The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) is a proposed freeway expansion of Interstate 5 between North Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. As a project it is composed of consultants & political, planning, & business representatives from the Cities of Portland & Vancouver, as well as Metro & Oregon, Washington, & U.S. Departments of Transportation. The CRC project sponsors’ goals include replacement of the I-5 bridge, a light-rail extension into Vancouver, replacement of five major interchanges, facilities for pedestrians & cyclists, & electronic tolling. Degrees of support for light rail & tolling among project advocates & sponsors vary significantly (especially in Vancouver).
SCOPE
The Columbia River Crossing aims to replace a five mile stretch of the current Interstate 5 freeway including and around the existing I-5 bridge, beginning south of Delta Park in North Portland & extending into State Route 500 in Vancouver. Together with the bridge & interstate, an additional 5 miles of significant interchanges, on-ramps, & off-ramps bring the project total to approximately 10 miles of road expansion. The width & number of lanes planned has gone up & down over time (all between 8-12, rather than the current 6)–and has often been used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with environmental, social justice, & livability advocates, as well as with fiscal conservatives. However not all parts of the project would be affected the same by lane increases-many of which being add/drop lanes, which largely disappear on the Portland side of the river
Cost projections have also varied radically, from $3.6 (CRC, Nov ’09) to over $10 billion (Cortright, Oct ’10) over the lifespan of the project, including construction, supplemental, interest, mitigation, operational, & administrative costs.
Although people live, work, and shop throughout the project area, some of the areas most affected by construction & demolition include residential & commercial parts of Hayden Island and south-central Vancouver. Significant outcry from some of these communities have led to some concessions among planners.
HISTORY
Bridge History
Like most of the region’s bridges the first Portland-Vancouver bridge was opened in 1917 to replace an overworked ferry system that previously had been the only route over the Columbia between Oregon and Washington. Originally a toll bridge, the States purchased it from Multnomah & Clark counties in 1929.
In 1958, during the age of highway construction and the dawn of the US’ interstate system, the crossing’s capacity was doubled with the addition of a twin bridge & significant overhauls to the original, including lifting both to 72 feet at their highest point, so as to minimize bridge raisings (though a downriver rail bridge obstructs many larger ships from crossing in this point). Tolls were once again levied (1960-’66) to pay for construction costs.
The 1990s saw three significant upgrades, to the cables, deck, girders, paintjob, & lift generator. The last significant overhaul was an electrical upgrade in 2005.
CRC – Take 1: Community Mobilization (A Success Story)
By 1999, local and state authorities began to explore ways of addressing concerns with congestion and bottlenecking in the Portland/Vancouver metro area. In 2001, Oregon & Washington governors ordered the creation of the I-5 Transportation & Trade Partnership, which initially operated in assumption of freeway expansion, the customary response of over 60 years of highway planning, and arguably a failed one. Yet in 2002 the proposal to add four additional lanes (for a total of ten) was voted down & the Partnership dissolved in response to highly visible public opposition in the form of the “No More Lanes” campaign, a project of the Environmental Justice[1] Action Group (EJAG) and numerous N/NE Portland residents[2]. The CRC hails this as the beginning of its mandate to resolve transportation issues in the region, but fails to mention the tremendous public outcry and cause for its dissolution[3].
CRC – Take 2: Systematic Exclusion
In 2004, a new Columbia River Crossing Task Force formed and sought out input from various agencies and selectively-chosen ‘stakeholders’ on the set of issues to be addressed in a renewed planning process. Over the next two years, CRC planners and sponsors carefully stacked their advisory committees & public input meetings with voices that reinforced the 2001 Partnership’s original assumption of freeway expansion. At the same time, according to environmental justice advocates the CRC dismantled the previously-involved Environmental Justice Working Group (EJWG) & hand-picked a newly whitewashed Community & Environmental Justice Group (CEJG), composed of few in the impacted area and even fewer with any social or environmental justice background. Those who crossed over from the EJWG maintain that they were marginalized, driven out, & ignored by CRC planners. Meanwhile in North and Northeast Portland other forms of displacement had led to demographic changes, as many people of color and poorer residents were forced from their neighborhoods to the periphery and to the suburbs. This led one staff member in the CEJG to note that given “[Environmental Justice] protects racial and/or ethnic minorities and people in poverty” as far as demographics go there is not, to date, an expected EJ impact on this project. [4]
Not only does this statement highlight links between gentrification & regional transportation policy, but it also ignores the resilience of remaining communities of color, as well as large pockets of low-income & often elderly people living along affected areas of North Portland, South Vancouver, & Hayden Island.
