I don't find the arguments in the March 6 editorial, "Forward on the CRC," in favor of a multi-billion dollar bridge, persuasive. A project that was really needed wouldn't need momentum; its utility alone would be the catalyst to get it done.
A great gaggle of government agencies is indicated in support of this new bridge, and the impression is made of near unanimous support locally. First, it should come as no surprise that government agencies are in favor of further government spending. Second, the impassioned debate referred to tends to show that perhaps support isn't as uniform as these statements reflect.
The proposed bridge is apparently too low; no matter that this would have affected only 18 ships in the past decade. Sounds reasonable, but I must inquire: Why limit our tabulation to the past decade? This new bridge I would assume is likely to be in place for some time and will stop further traffic of this size, so the proper impact would be measured not in one decade but for the foreseeable future.
Glancing at the page opposite this editorial cleared the question right up for me. Hanford is leaking radioactive waste; apparently there is no money for that but plenty for this debatable bridge. Our priorities may be confused.