Well done, Mr. Mayor!

The state transportation departments report to the governors, so it would be natural for the governors to support them. The real question is whether the governors can deliver the legislature. In Washington, Seattle projects get funding priority and they have plenty of projects. In Oregon, rural counties hold sway, and have their own pet projects.

As for timing, though DeFazio is technically correct, the WA and OR congressional delegations are well positioned in relevant subcommittees today to deliver transportation funds, and there is still a stimulus flow. That all could change anytime.

#3 sounds a little vague, but overall, I can't disagree. Also much of the costs are in interchanges, are they all needed? What the mayors on both sides can resolve are the differences on tolls and light rail, including the sticky wicket of a West Hayden Island port, and get the legislatures' buy-in.

Then there is dollar impact of carbon regulation...

"We are asking for due diligence, not a do-over."

That's completely disingenuous. What Adams and Bragdon want are additional studies by cherry-picked consultants who will give them the answer they've already decided on: the bridge should be small.

To say "I just want due diligence" when in fact you want a cherry-picked study is disingenuous, and frankly fools no one. In fact, all of you here understand what the results of these additional studies would be, and that's precisely why you support them.

A do-over is exactly what they want. They want to do-over the large bridge, to call for a small bridge. To pretend otherwise is insulting.

"Developing a transparent cost/benefit analysis that addresses concerns repeatedly raised by our respective jurisdictions."

The irony is delicious.