Surely, there is a metaphor in here — something about building bridges, or perhaps about burning them.
For as we find occasion once again to lament the state of the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Columbia River, and as we ponder the future of Southwest Washington and the necessity for innovation and compromise and leadership, the idea of building bridges or burning them comes into play both literally and figuratively.
Most recently, an article by Columbian reporter Aaron Corvin examined the Port of Vancouver’s hopes for redeveloping Terminal 1, a site currently occupied by the Red Lion Hotel Vancouver at the Quay. That hotel will close Oct. 31, and port officials are considering the future of the property, perhaps a mix of residential, commercial and open spaces. And as they consider the future of the area that abuts the Columbia River just west of the current I-5 Bridge, officials also are unwittingly having some input in a future I-5 Bridge.
The Columbia River Crossing proposal, which died an ignominious death when Washington lawmakers declined to approve funding for it and Oregon lawmakers followed suit, would have built a new bridge over the Terminal 1 site. Port officials, who publicly supported the CRC, long had earmarked the area for construction staging for the new bridge. “We were holding that property down there as possible construction laydown space, and there were other factors regarding that bridge that gave some uncertainty to the site,” said Kathy Brooks, the port’s director of economic development.
Alas, with the demise of the bridge proposal, port officials must move forward. And in the process, they are providing a reminder that scuttling the Columbia River Crossing project only adds to the time and the cost involved with finding a solution to the I-5 Bridge conundrum. New construction on the Terminal 1 site will throw another monkey wrench into the already seemingly impossible task of planning, paying for and constructing a new bridge.
This is not a criticism of Port of Vancouver officials. They can and should renovate the Terminal 1 site in a manner that complements but does not compete with the nearby Columbia Waterfront project. Instead, it is a critique of lawmakers who took a shortsighted view in killing the Columbia River Crossing and added to the long-term expense, metaphorically burning bridges in the process.
Like it or not, the congestion-prone Interstate 5 Bridge, derisively referred to as the only stoplight between Canada and Mexico, must be replaced. We therefore renew a call for officials in both Washington and Oregon to begin working on a revised plan — one that will update interchanges on both sides of the river while providing a replacement bridge that is capable of carrying light rail in the future.
In that regard, a Terminal 1 development that requires vast changes to the now-dead CRC proposal could be a blessing. Trying to revive the previous plan would have led to a repeat of the recent past — wasted time and wasted money that results in a bridge project to nowhere. As they say, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
While development of the Terminal 1 site could render the previous locally preferred alternative obsolete, it also would force the next generation of would-be bridge builders to take a different approach to the project. That could prove beneficial, even while it would, admittedly, cause frustration. Either way, it’s time for the region to get serious about building a bridge.
