Well, if you're going to do it, then, do it right. The design seems pretty up-to-date and somewhat futuristic to me. Since they don't replace the bridge that often, I'd go with the long term design.

The plan sure sounds good, but the bridge will be too big and unbelievably expensive. Since when I-5 bridge started accomodating pedestrians and bicycles? I think 5-6 lanes including the transit lane should be appropriate.

I mean 8-9 lanes.

Years and years of debate..let's get going! People are making a career out of this while the cost goes up as a function of time each year. How crazy is this...over 5 years now, you people have been talking. This decision is too big for these people. Start securing the funding and let's go - MY GOD!!

If utes get it done now, look how much can be redeemed from that fine 50 year old metal that could be recycled...

Kid Adams wouldn't remember when the bridge was a single structure and not the twin that is now, with a total of two narrow lanes in each direction.

But, then, Portland/Vancouver Metro area won't be growing, MAX is a total flop. No one would want to walk across the bridge, let alone bicycle to help alleviate pollution concerns. So just leave the current bridge alone.

Seriously, if you plan a bridge for a 50 to 75 year structural life you also need to make sure its traffic capacity also meets that. Structurally under-designing a bridge would be a tragic mistake (Recall the recent Minneapolis bridge failure.) But under-designing a bridge for traffic growth is an even more expensive mistake.

Better to do it right and do right now.