At yesterday's Metro meeting, the council voted to support a new bridge at the I-5 crossing into Vancouver. After concerns in the past weeks regarding the project and thoughts it might be too big, too much, three Metro council members (Liberty, Hosticka, Collette) broke off and proposed a different project. Yesterday's vote met those concerns in the middle... sort of.

The accepted proposal drawn up by Metro President David Bragdon still calls for a bridge, but Metro has also asked for an oversight panel on the project. From the Oregonian:

Council President David Bragdon crafted a resolution that attempted to address the trio's concerns but made it clear that Metro backs a new bridge.

Bragdon's amended resolution, ultimately supported by Collette but opposed by Liberty and Hosticka, asked the governors of Oregon and Washington to convene an oversight panel on the project. The panel would be involved in all major decisions on planning, design, engineering, finance and construction.

The panel would help decide the number of bridge lanes, the size and design of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, and the design of a light-rail transit facility. Decisions on those issues would have to be unanimous among the panel's six member agencies.

The oversight panel would include representatives of Portland and Vancouver, the Metro Council, Southwest Washington's Regional Transportation Commission, C-Tran and TriMet.

The proposal also demands "an independent analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and automobile demand forecasts associated with the project" and that "light rail must be 'irrevocably confirmed' as part of the project."

Oversight is crucial if this project is going to go forward and be successful. While I share the concerns regarding the bridge, if it's going to go forward I like the idea of having an independent panel assist with oversight. I hope this encompasses all aspects of the project, from transportation planning to cost... although the article doesn't make it clear exactly how such a panel would function beyond its appointment, quasi-jurisdiction, and purpose.

As for the rest, we'll have to wait and see what the rest of the entities do. The PDC and city council each have say on the matter, so it will be interested to watch how they interpret and synthesize Metro's demands into their versions of the project.

While I still remain skeptical about a bridge, if we're going to do this let's do it right. I think Metro's vote is a decent step in that direction. Now just make sure your public involvement is solid. Any panel can make decisions regarding oversight, but ensuring that their meetings are open to the public (or perhaps broadcast) and that we have a way to voice our concerns is paramount. Oversight just isn't oversight in a project of this scope unless the public has a very real seat at the table.