This is necessary given that over the last several years, over $100 million has been wasted in our names – supposedly for our benefit – on a transportation project design that is outdated, unsustainable and out-of-touch with our region’s values. I am writing, of course, about the Columbia River Crossing: a project with an estimated $4-10 billion price tag, who’s own “independent” review panel has finally deemed critical aspects of the design unfit.

While most of the wasted money was intended to support the research required to ensure that this project’s plan was sound, and that the interests of all members of our region would be represented in its end result, much of it was actually used to shamelessly fund large-scale promotion of the plan, regardless of its obvious flaws and weaknesses. All of this while marginalizing legitimate dissenting viewpoints that reflected real, workable alternatives, offered by key members of our community.
Despite the years of accumulated dissent from their concerned constituents, as well as the 11th hour rejection of the original bridge design by its own review panel, governors Kitzhaber (OR) and Gregoire (WA) have recently ramped up their efforts to push this failed project forward. What will it take for our elected officials to recognize that this project is fundamentally flawed?
We say, “Enough is enough!” We DEMAND to go back to the drawing board! It has become obvious that these leaders, and those at the helm of this project, are drastically out of touch with the sustainability and equity goals of our region.

Only by wiping the slate clean, and restarting the project’s process in an open and equitable fashion, may we see the end-result of infrastructure that not only better connects our region, but also ourselves, to a brighter future.  Help us accomplish this by signing the petition.  Please help spread the word and thank you

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.

[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

[5] http://www.corridors.dot.gov/

[6] http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/03/28/governors-debate-both-say-12-lane-crc-is-mistake

The Columbia River Crossing: A Boatload of Questions from Spencer Boomhower on Vimeo.

The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) process has been long, complicated and contentious. Earlier this spring the governors of Oregon and Washington created a hand-picked “independent panel of experts”. The panel was announced after the four local elected officials on the Project Sponsors Council (which has overseen the CRC process) offered a joint letter outlining their opposition to the current proposal, to which they received no response. The “independent panel of experts” was composed of individuals professionally engaged in the the type large scale, auto-centric infrastructure projects favored by the Departments of Transportation, who are the lead advocates for the CRC. The panel was chosen to rubber stamp the process with a veneer of independence and while offering minor critiques to the current proposal it left the core components intact.

Also during the summer a study done for the City of Portland (the URS report) was released. This report was financed by the city due to the unwillingness of the project to examine alternative ideas about transportation solutions. It revealed the trade offs and necessary public transportation offsets for 10 and 8 lane bridges. While it began to advance a conservations about the possible tradeoffs and real consequences of the bridge it did not go far enough. Furthermore it did not deal with the 9 miles of highway expansion to the north and south of the Columbia river that are part of the CRC proposal.

After months of negotiating the two main voices of opposition, Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Metro President David Bragdon, caved and voted with the other members of the Project Sponsors Council to advance a 10-lane version of the bridge and the entire 9 miles of highway expansion.

At this point in time the situation is that both the local governments and the Project Sponsors Council have voted to move ahead with the 9 mile long highway expansion, including a 10 lane bridge. However, there remain majors issues that are undecided. These include funding, the inclusion of light rail and tolling among other things. These issues are non-trivial and could determine whether this project moves forward as proposed. Additionally, the provide a variety of opportunities to stop the project as proposed so that we can insure the inclusion of real solutions to our region’s transportation infrastructure in any future project.

In 2011 there will be several critical junctures in which to influence the project. These include:

• Several votes by the Metro Council on various land use allowances for construction of the bridge. Additionally the Metro Council will have to approve the final plan and incorporate it into its regional transportation plan.
• Approval of funding by both the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.
• Allotment of the necessary funding for this multi-billionaire dollar project by the federal government.
• A public vote by Clark County voters – as required by CTRAN – to approve or disapprove the inclusion of light rail in the project.
• Legal challenges to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The SEIS will reflect a project still in formation and one which has undergone major revisions.

