Opinions about the Interstate 5 Bridge are like noses — everybody has one.
Yes, we know, that’s a cliche. But it certainly seems applicable as a bistate committee of lawmakers from Washington and Oregon undertake the seemingly Sisyphean task of devising plans to replace the archaic bridge. Most recently, the panel reviewed transportation options that previously have been studied and rejected.
While the endeavor might sound a bit like trying to dig up the corpse of the Columbia River Crossing project, it also has benefits. For example, there are good reasons the idea of a tunnel under the river was quickly rejected many years ago. A tunnel would need to begin north of Fourth Plain Boulevard and end south of Hayden Island on the Oregon side of the river; it would bypass downtown Vancouver and Jantzen Beach, defeating one of the primary functions of a new crossing — taking people where they want to go.
Despite that drawback, many well-meaning citizens over the years have recommended a tunnel as a solution. But, hey, that’s just their opinion.
Most important, the panel reviewed the six questions that have been necessary for a proposal to receive consideration: Does it increase vehicular capacity or reduce vehicular demand? Improve transit performance? Improve freight mobility? Improve safety? Improve bicycle and pedestrian accessibility? And reduce seismic risk to the bridge?
Those criteria remain important, but that is where we weigh in with our opinion.
While it is essential for the committee to learn from the past, it is even more essential that members not be beholden to it. Failing to take a different tack will simply lead us back where we were six years ago, when the Washington Legislature scuttled a decade of planning and about $200 million in expenditures by refusing to fund the Columbia River Crossing.
Undoubtedly, there are many constraints and complications in coming up with any proposal. One of them is the problem of making a bridge high enough for maritime traffic to pass underneath but low enough to not encroach on the airspace of nearby Pearson Field. The 2013 proposal drew lawsuits from three upstream manufacturers who said the bridge would be too low for their large shipments, resulting in an agreement for mitigation payments of $86 million.
The situation became symbolic of the mess that was the Columbia River Crossing and should be addressed early in the revived process. A bridge of adequate height that does not add an extra $86 million to the price tag would seem to be a basic requirement.
So would an early consensus on whether or not Portland’s light-rail system is extended into Clark County. Differing opinions on that issue played a central role in the demise of the Columbia River Crossing, and the goal must be to avoid allowing history to repeat itself.
In attempting to dodge the embodiment of insanity — doing the same thing and hoping for a different result — the most important thing might be to reevaluate the questions used to define the project. Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be nice, for example, but they are not nearly as important as passenger and freight mobility throughout the region. If the questions change, so do the assumptions and the solutions.
Learning from the past can be helpful in planning a replacement for the I-5 Bridge, but it also can be detrimental. Members of the bistate committee should view their job as starting from scratch to avoid a repeat of the past.
But, that’s just our opinion.
