Groups Weigh In on CRC Impacts

As we head into the decision process for the next round of study on Columbia River Crossing options, various groups are beginning to weigh in.

From the Coalition for a Livable Future:

The CRC project staff has recommended that the task force, which advises local and federal authorities overseeing the project, advance “three” alternatives for detailed study in the draft environmental impact statement process. These three alternatives include two with the same 10 to 12-lane replacement bridge idea coupled with different transit options, and a no-build option, which federal law requires. In essence, this proposal is a recommendation of only one alternative: a colossal and costly replacement bridge. We believe that proposal is too narrow, too expensive and poses significant threats to public health, the environment and our region’s economic vitality. Instead, we want to ensure that less expensive, greener and people-focused options are on the table.

From the Urban Greenspaces Institute:

From the information we have received, it appears that the current Columbia River Crossing purpose and need statements preclude consideration of alternatives that would undoubtedly have significantly lower environmental impact and cost than the proposed freeway bridge options. Therefore, we urge Metro Council to adopt a resolution that recommends adoption of a revised purpose and need statement that allow for a more diverse array of options in the DEIS.


If this project moves forward in its current form, it will have a huge, negative impact on the development of our transportation network, will harm community livability, and will be a step backwards for our region.

See you all tomorrow at Metro!

10 Responses to Groups Weigh In on CRC Impacts