My goodness, this ought to stir up some comments. I would lean toward the least-expensive and quickest solution myself, but I don't live underneath the bridge. It would be great to restore buses over the bridge.

Hope they go with option D.

The DJC article mentioned "stakeholders". The primary stakeholders are the groups who are directly taxed in relationship to where the funding comes from - iIn other words motorists and motor freight carriers that pay fuel taxes, license and registration fees. Therefore, the priority for the option chosen must first be responsive to their needs. If other bridge users want the same priority, then users of those modes of transport need to step up with their checkbooks, tax themselves, and percentage wise, contribute to the bridge costs based on the amount of deck space allocated for their specific mode of transport. .

The article is correct, except that the official name for the group (of which I'm a member) is the Sellwood Bridge Community Task Force.

Everyone realizes this has taken much longer than originally expected. Back at the first meeting in June 2006, we were told this would a one and a half year project. Now, we're in January 2009 and three meetings away (one more CTF Meeting on the 19th, another meeting where the CTF formally presents it's decision to the Policy Advisory Group [PAG] on the 26th, and when the PAG formally selects on Feb. 6th).

The article doesn't explain the options, but they're online at sellwoodbridge.org/alternatives.aspx. I recommend that those who are interested in more information visit the website and see the alternatives for themselves. The comprehensive Draft Environmental Impact Statement is also on the website, although the official public comment period closed last month.

Finally, I'd like everyone to remember that whatever the CTF selects is only a recommendation... the PAG is still free to decide on whatever they want among the remaining options.

Personally, this has been a lot of extremely hard work for all of us who've been involved one way or another, and I've appreciated everyone who's attended a meeting, public house, etc., to share their opinions. It's been a great experience and I really do hope we'll make a decision that will have more of an impact than someone making room on a library archives shelf for thousands of pages of reports and notes (despite our progress, that's as far as we've reached thus far–there's still no official plans or funding or anything else). I've also never publicly thanked Multnomah County, especially Mike Pullen, Ian Cannon, Ted Wheeler, former Dist. 1 Commissioner Maria Rojo De Steffey; as well as project staff. So I guess I just took the time to do that now. :)

My main hope is that the will of the residents of Sellwood doesn't get ignored, if a 4 lane bridge gets built I imagine there will be a lot of unhappy people in the community.

Terry, I was going to respond to your comment, but that's been done (I pay those fees and ride a bike, etc.). I think the reality is that if you were to start from scratch you wouldn't build the bridge here. We are essentially trying to force a major through route on a neighborhood arterial. We're also paying big bucks for this which I think makes it even more frustrating for some that it could only be two lanes (which I am in favor of). What we really need is another access point farther up river maybe near the end of OR-224 (I know Waverly CC is there). Just a thought.

First of all, "option D, would be a replacement two-lane bridge that would widen at the south end. The other, called option E, would be a replacement four-lane bridge, relocated to the north. Two of the four lanes would be dedicated public transit lanes for bus service and potentially street car service."

official name for the group (of which I'm a member) is the Sellwood Bridge Community Task Force.

It looks like they got the Community Task Force and the Policy Advisory Group mixed up. And its nice of you to be a part of it and provide details.

We are essentially trying to force a major through route on a neighborhood arterial

Well, wasn't the neighborhood already there before the bridge opened in 1925? If so, Tacoma Street was never designed to connect to a bridge. As for design, it would be nice to have a bridge with transit-only lanes, but maybe not if they end up getting used to dump more traffic into Sellwood.

Lastly, if there's a silver lining in having to replace the bridge, its that it forces BTA's #1 bicycling issue to be fixed (as well as helping pedestrians and others). True there's no path on the west side down to Lake Oswego, but there are bike paths to the north on both sides and they form a good loop ride.

What we really need is another access point farther up river maybe near the end of OR-224 (I know Waverly CC is there)

And there's some housing between Waverly and the end of 224. The problem is that whenever McLoughlin is next to the river or has a good path to it, either Macadam isn't or there's an issue with the river (e.g. Ross Island or Elk Rock Island).

Terry, good point. Why should the freeloaders living under the bridge - who merely spend half their waking hours feeling the consequences of this decision - have any say in this?

It clearly should be up to the people who spend 3 or 4 minutes per day crossing it to decide, just because they pay for a small fraction of it (yes, that's right, the current gas/vehicles taxes/fees sure as hell won't pay for the bridge replacement).

Bewilderingly brilliant logic, as always.

Please allow me to interrupt the stream of recent "All CRC All the Time" comments in the aforementioned thread, and in "8, 10, 12?," for the following late-breaking news regarding the Sellwood Bridge Project:

The Community Task Force has met as the CTF for the final time, and is presenting the following recommendations to the Sellwood Bridge Policy Advisory Group. As a CTF member, I'm pleased to announce the results here.

• "D" Alignment (current alignment, extended to the South)
• Signalized westside interchange
• Bike/Pedestrian signal on the eastside intersection of SE Tacoma and SE 6th Ave.
• No clear consensus between a 64' 2-vehicle land bridge and a 76' 3-vehicle lane bridge (both have separate adequate bike and pedestrian facilities across the bridge). There is consensus that the recommendation is against a 4-lane bridge of any configuration (includes extra lanes disguised as "transit lanes").

Serving on the project has been absolutely incredible. I wouldn't trade it for any other experience I could've had during the time. I also thank everyone else who's been involved, including members of the public who've attended meetings, provided candid testimony, sparked vigorous debate, and asked us to consider their position while we made our decision.

As for me, everyone keeps saying "see you around town...," but I have a feeling they haven't seen the last of me. ;) (In a good way, OK?!)

Now, back to your regularly-scheduled comments, already in progress.