Anybody who has purchased a house knows about earnest money. As one mortgage company website explains, earnest money is put down before closing “to show you’re serious about purchasing. It’s also known as a good-faith deposit.”
While replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge requires a bit more investment than purchasing a home, the Washington Legislature has put down a big chunk of earnest money this year. Lawmakers included $1 billion toward a new bridge in a transportation package that will spend $17 billion over 16 years for projects throughout the state.
In addition to the literal down payment on a bridge, the move is a symbolic gesture toward lawmakers in Oregon.
As Oregon Rep. Susan McLain told Oregon Public Broadcasting: “This says, ‘Oregon, it’s your turn. It’s your time.’ Washington has started this process and now it’s important for us to make a commitment.”
Funding for a new bridge will require commitments from Washington, Oregon and the federal government. Each is a stakeholder in an essential West Coast corridor, and each will have to contribute to create a structure expected to cost more than $3 billion.
Proposals are still being finalized, and many questions about design, timetables, costs and tolls remain. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program is overseeing the process, which includes many public hearings. But a commitment from Washington lawmakers should not be underestimated.
In 2013, the Legislature scuttled the Columbia River Crossing proposal, which had been in the works for more than a decade. Nine years later, a good-faith deposit from Washington is meaningful.
As Oregon’s McLain said: “We felt kind of left at the gate. We worked really diligently to get our package together, and yet this time they’re going first. They want to show us they’re serious.”
Serious, indeed. And progress thus far has been encouraging.
In a recent opinion piece for The Columbian, state Sen. Annette Cleveland wrote: “A key early step was to recommit to designation as a project of statewide significance, so that everyone understood that the transportation and economic benefits of replacing the I-5 Bridge would extend from Canada to Washington to Oregon to California.”
The commitment, Cleveland has noted, also makes the project eligible for federal infrastructure funding.
The transportation package was supported by Southwest Washington Democrats and opposed by Republicans. But the reasons were varied. As Rep. Paul Harris, R-Vancouver, explained to The Columbian: “I didn’t vote for the transportation package because I didn’t like the funding mechanism used, and I still don’t, but I do need a bridge. I’m glad to get a further study and further work on the I-5 Bridge.”
An argument could be made that all Clark County residents need a new bridge. The older span across the Columbia River opened more than a century ago, and the crossing is ill-equipped for modern traffic levels, modern transit options or modern seismic requirements. And anybody who has had to wait while the drawbridge is raised and lowered understands why critics say the I-5 Bridge is the only stoplight between Canada and Mexico.
But pointing out those realities and getting leaders from both Washington and Oregon to agree on the need is no more important than getting them to agree on the process.
The Washington Legislature this year has taken an earnest step in that direction.
