March 11, 2010
CRC Battle Lines Firming Up: Local Leaders and Enviros vs. Govs and DOTs
A group of local environmental organizations issued a letter today critical of the response from Governors Kulongoski and Gregoire to the request of local leaders to have more control of the Columbia River Crossing project:
March 10, 2010
Dear Governors Gregoire and Kulongoski,
We are writing on behalf of our organizations, which together represent thousands of Oregonians and Washingtonians, to express our concern about the Columbia River Crossing project. In particular, we are concerned about your response to a recent request made by Portland Mayor Sam Adams, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt, Metro Council President David Bragdon, and Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart that seeks to address serious flaws in the current plan.
We are confident that, as the governors of Oregon and Washington, you support the region's shared values of economic vitality, reliable and equitable transportation, safe and healthy neighborhoods, good air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and good public process. Yet we agree with our local officials that the current proposal for the I-5 corridor falls short on these measures.
We are concerned that the project will lead to increased traffic and congestion, exacerbate the current bottlenecks in the Rose Quarter, on I-205, and on local streets in Portland, induce poorly planned sprawl development, and increase greenhouse gas emissions, making it much more difficult to reach the greenhouse gas goals and requirements you each supported. We also believe the project should increase transparency and provide affected communities with better opportunities to meaningfully participate in the process.
The local officials made several specific requests to address serious flaws in the current plan. The expert review panel you proposed in response is inadequate because it does not allow for consideration of the issues they raised. First, the scope of the review fails to address key questions, particularly related to maximizing performance in the corridor, bringing down project cost, protecting funding for other transportation needs, and evaluating key assumptions that resulted in excessive community impacts, including on Hayden Island. Second, the rigid, fast-track timeline does not allow the opportunity to address any problems the panel may find.
The local officials ask important questions about the project and we ask that you reconsider your response. It is worth some extra time in planning to ensure that this multi-billion dollar, region reshaping, project is done right.
Jill Fuglister, Co-Director
Coalition for a Livable Future
Rob Johnson, Executive Director
Transportation Choices Coalition
Mary Kyle McCurdy, Co-Interim Director
1000 Friends of Oregon
Jim Long, President
AORTA (Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates)
Gerik Kransky, Advocacy Campaign Manager
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Chuck Ayers, Executive Director
Cascade Bicycle Club
Gregg Small, Executive Director
Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director
Mary Lou Hennrich, Executive Director
Community Health Partnership: Oregon's Public Health Institute
Brock Howell, Advocate
April Putney, Co-Director
Jon Ostar, Co-Director
OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon
Mel Rader, Co-Director
Upstream Public Health
Blair Anundson, Consumer and Democracy Advocate
March 11, 2010 10:14 AM
AHH , portland process at it's finest!
March 11, 2010 4:21 PM
Ron Swaren Says:
Ahhh,yes.....unfortunately, the above organizations don't create a lot of employment in the region. And probably the strongest voices for DOING SOMETHING are the businesses which complain about valuable, lost time. If the greenies would just grow up a little perhaps we could have a solution that works for everyone. But no, they cling to their vision of a car-less, highway-less greater Portland. Reason is at an impasse....
March 11, 2010 4:29 PM
Bob R. Says:
Most CRC opponents I know of do very much want to do "something", starting with a local multi-modal arterial connection. What they don't want to do is build a giant project, the most expensive in our region's history, that creates as many problems as it purports to solve.
"But no, they cling to their vision of a car-less, highway-less greater Portland."
Who, with any kind of actual political power, is promoting such a thing?
The most I've heard from local politicians, when using the phrase "car-free" (if at all), is the desire to structure the city in such a way that car ownership is not a de-facto mandate. That means the promotion of alternatives, and not over-investing in car-centric designs.
So please drop the hyperbole. Thanks.
March 11, 2010 7:02 PM
Ron Swaren Says:
Bob, if you don't have something intelligent to say I wish you wouldn't say anything. Your retorts are "all over the map." (If you don't grasp the meaning of it, look it up as an American idiom.) Do you read everything literally? I've got a right to hyperbolize.
March 12, 2010 8:15 AM
Jason Barbour Says:
I think what the groups are worrying about is how America will function after it can no longer function like America.
March 13, 2010 12:21 AM
Well said, Jason. American will very soon be unable to function like America.
Instead, China will be functioning like America. And though I would not advocate "doing something about it", the truth is they think we're backward, ill-bred Johnny-Come-Latelies who happened into an agricultural paradise and got rich by exploiting oil first.
Come to think if it, they have a point.
The view in China is that the natural course of human history -- which is that it be shaped by China -- is about to get back on track.
March 13, 2010 12:40 AM
Many nations like to view themselves as exceptional, especially those which happen to acquire empires. Much like rich guys who credit their fortunes to their supposed positive character traits (as opposed to things like luck, greed, or corruption), nations can get swelled heads.
Back when the US of A rose to power, there was lots of attitude and scorn directed from Americans towards the European imperial powers we eventually replaced in the global pecking order--we saw ourselves as hardworking, thrifty, industrious, etc.--and those across the pond as fat and lazy. Now, that shoe is on the other foot...
...and in both cases, such chest-thumping misses the mark. Macro-economics provides many explanations why great powers fall--and while the increasing reluctance of the population to accept hardship is part of it; a big part of it is things like exchange rates and such. Workers in developing nations can live comfortably on wages which would be poverty-level in developed ones, which creates a giant sucking sound of cash headed in the direction of the emerging countries.
Probably in the future, China will become a dominant power (if not the) in military, cultural, and political matters. That said, I doubt the US is going away anytime soon. The UK went in a short period from being on the winning side of WWII to being shorn of its empire and having a few years of terrible suffering--and it has emerged reasonably well.
China itself still has numerous structural problems--corruption is rampant, there's still lots of poverty in many parts of the country--and the continuing interdependence between China and the US will be an interesting thing for BOTH countries to manage...