Columbia Crossing

[tworivers]

Excellent. This is what I've been waiting for. Hopefully this charade will soon be over -- or at least delayed for so long that the states will stop feeding money into the planning process.

New lawsuit planned against CRC
Bridge work to be challenged under Endangered Species Act

By Jim Redden

The Portland Tribune, Apr 27, 2012, Updated 5.1 hours ago

Another lawsuit is threatened against the Columbia River Crossing, the bridge and freeway improvement project proposed between Portland and Vancouver.

A group of environmental, livability and neighborhood groups have formally signaled their intention to sue to block the project in federal court under the Endangered Species Act. Among other things, the groups claim bridge work in the Columbia River will harm endangered salmon.

The groups include the Coalition for a Livable Future, the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. Previously, the CLF and NECN were part of an unsuccessfully lawsuit to invalidate Metro’s approval of the project.

Metro, the regional government, has approved its construction under a state law intended to streamline the permitting process for the original North-South light rail project. The CRC include a new light rail line from Portland to Vancouver that is consistent with a portion of that earlier plan.

The CRC is intended to reduce congestion and improve safety in a five-mile stretch of I-5 that includes the drawbridge between Oregon and Washington. It includes a replacement bridge with the new light rail line and improved access for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project also includes changes to several freeway interchanges, including new connections to Hayden Island.

Plans call for the project to be financed with a mix of federal and state highway funds and bridge tolls. The original estimate was over $4 billion. A revised version presented to a committee of the Oregon Legislature is now between $2.63 and $3.49 billion.

[tworivers]

More good news out of CRC la-la land. 140 million dollars and counting...

Books are going to be written about this epic fail in the years to come. I certainly hope that Garrett's head rolls over this, among many others at ODOT.

River users said Columbia River Crossing too low, and planner ignored them
Published: Thursday, June 07, 2012, 12:25 PM Updated: Thursday, June 07, 2012, 2:36 PM
Jeff Manning, The Oregonian

Sailboat makers, steel fabricators and marine construction companies were unanimous.

In a 2004 survey of Columbia River users and again in a 2006 Coast Guard public hearing, the river users said a new I-5 span needed to be 100 to125 feet tall for them to sail underneath.

The Columbia River Crossing planners ignored the input and opted instead for 95 feet. The fateful blunder has put the project at odds with a handful of marine shippers, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both of which need to sign off on the project.

The impasse may force the CRC to jettison the $3.1 billion current plan -- seven years in the making -- and design a higher bridge at a cost of $100 million-plus.

How did the CRC get to this place? How did an organization with tens of millions of dollars to spend and years of time, whose mission in part is to facilitate marine cargo flows, mess up something so basic as an acceptable bridge height?

The project's technical complexities and the conflicting demands of the many stakeholders both played a role. The higher bridge creates safety issues and potential problems for other interested parties.

But much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the CRC. The project, which has spent $140 million to date, much of it on public outreach, didn't know until February that the Corps of Engineers' dredge is 116 feet high, too tall to clear the CRC's bridge.

The CRC also failed to notice the growth of a bustling group of steel fabricators on the Columbia's north shore, who say the 600 jobs they collectively offer hinge on a higher bridge.

"We were all going down the path of making a reasonable decision," said Kris Strickler, CRC deputy director. "But the world changed."

The CRC rolled the dice that a bridge adequate for 97 percent of the river users would be acceptable to the Coast Guard. It didn't turn out that way.

"Some of these waterway users are major businesses that provide a lot of jobs," said Capt. Mark McCadden, chief of external affairs for the Coast Guard's 13 district in Seattle. "The Corps has a dredge that won't clear 95 feet. Think about if we had another Mount St. Helens, with silt dumping into the river, and the dredge couldn't get under that bridge."

FUTURE LOOKING UP

Three thousand miles away, the bustling Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is planning its own big bridge project. It intends to raise the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge from the current 151 feet to 215 feet.

Port officials fear that without the $1 billion upgrade, shippers will avoid the port because new supersized cargo carriers won't be able to get under the bridge.

No one will ever confuse the lower Columbia with the Port of New York and New Jersey. But here too, cargo loads are increasing in size and shippers are clamoring for more space.

Thompson Metal Fab operates in the former Kaiser shipyard on the north bank of the Columbia in Vancouver. It assembles huge oil drilling rigs and parts for paper plants and hydroelectric dams. The structures are much too large to ship by truck or rail. Instead, they are floated downriver by barge.

