<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: Good Start on Bridge Talk

All the familiar questions remain, but Vancouver City Council’s on right track

The Columbian
Published: February 9, 2017, 6:03am

It is a matter of priorities. A case of declaring which project is the most important for the region and then pursuing that project. In that regard, the Vancouver City Council is on the right track in emphasizing a new Interstate 5 bridge as the key to unlocking the region’s transportation woes.

“What we’re saying is, the most important project to us is not a third bridge somewhere, it’s the antiquated bridge now,” councilor Jack Burkman said. That came as the council agreed to support the designation of the I-5 corridor as a project of statewide importance, which would place it ahead of other proposals on the priority list.

If only it were so simple. As the last attempt to reconstruct the I-5 corridor — the ill-fated Columbia River Crossing — demonstrated, any discussion about bridges in this area is certain to generate disagreement and rancor. Many people throughout the community believe that a third bridge — most likely to the east at 192nd Avenue or to the west near the existing railroad bridge — should take priority over the I-5 corridor. And even if a consensus could be reached to deal with I-5 first, there then are questions about the inclusion of light rail, nearby Pearson Field, and how the bridge height will impact upstream construction industries.

In short, dealing with bridges in Clark County amounts to a hot mess. But it is our mess and it is time that we went about cleaning it up.

To start with, we agree that the I-5 corridor should take priority. Eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, Clark County will develop a third and a fourth and a fifth bridge to link it with the Oregon side of the Columbia River. But such plans are even more problematic than reconstructing an Interstate 5 corridor that already is in place.

Extending a bridge from 192nd Avenue, for example, would run smack into an area that has heavy industrial development and no infrastructure for mass transportation on the Oregon side. It also would require huge corridor investments in Clark County to provide access to the new bridge, a problem that would be echoed by any attempt at a bridge on the west side.

Suggestions that an east-side or west-side corridor would be more cost-effective than reconfiguring the Interstate 5 Bridge are misguided. As the primary corridor along the West Coast, one that links Mexico to Canada, an efficient I-5 path would have enormous economic benefits for the Vancouver, Portland, and their surrounding communities.

Of course, we do not expect everybody to agree with this assessment. There are some strong arguments to be made for a third bridge, but we believe those arguments are outweighed by the importance of the I-5 corridor. Therefore, we urge elected officials to continue to emphasize improvements to Interstate 5 without being distracted by the prospect of a third bridge at this point. State Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, said lawmakers in Olympia have been discussing the issue: “I think the first important aspect here is we (agree) the goal is the Interstate 5 Bridge replacement. … The majority of us agree that we have to replace the aging I-5 Bridge, but we recognize we have to take a broader look as well.”

A broader look is, indeed, necessary — in the long run. But first, lawmakers should narrow their focus on an I-5 project that would provide the most cost-effective benefits. The Vancouver City Council is wise to provide some guidance and to demonstrate that it is focused upon the most pressing needs of the county.

Loading...