The reason for six lanes is to have future capacity as the region continues to grow and as Vancouver becomes the major city on the Columbia as Portland self destructs because of zealots like Bragdon & Adams

The cost of a pair of bridges is well under one billion, an amount readily available.

It is the worthless toy train and un-needed interchange work that is driving up the bill. See NoBridgeTolls.com

"Common sense" says the earth is flat too, so maybe that's not the best guide to public policy. The lame appeal to "common sense" is the best he's got for arguing against a perfectly sound bridge -- and wooden pilings are absolutely fine for the purpose.

Bragdon is going to find out that there's no compromise with the sprawl lobby, just as Obama is learning that there's no compromising with the health insurance mafia --- the only compromise they want is where the politicians compromise their principles and give the lobby everything they want, which is a huge boondoggle that ignores that when oil hits $200/bbl we won't need all the lanes across the Columbia we have now -- and that will be well before this monstrosity could get going.

...loses public support the more people learn about it...

hmmmm - sounds like another rather controversial program currently being rammed through Congress... but I guess majority public support (or the absence thereof) is more important in some cases than others.

I can't speak to WSDOT, but if what ODOT has done to the two Medford overpasses for I-5 is representative, I would say that Bradon's concerns and comments are well founded.

"Common sense and the need for economic trade"

Name me one thing METRO has done to prove that viewpoint. He wants to replace the bridge with one that costs more in tolls and offers the same thru-put for commercial traffic at >$3B.

BTW - No gratuitous reference to global warming?

Nice to see this argued rationally by the Metro President. That's something, Steve.

DOT people, many of whom are engineers, are focused on moving the maximum number of people and freight in the most efficient - and probably fastest - manner.

Metro people and their various progressive supporters are far less interested in moving large numbers of people and freight and are much more interested in urban planning issues and, in particular, figuring out a way to impose Oregon style land use planning on Vancouver and its suburbs.

Hard to see how the two points of view will be resolved. Meanwhile, federal dollars are becoming more and more difficult to bring to a mega project.

Wow. Here is an transportation story that brings tears of joy to my heart. Even though Portland claims to be a bicycle friendly town, I have never received this kind of treatment:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010078267_apeugermanygreenbrothel.html

What is Bragdon attempting to accomplish with his statement? He uses the Highway Departments as whipping boys, when he and Sam Adams have been crucial enablers of the CRC boondoggle for the past two years. Metro and the City of Portland were eager to join the highway expansion lobby with their "Cost of Congestion" study, which argued for expanding I-5. They choose to ignore the climate-changing cost of continued highway expansion, and now Bragdon wants to appear as if he is not culpable.

In the electrical power arena, all parties have realized that "least cost planning" is the way to go, and that conservation and wise use of existing capacity is far cheaper, by all measures, than new capacity. Lack of leadership by the two State Governors means that the highway departments are not doing the "least cost planning" that the law mandates for transportation projects.

Bragdon is essentially saying "let's tear down two existing highway bridges, and build something new with approximately the same highway capacity, and build light rail." He makes a very poor case. He appeals to "common sense" rather than facts and costs, when arguing for a replacement bridge rather than mitigation of the existing bridges. If that is what "cleanly argued" means, I would prefer something more convoluted, based on a rational analysis of alternatives, and comparison of priorities. In fact Metro sent strongly worded letters to the CRC asking that lower cost alternatives, that re-used the existing bridges, be considered. They asked that modifications to the down-stream railroad bridge be included in the options. I watched a Metro work session at which Rex Burkholder reported back to the Metro Council that, in essence, the CRC was ignoring Metro's letter. But Bragdon was unwilling to stand tough. Councilor Brian Newman said that he foresaw that if the giant project went forward, without considering cheaper alternatives, then it would likely produce nothing, when the cost proved too great. His view appears prophetic.

The Highway Departments studied the options that Metro approved for inclusion in the DEIS, and have since been studying the "locally preferred alternative." Bragdon seems to be arguing that they "took enormous license with those local endorsements..." when they are only following their natural and foreseeable instincts. Metro and Portland threw away all bargaining power when they approved the project's earlier phases.

Bragdon also argues that the phony consensus on the project is an "opportunity" and says the "corridor is too important for us to do nothing." So that means we should do something wasteful and unproductive, and ignore the opportunity cost of not spending those resources on other projects?

Fact: The Columbia River Towboat Association, around 2000, had moved forward a project to reconfigure the downstream railroad bridge so that all commercial towboat traffic would be able to pass under the high span of the I-5 bridge. The Coast Guard liked it from a river safety standpoint, and all associated local governments and interest groups had endorsed this project. The only remaining bridge lifts on I-5 would have been for luxury yachts and special equipment, which could be moved during off-hours. What derailed that project, in 2004? The CRC mega-project.