Thompson's volume of enormous projects has quadrupled in recent years, said company president John Rudi.

Two other companies have moved next door, each doing similar large-scale fabrications. Greenberry Inc. of Corvallis leased space in 2010. Oregon Iron Works bought 7.5 acres three years ago.

The fabricators ship on the river only a handful of times a year. But their cargoes are generally too large to clear a 95-foot span.

The current I-5 bridges offer just 40 feet of clearance at normal water levels. But raising the drawbridge increases the vertical clearance to 178 feet.

That puts the existing bridges in the same league with the Astoria-Megler Bridge (193 feet,) the Longview, Wash. span (187 feet,) and the Glenn Jackson I-205 bridge (144 feet.)

A bridges' vertical clearance varies, of course, with the ebb and flow of water levels. The proposed 95-foot height of the new I-5 bridge would actually offer clearance of between 78 and 95 feet, according to the CRC.

"The concept of taking a bridge and making it lower is so contrary to common sense," said Tom Hickman, vice president of sales and marketing for Oregon Iron Works. "We're kind of baffled how they got this far down the road without listening to the concerns. They seem to have just ignored us."

HEIGHT CHALLENGES

CRC officials admit that the growth of the fabrication business caught them by surprise. Greenberry and Oregon Iron Works weren't in Vancouver when the CRC conducted its initial outreach to river users and CRC officials were unaware of their presence.

That 2004 survey by Parsons Brinkerhoff also missed a few important details. It overlooked entirely the Corps of Engineers dredge, a mistake later repeated by the CRC.

It does mention Thompson and its bottom line is unequivocal. The data "indicates that a future bridge with vertical clearance of 125 feet... could effectively accommodate all existing vessels." An 80-foot bridge, the report added, "could accommodate all river traffic with the exception of four construction related barges and two recreational sailboats."

Nearly two years later, the Coast Guard hosted a public hearing on the same topic. Again, representatives from Thompson, and three other companies stated their need for 100 feet or more of clearance.

But other forces were pushing for a lower bridge: most notably geometry. A higher bridge would require a steeper grade up and over the river, which CRC engineers felt was unacceptable for safety reasons. Designers could eliminate an unacceptable hump in the span by moving out the bridge's points of landfall further south on Hayden Island and further north in Vancouver.

That would have significant impact, aesthetically and otherwise. A higher bridge also poses difficult technical challenges, particularly connecting it to the SR 14 interchange just north of the river.

And there is still another issue: Pearson Airport, the municipal airport east of downtown Vancouver. CRC engineers feared that a higher bridge could pose an unacceptable intrusion into the airport's air space.

Some advocates of a higher bridge are visibly pained that a tiny airport catering primarily to single-engine craft would constrain one of the region's most important public works projects. They point out that Pearson has been coexisting just fine with the current I-5 bridges, whose lift towers are 250 feet high.

Willy Williamson, Pearson manager, has watched the unfolding controversy with some bemusement. A higher span is not a problem, as far as he's concerned, though ultimately the Federal Aviation Administration will consider the CRC's plan.

"Raising the bridge 30 feet is not going to hurt us," Williamson said. "Fifty feet may be a different matter. But that's the FAA's call."

WE HAVE A PROBLEM

By last fall, the CRC knew it had a big problem.

After mulling various options for years, the CRC finally tipped its hand in its final environmental impact statement. The bridge height:€“ 95 feet.

In response, Thompson officials went to the Coast Guard and found a sympathetic ear. "I find that the vertical clearance for the proposed I-5 bridge does not fully address the reasonable needs of navigation for vessels which ply this stretch of the Columbia," said Randall Overton, Coast Guard bridge administrator, in an October 2011 letter. Overton slapped the CRC for not including mention of the fabricators' needs for a higher bridge in its environmental impact statement when it knew of the conflict.

The Coast Guard is not just another federal bureaucracy. In keeping with its charge to protect navigable waters, it essentially has veto power over the bridge.

In answer, the CRC essentially said that it knew best. "We have confidence that the technical work that has been in process for the past several years is a sound body of work," said Paula Hammond and Matt Garrett, the heads of the Washington and Oregon departments of transportation in a November 2011 letter to the Coast Guard. "A project of this magnitude must address the total array of users in the decision making process and the 95-foot clearance meets those needs."

