A
Bridge to the
Twentieth Century: Megaproject Technocracy and the Columbia River
Crossing
Caught
Up in the Mess: Local Politicians Either Hopeless or Irrelevant (so far)
To understand the political dynamic that is shaping this project, it is
helpful to compare the state-level planning for the project with the
articulated responses against this bridge posited by politicians
responding to constituent concerns at a local level. Metro, the unique
regional government of the Portland area directly elected by the
tri-county region, is an influential entity that plans longterm land
use and transportation projects across the country. This year
represents the first contested election for the President of the Metro
Council in recent memory, and support or opposition for the Columbia
River Crossing looks to be a significant issue in the election.
Frustrated
by the lack of public input in the process and the ability for the
region to dictate what parameters of the facility should be considered,
in April Councilor Robert Liberty published a statement outright
asking local residents to submit their own ideas for the design.
“Many
such proposals have been offered by thoughtful citizens in Oregon and
Washington, including interesting mixes of upgrades or repurposing the
existing bridges, supplemental lanes for local or freeway traffic,
pricing to pre-pay for improvements and reduce congestion immediately,
improvements to the downstream rail bridge to enhance barge movement
and perhaps allow for commuter rail connections, and many, many others.
The DOTs weren't interested in hearing those ideas. I am.”
The
ability of a Metro Councilor to garner possible alternatives to the
project by soliciting “one page memos” from citizens may seem absurd,
but in context it represents the exasperation of local officials who
feel that alternatives to this project as it is currently conceived
have not yet been adequately studied.
While Portland and
Vancouver politicians have significantly different visions for the
ultimate form of the facility (and, in particular, the provisions for
tolls, which angers the largely commuter-based Vancouverites unwilling
to pay a toll), a coalition of local political leaders including Mayor
Sam Adams of Portland and recently-elected Mayor Tim Leavitt of
Vancouver last January voiced concern
that the implementation of the CRC was being conducted by state
officials and that local agencies have not been given proper authority
over the planning for a project that will bring significant, localized
impacts to their representative communities. The
letter noted that “We believe that cost, physical and environmental
elements of the project as currently proposed impose unacceptable
impacts on our communities.” The letter of response from the
two
state governments applauded local involvement in the process but
ultimately took a firm stance that the project should not be delayed
nor significantly changed; one journalist frustratingly noted
that the letter of response
essentially stated “we value your advisory role and therefore we're
going to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you advise us to do.”
At the aforementioned panel, one community activist noted:
“There’s
a great contradiction in this public project. There have been hundreds
or thousands of public meetings. There have been, you know, enough
meeting notes to fill this big room. There are a lot of different
citizen groups ranging from pedestrian groups to bicycle groups to
people that are interested in sustainability, neighborhood groups, all
kinds of groups have met with the CRC staff, who have diligently trying
to understand the concerns of these groups. But what each of these
groups…has seen before them is a kind of narrow path…and we’ve all
simply been asked to react to it..” (Ed Carpenter, PDXlore Event)
While
state-level politicians and agencies have been attempting to steamroll
this project to completion, it appears that local politicians are
beginning to aggressively assert their claim to represent their
constituents. As a proponent of community planning, I find it
reassuring that politicians at more localized level of governance are
beginning to demand the ability to represent their constituents.
