Oregon Senate approves Columbia River bridge
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Senate on Monday approved $450 million in bonds to help pay for two new side-by-side Interstate 5 bridges over the Columbia River following nearly two decades of discussions in Oregon and Washington over replacing twin bridges that are aged and become bottlenecks as traffic has increased over the years.
The Senate's bipartisan 18-11 vote sends the message to Washington state and Washington D.C. that Oregon is ready to move ahead.
Oregon will be able to sell the bonds only if Washington state comes up with its $450 million share, the federal government agrees to contribute more than $1 billion and the U.S. Coast Guard issues building permits by Sept. 30, 2013.
There is skepticism in Washington state over the costs of the project and using the new spans to extend light rail from Portland to Vancouver.
Some Oregon senators also had qualms, including concerns that the plan lacks a definitive revenue source to repay the bonds. Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Beaverton, who voted for the plan, pressed the bill's sponsors for assurance that all the requirements would be met before any state money would be spent.
Still, there are enthusiastic supporters of the project in the Oregon Legislature who say the current structures must be replaced and now is the time to do it.
"We're committed to building a safe river crossing for cars, bikes, pedestrians and light rail," said Democratic Sen. Lee Beyer, of Springfield, a sponsor of the bill. "Replacing the bridge will create jobs and secure long-lasting economic advantages for the region into the future."
Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, who strongly supports the proposal, said in a press release Monday that he will sign the bill.
"The vote in the Senate today is an important step forward for our state and the Pacific Northwest economy," Kitzhaber said. "By investing in a safe and effective transportation system for Oregon, we are providing a safer and less congested trip for freight and commuters."
The proposed new crossing, which right now has a price tag of $3.4 billion, would consist of twin bridges that each have two decks: an upper deck for cars and trucks; a lower deck for light rail, bikes and pedestrians. The project also includes new bridge and freeway interchanges on both sides of the river.
The existing crossing consists of two side-by-side bridges. The northbound bridge was built in 1917, and the southbound bridge was built in 1958. The current structures become swollen with traffic, and experts say they are vulnerable to damage in the event of a major earthquake. The current spans have narrow paths for cyclists and pedestrians.
The project has forged a rare alliance between business groups that hope to speed the flow of freight into and out of ports in Portland and Puget Sound and labor unions looking forward to constructions jobs.
It will cost Oregon taxpayers roughly $30 million per year for three decades to pay down the bridge debt.
Funding for the project will come from three main sources, including $450 million from both Oregon and Washington, federal transit money and tolling fees paid by bridge users.
Managers of the Columbia River Crossing Project released new projections last week that found tolling could produce between $1.07 billion and $1.75 billion, marginally more than the previous estimate of between $900 million and $1.3 billion. The toll rate has not been determined yet.
In Washington, the path to approve funding for the Columbia River Crossing is less certain because of concerns over the light rail extension, tolling and a proposed gas tax.
In November, Vancouver voters rejected a new sales tax to help pay for the light rail extension.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
As Oregon taxpayers we can only hope that Washington State has the good sense to turn it down!
The only reason that Oregon is pushing it is to extend light rail to Washington, which has stated that they don't want light rail!
Why would they design a bridge that is lower than the existing bridge with out a means to pass river traffic? This just seems to be foolish!
Oregon politicians have no right to force their wants or beliefs on anybody! They are supposed to be public servants doing the public's will! That is what they were hired for!
Toll bridges are not a big deal.. Everyone east of the Mississippi are used to them... Why not let those that use the bridge pay for the bridge.. Makes perfect sense to me.. Come on Oregon, you have to pay, don't be so cheap !
And the money will come from what part of the education budget???
@kilchisriver Awe come on.  The Legislature just announced $6.55 billion for education.  Sounds great.  But guess who doesn't approve of that.  The teachers.  Yeah, because $200 million of that comes from PERS cuts.  Whine all the time about not having any money but when told they have to help out they cry about that.  Just do it already.
