And a whole bunch of “auxiliary lanes” as well. In the middle of Vancouver there will be six lanes plus twelve auxiliary lanes, on top of the six through lanes. Over Hayden, there will be six through lanes plus eleven auxiliary lanes.

Two of the CRC’s auxiliary lanes go for something like four miles, pretty much for the entire length of the CRC project area. But those two are not considered through lanes because they enter and exit just within the boundaries of the project area.

7:17: “We need to actually disperse traffic, provide more options, as we’ve done with the Willamette. We don’t just have two bridge crossings over the Willamette in Portland, I think we have nine.”

Worth pointing out that the Willamette through Portland is about a quarter mile wide while the Columbia is twice that distance. And I think the Columbia is probably a much busier river freight route. So it’s probably a far less expensive and less complicated proposition to build a bridge over the Willamette. For instance, the current projected cost of the Sellwood Bridge replacement is $290 million, while the bridge portion of the CRC is $800 million plus. (And of course the whole CRC is $4000 million or so.)

7:50 “In crafting any kind of cost effective alternative, you first have to strip out the rail element. There is no version of light or heavy rail that makes any sense, anywhere, at any time.”

Hmm. I’d say freight rail makes a whole lot of sense. It’s a very efficient way to move stuff. And if a passenger rail-oriented bridge could take passenger trains off the existing rail bridges, that frees up far more track for freight rail – passenger rail hogs capacity and slows freight.

8:10: Rail “is about a hundred years out of date.”

Efficiency never goes out of style. And Europe and Asia are doing great things with rail. In this century.

12:15: “prior to the twentieth century lots of ferries and bridges and turnpikes were all paid for with direct user fees.”

Wait, so hundred-year-old things are OK now?