Amanda Fritz is asking these questions

From Amanda's blog:

"* How does this proposed new bridge relate to other regional transportation needs?

* Do we really support allocating $4.2 billion in federal, state, regional and local money to this project, over the needs of Portland?

* How confident are we in the $4.2 billion estimate?

* Are there other more cost-effective alternatives?

* What about regular rail rather than light rail?

* Why require local traffic to use the Interstate highway rather than providing an arterial bridge connecting North Portland and Vancouver?

* How are six lanes each way on the bridge going to funnel down to three lanes on either side without causing accidents and congestion?

* In approving this bridge, is Portland saying we willing to destroy homes and businesses in North, Northeast, and Southwest Portland in the future, to widen I-5 through the city?

* Did you know that any one of six jurisdictions can veto this project?"

Now I do understand that there is some concerns and that have ben going on throughout the Columbia River Crossing process. (For which I have been following for nearly three years ping and pong from information sessions, supplemental DEIS sessions to the 40 member task force that was charged to whittle down thirty nine proposals down to four. And get those build options into the next study session with ten members.)

Yes, according to one session, this process could be killed by one of the five main principals. Metro, WashDOT, Federal highway or transit, or RTC on the Vancouver side.

But I don't think that any other agency would kill this process after the 100+ million dollars that has been spent on the study, the amount of participation by both side of the columbia river towns, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, tribes, environmental groups and many others who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their individual causes and concerns.

There is some hope from the columbia river crossing folks and associates that the federal government will take up a part of funding for this project to move it forward.

With a projected five billion dollar budget short fall on the Washington side (current year 2008-10 biennium) and at least two billion dollar short fall in the state of Oregon, does one think that tolls will basically be the main way this bridge will be paid for and built?

There are elements amongst the Washington state (Counties on this side) that are feeling they are getting tired of being sucked dry by the state of Oregon's progressive tax structure that give them no say in how it is spent or used.

With tolls, they feel they are being sacked even harder, because most of their jobs, employment or opportunities are on the Oregon side of the river. (Yes, there are some opportunities for Oregonians who might have a job, business or employment on this side of the river. But it tends to be 1 Oregonian vs. 10 Washingtonians going to jobs on the oregon side.)

The City of Vancouver's Mayor has a quote (paraphrased here) about "being the second biggest tax paying town in Oregon." (though we're in the state of Washington.)

Now how does this all work for the columbia river crossing? There is still much debate going on about the future of this crossing. Who is going to end up paying the full bill. Will it be taxpayers from Federal, state or local sources, tolls or may be some minimum grants?