When Clark County residents think about the next generation I‑5 bridge over the Columbia River, many picture a sleek, multi‑modal structure that includes light rail from day one. Brush Prairie homeowner Bob Mattila, however, says that vision is a pipe dream that inflates costs and delays a critical transportation lifeline.
Why light rail now is a budget‑busting idea
Mattila, a longtime resident of Brush Prairie, points out that the current bridge design must meet stringent earthquake‑proofing standards. Adding light rail to that already complex engineering effort, he argues, doubles the price tag. “If we are ever going to get a new I‑5 bridge over the Columbia River, we need to start using some common sense in designing it,” he wrote in a letter to the editor of Clark County Today.
A phased approach that saves time and money
Instead of building a single, massive structure that tries to accommodate every future transit mode, Mattila suggests a two‑bridge strategy. First, construct a new northbound bridge on the east side of the existing span, leaving enough space for five permanent northbound lanes. While that bridge is built, traffic could be shifted onto three temporary lanes in each direction on the current bridge.
Once the new northbound bridge is complete, the aging northbound span could be demolished and replaced with a new southbound bridge that also carries five lanes. This phased method, Mattila says, would be “much simpler and could be done much sooner, and much cheaper, than the present plan, that has been in the expensive and unworkable planning stage, far too long.”
What about light rail?
Mattila makes it clear that he does not oppose light rail as a future transportation option. He simply argues that the bridge should be built first, without the mandatory rail component, and that any rail line could be added later—perhaps on the newer southbound bridge or even on the existing southbound structure. “I don’t favor light rail, but if we can’t have a new bridge without it, put it on the newer existing bridge, the southbound one,” he wrote.
Community response and next steps
The letter has sparked conversation among local officials, engineers, and commuters who worry about traffic congestion, safety, and the region’s long‑term growth. While some transportation planners continue to champion an integrated rail‑plus‑road solution, others echo Mattila’s call for a pragmatic, cost‑effective approach that prioritizes getting a sturdy, earthquake‑resilient bridge into service as soon as possible.
Clark County commissioners are expected to review the bridge proposal at their upcoming public works meeting. Residents like Mattila hope that the council will weigh the financial realities and the pressing need for a reliable river crossing against the allure of a grand, but potentially unaffordable, multi‑modal vision.
Why this matters for families and the local economy
For daily commuters, truck drivers, and families who rely on I‑5 to get to work, school, and church, a functional bridge is a lifeline. Delays in construction could mean longer commutes, higher fuel costs, and increased wear on older infrastructure. By streamlining the project, the county could preserve jobs, keep freight moving, and protect the safety of the region’s many commuters—all core concerns for traditional families and faith‑centered communities that value stewardship and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
As the debate continues, the key question remains: can Clark County balance visionary transportation planning with the fiscal responsibility that families and churches across the Pacific Northwest expect from their elected leaders?
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
