While sorting through files left from 10 years as a legislator, I ran across a photo that shows members of our Clark County delegation filing the bill to reopen discussions about a replacement Interstate 5 Bridge spanning the Columbia River.
Those of us present had witnessed the demise of the Columbia River Crossing project several years earlier. We knew how legislation to fund Washington’s share of the project failed after then-Gov. Jay Inslee and the Obama administration “mistakenly” tried to pressure state senators into buying off on the project despite true and legitimate concerns about the design.
Not wanting a repeat of 2013, the bill we filed in February 2017 was focused on the creation of a joint Oregon-Washington legislative action committee. Our intent was to get lawmakers in on the ground floor of the next bridge project, so any concerns could be raised and hopefully addressed in a timely manner.
I was among those who successfully insisted that the legislation also create a bridge-authority committee to begin the process of developing a third crossing over the Columbia. To date, however, this important part of the law has been ignored.
The first meeting of Washington and Oregon legislators happened in 2018. Having participated in all 30 of the legislative bridge-committee meetings, I believe they have, broadly speaking, provided the direction, guidance, feedback and oversight expected by those of us who sponsored the bill.
Still, as I say farewell to the state Senate and to the bistate committee, it’s hard to not be frustrated. Over the years, many of my constituents told me they view replacing the I-5 Bridge — with emphasis on “bridge,” not something else — as a high if not critical priority.
At the same time, they have expressed strong opinions about how a bridge project would be funded, meaning tolls, and the transit component, meaning a very expensive extension of light rail from Portland versus the more flexible and cost-effective bus rapid transit.
This latter concern is especially justified, as Clark County residents are being expected to cough up a whopping $21 million annually just to maintain the already costly light rail. I’m a hard “no” on that.
As a Clark County business owner, I’m also sensitive to seeing that a new bridge offers enough clearance for river traffic, to avoid causing harm to existing or new employers east of the new span.
Yet details like the bridge height — one of the factors that tripped up the CRC project more than a decade ago — is still undecided, all these years into the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
Then there’s the inexplicable delay in completing the project’s supplemental environmental impact statement. In 2020, our bistate committee was told by the IBR program administrator to expect the final SEIS in early to mid-2023. It still hasn’t happened.
In October, after the IBR program had touted its proposed bridge configuration — three through lanes (like our current bridge) and a single auxiliary lane — as being “green,” I asked for details. It turns out the savings from this design is an estimated 31 metric tons per year, which the federal Environmental Protection Agency equates to the annual emissions from eight typical passenger vehicles.
Saving eight cars’ worth of carbon emissions annually doesn’t sound particularly “green” to me. It also calls into question the IBR administrator’s proud claim that the project is “centering equity and climate, which is a departure from the historical way of building infrastructure.” A departure, indeed, but is that the priority?
Congestion relief and cost have been top priorities for my constituents all along, yet we recently learned that only 45 percent of the bridge lanes themselves are dedicated to vehicles, and the estimated construction cost has more than doubled since the original estimates. It makes you question what was learned from the failed CRC project.
Southwest Washington needs a bridge, not a boondoggle, and it’s getting clearer that the IBR is headed in the wrong direction. The current project is not what I and other legislators intended, it’s not what the public wants, and it’s not what our region needs.
We only have one shot at this. Let’s get it right.
Lynda Wilson is a Republican who served the 17th Legislative District for 10 years. She left the Legislature this month after choosing not to seek reelection last year.
