Why is it bizarre? Portland developers have no interest in seeing possible buyers of downtown condos being able to commute easily from Clark County. Vancouver developers have every interest in making it easy to do so. In this case each elected official is just representing the interests of the people who put them in office.

You don't think you really have a choice in the matter do you?

Stop me before my head blows up. They want to spend $4B+ to build a replacement bridge with the same number of lanes?

"Brian Gard, a Portland advertising executive who heads the Columbia River Crossing Coalition, a business group supporting the project, said the organization is focused on the estimated 27,000 construction jobs that will be delayed by further study."

Ah yes, Brian Gard, honored citizen and Goldschmidt sycophant who wrote his "admission" of guilt, the one that turned the sustained sexual abuse of a girl over the course of several years beginning at age 14, into a less than one year affair with a high school student.

Of course, serving a man you knew to be a child rapist was how things got done in Portland and in Oregon for decades. And may still:

"Goldschmidt’s firm set up two meetings between Kulongoski, his staff and two large construction firms -- Bechtel Corp. and Parsons Brinckerhoff -- angling to build a major Columbia River bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver, Wash. The Oregonian had previously reported that Goldschmidt lobbied Kulongoski to make the bridge a top transportation priority." Portland Tribune, 12/28/04

I called this the minute I heard about the "joint letter" signed by leaders on both sides of the river.

I said "if the officials of Vancouver and Clark County really think that Portland and Metro are on their team, they're in for a rude awakening." Didn't take long.

Leavett just learned what had Pollard so red in the face as he left. No one in Clark County should trust anyone even remotely associated with Portland's planning cabal. They want nothing more than to strangle Vancouver to death.

Over/Under on how much money they spend on this project, before a shovel ever breaks the ground.

I say it's over 10 million.

I wonder how many teachers you could pay with 10 million dollars?

Why the heck even bother building a new bridge if it is the same size as the current one. Portland is off it's rocker and trying to dictate how Clark County should grow. Clark County should just give Portland the finger and start building!

The crossing that would best fit the capacity of I-5 through Portland is a car ferry.

A new bridge w/o the users of the system actually paying for at least the majority of capital costs and maintenance is called a subsidy.

In essence, Vancouverites want a "free" bridge paid on the backs of everyone's tax dollars -- general and user fees alike. Who knew they were so socialist up there?

Yes, I am talking about tolls, btw. The world's "greatest" user-fee because the actual users of the bridge pay for its costs. Gas taxes are an okay user-fee, but even they help fund the bridges to nowhere (takes money from high growth areas and diverts to podunk towns' transportation projects).

"Why the heck even bother building a new bridge if it is the same size as the current one. Portland is off it's rocker and trying to dictate how Clark County should grow. Clark County should just give Portland the finger and start building!"

Both parties are off their rockers, actually. The same bridge the same size paid for w/ tax dollars is asinine. If I-5 bridge users want a new mega-huge bridge, they can pay for it, and Portland should not be able to stop them.

But you can't get whiny about not getting a Cadillac sized bridge whilst voting out a Mayor based on the premise that there won't be tolls.

Modesty priced tolls or no project at all, and no building a "new" bridge with the same capacity w/ tax dollars.

I might add, I really don't think it's a capacity issue so much as it is a on/off ramp issue (i.e. that one ramp coming off marine drive with lots of trucks adds a lot of congestion while they try to merge).

Hey WS ... last I checked, quite a few of those Washington residents crossing the river every day work in Portland, pay taxes in Oregon, and probably do some shopping in Oregon as well. So there is your "subsidy," already paid for. Or are they not entitled to any benefit from the taxes they pay in Oregon?

Mike:

The 60,000 aforementioned Vancouverites live, commute, and work where they want under their own volition. Their taxes go to other things than just transportation issues. Furthermore, the I-5 span is but one of many roadway systems they utilize.

The only thing I'd agree that Vancouverites "deserve" in Oregon is the ability to attend our schools at in-state costs. At least that makes sense considering their tax dollars do help.

I retain my initial assertion: We should not subsidize people's living arrangements. The entire suburbia/highway typology is one huge subsidy, and in recent years we try to counteract that force by subsidizing urban development and transit.

Maybe we should let actual market forces work and play out? Toll away.

WS, you seem to be forgetting that the I-5 bridge is more than a commuter bridge between two cities. It is part of our whole interstate freeway system that is vital to the whole nation. There is more than commuter traffic, goods and services comprise more of the trips than commuters. Our economy depends on this bridge.

Since you are opposed to "subsidies" for commuters (by not tolling), then why not have light rail, pedestrians, bikers build there own bridge and pay all costs through tolls? If presented as such, then it would be likely that commuters and all the other users of the vehicle bridge would support tolls for a bridge where the costs would be reduced from $4.2 Billion to $3 Billion, or even less. People are more likely to support tolls when their tolls are not subsidizing the 4% to 6% that might use light rail, bike paths, and sidewalks.

Bottom line is that Vancouver and Portland want completely different bridges. (Vancouver wants 12 lanes and nothing else. Portland wants lightrail and bike paths with one lane for cars.) As such, the costs of including everything that both cities want is astronomical. And Vancouver is adamantly opposed to tolls, so there is really no way to pay for this.

Either someone gets through to Obama and he sends over a ton of money in the next stimulus package, or this bridge is dead.

lw:"WS, you seem to be forgetting that the I-5 bridge is more than a commuter bridge between two cities. It is part of our whole interstate freeway system that is vital to the whole nation. There is more than commuter traffic, goods and services comprise more of the trips than commuters. Our economy depends on this bridge. "

ws:I find it funny that the free market supporting the "goods and services" cannot find a "free market" solution to expanding a new bridge. If a toll raises the cost of a "good or service", that is fine, because the true cost of delivering the good or service will be reflected, and won't be masked by a bunch of public subsidies.

lw:"Since you are opposed to "subsidies" for commuters (by not tolling), then why not have light rail, pedestrians, bikers build there own bridge and pay all costs through tolls?"

ws:Sure, that's fine.

WS, there is already a solution to your claim that there is not "a 'free market' solution to expanding a new bridge". We have both federal and state gas/diesel fuel taxes, and all kinds of other taxes that contribute to our interstate system fund. That is the free market system-we pay taxes.

We just need the federal and state governments to step up to the plate and begin to make decisions for all the local politicians, mayors, metro councilmen and the numerous committees with all their infighting. This interstate issue is not only a local issue like it has become.

lw:

It's a myth that gas user-fees actually pay for *all* of the costs of our very expansive roadway system:

http://www.subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/

Even so, these are just direct costs of automobile use (capital, maintenance, etc.). Autos don't even pay for their negative external costs of the environment and public safety services.

The real issue is the gas tax is a collective tax. It's not a bad one, really, but think that your federal share of the gas tax often gets diverted to roadways systems you don't use...like "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska.

A *true* user fee would tax you for the roads you actually use. But I can't complain about the gas user fee mechanism. States get back from the feds a slice of that tax utilizing a complex system.

A toll is a true user fee.