Yet another bogus, pro bridge, pro light rail editorial. Will these clowns ever learn?

It wasn't even a subtle manipulation of a bunch of cherry-picked facts. It was and out and out embarrassment of an editorial that hid issues and manipulated information to tailor a specific outcome while the rest of us are on the hook.

In yet another despicable effort to manipulate the public, this newspaper has made a bogus attempt to tie the relatively low noise planning and construction of the I-205 bridge to the unsupportable and inexcusably massive waste of money represented by the unnecessary, unneeded and unwanted replacement of the I-5 Bridge.

They deliberately overlook the reasons that the I-205 Bridge did not garner such massive public opposition. The attempt to make the dog is a cat, is a boy is a girl connection, making excuses that, essentially, the only REAL difference between the needed "visionary" construction and the unneeded, blindingly biased and arrogant construction of a replacement I-5 bridge is the "when" of it.

They COMPLETELY ignore the fact that the I-205 bridge more then DOUBLED our interstate capacity while THIS massive waste of money makes no impact on capacity AT ALL.

So, at the end of the day, we blow a $4 BILLION (Before the massive, "Big Dig" like cost overruns of several billion more) hole in our scarce transportation dollars pool, AND WE WIND UP WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT, except the VACUUMING OF AT LEAST $100,000,000 OUT OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMY EVERY YEAR TO PAY FOR THIS MONSTROSITY.

So, we get a local-economy killing, no traffic improvement, criminal vein inserted into our community, and this newspaper CONTINUES to lie; CONTINUES to manipulate, CONTINUES their efforts to ram this unbelievable waste of money down our throats.

And Lou wonders why their circulation continues to dive into the toilet? Really?

Puke.

In our view May 6: Bridge Differences

Yes, they both cross the Columbia River, but I-205 and I-5 bridges vary greatly

Wednesday, May 6 1:00 a.m.

Even though they have opposing views, supporters and critics of a new Interstate 5 bridge often try to advance their respective arguments by using the Interstate 205 bridge as a role model.

Advocates of a new bridge will argue that, just as the I-205 bridge showed a visionary approach, a long-term perspective reveals the need for a new I-5 bridge. And the I-205 bridge was built with little to no opposition from the community, so a new I-5 bridge should draw similar public support. Also, there was no public vote on the I-205 bridge, so why should there be a public vote on the I-5 bridge?

To the contrary, opponents of a new bridge will argue that no tolls were needed to build the I-205 bridge, so no tolls are needed for a new I-5 bridge. And the I-205 bridge doesn't have light rail, so why should a new I-5 bridge? Also, the federal government paid 90 percent of the I-205 bridge's cost, and we should expect the same commitment on a new I-5 bridge.

Both sides are guilty of jumping to conclusions. As Jeff Mize reported in Monday's Columbian, there are many dissimilarities between the two projects. Understanding these differences can advance public awareness as the long and complicated bridge-replacement process continues.

This is not to say the I-205 bridge — formally designated the Glenn Jackson Bridge (in honor of a former Oregon transportation commissioner) — is not worthy of emulating. It has no bridge lift, and neither should a new I-5 bridge. It's not an "iconic" structure, and there's no need to get fancy with a new I-5 bridge. But here are a few differences for the two opposing sides to consider:

-- The I-205 bridge opened more than 26 years ago. Times were different. This helps explain the $175 million cost of the I-205 bridge, compared with the new I-5 bridge's estimated cost of $1.2 billion to $4.2 billion.

-- The I-5 bridge project is more complex. Some might argue that, even with inflation, the I-205 bridge's cost would be only $386 million. But that's jumping to a conclusion without realizing that today's Columbia River Crossing project is more than just a bridge; it's a five-mile project (from state Highway 500 to Columbia Boulevard in Portland), and the proposal includes seven new or rebuilt freeway interchanges.

-- Funding sources have changed significantly in the past quarter of a century. The I-205 bridge was a new project, built back during the completion of the vast Interstate Highway system, a massive federal undertaking. The I-5 bridge project is a replacement, proposed at a time when federal commitment nationwide is not as heavy, and during an immense economic downturn when budgets everywhere are getting slashed.

More, if you can stomach it.