Today, the a coalition of environmental, transportation, and equity groups released the following statement regarding the proposed Columbia River Crossing.
Last week, the independent Columbia River Crossing review panel, appointed by Governor Kulongoski, published a critique of the CRC project. Their review calls into question several major elements of the current proposal, including the design, financial plan, and environmental impact of the project. Their findings echo the concerns of project opponents who worry that the project is overly expensive and is completely out of line with Oregon’s vision for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The study rightly emphasizes the project’s “speculative” financial plan. With a total estimated cost of nearly $4 billion, a megaproject like the CRC is unlikely to receive full state and federal funding. If it did, it would lock up state, federal, and other transportation funding sources for the next decade or more and leave the rest of Oregon’s transportation priorities with even fewer resources. Meanwhile, Oregon has cut $150 million from its education budget in 2009 and another $259 million budget cut this year.
Now, even as Oregon must cut jobs to fill budget gaps, proponents of the current CRC design are being forced to reexamine their proposed megaproject. The independent panel has made it clear that even the current proposal won’t be able to move forward without redoing much of the analysis that was done early in the project. We also know that the current proposal would create congestion in the Rose Quarter and I-205, increase global warming pollution from cars and trucks, worsen air quality, and decrease bicycle and pedestrian safety. These issues will ultimately cost us billions more to fix, and that money is not yet part of any proposed plan or budget.
The City of Portland commissioned URS, a construction and engineering firm, to analyze CRC data, designs, and strategies. The URS report shows that we can manage traffic, move freight, and reduce automobile trips while protecting our economy and the environment. Instead of borrowing billions of dollars we don’t have for an impractical project that won’t meet our area’s needs, we should be focused on designing the kind of project that the whole community can support.
This decision will be with us for a century or more. Rather than build the wrong project at great expense, we can develop a financially responsible solution that: (1) includes only as many lanes as we will need and no more, (2) uses aggressive policy strategies to manage congestion and thereby save billions in construction dollars, (3) includes good options for public transit, walking and biking, (4) positively impacts the health of residents, and (5) is in line with the global warming reduction plans approved by Washington, Oregon and many local jurisdictions.
In order to achieve these principles, we urge the Project Sponsors Council to conduct a detailed study of all of the alternative recommendations in the Portland / URS report.
Jill Fuglister, Co-Director, Coalition for a Livable Future
Mel Rader, Co-Director, Upstream Public Health
Jon Isaacs, Executive Director, Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Rob Sadowsky, Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Brock Howell, State Policy Advocate, Environment Oregon
I’d like to know WHAT “aggressive policy strategies” this coalition has in mind to curtail automobile use in a country where freedom of movement and subsidized cars and fuel are still the status quo. I’d also like to know what this coalition has to say about the growth that is going to happen here whether we like it or not:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/06/if_youre_worried_about_our.html
I’m not thrilled with a 10-lane Interstate Bridge, but unless there are plans to legislate population and driving controls I’m not sure how we’re going to avoid this scenario in a realistic way.
This is a fantastic article. We’re always looking for relevant resources to show my coworkers, and your post is definitely worth sharing!