Advised only by their own people & the most minimal selection of studies, the CRC released in early 2008 the only existing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which failed to discuss some of the most obvious potential hazards & nuisances, including construction-related airborne particulates, noise, and vibrations during construction & denied any increase in air & water pollution, carbon footprint, suburban sprawl, effects on area residents etc. Data on potential hazards to wildlife, water quality, and economic & racial equtiy were also missing. Emphasis was placed on the need to address congestion & motor vehicle collisions by increasing number and spacing of lanes. Of the five options given in the EIS, the CRC chose replacement with a 12 lane mega-bridge (branded “green” and as a creator of jobs) as their “Locally Preferred Alternative.”
National/International Context
Another component of the renewed CRC push came simultaneously at the federal level. In Fall 2007, in the midst of the CRC’s Environmental Impact analysis, the Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) released a plan to expand & streamline interstate travel & freight commerce along six Corridors of the Future, including I-70, I-69, I-95, I-15, I-10, and I-5. These projects won instant and intense opposition from diverse community groups across the United States and the world – including labor, environmentalists, and anti-globalization activists – and became known as “NAFTA Super-highways” for their explicit role in expanding free trade with Mexico & Canada[5]. Regionally, some have argued, this new plan added the weight of federal trade & security policy to the CRC planners’ hand and gave them the confidence to move forward despite lack of popular support.
Recent Developments & Renewed Opposition
Since 2008, the project has used up tens of millions of dollars in studies, advocacy projects, meetings, events, & publicity. It has also continued to draw criticism of wastefulness, closed-door negotiations, poor climate policy, & misleading the public. With missing information and mounting public pressure from community members, organizations, & some political leaders (including Metro President David Bragdon and Portland Mayor Sam Adams) – Oregon and Washington governors commissioned an Independent Review Panel (IRP) of 8 out-of-state engineers, planners, policy experts, and others to comment on the CRC’s process, goals, & progress. Although this ‘rubber-stamp’ panel unsurprisingly gave its unconditional support to the amorphous CRC, the Panel did lay out some 30 recommendations, including: more public input, attention to environmental justice process, compliance with federal environmental & health regulations, as well as more clearly laid-out plans for all the project components, and how to pay for them. It also refused to support one alternative over another. In the end, the IRP found many areas lacking – but after hearing numerous testimonies (virtually all from project backers) decided to agree with the “decade [of] strong local consensus” and lend its unequivocal go-ahead.
Despite, or perhaps because of, a lack of federal money to fund the multi-billion dollar project, three more significant developments in the CRC narrative occurred in the 2009-’10 biennium. The first of these was Sam Adams commissioning a separate study of the 8-lane alternative, results of which were announced in June 2010, when he then attempted to negotiate a united front with other involved politicians. Yet, apart from considering the 8-lane option, the new study did not seriously probe or challenge the CRC commission’s basic assumptions or process. Second: in October 2010, Chris Girard (President & CEO of Plaid Pantries, Inc.) released in partnership with economist Joseph Cortwright (Impresa Inc.) a report that challenges and calls unreliable the CRC commission’s analysis of projected traffic trends, estimated costs, financial risks, and ultimately need for the project itself. Third: in November, election results placed Democratic Candidate John Kitzhaber as the new Oregon governor, who while opposing the 12-lane option for the CRC, has voiced a strong support of a new bridge, “built and financed in a way to address the transportation goals of the future.”[6] Both supporters & opponents wait to see how these recent factors will influence the process over coming months. The CRC Project Sponsors promise a Final Environmental Impact Statement in early 2011.
[1] Environmental Justice is an environmental and social justice movement, historically led by people of color, low-income people, and others who are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and denied access to decision-making and redress for those hazards and their ill effects
[2] “No More Lanes-EJAG Defeats Expansion of I-5 Freeway,” PACE
[3] http://columbiarivercrossing.org/Background/ProjectHistory.aspx
[4] Carley Francis, “Meeting Summary,” CRC-CEJG (April 16, 2009), p. 5