The issue became more complicated when the Corps of Engineers joined the choir of dissenters. Now it wasn't just a handful of private companies squawking, it was the federal agency that maintains the Columbia channel.

"Mitigation," has since become the CRC's watchword.

CRC emissaries are reaching out to the steel fabricators, the Coast Guard and the Corps in hopes of a compromise to salvage the current design.

One possible solution: Convincing the fabricators to leave their hulking products partially unassembled for passage under the new bridge, then complete assembly at some downriver location.

It's a non-starter as far as the fabricators are concerned. "You might as well bankrupt us," said Jason Pond, CEO of Greenberry. "I just don't get it. This is a project that's all about jobs. I just assumed that they wouldn't kneecap these companies that are offering great jobs."

The Corps is looking at whether altering its Yaquina dredge would be feasible. The Yaquina is the dredge that normally plies the water upstream from the I-5 span. Modifying the vessel to lower its mast, lights and other structural elements could cost more than $500,000, said Corps spokeswoman Amy Echols.

The bridge flap is not the first questionable decision at the CRC. Gov. Kitzhaber and his Washington counterpart, Chris Gregoire, had to step in last spring and impose a bridge design after a review panel deemed the CRC's choice to be unproven and high-risk.

Last summer, another review instigated by Kitzhaber and Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler deemed the CRC's toll revenue projections to be inflated by nearly half a billion dollars. The CRC was relying on outdated and inaccurate traffic numbers, the review found.

Not surprisingly, the CRC is fielding some pointed criticism from area politicians, not a good thing for an organization reliant on the goodwill of Washington, D.C. and Salem and Olympia for financing.

"We are at a loss as to how such an oversight in this design could have occurred," stated U.S. Rep. Jamie Herrera-Buetler and three other Washington Congress members in an April 30 letter to the CRC. "Given the importance of navigation to our region, we believe it is imperative that a new bridge not limit future river commerce."

-- Jeff Manning

[MarkDaMan]

This is astounding. I don't understand how this has been such a horrible, wasteful, incompetent project. At this stage I'm all for scrapping this project. Reinforce the bridges and be done with it all.

[Grantenfuego]

This is beyond laughable. I don't even know where to start. It seems to me that the ports of Portland and Vancouver functioning properly are way more important than whatever goes on at Pearson airport. Why were they pushing the bridge height down in the first place? I know the deck truss design was for the benefit of the airport as well, but why did no one consider a design like this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Alamillo Bridge, designed by Santiago Calatrava

It's beautiful and it keeps the high point of the bridge further from the airport.
This project just baffles me. It's been just one stupid decision after another. This one though is just the icing on the cake. I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing scrapped (even though that will never happen) I just really don't want to see light rail to Vancouver get scrapped with it.

I think now, if ever, is a good time to push for a local bridge (which the 140 million would have been a pretty solid down payment for)

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Grantenfuego

..... but why did no one consider a design like this?

Um... because a bridge like that would have to be almost a mile high to reach a mile across the Columbia River. I don't think a 5,000 foot long cable-stay mast sticking up underneath PDX's flight path is a very good idea. Do you?

[Grantenfuego]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Um... because a bridge like that would have to be almost a mile high to reach a mile across the Columbia River. I don't think a 5,000 foot long cable-stay mast sticking up underneath PDX's flight path is a very good idea. Do you?

That design may be a bit too tall for the area, but I think something taller than the deck truss would still be doable. Then we wouldn't be stuck looking at another flat freeway bridge.

[tworivers]

The issue with a beautiful bridge design is that this project isn't really a bridge project, it's a freeway-expansion project that happens to include a river crossing. The entire thing is ludicrously expensive -- a landmark bridge design would not come cheap.

If we end up going back to the drawing board and exploring other, more sensible options, like the proposals put forth by the opposition involving a third/arterial bridge connection, I'm guessing we might see some more creative (or at least not mind-numbingly utilitarian) ideas. A design competition would be exciting and useful.

[tworivers]

Not one but 2 lawsuits in advance of tomorrow's deadline.

Thompson Metal Fab sues CRC over 95-foot bridge
Published: Monday, July 02, 2012, 3:35 PM Updated: Monday, July 02, 2012, 5:18 PM
Jeff Manning, The Oregonian

To the surprise of no one, the furor over the Columbia River Crossing's planned 95-foot bridge has landed in court.

