<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Reopen the Bridge Talks

Yes, we’re all still weary of the debate, but the problem still needs resolution

The Columbian
Published: December 12, 2016, 6:03am

Let’s talk about a bridge.

We know, we know, it didn’t go so well the last time we talked about replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Columbia River, the one that carries about 130,000 vehicles a day between Vancouver and Portland. But even though a decade of discussion and planning and consternation resulted in a proposal’s being scuttled by the Washington Legislature in 2013, the need to address the I-5 corridor has not diminished.

So when Joel Rubin, the city of Vancouver’s federal lobbyist, spoke before the city council last week, it piqued some interest. After all, President-elect Donald Trump has said that he wants to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure projects throughout the country, and Vancouver — along with other municipal governments — would be wise to begin planning.

Therein lies the problem. As Rubin said, “It’s hard to build a project if the local constituency is in opposition to it,” and much of the constituency was opposed to the proposal that resulted from years of planning the last time around.

Yet, while it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result, discuss we must. The economic future of the region is dependent upon improved transportation throughout the metro area, improved transportation from the ports in Vancouver and Portland, and improved commute times for workers on both sides of the river.

Nearly every metro-area resident can agree upon that, but that largely is where the agreements end.

Which means that the first step must be to forge some sort of consensus. Opponents of the now-dead Columbia River Crossing claim that the project was generated with little public input; considering the hundreds of public meetings and the years of planning that went into it, this assertion is flat-out inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean that consensus had been reached.

In the most simplistic terms, Oregon insisted that a new bridge carry Portland’s light-rail system into Clark County, and many county residents were strongly opposed to that portion of the plan. The solution would seem to require building a bridge that is capable of carrying light rail sometime in the future, but not now. We would recommend a provision that calls for light rail when Vancouver reaches a certain level of population density, a density that can adequately support the system.

The second pressing issue is that many people on this side of the Columbia River believe the priority should be a bridge to the west of I-5 or to the east of I-205. There are valid points to be made in support of these proposals, but the logistics are even more daunting than those for an I-5 replacement, which would simply be expanding an existing highway corridor. And considering that the I-5 Bridge has been derisively dubbed the only stoplight between Mexico and Canada, it should remain the priority.

And, finally, there is the issue of tolls for crossing a new bridge. Opposition to any proposed toll is understandable; nobody wants to pay more money. But it makes sense for those who use the bridge to pay a little more of the cost than those who do not use it, and some form of user fee is a more equitable way to pay for massive infrastructure projects.

The difficulty, as we have seen, will be to reach a consensus on these plans — and that will require strong leadership at every level of government. So, let’s talk about a bridge.

Loading...