Keep in mind that the 10 lane bridge can still become a 14 lane bridge by just moving some paint around. And then they can claim again that current bridge isn't up to modern highway standards and therefore has to be replaced.

If it really comes down to jobs being the key factor, can't we just fund more appropriate public works projects like erecting a 2,000 foot granite phallus in the middle of the Columbia River instead of fucking the entirety of inner-city Portland with a zillion lanes of freeway?

When the hell are the people in charge of the CRC going to realize the existing bridge isn't the goddamned problem. It makes no difference how many lanes the bridge has when it dumps into a congested I-5 through Portland. Until I-5 gets fixed, there will always be congestion. It's that damned simple. I agree with the above poster about funding different projects. It will do more good in the long run.

I thought someone debunked the jobs argument already. A project of this magnitude will need to look outside the Portland area for a capable firm. I'm sure the jobs will be created, but the majority won't be local. Wish I could remember where I read this...

And a $650 million dollar concession sounds nice, but honestly we're still stuck with a $3,550,000,000 bill.

If its just really about creating jobs, just cut 'stimulus' checks for everyone who will go out and buy stuff, improve their houses, etc. I can think of some pretty sweet stuff to get for 3-5 $Billion, and this bridge isn't exactly what comes to mind first. In addition to additional pollution, construction delays, (some temporary jobs) and sprawl, the bridge really doesn't seem to do a whole lot of good for portland. estimating that about 50% of the budget is materials and 50% is going into folks' pockets, 15000$/job-year is what you get in salary+ benefits assuming 20k jobs * 5years. I have trouble believing that 20k jobs are coming from this project, and even if they do, they will probably not start for another 5 years, after we're out of this recession. We should consider funding this during a boom time so that the jobs come during the next recession, perhaps?

At least they didn't get rid of that extra lane for the gravy train.

I was, a supporter of the original bridge, all 12 lanes, but only if it included light rail well into Vancouver, and NO tolling.

But the "refined" bridge makes most of it's cost cuts on Hayden Island. Those changes will destroy the quality of life on the island, demolishing our only grocery store/pharmacy, putting our main cross street 21 feet below grade (water table is only 10 feet down, can you hear the pumps running for the next 100 years?), destroying most of our local businesses that serve our elderly residents, trashing the Hayden Island Plan we spent two years developing (based on the bridge they "sold" us, not the refined bridge), etc.

I also wonder how much of the "bridge costs" are actually highway improvements on the Washington side, not the actual bridge.

The whole thing has quickly mutated into a mess, and if it can't be built "right" then it shouldn't be built at all. I know we need the jobs here, and frankly, I'm disappointed with our mutual federal delegations for not arm twisting the federal government for the bulk of the costs on this bridge in the first place. It's not our fault they opened up the treasury to Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, AIG and such and now they want us to pay for that mistake with tolls for the next how many years?

If they can't build it right, then they need to drop the whole project till they can either pay for it, or do another design that does not destroy the Oregon side of the project.