Yeah, I remember thinking it seemed too good to be true. But it's not like Washington will pay for any of it regardless.
Oh they might. I talked to my state legislator and I was told the #1 reason it was voted down was all the lies from Oregon about the CRC and how obvious it was the project was poorly proposed.
The reason Washington turned it down was twice Clark county residents have said no to tri-met and light rail. The only option for that bridge being proposed was with light rail.
The contradiction that strikes me right off is another bridge between the rail bridge and the Interstate bridge. They acknowledge the current hazard to water traffic, offer a solution then muck it up by adding another bridge right in between the two that are already a hazard to navigation. I wonder who they expect to pay for the rail bridge new improvements? The rail road? Hell the rail bridge was already in place and doing fine for water traffic when the Interstate came alone and created the hazard, now another being thrown in isn't really on the railroad.
I like the idea myself. While the current I-5 bridge is stable and with good general maintenance will stand for a long time, we do have a mess with the traffic flow. And while the original CRC proposal was monumentously stupid, this idea will cost much less and deliver a lot.