Thompson Metal Fab has sued the two federal agencies sponsoring the bridge/freeway mega-project in U.S. District Court of Oregon alleging the CRC's environmental impact statement failed to account for the impact of a 95-foot bridge on the local economy.

Vancouver-based Thompson makes oil drilling rigs and other enormous steel products, some of them too large to clear a 95-foot bridge.

The company, which employs more than 200, transports its largest products by barge down the Columbia River and underneath the I-5 bridge. Those products can be higher than 150 feet, making it a tight squeeze under the existing bridge, even when its lift span is at its maximum left 179 feet above the water. The CRC wants to build a new bridge with no lift span that is 95 feet above the river.

Federal law requires any claims against the CRC's environmental impact statement be filed by July 3. "I'm very disappointed, but we need to protect our interests," said John Rudi, Thompson president. "The clock simply ran out."

The CRC had been informed several times by Thompson and others river users that they needed more clearance than 95 feet. But the CRC moved ahead with the 95-foot plan.

The U.S. Coast Guard, which must approve the CRC's bridge plan, said early this year that it withhold the necessary permit because a 95-foot bridge would impede navigation.

Afterward, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also went public, saying the Corps dredge that maintains the Columbia River channel would not be able to squeeze underneath the bridge.

Going higher than 95 feet creates a number of other problems. It could create traffic safety problems, potential grade issues for the planned light rail line extension into Vancouver, and it could pose a new obstacle to nearby Pearson Airport unacceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Raising the bridge would also make an already enormous structure look and feel even more daunting.

"We got to the mid-level bridge after years of conversation and input," said CRC spokeswoman Mandy Putney. "Ninety-five feet meets the majority of every user groups' needs."

Meanwhile, the CRC is in talks with Thompson and the Coast Guard trying to find common ground. "We're confident that we can find a solution," Putney said.

Monday was a lawsuit two-fer for the CRC. The Northwest Environmental Defense Center and the Coalition for a Livable Future made good on its promise to sue the project on grounds that it failed to comply with federal environmental law.

The groups allege that the CRC failed to include a reasonable range of alternatives when in the initial planning stage. They also claim the CRC did not properly analyze air pollution or adequately disclose the freeway enlargement's impact on public health.

-- Jeff Manning

[llamaorama]

This is going to probably sound stupid, but was there ever a tunnel alternative in the studies done?

Either a very long tunnel, or a bridge-tunnel.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

This is going to probably sound stupid, but was there ever a tunnel alternative in the studies done?

Either a very long tunnel, or a bridge-tunnel.

They did look at a tunnel, it was completely unfeasible with how long it would have to be to clear the Columbia and its silt.

[MarkDaMan]

Hayden Island neighbors file I-5 bridge suit
Portland Business Journal by Andy Giegerich , Business Journal staff writer
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 1:51pm PDT - Last Modified: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 1:54pm PDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...&ed=2012-07-12

A group of Hayden Island neighbors wants a U.S. District Court to delay construction on the Columbia River Crossing until more environmental analysis, including studies of how the bridge’s construction would affect air quality around the site, is performed.

The plaintiffs consists of the Hayden Island Livability Project and the Hayden Island Manufactured Home Community Homeowners Association, along with a group of the North Portland neighborhood’s residents. They’re suing federal officials that, according to the plaintiffs, improperly gave the go-ahead for work on a new $3.6 billion Interstate-5 bridge.

The plaintiffs said in the lawsuit they represent lower-income residents who live, work and pursue recreational interests on Hayden Island. Some of those residents live “no more than 50 feet from the proposed location of the construction activities,” according to the suit.

“Plaintiffs allege that in approving the Columbia River Crossing project defendants failed to disclose to the public and to take a hard look at the impacts to their low-income community and the human environment in violation of the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,” according to the suit, filed July 2 in Portland’s U.S. District Court.

They claim that environmental studies didn’t take into account that air quality would be degraded, claiming that resulting effects from construction could last at least six years.
The suit names Philip Ditzler, the Oregon division’s administrator of the Federal Highway Administration , as well as both Ditzler’s agency and the Federal Transit Agency. Daniel Mathis, who serves as Ditzler’s counterpart in Washington, and regional FTA Administrator Richard Krochalis are also named in the suit.

