Tucked into the spending measures passed by the Legislature before its adjournment last week is $35 million toward replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridge.
Of course, more than that will be needed if a replacement project ever comes to fruition; the Columbia River Crossing proposal had an estimated cost of about $3 billion. The money allocated this year will go toward the revival of a project office and toward the eventual pre-planning of a bridge.
Meanwhile, the measure is important in signaling Washington’s willingness to move forward on a much-needed replacement for a bridge that is essential to the economies of both Washington and Oregon.
The state’s two-year transportation budget of $9.98 billion passed on a 49-0 vote in the Senate and a 96-2 vote in the House (Rep. Vicki Kraft, R-Vancouver, was the only local lawmaker in opposition). And Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens and chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, said: “This was a good, bipartisan effort to keep our promises and move our state forward.”
Moving forward, however slowly, must remain the mantra for efforts to plan and build a new bridge. But setting a cornerstone for the project still leaves plenty of work to be done.
“I felt very strongly that we owe it to our partners, particularly the state of Oregon, to demonstrate our commitment to working with them on a new I-5 Bridge,” Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, told The Columbian. “Given the past history and the fact that Oregon has been clear that they need to see a strong financial commitment, this was something that I needed to go to the mat on.”
That history includes Washington withdrawing from the CRC project in 2013, creating hard feelings on the other side of the Columbia River. Engaging with Oregon officials and re-establishing mutual trust remains the first necessary step in the process.
But of equal importance is the need to develop a Clark County consensus regarding any future proposal. Talk of a replacement bridge inevitably brings up concerns about extending Portland’s light-rail system into Clark County, the prospect of tolls for crossing the span and the eventuality of a third or fourth crossing. Mitigating those concerns and accurately assessing the mood of local voters will be important for avoiding another collapse of the project.
As the Washington Legislature tepidly moves forward on a new project and as local officials reach across the river to engage with Oregon leaders, the primary questions are: What is different this time? How do we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past?
Those will be difficult to answer. With a project involving two states and various government agencies and multiple transportation districts — not to mention concerns about bridge height and nearby airports and upstream businesses that rely on adequate clearance — the issues are complex. The previous attempt to address them proved to be a failure; approaching them in the same manner this time around would be foolhardy.
After editorially supporting light rail on the CRC, The Columbian now argues in favor of contingency plans for light rail; when Clark County’s population density reaches an adequate level, light rail can be added to the bridge. We also believe that spelling out plans for additional bridges in the future would go a long way toward solving the region’s transportation issues and toward appeasing critics of a new I-5 crossing.
But that represents merely a starting point for the discussion. The important thing is that Washington is demonstrating a willingness to talk.
