Вместо безопасного велоперехода через реку Колумбия власти сокращают проект легкого метро из-за роста затрат

Jason Cromer has biked down the I-5 bridge between Portland, Oregon, and the suburb of Vancouver, Washington, hundreds of times over the last five years. But every ride is still a nerve-racking experience. “There’s a very narrow shared sidewalk on the bridge,” Cromer, the founder of local urbanist group Cycle Vancouver, says. He’s encountered pedestrians crossing the bridge over the Columbia River while cars rush past at 60 miles an hour, with just a railing in between. “Anyone who’s done the ride will say they’re scared they could hit their handlebars on the side railings, and plunge into the river.” Still, he says, the bike ride is still more pleasant than sitting in traffic. Sometimes, he can get into Portland faster than driving. A limited express bus line runs between the cities during weekdays, and other bus routes can take nearly three or four times as long to reach Portland. “It sucks,” Cromer says. “There’s really no other way.” The aging I-5 bridge into Portland is set to be replaced, in a roughly $14 billion project led by Washington and Oregon’s transportation departments. For years, that project has promised to pair the new bridge with a light rail line that could ease chronic gridlock and give cyclists like Cromer a safer way across the river. But with costs more than doubling in recent years, that light rail component has been whittled down. Transit advocates worry the region will end up with a wider bridge for cars and little else. Traffic crosses the Interstate 5 bridge spanning the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington in this Aug. 4, 2011, file photo. (Photo by Don Ryan / AP) A bridge past its prime Portland has a reputation for being a bike and transit friendly city, and many neighborhoods have been designed with the 15-minute city concept: Everything you might need to do in a typical day is a 15-minute walk, bike or bus ride away. Vancouver’s downtown core mimics some of that, with denser, mixed use zoning, walkable streets, and some bike infrastructure, Cromer says. Beyond that core, however, suburban sprawl takes over. Over the past five years, Cromer and other Cycle Vancouver members have advocated for better options through the city’s local transportation and mobility commissions — and have helped win some of the protected bike lanes and safety features that now run along Vancouver’s Main Street and other corridors. But improving the bike and pedestrian infrastructure along the I-5 bridge into Portland isn’t in the purview of local commissions. That responsibility rests with the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, a joint effort led by Washington and Oregon’s transportation departments to build a newer, safer bridge. The existing green steel bridge, which spans nearly half a mile, was constructed in 1917. At the time, travelers had to take a ferry across the Columbia River. The two-lane draw bridge was heralded as a milestone of political cooperation between the two states and “a new era in automobile transportation” for the region. The new route was so popular that just four decades later, the I-5 bridge was expanded to allow more cars to cross. More than a century later, the bridge is in dire need of replacement. The number of daily vehicle crossings has surpassed 130,000, thanks in large part to rapid population growth in Vancouver. The bridge doesn’t meet modern earthquake safety standards. And when the drawbridge is up to allow ships to pass, traffic grinds to a halt, resulting in at least 10 hours of cumulative delays for drivers. The Interstate 5 bridge spanning the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington states, near Vancouver, Washington, photographed in 2012. (Photo by Rick Bowmer / AP) The light rail trade-off While the bridge needs to be modernized, the project also has the opportunity to bring back an original element that could help get some of those drivers off the road altogether. From 1917 to 1940, an electric streetcar operated alongside cars, connecting riders to each city’s systems. Modern-day bridge proposals include a light rail line, which would provide a car-free alternative for traveling between the cities — and a safer, more pleasant experience for cyclists like Cromer, who could bring their bikes onto train cars. Now, as the I-5 bridge replacement’s overall cost of construction has ballooned from an estimated $6 billion in 2022 to over $14 billion in 2026, a fully-functional light rail system could be on the chopping block. Originally, the light rail would have stopped at Vancouver’s trendy mixed-use waterfront development, with an additional stop near the downtown library’s existing transit hub to the rest of the city. But the most recent plans for the light rail route would drop off riders near freight train tracks close to the waterfront development without any connections to the rest of Vancouver’s transit system. Pedestrians and cyclists will have to walk up what Cromer calls a corkscrew ramp: “It’s significantly steep — someone in a wheelchair, older people, and even experienced cyclists will have significant problems going up that corkscrew.” The current proposal would only build the infrastructure for light rail, without any confirmed funding for developing the actual trains and tracks. “We do need a new bridge,” says Zachary Lauritzen, an organizer with the community group Oregon Walks, which advocates for safer, walkable communities. “We don’t need a massive