The action is one of three lawsuits related to the Columbia River Crossing filed this month. A Vancouver company is taking issue with the structure’s height while a third suit, filed by bridge opponents Coalition for a Livable Future and two other groups, also charged federal officials with failing to do enough environmental due diligence on the project.

Andy Giegerich covers government, law, health care and sports business.

[tworivers]

^^^ I often wish, with these kinds of articles, that they were more in-depth. I know that the deadline for lawsuits related to the final environmental impact statement was the 3rd of this month. When exactly was this one filed?; on what grounds exactly?; are there lawyers or other experts who could provide some context?; what chance does it have of being upheld?; how long will these lawsuits likely set back construction?; will they be fought with public money? how much is that likely to cost?; how is this one different than the other two?; and so on.

[65MAX]

Seriously? They just now figured out that a replacement bridge is coming and they think they have the right to stop it now? Because they live nearby? What a crock!! Typical NIMBYism.... afraid of anything new, even though getting rid of the drawbridge will prevent 1000's of cars and trucks from idling for a 1/2 hour or more 2 or 3 times a day right over their heads. I guess they're breathing so much carbon monoxide they can't think clearly.

[2oh1]

Obama identifies Columbia River Crossing in new initiative

President Obama announced Saturday the Columbia River Crossing as a project to be expedited through his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, according to a news release from Gov. Kitzhaber’s office.
The designation gives the project national significance, and the federal government can now step in to expedite permits and save time.

[mcbaby]

Clark County Republicans blast Columbia River Crossing, call for complete redesign

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ans_blast.html

[mcbaby]

Clark County Republicans blast Columbia River Crossing, call for complete redesign

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ans_blast.html

Ten Southwest Washington Republicans, buoyed by voters' rejection of light-rail funding for the Columbia River Crossing, said Thursday the giant bridge must be completely redesigned.

The current and newly elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, issued a joint statement condemning plans for the project estimated at almost $3.5 billion as flawed, impossible to permit and essentially doomed.

But project backers dismissed the defeated Clark County ballot measure as a red herring and the bid for a redesign as a ploy to kill the bridge. They said light rail never needed the measure's proposed sales-tax increase, adding that pushing ahead to meet federal funding deadlines is crucial.

That response further infuriated signers of the statement. Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, said the $160 million spent on the project so far was a waste of money.

"This whole thing has been a master scam perpetrated on the citizens of Washington by Metro in order to bring light rail into Vancouver," Benton said. "It's malfeasance of office and the people behind it should be prosecuted."

The heated conflict is the latest skirmish over light rail, which opponents deride as an objectionable add-on and proponents defend as essential for securing $850 million in federal transportation funds -- without which, they say, the bridge can't be built. Light rail is a proxy for differing values, as many in Clark County resent what they see as Oregon's attempt to foist its green ethic on a region built partly as an escape valve from the Portland area's urban growth boundary.

The renewed controversy over the troubled, expensive planning effort comes as the Oregon and Washington legislatures prepare to consider ponying up $450 million each to qualify for federal funds. Under the Columbia River Crossing's current proposal, bridge tolls would add the remaining $1 billion and change.

Bridge planners are nervous because they must have the state commitments to apply for federal funds before other U.S. megaprojects get first dibs. The pot of federal dollars is expected to diminish after spring in a year of budget cuts and deficit-reduction pressures.

They plan to reach a final decision in December on the bridge's height, another point of controversy, and apply in January for U.S. Coast Guard permits.

The authors of Thursday's statement want a bridge high enough to allow passage of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging vessels and barges transporting drilling rigs and other gigantic equipment manufactured upriver. They also want the environmental impact statement redone, which would set the project back years, and more public participation.

Patricia McCaig, Columbia River Crossing government-relations and communications director, said the measure to increase Clark County's sales tax by 0.1 percentage point was falsely portrayed as a referendum on light rail.

"For political purposes, they have positioned that measure as a referendum and are using its failure, which was expected, as an enticement for people who don't follow all of this to believe that the project's in trouble," McCaig said.

More
Continuing coverage of Columbia River Crossing
In fact, a sales-tax increase wasn't needed because C-Tran, Clark County's transportation agency, already has money for light-rail operation and maintenance, said Kelly Parker, president and chief executive of the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. The chamber supports the project and sees the bid for redesign as a concerted effort to kill a bridge that has been crafted to fit exacting parameters, she said.

