This, I think, is something we can all (finally!) agree on.

We need to strive for efficiency in all forms of transportation in this region, whether by river, asphalt or rail.

A key to good public transit is reliability with reasonable frequency of service. You must also have good locations and access the meets the needs of the users. There are a lot more critical criteria but when it come to a infrenquent stop or delay in service if weighted against doubling the cost of a project the cost factor could be killer and I want good public transit opportunities available.

The CRC project does not enhance public transit opportunities over what could be realized with a new 3rd Bridge alternate multi-mode Bi-state arterial that could move HC Transit offering faster and more directly to places of employment with less opportunity of delay then anything coming from replacing the Interstate Bridges.

It seems these questions are mostly rhetorical. But I think if we are trying to prevent transit from being delayed by bridge lifts there are several in the region ahead of I5 on the list to be fixed, starting, I suppose, with the Steel Bridge.

Which brings us back to the question of whether this is really a regional transportation priority worth $2-6 billion.

The question assumes that a new bridge must not have a lift span because it would cause public transit to stop for lifts. This is not necessarily true. If the RR bridge lift span is relocated closer to the center of the river as recommended by the tugboat operators, there would be no reason to open a new light rail bridge, or the existing freeway bridges for most vessels. All their tows could then go under the hump, even during high water conditions. According to a fact sheet produced for the U.S. Coast Guard Public Hearing in September, less than 48 vessels (70 feet or higher) a year would require lifts. These movements could be done at night when light rail is not in operation.

go under as in Posey tube or Holland Tunnel...or high as in Longview Bridge...

“Public transit service on I-5 should not stop for river traffic. A new bridge should be built high enough to eliminate the need to open for boats and barges.”

I disagree. Again, this issue is not as simple as it sounds. In a utopian world, it might make perfect sense. If transit riders, transit advocates and socialist political forces that insist transit should be subsidized were all willing to accept a fare structure that pays for the entire local match for transit piece of the Columbia Crossing project, then too it might make sense. To help pay for the project, there is defiantly a need for a requirement that some financial contribution comes directly from transit users, either through a fare surcharge or tolls on fares that cross the Columbia. But in the real world that is full of compromises, full funding of any local match by transit users is unlikely to happen. Beggars must not be choosers. Increased service levels over the Columbia will also undoubtedly increase operating subsidies, So again I say, beggars must not be choosers.

That said, I tend to agree with in concept Jim Howell has put forward.