Advertisement
Main Content Read Screen Reader / Printer-Friendly Version
Travel & Outdoors Articles

Crossing Guard

The Columbia River Crossing may be the largest transportation project in the Pacific Northwest’s history. But for the residents of Hayden Island, nothing is too big to tame.

By Randy Gragg

Ominously, though, all of those efforts will have to be rushed—if they can be completed at all—to be meaningfully reviewed by the governors’ independent review panel. Its chairperson, Thomas Warne, the former executive director of the Utah Department of Transportation, promises that the committee will look at “anything that is available.” But when asked about all the new local initiatives, his voice grows tight: “We have a timeline to meet.” He must file the final report to the governors by July 30.

Meantime, the Hayden Island Livability Project is taking no chances: the group has initiated what is, more or less, its own independent review of the Crossing.

Working with Willamette University College of Law’s Sustainability Law Clinic, the islanders convinced Oregon’s Environmental Justice Task Force (a watchdog body that Governor Kulongoski himself signed into being in 2007) to review the Crossing’s impacts on their community. On April 19, the task force sent the governor a letter describing “systemic problems” ranging from how the Crossing’s planners determined the island’s demographics (using 10-year-old census information) to the lack of citizen involvement in the decision to demolish the Safeway.

As Sustainability Law Clinic director and task force member Jonathan Ostar explains, the U.S. Environmental Proctection Agency (EPA) sets strict guidelines for how “environmental justice communities”—that is, low income or racially diverse neighborhoods—must be handled. “With big transportation projects, the involvement of low-income communities is often tokenized,” Ostar says. “They just want to check the box. The EPA requires that these communities have meaningful involvement—that they not only be heard, but that they be allowed to influence.”

Like others in the Hayden Island Livability Project, Erick Reddekopp has never played the part of activist before. A computer consultant, he moved to the island two years ago to be closer to his aging parents. “My father discovered the island during his last stint for the Postal Service delivering mail here,” Reddekopp says. “Over time, I’ve fallen in love with it, too.”

The Crossing’s scale overwhelmed people, he says. The islanders either thought the project was too big to ever happen or resigned themselves to not being able to affect it. But their outrage over losing their grocery store turned into a petition drive that, in turn, led their local elected officials to demand that the two governors “commit to meeting the needs of the Hayden Island Community.” Now, Reddekopp and his fellow islanders believe they may be turning the tide of the Columbia River Crossing.

“We’re just at the beginning,” he says. “Not all the work the Crossing’s staff has done is bad. But let’s step back and start working with the communities to find a Portland solution.”

Thanks for reading!

Pages:123456

 

Published: June 2010

 

Comments Speech Bubble

By Jim Howell on May 24, 2010 at 9:16PM

Public officials, in spite of their objections to the design of this project, still believe that the freeway must be fixed by adding lanes and replacing bridges that are structurally sound and are good for another century.

Tinkering with the freeway won’t solve the problem. It functioned fine before traffic turned it into a parking lot. Remove the traffic demand by providing attractive alternatives and the problem goes away.

Shift the demand to other crossing options such as local Hayden Island access, new freight mobility options, light rail, commuter rail and more bike and pedestrian crossings.

All these improvements are possible and far less expensive than this monstrous 5-mile long freeway project.

By eric on May 27, 2010 at 11:05AM

Taking a broader look at the CRC, it seems the project’s true goals can be summed up as follows:

1. Slightly increase profit margins for shipping companies (faster delivery) and by extension make large corporations operating locally slightly more competitive

2. Increase capacity for Clark County solo-commuters to flood Portland each morning, and leave each afternoon, by extension making further McDevelopment in SW Washington practical and more profitable.

If we accept these facts, its obvious that the CRC is completely unnecessary from a public-good standpoint. We know that the existing bridges are quite safe, or certainly no more dangerous than the Marquam or Fremont bridges. And we know that tolling could solve the congestion problem in a heartbeat.

So why is the CRC still even up for discussion? Are large Oregon corporations such as Schnitzer and Clark County developers going to put up $4 billion to build their new bridge, or aren’t they? If not, why in the hell would Oregon taxpayers want to do it for them?

Toll the tax-dodgers, don’t subsidize their addiction to 4500 s.f. houses on 1/3 acre lots. There is a villain here, and sooner or later we’re going to have to face up to the fact that everyone pays for the white suburban lifestyle.

We pay taxes to build freeways. People in the third-world die of starvation caused by driving-induced climate change. Shut down the suburbs.

Add a Comment Speech Bubble

We retain the right to remove comments containing personal attacks or excessive profanity, and comments unrelated to the editorial content.

Help us fight spam. Please type the words below to submit your comment.

Advertisement
Advertisement