freeway expansion.” Without public transportation options, Lauritzen says that related issues like air quality impacts and traffic fatalities won’t be addressed — or even thornier issues like housing affordability. “All we’re really doing is incentivizing low-density development in Vancouver, and a ton of people driving single occupancy vehicles.” Meeting climate goals Reducing the number of car trips between the two cities is key for both states to meet their climate emissions reduction goals. In Washington, models show that the state’s transportation emissions need to be cut by more than 30% before 2050; Oregon will likely not meet its 2035 emissions reductions goal, either, and transportation emissions account for nearly a third of all emissions. “The environmental impacts of public transit are far lower than driving,” says Yonah Freemark, a researcher at the Urban Institute who focuses on land use, transportation, and housing policy. “But we have a situation in the U.S. where most people have to drive — even if you could make all of those cars electric, communities that are sprawling and oriented around driving have a built environment that is more emitting in terms of carbon dioxide.” Land that could be used to build denser housing or preserve green spaces is often taken up by massive intersections or highway ramps. Elsewhere in the county, light rail lines have proven to be popular, once built. In Kansas City, a revived streetcar line has proved to be immensely popular — so much so that the city announced another expansion plan this year. In Seattle, a light rail line linking the city to the suburb of Bellevue opened this year and almost immediately became one of the most-used lines in the country. Even so, according to Freemark’s research, the U.S. falls behind other wealthy countries when it comes to investments in light rail: For every million residents, Germany has built out about 21 miles of light rail; the U.S. has about three miles. Cost overruns are increasingly common for large-scale transportation projects, Freemark says. Data from the Eno Center for Transportation suggests that the U.S. pays 50% more per mile to build new transit projects compared to countries with similar constraints — often because of lengthier, more fragmented and privatized planning processes. Inflation and rising labor costs can increase costs as the planning phase drags on. The Trump administration’s tariffs were also a factor for the I-5 project’s rising costs. “When that happens, projects are cut back and made less effective, and that’s unfortunately the circumstance we’re seeing here,” Freemark says. Uncertainty over funding Locally, elected officials have expressed frustration with the truncated light rail plan. Washington’s governor has expressed support for the transit expansion, but it’s unclear if that support comes with the promise of funding to see the project through. “We’re building this damn bridge. That’s happening,” Gov. Bob Ferguson said at a press conference in May, when the new cost estimates were revealed. The project has $5.4 billion in funding secured, and the cost to build the bridge without the full light rail system hovers under $6 billion. Seattle’s Sound Transit expansions were funded by a 1.4% local sales tax increase, passed by voters several years ago. That could provide a model forward for Vancouver and Portland, if federal funding becomes even more scarce for such projects. Some advocates caution that sales taxes are regressive, however, and tend to fall heavier on lower-income residents. Even traditional gas taxes can be disproportionate; people who drive older, more efficient cars pay more into funds, while those who can afford electric vehicles avoid it altogether. “Something like a road-usage fee could even things out,” says Jamie Hearn, an advocate with a statewide environmental justice group called Front and Centered. Instead of being taxed for every gallon of gas purchased, drivers would pay a fee based on how many miles they drive. Washington State has been studying how to implement such a fee for several years. The bigger issue, Hearn says, is that about half of the state’s transportation budget goes directly to highway systems. “That’s a lot of money, and there needs to be ways to think about how we can reallocate that to communities that need these investments the most.” For Cromer, the lack of financial commitment to the light rail project is disappointing, he says, given the region’s climate commitments. In the past, voters have rejected light rail funding via a sales tax, for example. Driving around town, billboards proclaim “Say no to the $2 billion light rail project.” Mayors of smaller, neighboring towns have opposed light rail and gone so far as threatening to leave the regional transportation system altogether if the costs were passed on to residents. Sometimes, Cromer hears people say that Vancouver residents just aren’t ready for change and won’t embrace less car-reliant lifestyles. “I think there’s a contradiction in that mindset,” he says. “’If there isn’t any way at all to get from point A to point B, we shouldn’t build it.’ Well, the demand isn’t there because there’s no way to get there. If we build it, there’s no doubt that the utilization will be high.” Like what you’re reading? Get a browser notification whenever we post a new story. You’re signed-up for browser notifications of new stories. No longer want to be notified? Unsubscribe. Amal Ahmed is a freelance reporter based in Vancouver, Washington. She covers climate and environmental policy.