At some point, ideally sooner rather than later, it will be time to move forward. Time to address the Interstate 5 Bridge. Time to find a solution rather than allow old grievances to further stall the process.
To her credit, state Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, is adopting that approach. Pike has worked with lawmakers from both parties in the state Capitol and has reached out to leaders in Oregon in an effort to rekindle a discussion that needs to be held. She helped to carve out $100,000 in state funds to hire neutral facilitators to work with both states to address the bridge and, most recently, she contacted Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek through a letter.
That is where the process ran into another roadblock. Kotek, a Portland Democrat, responded by giving Pike a history lesson. “In 2013,” she wrote in response, “the Oregon Legislature passed legislation that would have enabled our states to move forward with a replacement to the I-5 Bridge across the Columbia River and upgrade the adjacent intersections on both sides of the river. … Unfortunately, Washington failed to join Oregon in taking the requisite next steps.”
It is unlikely that any Washington lawmakers or Clark County residents needed to be reminded of the contentious background; it is seared into our memories. It also is unlikely that anybody on this side of the river needs to be reminded that Oregon’s representatives have some lingering wounds over the collapse of the Columbia River Crossing proposal; those lawmakers have provided several reminders. But at some point, it is time to move on. As Pike said about Kotek’s response, “It sounds like she’s not happy about having CRC killed, but that’s rearview mirror stuff.”
It is understandable that Oregon’s legislators would be wary of reopening a process that took a decade of time and nearly $200 million with no tangible results. It also is understandable that they would employ caution in entering any discussions with Washington lawmakers. But while leaders on this side of the Columbia can be criticized for their insistence that light rail not be included in the plans for a new bridge, Oregon and then-Gov. John Kitzhaber demonstrated equal intransigence in demanding the expansion of the MAX system into Clark County.
While the old grievances and the intractable positions might linger, refusing to discuss the issue should not be an option. It’s too important. The Interstate 5 Bridge has derisively been referred to as the only stoplight between Mexico and Canada, and each year that passes without addressing the issue simply increases the difficulty and the cost that will accompany any eventual solution. On both sides of the river, each year that passes increases the negative economic impact that comes with having an outdated, obsolete bridge.
The logical solution would be to develop a plan for a bridge that has increased traffic capacity, improvements to relieve the bottleneck that is I-5 through North Portland, and the capacity to add light rail in the future. Southwest Washington residents have demonstrated an aversion to light rail at this time, and Oregon’s insistence upon its inclusion simply detracts from what must be the primary goal — improving traffic for commuters and for the transit of goods.
None of that will be addressed if old wounds are allowed to fester. None of that will be addressed if Oregon leaders blame the past for an inability to see the future. It is time to move forward on an I-5 bridge, but refusing to talk keeps the issue stuck in neutral.