I like how the Coast Guard involvement is brushed over. They have the power to block this project. I believe the approved bridge does not meet their height requirements for industrial navigation. Salem is betting on the CG not wanting to be the bad guy here.
Well,, as far as I am oncerned they would be the hero for blocking this boondoggle.
Anyone want to guess at what rush hour traffic on the 205 bridge is going to look like after this toll bridge is operating?
Jack, it'll look like the I-5 bridge because if you think they'll pass up a chance to squeeze more cash from people, you're crazy.
Please WA just say no. Â Oh wait I'm living in the past, once upon a time not EVERYTHING in goverment was "fixed."
I think they ought to build a toll bridge NEXT to the current bridges. It could be directional depending on traffic flow, and during peak hours it could be buses, bikes, and people who are part of a monthly POV or toll program and can bypass traffic. That way you pay a premium to use it.Â
Lay a track on the I-5 drawbridge, put all the Max trains on it, open the bridge and drive all of the trains straight into the river. That'll save everybody a lot of money.
That $15 million dollar tram was sold I mean rammed down our throats at less than half of the final cost....
Wake up people.
I don't use this bridge but a few times a year, is it really bad at rush hour?Â
$3.4 billion? Â Hardly. Â Bet it comes in at 3x that. Â
We have technology to schedule trucks when they can cross the bridge, thus not needing a new bridge replacement. That would be future planning.
@Bert and is that technology a truck stop and alarm  clock?
They could spend more money and make it a tunnel under the Columbia, or a ferry! LOLÂ
@jpk A bike and bus ferry!  Genius!!!
@Playanekes @jpk A pink fairy bus for Sam &Gus.
Now if they built a ferry, they could also sell fishing licenses to those folks enjoying their slow trip across the Columbia. Just think of all the salmon tags, LOL
This comment has been deleted
@uknow2Â @jpk bewwwwwww...
"Managers of the Columbia River Crossing Project released new projections last week that found tolling could produce between $1.07 billion and $1.75 billion,"
 Over how long? and will they take the tolls down when the bridge is paid for?
The answers: too long and never!
All but 1 senate Democrat voted for this colossal waste of money. Â Remember that in 2014 when they're running for re-election.
I remember a number of years ago when people who lived in the Columbia River Gorge were up in arms because they were going to truck Portlands garbage through the gorge to Arlington. People were in a panic because they were afraid of increased traffic and spilled garbage. After a vey short time people couldn't tell a garbage truck from any other commercial truck. My point is that this bridge is going to get built, yes at a great expense, but if people would just work together to get it done life would be much more simple.
Anybody wanna take a stab at the cost over runs on this project!!
@Rob C 503Â Well is bush running this like he did the Iraq war ??
Oh Wait he put that on a credit card and said the next guy will pay for that...
@uknow.........just can't let go of old George can ya !
@Rob C 503 NO BLOOD FOR OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! lol
@uknow2   What's your point? This project, which will probably cost more like 6 billion, is also being put on a "credit card". When are you going to ask "when will it stop?" rather than play a 5 year old and say "well he did it too!"?
This is a sad day for us, our future has been sold! The funding for this project is a complete lie. Both Oregon and Washington state has been over $2 billion in debt for the last few years...we can't balance a budget now, how can we in the future?
This project does not make it faster to cross the river because the new toll booths will stop you. Additionally, there is a major bottleneck near the rose garden...so we are replacing one problem for another now.
The bridge is not tall enough as well. If we had a major earthquake or volcanic explosion, how will ships go up river to help us? I guess they won't...
@portlandborn83Â
Well I would not worry about toll booths, 80% of the traffic will be people who use an "easy-pay" like system to zip right on through and the 20% who don't will either get "the bill is in the mail" thing or a special pull off lane to pay the toll.Â
The issue will be once you're in Oregon you will get stopped by the fact that in north Portland I-5 slims down to two lanes before you reach I-84.Â
So you will get to wait in north Portland instead of waiting on the bridge.Â
@Repoman  Nope, will still be backed up on the bridge because of Portlands bottleneck. Say, here's an idea, Oregon should fix OREGON"S bottleneck problem and then there would be less backup on the bridge.Â
Wow lots of politicians got bought off for this deal...
