<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Friday, March 29, 2024
March 29, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Building A Better Bridge

Legislative proposals could help prevent repeat of Columbia River Crossing errors

The Columbian
Published: January 15, 2015, 4:00pm

Ideally, this would not be necessary.

State Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, has put forth proposals to prevent bistate transportation projects from meeting the same fate as the failed Columbia River Crossing. That sounds like a good idea. Goodness knows, we don’t need to repeat the waste of time and money that now stands as the legacy of the CRC. “It’s tough to know where to begin again,” Cleveland said. “But I think we can all agree that doing nothing is not an alternative.”

With that in mind, Cleveland is proposing a “bistate megaproject work group” to facilitate communication between Washington and Oregon when it comes to transportation projects valued at $500 million or more. This likely is the most important of the recommendations, as vast differences in what the states were hoping to accomplish — namely, Oregon’s demand for the inclusion of light rail into Clark County, and Washington’s tepid response to it — was one of the primary deal-breakers for the CRC. Ongoing communication, rather than devising a multibillion-dollar proposal and then dumping it in the laps of lawmakers, can help bridge the gap between the states. So to speak.

Another of Cleveland’s proposals would require state money to be taken from other transportation projects and be given to a megaproject if that project has received a federal Record of Decision but no financing from the Legislature. And a third would place the state on the hook for reimbursing funds spent on a megaproject if it fails to materialize.

While there is some merit to Cleveland’s proposals, at their heart they somewhat fail to address the overriding issue that hampered the CRC — a lack of communication and compromise not only between the states but between Washington lawmakers. Acknowledging the fact that the Legislature was unable to perform its duties in a professional, thoughtful, bipartisan manner when it came to the Columbia River Crossing really should not be a required part of any conversation. The notion that institutional safeguards are required to prevent the childish actions that marked the CRC are a frustrating reminder of the depths to which the situation devolved.

That being said, it is important that lawmakers in both states pick up the CRC ball that they fumbled and start heading up the field. The need for a replacement Interstate 5 Bridge has not diminished; the desire for the states to work together and find common ground on a solution has not gone away. As The Columbian has advocated editorially since the demise of the Columbia River Crossing, the best solution at this point would be a bridge that does not include light rail but that is capable of adding light rail in the future.

Because of those needs, the proposal for a bistate commission is the most important. One of the shortcomings of the CRC process was the fact that years of debate and planning and public input devised a proposal before funding from the states was secured or even considered. Any rekindled project must generate legislative support from the beginning, altering the order of the process.

As state Rep. Sharon Wylie, D-Vancouver, said, “When it does come time to revisit I-5 or any major bistate effort, lawmakers will have to be engaged from the start. That wasn’t always the case with the CRC.”

While Cleveland’s proposals have both merits and defects, they reflect the imperative nature of reviving talk of a new I-5 bridge. “No more looking back,” she said. “If we could all focus on looking forward, anything is possible.”

Loading...