We believe this is a difficult path for the current project and thus is an extremely favorable ground for those who want to see a forward looking, comprehensive solution to our region’s transportation infrastructure. Almost $100 million have already been spent on moving forward a fundamentally flawed process. This project, with a price tag in the billions, will starve our region of funding for a decade inhibiting other vital transportation projects. It will create gridlock on I-205 and move the congestion to the Rose Quarter and the heart of Portland. This will mean more asthma, worsening air quality, increased carbon emissions and generally more polluted air. This is an unacceptable outcome for our region.

Unfortunately, the current process is guaranteed to bring about such negative impacts in large part due to its narrow focus. What about the use of rail for both commuter, freight and long distance passenger traffic? There has been much talk about high speed rail corridors in our region, yet it has been excluded from this process from the beginning. This is but one example of how the narrowness of the project prohibited alternative thinking about providing the right transportation solution for the Columbia river corridor. We need a comprehensive transportation solution that is multi-modal, clean, green and forward looking, one which takes into account the changing world in which we live in. A 1950s project that is primarily about building a bridge and upgrading freeway infrastructure for single occupancy vehicles is not such a project.

We need real leadership to reset the current process such that comprehensive transportations solutions can be appropriately examined. For too long the state of Washington has driven this process. The DOTs and project staff have stonewalled independent and creative analysis. While the City of Portland analysis began to ask important questions, it is not enough we need much more of this. We need to remind elected officials that a “less bad” project is not good enough. Our communities demand a good project.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to shape the future of our region’s transportation infrastructure. It demands leadership, vision and an open public process that looks at the problem not as a question of what kind of highway expansion, but rather what kind of multi-modal transportation solution can we create that will fuel the development of our region as we want it to be.

Join us in this effort.

Portland owes its vitality, growth, and reputation in large part to the historic rejection of highway expansion projects. We’re one of the few communities around the country that stood up to the highway engineers trying to force their vision of how a city should look and function on us. In the 1970′s, we stopped one major project in its tracks, saved the neighborhoods it was threatening to flatten, and used the funding for light rail. This has proven a rousing success. We even disposed of a section of highway to make way for Waterfront Park: a heretical act in the ascendant days of the automobile, and one that has paid dividends. These bold decisions provided space for alternative, competing modes of transit to flourish, and the resulting quality of life has attracted some of the best and brightest to live, work and play in our world-renowned human-friendly neighborhoods.

We’ve learned a lot since then. The 1960′s style “bigger is better” approach to highways has been thoroughly discredited. New lanes provide a very temporary relief to traffic congestion, usually just moving the bottleneck around, doing nothing to treat the underlying cause and ultimately making the problem worse. And the root cause is precisely the monopoly of the automobile – the fact that we are forced to use them to get certain places is neither desirable nor sustainable. This near obligation to use cars for every trip has locked our country into a cycle of dependency on oil, dwindling and growing endlessly more expensive. Climate change, largely due to automobile use, now threatens every living system on earth. And the domination of that one form of transit is poisoning us – our own children growing up near I-5 are inflicted with asthma at epidemic rates due to its emissions.

We’re too smart to ignore this history. Throwing $10 billion dollars at everything we know is wrong, at exactly what has failed around the world, would be beyond foolish. Almost anything would be better than what is proposed, but there are myriad sensible solutions. A relatively minor and inexpensive modification to the I-5 bridge would significantly reduce congestion. But what is really needed long term are more transportation options. Automobiles have had a monopoly for too long! Healthy competition of a diversity of transit modes, has already proven itself to us within the city limits. The same concept can and should be applied to the I-5 problem.

Rejecting this freeway proposal is absolutely not a negative act. We are not obstructionists except against the old ways that have proven to be calamitous. Instead, We intend to seize this as an opportunity for positive development. Our region must demonstrate again to the rest of the world our independence and intelligence. The I-5 problem must be solved in a way that sustains our growth, nurtures our environment and Why fosters the world-class communities we’ve created far into the future.

StopTheCRC is an entirely volunteer-based effort. We work with one another, as well as other environmentally and sustainably conscious organizations, to further our work. We realize that not everyone has the time and space in their lives to commit 100% of their volunteer efforts to our cause, and that’s why we’ve provided a myriad of ways for you to get involved. With your help, our combined forces will create a successful grassroots movement to safeguard the livability of our shared region!