@poodlem u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-t-e-m-e-n-t
The total cost is estimated at $3.4 billion.
mark that on the calendar, folks! Â It's a number guaranteed to change!
The true cost of this boondoggle is more like nine billion according to the real experts, not the politicians who have their hands out for special interest money.  When all is said and done, there will be a bridge built and the politicians and the crooks on the Columbia Crossing committee will reap huge payoffs.  They need to get it done as soon as possible because they know when obama is out of office, they may never get the money to build it.  If the dummies on the Washington side were smart enough to live and work on the same side of the river, a bridge wouldn't be necessary.  So, people commuting to Portland to work should pay for most of the cost of building a bridge.  As for the Oregon side, if they didn't have so many deadbeats living in the Portland area, they wouldn't need to bring people from Washington  to fill  jobs.  So, in the end, the average taxpayer will get shafted and continue to subsidize  the worthless bums who want this bridge.
@Shadow  Well, if Portland didn't kiss the azz of every business to get them to come to Oregon (and NOT pay tax for doing so), maybe they would come to WA and set up shop. We certainly do not enjoy driving to your drug and homeless infested town to work AND PAY OREGON TAXES for which we get no representation. Thank goodness I don't help support that worthless Portland anymore. And as for the "worthless bums who want this bridge", it appears to be all the worthless bums in Oregon as ya'll have already passed the bill. I just hope our WA legislators actually listen to the people they represent (cause we know OR legislators don't).
Well, this one is gonna cost us.  Toll booths coming and going . Leaving Oregon? Pay up.  Entering Washington? Pay up.  And vice versa. . . I'll betcha it's gonna happen.Â
@Justanother1Â More like check point charlie
@Bert Mary Jane check points.Â
Yeah right, it will take them another 10 years before it's built and another $900 million. Oregon just sits on there thumbs and thinks about it.Â
How come Minnesota could rebuild the 1-35 bridge for under $350 million in less than a year and this is going to cost 10 times as much and take much longer?
@NGerblansky
Well first that bridge passes much lower over the Mississippi than even this low slung bridge.Â
Second the distance is considerably further. The I-35 is something like a mile long from portage to portage while this one won't even touch the ground. It will go from elevation to elevation and still be over a mile long.Â
Then of course there is the MAX.Â
But even without the max this bridge is a considerably more involved project than the I-35.Â
Just wondering......  what is the root reason for replacing the bridges?  is it that the existing bridges are worn out or is it just a  way to get light rail across the river
@kramr Just a little more information: the current Northbound bridge was built in 1917, the Southbound built in 1958. I believe age and lack of capacity are key factors, they also wanted to eliminate the congestion caused by the lift. The new bridge will have more clearance, but not as much as the full height of the lifts give. They of course wanted to piggyback light rail on to it as well.
@kramr a little of both.
those of  you in the couv'...... doesn't matter how many times you vote down light rail.....
ITS IS COMING TO YOU, Â just ask the folks in clackamas county how well it works to vote down light rail.Â
@kramr We're just a bunch of ignorant voters/taxpayers. How would we know what we really want?
so is this the bridge proposal that will clear the larger ships?
I would like to know how many lanes of vehicle traffic there will be...... are we spending billions on a new bridge with the same number of  lanes for auto/truck traffic  with the only difference being  ped and light rail?
@kramr 10 lanes of vehicle traffic on the top deck, light rail and/or other public transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians on the lower deck.
@JTesla  10 lanes - really? And that will help how? Considering there are STILL only 3 lanes of traffic on either side - 2 in the case of Portland (where the real problem is).
@wondering Sure.
@JTesla well thats encouraging Â
@Jeepers Yep. They've had years to plan, and items still seem to be in flux.
@kramr @JTesla ehhhh I'll believe it when i see it.