What this project is all about is that the proponents of expanding I-5 realized that their only hope of moving forward was to include light rail. Apparently too many light rail supporters, including Bragdon, failed to consider the cost of signing on to this pact with the devil. We are approaching $100 million wasted on studies, we lost the opportunity to spend stimulus money on a reasonable modification to the railroad bridge, and those who have advocated wiser alternatives from the start are still in a minority on the Metro Council.

I see hope, however. In a letter published in the Oct. 16 Labor Press, Mayor Sam Adams states: "The political assumptions for the CRC are no longer on solid ground. Thus, I am suspending my support for the compromise agreement I helped fashion in February." While Adams' letter still argues for tolls and light rail, he does not seem to rule out alternatives that maintain I-5 on the existing bridges. Going forward, we need a realistic "least cost" alternative (not the phony no-build alternative required by NEPA) as part of the mix. Bragdon's reluctance to push for such an alternative is the most disappointing failure of his career at Metro. It would be nice if he didn't leave this mess to his successor, and I hope that Sam Adams now feels empowered to provide some leadership as well.

I have no argument with Doug Allen's excellent post.

Both Adams and Bragdon want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to please the Port with a $500 million interchange for it. They want to desecrate Hayden Island with 18 lanes (not counting mass transit) all of the way across that Island 70 feet in the air. At least that's how Adams voted when he voted for a 12 lane bridge. Bragdon was craftier -- Metro didn't take a position on the number of lanes. But that is not to Bragdon's credit. He has been totally duplicitous with opponents of the bridge. He speaks against the highway departments, saying things with which we cannot disagree. He gets quoted thusly in Steve Duin's column, and puts them out here on Blue Oregon. But when push comes to shove, he wants to please the advocates for a big new jumbo bridge -- the Port (which gets a $500 million marine drive interchange in the jumbo plan), the PBA, AOI, OBA, the ORegon Freight Association and the Columbia-Pacific Building Trades Council, to say nothing of The Oregonian and Pamplin's Tribune. David knows what's right. He just isn't willing to go there. David knows he could start by threatening to withdraw approval if there is not a reasonable study of the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution produced by the jumbo bridge. Metro voted to demand a new study -- the current one provided is a joke in Bragdon's own words -- when they approved the LPA. ODOT has simply refused to admit it has provided an inaccurate joke. Bragdon could insist that the highway departments provide an accurate picture of induced travel created by the new jumbo bridge, or he will move to withdraw the LPA. Right now, ODOT and WASHDOT are saying that there will be NO induced travel for a jumbo bridge, despite the fact that there are 5,000 acres of un-developed land near I-5 in Clark County that are zoned for housing and will be developed if a big bridge is built. These are fatal flaws when all of the major environmental and land-use groups in Oregon who have uniformly opposed the jumbo bridge file their lawsuit against the EIS (due out in 2010) asking for National Environmental Protection Act review in federal court. But there are many other things that are going to hold back the big new jumbo bridge. Vancouver is likely going to elect a Mayor who doesn't support tolls. Tim Leavitt (who led Royce Pollard in the primary) will join all of the Clark County Commissioners in having a public position opposed to tolls. This means the jumbo bridge simply can't be financed.
Clark County must vote affirmatively for light rail, and it failed to do so by a healthy margin the last time light rail was on the ballot. This would also kill the greenwashing excuse that Bragdon and Adams use for the jumbo bridge. There is not a single Congressperson in Washington or Oregon who has spoken out as an advocate for the $4.2 billion bridge and the big federal earmark that it would require. Neither the Oregon Legislature nor the Washington Legislature allocated ANY construction funds for the project. Seattle has two projects that are far ahead of the jumbo bridge in Olympia. A vote in the whole Oregon House or Senate would be very close, but Kulongoski who has been an ardent supporter of the big, new bridge, will be gone and we will have a new Governor in the next session. The Oregon Transportation Commission allocated $30 million this biennium for doing detailed design and the EIS of the Jumbo New Bridge, joining the $50 million that Washington is spending. The big, new, 12-lane, $4.2 billion bridge is as dead as a dodo. What is David Bragdon going to do about it? Probably just continue to trash the highway departments. He doesn't get off the hook with this tactic with those of us who have followed this closely. And Doug Allen is right -- common sense is NOT to tear down and replace perfectly good bridges that can be earthquake-proofed for one-tenth the replacement cost. It's called sustainability.

<hr/>