Searching for CRC bridge solutions
By Richard Leonetti, 
Oregon Tax News 
The CRC failed (as pointed out by the Editorial Board) due to the inclusion of light rail. Why not analyze the objection to the light rail and discover that it is a very expensive expenditure for a tourist train. It will not serve as an improved commute option, since the train ride from Vancouver is planned to take more than twice the time as present express buses. With a multi-lane bridge, and some improvements near the Rose Garden, the buses will be even quicker–and far less costly.
Also to be considered is that substantial numbers of Washington residents think that the introduction of rail in their transportation grid is unwise investment.
The fact that the Fed’s will pick up most of the rail cost (still leaving the taxpayers in both states millions to pay) has obscured that the rational to “improve” the commute is false and undesirable.
The costs could be further reduced if just the bridge was included, without trying to hide unrelated highway costs miles from the bridge in the borrowing.
Or a completely different approach would be to simply build a third bridge downstream to relieve traffic with the thought of eventually connecting it to a West-side by-pass highway.