I think when you are describing the bridges - both the current configuration and the CRC - the number of "lanes" on the bridge, and the number of "through lanes" on the bridge are different and should be compared as such.

The plan clearly only has 6 through lanes, and nobody is arguing otherwise. The plan also clearly has a bridge with 12 lanes (12 lanes of actual auto and truck traffic) on it - and likewise, and I don't think it is smart to argue otherwise.

I believe the idea is that, currently, the non-through-lane traffic takes up space on the bridge. Moving that traffic to the three local lanes on the bridge will free up the through lanes for actual through traffic. While the CRC does not double the lanes from Portland to Seattle, it does double the lanes over the Columbia, in an effort to make traffic from Portland to Seattle flow smoother.

There's plenty of room for debate on whether that bridge is too big or too small, whether the bridge will help congestion in Portland or hurt it, and whether I-5 needs to be widened further south, but it seems silly to say that the bridge is not getting bigger.

Just my two cents.

not quite. the graphic, prepared by advocates (the CRCC), is misleading--and not the final design at all. it's an effort to play down impacts.

and let's quickly dispose of the three so called "environmental" benefits of the new bridge:

Transit system improvements — More choices to get from here to there

No, only *one* more choice, and that's being debated--light rail. bicycles already cross the bridge. and bike commuters already know one thing--getting across the river is only a small part of the commute.

Better air quality — Reduces truck and automobile idling times

that's right, folks--the bridge is more eco-friendly because it lets cars go faster. in other words, making room for more cars reduces pollution. if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. a different one.

and never mind the dissonance of "replacing six auto lanes with six auto reduces congestion".

Tolling helps reduce our regional transportation carbon footprint

except for the stunning lack of proof for that claim, I'd consider it. in fact, the proof throughout the world (including the Eastern US) is convincingly the opposite.

but hell, let's go for the bonus round:

21st Century structure built to handle our transportation needs far into the future

that's what they said when they built the first span in 1917. 41 years later, they built another one. fifty years later, we're tearing it all down and building another one. keep in mind that, according to Leonard logic, *none* of this increased sprawl or pollution. in 40-50 years, which must mean "far into the future", we'll do it again.

Improves commerce on major international economic corridor between Canada and Mexico

that's right--we're building the bridge to support Canadian-Mexican trade.

I'm still promoting my modest proposal: pave over the entire river, capping it with a 3,714-lane bridge between Astoria and The Dalles. the tolls alone will make us rich.

that's right--we're building the bridge to support Canadian-Mexican trade.

Hey, that meth has to get to Canada somehow.

"It is misleading for the critics to add up all these lanes and claim it is a 12-lane bridge," said Leonard."

Gees, what a toad. The Adams cabal themselves have been spinning this from the beginning as 12-lanes in order to sell it to the righties as better than the old one.

Now they say its NOT 12 lanes to try and sell it to the anti-car crowd?

You can hurt yourself flip-flopping like that.

Sure those extra non-through lanes can slightly improve traffice flow. Afterall thers is a place to park broken down cars. The real issue here is why spend all that money for a "slight" improvement of traffic flow. It's just not worth it.

and remember when the 205 bridge, etc. was built primarily to "reduce congestion" on the I-5 bridge?

whoops.

Who is being misleading here? "It's not a lane, it's a ramp." Look at the segment that actually crosses the Columbia, colloquially known as "the bridge." 12 lanes. Do they think we can't count?

Sounds like they are saying that it is actually six lanes, plus six more, uh, limited distance automobile pathway efficiencies. Right.

Why are we spending 4 billion dollars (so far) a bridge with the same number of lanes?

D.J. lays it out straight-forwardly in his comment. Whatever you call those various other lanes, they are there. The plan in question calls for a much bigger bridge than the current one. As it should.

All this talk about 6" being 12" (I mean 6 lanes being 12) sounds like its coming from the bathroom in City Hall. Do these morons south of the Columbia realize nobody, I mean NOBODY, wants light rail in the Couv? How many times do we have to vote it down before they get the hint?

Ecohuman,

You are exactly right that many thought that the I-205 bridge would reduce congestion on I-5.

I wonder though, did the building of the 205 bridge coincide with massive population growth from Oregon to Vancouver and the surrounding towns?

If you are one who made the transition from the Portland Metro Area to Vancouver, WA, what were the reasons why you made the move?

I wonder though, did the building of the 205 bridge coincide with massive population growth from Oregon to Vancouver and the surrounding towns?

chicken and egg. if the 205 bridge hadn't been built, would eastern Vancouver have grown so much, so fast?

A total waste of $4.2Bn, maybe pocket change in some contexts, but not here. And that's without regard to how many "lanes" are built.

This design may actually make it worse! That's because the merge on/merge off lanes are too close. A similar example is the ON ramp to I-5 South at the Rose Garden clogs the OFF ramp to I-84 eastbound. The oncoming cars clog the off ramp as they try to get up to speed to merge onto I-5, just as the I-5 cars try to slow and cross to the far right off lane for the I-84 exit. Everybody's been stuck in traffic on I-5 South just before the Rose Garden around 4 o'clock !!! More of that? For billions of $$$$ ??? Thanks, Sam. . .

Ecohuman,

The way you are responding is making my bias and personal opinion ring ever more true.

I surmise that close to 75% of Vancouver's population are Portland emigres who left due to the radicalization of Portland politics, school choice in the hands of Portland bureaucrats, rising state taxes, and all the local tax levies that came along as a natural result.

If I am wrong or missing something, then tell me where, how and why.

It's not big enough at 12. It should be at least sixteen -- eight each way. Tole the bejesus out of it, if necessary, but don't choke transportation across the Columbia. The downsides are just too immense.

All this anti-bridge rhetoric assumes we will not get clean transportation technology in this generation, which should not be acceptable. Let's put the focus there where it belongs.

Mobility is good. It is what allows us to confine certain uses in certain places. The goal should be clean mobility, not immobility.

I surmise that close to 75% of Vancouver's population are Portland emigres

sorry, no. truth is, most Vancouver in-migration did not come from Portland.

It would be a better use of money to build a third Columbia River highway bridge, quite frankly. You could probably build a good chunk of an entirely new freeway for the price of the CRC.

Here is a concept. Fix the bridges about to fall first.....and build the global whining coalitions and throw the Chicken Little rock concerts later, if there is any money left. Any project with the words vibrant, livable,comprehensive, sustainable, walkable, or partnership in their descriptions should be cut immediately. They are all complete fraud. Otoole needs to run for Governor. It seems like the only ones dumber than the bean counters in the government are the global whiners in the streets...but it is a close race.

Since I 5 has only 2 lanes in each direction through Portland, I assume the other eight lanes are for Jantzen Beach traffic.

Their is more money spent studying than what it would have cost to build when they first started studying this

The parable of the broken window does seem to be the pervasive norm for nearly any public project or anything that is characterizable as "economic development."

Even the designed expansion of the money supply so as to halt price declines is premised on destroying the value of any claim against another as measured in dollars rather than stuff. Printing money creates a fictional illusion of increased wealth rather than just an adjustment of the relative claims that anyone has on real stuff, or the relative value of their labor.

If there must be stimulus then we must get our cut. Can you think of a better way to blow 4 billion dollars?

A project agnostic kind of guy might only ask how much of the expense will feed the locals versus outsiders.

Anyway, I enjoy reading Ecohuman's points.