In a recent segment on The Lars Larson Show, Lars Larson tackled a critical issue raised by John Ley concerning the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project. Despite over $7.5 billion in taxpayer funding, the IBR plan is projected to increase traffic congestion by over 3 hours. The plan, which prioritizes bike lanes, pedestrians, and transit, allocates only 46% of the bridge surface for vehicles—leaving drivers paying tolls and taxes while stuck in worse traffic. According to staff projections, no new lanes will be added to I-5 or the bridge, a move that contradicts the people’s top priority: reducing congestion and saving time. Watch the full discussion in the video as Lars Larson breaks down the flaws in this costly plan.
More info:
Over half Interstate Bridge proposal allocated to transit, pedestrians and bicyclists
Opinion: Hiding the growing cost of the Interstate Bridge replacement
Transcript
Our question of the day, and this one is actually aided and abetted by John Ley. He’s one of the biggest advocates and activists when it comes to the Interstate Bridge Replacement, the thing they called the Columbia River Crossing, while they wasted $200 million and built nothing. And now they have the IBR and they’ve also built nothing, and they’ve wasted about $100 million.
But here’s the way you should think of the question: should citizens in the northwest tolerate a plan to spend up to $9 billion on a new Columbia River bridge that is the same size as the old bridge, and now we know it will cause increased traffic congestion instead of any improvement at all? As John Ley writes at Clark County Today, after a decade or more of construction, and the expenditure of about $7.5 billion.
This is if they build it. It may be as high as $9 billion, and drivers have been paying tolls for over a decade. Traffic congestion on I-5 and I-205 will have gotten worse, according to the Interstate Bridge Replacement staff projections. The documents filed by the program indicate there will be a 31% increase in hours of traffic congestion.
Saving time and reducing traffic congestion is the people’s number one priority. IBR said 68% say traffic congestion is their top priority. And yet, the various design options they’re considering add no new lanes to I-5 or the bridge to increase vehicle capacity. On top of that, consider this: of the entire bridge surface, the new one will allocate 54% of the entire bridge to bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.
Only 46%, less than half the bridge, will be used for cars and trucks. The report indicates that an estimated 400 bikes and pedestrians make a trip across the bridge every day. Transit will carry just over 5% of all daily trips, which means that automobiles and trucks are 95% of the bridge, but they get less than half of it in their current plan.
If you think that makes sense, I’d love to take the naysayer call.