"If you start over and you redesign it and you work with your partners in Oregon," Parker said, "you will come out with the same design and you will have wasted more years and more millions of dollars."

Economist Joe Cortright, a persistent critic of the project, sees it exactly opposite. Defeat of the light-rail tax created a major financing, scheduling and political problem for CRC advocates, he said, showing a lack of necessary support for state and federal funds.

"The sooner we declare the current version dead, the sooner we'll have a serious discussion about what we really want and can afford," Cortright said in an email. "The longer we wait, the more money CRC will squander and the harder it will be to get to a buildable alternative."

Vancouver Mayor Timothy Leavitt, a supporter of the project, said he learned of the statement from the 10 politicians while stuck in traffic at 2:30 p.m. Thursday trying to cross the Interstate Bridge.

Contrary to the letter's claims, Leavitt said, members of the public have had ample opportunities for a decade to participate in the planning process. The authors of the statement are "thumbing their nose" at the public, he said, and rejecting return of more than $1 billion in federal tax money to the community.

"It's time to quit wasting time and money, get the design and mitigation finished, and get under construction," Leavitt said. "Our economy, our businesses, our jobs and the sanity of our public are in the balance."

Originally Posted by mcbaby

Clark County Republicans blast Columbia River Crossing, call for complete redesign

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ans_blast.html

[CouvScott]

I still think we should build more bridges, not tear down perfectly working bridges to replace them. Imagine if Portland had only the Marquam and Freemont bridges. And to increase East West traffic capacity, they would continue to tear them down and build bigger Marquams and Freemonts. It is just a bad idea. Please bring back the idea that we could use some Steel, Broadway and Hawthornes over the Columbia. Light rail could come across one of those. I know this idea was voted down ages ago.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by CouvScott

I still think we should build more bridges, not tear down perfectly working bridges to replace them.

Exactly. Unless it's more cost effective to do otherwise.

This whole project is a mess. The current cost estimate is what? 4.2 Billion? Is this REALLY the best use of four point two BILLION dollars? And we all know the cost will further spiral.

What about the domino effect of shoveling considerably more traffic straight into Portland? And into Vancouver? Everybody talks about that bridge as a bottleneck, but I don't see people addressing what happens when that congestion point gets released. Like it or not, that bottleneck serves the unintended purpose of limiting traffic elsewhere. Open that floodgate and we'll need a heck of a lot more money to fix the problems it then creates. Anything that encourages alternate routes is a better idea.

Then, there's the issue of Hayden Island. I do not support the added expense of building a beautiful bridge only to dump southbound traffic onto a mile of nastiness after it, and nobody is talking about that. I realize this bridge ends in downtown Vancouver, but if they want beauty for their city, let them foot that part of the bill. This isn't a Portland/Vancouver bridge. It's a Hayden Island/Vancouver bridge. If we must build it, then build it cheap and functional.

And what about the issue of paying for light rail into Vancouver? Nobody there seems to want to pay for it.

We're better off keeping the current bridge and adding a new light-rail only bridge at some point when somebody magically decides to pay for it.

[zilfondel]

The project also expands about 5 or 7 miles (forget which) of I-5 north into Washington. Includes rebuilding several freeway interchanges. The bridge itself is supposed to be less than $500 million.

So basically, Washington wants Oregon to pay for 1/2 of its I-5 expansion efforts, after the fed's portion is paid.

[large PDF warning] http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org...ExhibitWeb.pdf

Its a moot point anyway, as they killed the pedestrian, cycling, and light rail portion of the bridge, which Portland 100% demands if it is going to be built: the Clark County Transportation Sales Tax Increase ballot measure failed, providing no money (0) to fund the CRC from the Washington side!

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...(November_2012)


Now, although I think the project as it is designed is a large waste of money, I still believe that a local bridge + MAX in Clark County would help congestion. However, a MAX in Clark County should go more than 10 blocks into the city of Vancouver - it should be built more extensively than that. Too bad they built suburban sprawl land and created the traffic nightmare that they are trying to push off onto Oregon...

[65MAX]

Wasn't the Clark Co tax supposed to fund operations? It had nothing to do with capital costs for the bridge. The light rail construction funding wasn't killed by that vote.