2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The Friday May 2nd issue of the Portland Tribune, two artists renderings of bridge options were published within the front page article, "Bridge faces a wide gulf," the 'cadillac' new 12-lane bridge with light rail, and, 'Supplemental bridge with light rail.'

My question: The cost for the supplemental is project at only $50 million less than the 'cadillac', yet, it is so much smaller in scale, I have a hard time believing this figure. The old bridges are left in-place as 'northbound lanes', and the new bridge supplemental bridge is noticeably smaller than the 'cadillac' version. What's up with this cost figure? Is the $3.95 million figure include an eventual replacement of the old bridges?

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context