seallte"its" moving south, and LA"ers" moving north that filled the sewage system to overflowing, brought street gangs here to ruin the neighborhoods and schools and no ability to drive in the rain to wreck the roads and reek havoc on the traffic.
Â
Oh and just to blame then for one more thing, before 1990, TriMet didn't suck. I blame incoming Californians for that too just because.
Â
I would recommend moving to Idaho but after 25 years I am sure Boise would turn into the hole Portland has become for the same reasons.
Â
A horrible sewage system(aka the Willamette), a failing school system, pedophile government officials.. and that's just the stuff that springs to mind. If it weren't for the natural landscape, I would've left long ago, because these attitudes are tough - especially the idea that you're all victims. You know what's funny? Without California or Washington, this state would be dead in the water as far as the economy goes. I'm sure there would be plenty of people here that would be happy living in another Idaho.
We cant even fund our schools and prisons but want to fund a giant expensive bridge that is poorly designed and cannot support river traffic that is apart of the economy!
 @portlandborn83 tell nike to actually pay the state taxes they should be paying instead of backroom deals to keep taxes low low low
Or you could tell the government to stop wasting money on SiG events like Last Thursday, renaming streets, suing the police department, bikes, etc. Every year, this city puts something on the ballot "for the children"(add crying face here) and every year more funds get diverted away from education. You have nobody to blame but yourselves. How's that drop-out rate been looking? Is it no wonder that the welfare system up here is so badly taken advantage of?
Thanx KATU
A troll? well then I nominate HarryJuko. What? A toll you say?
 @Razor1 Well, I'd have added sortbait and a few others I suspect of being FishBait's new sock-puppets, but . . . .  OH!  You're right!  I do believe the article was referring to a "toll" . . . never mind! ];->
We dont need a new bridge.....so it is just a waste of money to build a new one.
 @sortbaitÂ
 @Ed Ruttledge  Very well said, but I had a difficult time figuring out how to view invisible ink.
 @sortbait You clearly have never seen the current bridge.  There has never been a more obvious traffic need.
 @beeemdubya  @sortbait Yes but they are not adding more lanes for cars on this new bridge so how will it help?
 @beeemdubya  @sortbait The northbound span of the current bridge was built in 1917 for different (lighter) vehicles and far far less traffic.  We used to be the nation of "We should do that - We can do that - Lets' gitt'r done!."  Now, thanks to Luddites like you, we have become the nation of, "No, we can't do that ... let's even try doing that."  With your attitude your grandchildren will speaking Mandarin.Â
@iamright555 so you're saying that doing it the cheapest should trump safety? What happens when it collapses due to lack of engineering because it added more money to the total?
 @Ed Ruttledge  @beeemdubya  @sortbait oh its 250million
 @Ed Ruttledge  @beeemdubya  @sortbait we turned into a nation of safety first and expensive useless testing. So that we have spent 25 million without even building a bridge or having a plan to build one.
I'm all for the bridge. Anything that reduces the amount of Vantucky trolls in Portland is all good in my book.
@Phx2Pdx  That's fine. Hopefully it will keep the Portland psychopaths and druggies out of our state as well.
psdychopaths and druggies have you looked around clarck county lately?
$20.00 each way should about do it......Or $40.00 one way. At least by the time it's built this amount will sound fair.
Wow- only 10 years and $250m of planning, and we already got this figured out?
Â
Have we looked at paint chips yet?
 @al_02 LOL... My sentiments exactly.Â
Â
At this rate, we can expect to have it up and running sometime around 2030.
@MarkKpic @al_02 At a cost of well over $10 Billion by then.
It's another TAX! The states are taxes the hell out of us! The TAX toll is yet another way. We already PAY a TOLL, called state and sales taxes.
"The toll money would help pay for the bridge, called the Columbia River Crossing."  (from the story)
Â
..chuckle, chuckle... Â That's what they said about the toll for the Golden Gate Bridge when that opened... "oh yeah, folks, the toll is just to pay for the bridge"... Â um-hmm... well, the GG Bridge has been "paid for" for a l-o-n-g time now... but the toll is still there - and climbing all the time..!Â
I think we paid 25 cents each way when we commuted across it in the early '60s; you paid the toll going into or out of the City (both ways). Â Then they made it 50 cents, but you only paid it going into the City (no toll going back to Marin Co.)... Â Now, I think it's up to $6.50 or something like that...Â
 @margay1 You are only upset because you think of the toll in terms of $/mile. I you considered that you now get to spend an hour on the bridge for $6.50, it is a great deal compared to that 50 cents foe 2 lousy minutes.
 @al_02 ~  ...chuckle... Good point, although I recall more than once when we spent what seemed like an hour trying to get across the bridge when there was an accident or a car breakdown on one of the roads leading off it... :-)
Anyway, I'm not upset about it... last time I drove across the GGB was almost 40 years ago... beautiful bridge...I always loved it...
 @margay1 You do understand that it takes money to maintain a bridge?  Also that inflation causes prices to go up.  If you do that math something that was $1 in 1960 should be around $7.50 in todays dollars. Â
 @mulderc  @margay1 You do understand that a part of the charter for ODOT is to maintain bridges and roadways?Â
Â
You do understand that we already pay by way of income, property and gas taxes for that department to perform it's chartered duties?
Â
I do believe that margays point is a valid one. The reality is that both OR and WA are cash addicts, as well as Clark & Mult Co, Vancouver and Portland. Much in the same way that any sales tax in OR would be subject to tax creep for any "worthwhile" purposes that either/both needed, a toll will likely just become the next defacto 'tax' anytime there is a need for additional revenue.Â
Â
I would like to believe that the toll(s) (since 205 would likely be tolled in order to keep from just shifting traffic flow) will go away once the CRC is paid for, but I'm exceedingly dubious that would be the case.Â
@mulderc  And your point is?