Build it, and only charge southbound.

Why should Portland flip the bill for the meth-triumvirate of Vancouver, Camas, and Longview? So an efficient masss-transit interstate option would exist? (Let's be serious, vancouver and its legislative allies in eastern washington perceive Portland as the "city" and their confines as "safe suburbs therefore MAX is a deal breaker.) So the residents of north and northeast Portland can deal with traffic jams of Washington cars crossing over to buy without paying sales tax only to return to homes that they don't have to pay property tax on? Since very few portlanders even consider to cross the Columbia unless to fish, go to crappy casinos, or drive as fast as possible to Vancouver, BC, I still cannot comprehend why Oregon does not soley negotiate with the federal government (who has ultimate decision-making power) over this clear interstate commerce issue, and allows Washington continue their sad masturbatory legislative bluff in their cold, wet rain.

Can somebody put a stake through this thing PLEASE? And some garlic around its neck?

Todd, don't be silly, there are lots of cushy consulting and planning jobs siphoning off millions in public funds for this thing project to be mothballed. The planning will continue in perpetuity before a shovel hits the ground until the current bridge falls into the water.

First it was "IF" there would be a toll, now it's not only there "WILL" be a toll, but HOW MUCH!? This is ludicrous!

Mr. Vanderhart:
This he-said, she-said story is sadly lacking in perspective, context and history. This hearing sealed the doom of this project, and you didn't pick up on that, or talk about why that's so. You can't come into a subject like this, which has been going on publicly for six years here, and provide adequate coverage without doing a little reading and research beforehand. Did you read the Investment Grade Analysis? Did you read Joe Cortright's response? Did you read the Treasurer's letters? ETC, ETC, ETC.