There's interesting news out of our tri-County government today, as Metro Councilors Collette, Liberty, and Hosticka have signed a resolution to put the brakes on the proposed new bridge at the Columbia I-5 crossing. According to the Oregonian, the aim is to slow the project down and gauge public reaction long-term with respect to cost:

The resolution calls for charging tolls on the current bridge between Portland and Vancouver, generating money to earthquake-proof the structure, make on-ramps safer and boost mass transit. The tolls would discourage use of the bridge at rush hour, relieving some congestion. Then in a few years, officials would consider a new bridge with additional lanes for cars and trucks.

"That would give us the information we don't have right now, which is how would people react to having to pay for the project?" said Carlotta Collette, one of the three councilors opposing a new bridge. Councilors Robert Liberty and Carl Hosticka also signed the resolution.

The resolution represents a major hiccup, as Metro needs to sign off on the bridge plan before it can go much of anywhere. Personally, I don't see this as a bad move. The bridge plan is thoroughly controversial and will be really damn expensive, and I haven't been convinced that we've vetted it enough to match public concern (although please feel free to try to do so in the comments). Indeed, the "phased-in" approach described by the Oregonian is one that groups like the Coalition for a Livable Future wanted. And additional time for public input is always huge and just so important. Again, from the Oregonian:

The coalition has argued that worrisome information about climate change and a recent trend of motorists driving less in the face of high gas prices have diminished the need for a new bridge.

"We actually have to pause and think of a different approach," Fuglister said. "So that's good news that there are folks that have the power to make a different approach happen."

As far as I can tell, a lot of the worry from groups like the coalition comes from the drive to, well, use cars less. I'm interested in watching the public reaction, and I think that Metro Councilor Collette nails the thrust behind her resolution: "From my perspective, it's a resolution about having a better conversation and a bigger conversation, and how we as Metro respond to the people who have environmental concerns about this project."

Exactly. No need to rush something of this scope and price. The key to effective land-use and regional planning is thorough conversation on all levels. It's especially important to ensure that the voice of the public is well-represented, or else the project runs the risk of losing its real legitimacy. With a pushed-back timetable, perhaps we can more thoroughly vet this project in a way that generates a final product everyone can be happy with. Although, when you try to build something this big, there's no way everyone will ever be happy.

But, regardless, it's so important that we effectively engage citizens in planning. It's wonky enough as it is, so it becomes all the more necessary to work as hard as possible to bring it out to the public -- especially when the impact and profile of the project are this significant. In that light, the slow-down approach by these three Councilors might be just the trick, beginning with a toll, making the current bridge safer, and continuing to have a long-term discussion about the future of the crossing.