Let’s start with the Legislature. I attended the recent legislative briefing sponsored by the Building Industry Assoc. and Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce (elected officials and executive staff from the region). I was struck by the lack of ownership and accountability for the CRC project on the part of many of our legislatures. The Legislature oversees the Washington State Department of Transportation and its budget; it is responsible for funding transportation projects within the state. Its formal criticism of the CRC project came in the waning months of the project after the design was complete and the environmental work was done. Next time, the Legislature needs to take early ownership of such an important mega-project and be involved throughout the process.
There is no question that for CRC staff, the Washington State Department of Transportation and its counterpart in Oregon, this mega-project pushes up against the capabilities of these agencies and the many consultants working under their direction. At a technical level, the work was very well done. The environmental review supporting this work was more than defensible. The Project Sponsor’s Counsel did its job of reaching agreement on configuration of the project.
However, a project of this size will not proceed without public support. Conducting the obligatory public meetings as required at key points in the project does not come close to meeting the agencies’ obligations to get public buy-in of such an important public work.
One of the private sector sub-consultants to the project was the firm EnviroIssues, a top-notch public outreach firm with offices in Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, Richland and Boise. As the governor-appointed co-chair of the Projects Sponsors Counsel, I continually asked questions about and pushed for a robust community outreach campaign. It didn’t happen. Legislators don’t fund projects without the buy-in of the community. Next time, let’s find a way to really reach out and engage the community.
The CRC project has identified a significant urban/rural divide in our community that has now manifested itself through C-Tran. Before we attempt another project we should give strong consideration to Vancouver creating its own urban transit system for busses, BRT or light rail, if those modes of transit continue to be part of the CRC discussion.
Perhaps the motivation is to simply shore up the bridge while certain members of the community push the third bridge options, yet again, without cooperation.
It will be interesting to see the WDOT secretary’s response to a letter recently provided by Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler and many of our local legislators asking for a look at safety approvals necessary on the I-5 Bridge. The construction of a new CRC would have solved those safety issues. Who will pay for those improvements? Are the legislators only interested in funding repairs without creating higher capacity? Are the legislators trying to place the responsibility for any failures of the I-5 Bridge squarely on WDOT after killing the very project that would have resolved those safety issues?
Next time, the business community must step up and play a much bigger role in the project. Its efforts were insignificant, ineffective and inconsequential, as it turns out. CRC is critical for transit, commerce and jobs. I would expect the business community to play a much more significant role next time around and I fully expect to be at that table.
Steve Horenstein is a co-managing member at Horenstein Law Group PLLC in Vancouver and a former co-chair of the CRC Project Sponsors Council.
{jathumbnail off}