FROM HOME

1. PURCHASE A POSTER: Times are tough, and in order for our word to get out and our work to get done, we need the support of our community! Proceeds from our poster sales, as well as donations to StopTheCRC, go directly to covering the cost of promotional materials, surveys, petitions and the like. Help us get our message heard by making a donation, or by purchasing one of our limited edition StopTheCRC posters at one of our supporting neighborhood vendors!

(this is where a photo of the poster, plus the list of vendors should go. also, do we have a paypal account or anything for people to donate to?)

2. CONTACT LOCAL OFFICIALS:

Contact Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Portland Metro President Carlotta Collette

Mayor Sam Adams – (503) 823-4120 – Samadams@ci.portland.or.us

Metro Council President Carlotta Collette -  (503) 797-1889 – carlotta.collette@orgeonmetro.gov

Contact State Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio.  Funding for the CRC is likely to be debated in the US House this year! DeFazio serves on the Transportation Committee in D.C.

Rep. Earl Bluemenauer
PORTLAND:

729 N.E. Oregon Street – Suite 115 – Portland, OR 97232

t: (503) 231-2300

f: (503) 230-5413

WASHINGTON D.C.:

2267 Rayburn House Office Building – Washington, DC 20515

t: (202) 225-4811

f: (202) 225-8941

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Washington, DC Office:

2134 Rayburn H.O.B. – Washington DC, 20515

Phone: (202) 225-6416

Coos Bay Office:
125 Central, Suite 350 – Coos Bay, OR 97420

Phone: (541) 269-2609

Roseburg Office:

612 S.E Jackson Street, Room 9 – Roseburg, OR 97470

Phone: (541) 440-3523

Eugene Office:

405 East 8th Ave. #2030 – Eugene, OR 97401

Phone: (541) 465-6732

3. CONTACT THE CRC

Contact the CRC and tell them what you think.  Feel free to use our wording or to let the CRC know, “No Means No!” in your own words!

Postal:

700 Washington Street, Suite 300

Vancouver, WA  98660

Phone:

360-737-2726 or 503-256-2726

Toll Free – 866-396-2726

Email:

feedback@columbiarivercrossing.org

Fax:

360-737-0294

TTY:

711

IN YOUR COMMUNITY

1.SPREAD THE WORD! You may print our basic factsheet/flyer if you like and hang it in your office, or at your local coffee shop: Get it here.

2. TAKE A STAND! Get your community, organization, group, or neighborhood association to take an official No stance to the CRC. As a group, let the CRC know how you feel by contacting them, or by purchasing one of our special-edition posters and displaying it at your headquarters.  Let us know if you want help!  info-at-stopthecrc-dot-org

3. TAKE IT TO THE STREETS! Host a ride or film screening with a sustainable transportation infrastructure theme. Maybe check this one out: Let your friends, families, colleagues know your stance on this. How about a homemade banner in your front yard? Or better yet, a bunch of banners over I-5? If you have a creative way to resist this bridge, bring it! Loud and proud!

IN THE STREETS WITH US!

1. VOLUNTEER! Please email volunteer-at-stopthecrc-dot-org to get involved or info-at-stopthecrc-dot-org to donate! We are constantly in need of folks to table, do data-entry, help make buttons, and the various ins and outs of stopping a bridge. We can’t do it without you. We will send you an email giving you the opportunity to plug in when you can.

2. SHOW UP! Join us at CRC project meetings. Bring signs, give testimony. Show up en masse. Organize a ride/ party/ follow up discussion. Demand a back to the drawing board approach to the CRC. The CRC continues to spend public funds on a busy schedule of “community outreach” (read: poster campaigns and tabling events in order to sell us a $4 billion green-washed bridge). More like a P.R. campaign. Alongside working group meetings, the CRC’s schedule is overwhelming for our grass roots capacity. Here’s a link to their calendar. Let them see and know it’s not business as usual!

http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Calendar/Default.aspx