Oregon’s decision to join discussions regarding the Interstate 5 Bridge is cause for cautious optimism.
Legislative leaders in that state have appointed eight lawmakers to a bistate commission for reviving efforts to replace the antiquated bridge. That is a step in the right direction, considering that the project has been dormant since Washington lawmakers killed the Columbia River Crossing proposal in 2013. Washington had previously announced an eight-member committee that includes six legislators from Clark County.
In the wake of Oregon’s announcement last week, several thoughts spring to mind:
• Peter Courtney, president of the Oregon Senate, provided what should be the mantra for the project. “We don’t have time to play cutesy political games,” Courtney told The Columbian. Committee members from both states should keep that in mind as they try to avoid repeating the debacle of six years ago, when Washington pulled the plug at the last minute.
• It seems curious that Oregon’s committee members include one from Portland and one other from the metro area. Three members represent areas far removed from Interstate 5, and we hope that lawmakers there have a firm understanding of the statewide importance of replacing the bridge. The Washington delegation consists of Southwest Washington lawmakers plus the chairs of the transportation committees in each chamber.
• Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, is a member of the Washington delegation, despite playing a key role scuttling the Columbia River Crossing six years ago. Some might dispute her inclusion, but we believe it makes sense. Including a variety of views and welcoming dissent will be important to devising a project that can generate broad public support.
• Oregon officials appear understandably gun shy from past experience. “Now is the time to accept Washington’s invitation to participate in a formal process to secure this critical regional corridor,” Courtney wrote to his committee co-chairs. We wish that time had arrived several years ago, but it is difficult to blame Oregon leaders for employing caution; fool me once … and all that.
• The willingness of Oregon officials to dip their toe in the water is a direct result of the Washington Legislature committing a total of $35 million to the project this year. It was a small gesture, but an important one, with Courtney writing, “Washington’s emerging leadership on this issue has given us confidence they are committed to this project.”
• The bistate committee is significant but is only an early step in the process. “It’s going to be slow,” said Tina Kotek, the Oregon speaker of the house. Even if lessons from the past have been learned, the project still involves two states, two transit agencies, the Portland area’s regional government, and various state agencies. Forging agreement and moving forward on any potential proposal is a daunting task weighed down by layers of bureaucracy.
• Public input will be essential not only to developing the best possible plan but to building public support. In 2013, Washington leaders scuttled the CRC in part because they believed there was strong opposition to extending Portland’s light-rail system into Clark County. Nurturing a public consensus should be an early part of the process to avoid a repeat of the last-minute rejection.
Needless to say, the states likely are years away from finalizing a proposal and years more from having a new bridge. But each step forward is reason for cautious optimism.
