I wonder what generated all the alarm?

Oh, the fact that tolls alone would be sufficient to maintain acceptable traffic flow on the bridge, generate revenue, and encourage vehicle sharing and transit use?

The fact that building this project would kill our chances of meeting VMT and emissions goals for the region?

The fact that this project would encourage more suburban sprawl, resulting in lost property tax revenue for the Metro member cities?

The fact that the state highway planners do already know all of this but were instructed to ignore those facts and use simpler models based on outdated data, and that the City of Portland planners would use comprehensive, updated data models to show how unnecessary this project really is?

Comprehensive, updated models will likely show that with variable pricing and other intelligent transportation system improvements no increase in capacity is required at this time, especially if similar improvements are made to I-205. Investing $3.2B (or more) into a bridge that won't result in a capacity increase is very short-sighted. Ideally that much money should put something in place that will last a few generations without becoming obsolete (hence the need for light-rail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), but putting a 12-lane bridge in at this time will make it much more challenging to meet our intermediate-term regional objectives for growth and VMT.

I've been waffling on the necessity of this project since it was first announced. I feel that with only two crossings in the entire region additional redundancy would yield a greater return on the investment than replacing one of the crossings we already have. I've always felt an upgraded rail crossing with truck, transit/carpool, and possibly general purpose lanes (with variable tolls) in the BNSF corridor and across the Willamette to Hwy 30 is (albeit long-term) an eventuality. However, it might still be too early for that corridor to be taken seriously.

I've always felt an upgraded rail crossing with truck, transit/carpool, and possibly general purpose lanes (with variable tolls) in the BNSF corridor and across the Willamette to Hwy 30 is (albeit long-term) an eventuality. However, it might still be too early for that corridor to be taken seriously.

I don't think it is too early. Hwy 30 should be linked to Clark Co. area somewhere else besides the existing interstate highways and neighborhood corridors, like Lombard. I think within a decade there will be pressure for increased densification northward along the west side of the Willamette. Being a riverfront area it is prime property---the issue would be in trying to preserve the jobs that now exist there, but Hayden Island could be a new spot for those. There is so much potential along the riverfront I think the industrial occupants will ultimately cave in to pressure from condo developers. So Highway 30, Yeon and Front Ave will become more important.

If a crossing at the BNSF route can be built to accomodate everyone it could also link to US 26 and the Silicon Forest...and be five miles shorter than the present Interstate 5 and US 26 route. That's better for biking and mass transit.

Is this SOAP OPERA ever gonna end?

"The fact that building this project would kill our chances of meeting VMT and emissions goals for the region?"

Those goals have no justification other than the perpetual theorizing and advocacy for things that do not work.

And with or without the bridge those goals will never be met.
Well accept by the fabrication we're so accustomed to around here.

Like the idea Portland reduced their CO2 emissions or TriMet celebrating one year of operating the successful WES.