Yeah baby. Good-ole, progressive Oregon is about ready to walk a far different walk than it talks.

The Oregonian today provided an intriguing review of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s evaluation and assessment of the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project. It appears that our friends involved in developing the CRC project were less than diligent in honestly evaluating the potential breadth of impacts of a mega-bridge.

For those of you unfamiliar with the project (yes, both of you), the CRC is a massive effort by the State of Oregon and the State of Washington to determine steps for addressing interstate vehicular traffic needs between the two states. Specifically, the CRC is (as stated on their Web site) “…designed to reduce congestion and improve safety problems on a five-mile segment of Interstate 5.”

Transportation needs between the two states are currently met using the existing I-5 bridge and associated freeway infrastructure. According to the official Web site, the CRC is designed to “…address the transportation problems on I-5, (whereby) a mix of bridge, public transit and highway solutions are needed. If we do not move forward with a comprehensive long-term solution now, the problems will only get worse.” Visit their site to read more about the what the project planning committee sees as the problems and solutions.

This topic is ripe for conversation and news sources and blogs have beaten the issue to death, but yet it still lives on. Somehow, even in the face of obvious disparity between the facts and the project planners’ assumptions/projections, we still have a mega-bridge ready to plow through the Columbia river and further soil North Portland. This harkens back to the early 1970s, when transportation gurus came up with a brilliant plan to help traffic move through Portland via a massive freeway that would’ve destroyed one percent of Portland’s housing stock and bastardized SE Portland. Back then, opponents argued that the freeway would be obsolete the minute it opened, log-jammed with traffic. Today’s opponents argue the same (and more), but the message does not ring quite as loudly.

Perhaps there’s too much on the table politically. Perhaps the commercial transportation industry is wielding a far bigger hammer than it did back in 1970. Perhaps it’s the force of two states’ economies begging for a mega-project, regardless of its real impact. Or, like the arial tram, perhaps it’s just futile hope powered by ego.

Whatever the case, the Federal EPA has called big fat dog-doo on the project. The agency has a massive beef with the CRC as it relates to planners’ inadequacies in accounting for the project’s health effects on people living, working or attending school near the I-5 bridge. According to the EPA, “There was no indication (in the CRC environmental impact statement) of how these vulnerable populations might be impacted by air pollution, noise, diesel construction vehicles and increased traffic.” The agency goes on to state that the CRC’s analysis, “focuses on emissions trends that are not influenced by the project,” essentially ignoring emissions in regard to wind, weather and the distance between people and the bridge.

The CRC went ahead with its project plans regardless of the potential negative health impacts. But why would manufacturers, trucking companies and long-distance commuters be concerned about the health or North Portlanders?

The EPA’s concerns don’t end with the not-so-simple issue of health and emissions. As stated in the agency’s report, they also have major concerns regarding the CRC’s impact on the Troutdale Sole Source Aquifer, which lays under the Columbia River, providing drinking water to nearly all of Clark County. The EPA specifically chided CRC planners for failing to examine if bridge pilings would bust into the aquifer’s water channels. If this were to happen, contaminated sections of the aquifer would combine with clean portions, potentially creating a significant water treatment issue for Vancouver and other surrounding communities.

At the end of the day, the real kick in the groin came in the CRC’s dismal of projections as it relates to sprawl. CRC planners explicitly designed the project around assumptions that a 12-lane toll bridge would not promote housing or job growth along the I-5 corridor. The EPA countered this assumption with a resounding disapproval, stating that, “Roadway expansion of this magnitude, even with tolls and transit, may stimulate travel demand for use of privately owned vehicles and may contribute to pressures for dispersed development.” Or, in layman’s terms, the CRC will lead to sprawl, like every other freeway expansion.

If the Federal EPA can see the truth behind this debacle, why can’t all the agencies supporting the project see it as well? The CRC has nearly unanimous support, albeit very conditional support from the City of Portland and Metro. Why? Are we that desperate to build something that won’t solve the real issues (aside from structural integrity of the I-5 bridge), but rather create new issues? Yes, we need multiple transit options, but the CRC centers around roadways, and double the amount we now have.

Roadway congestion is a symptom of a far larger problem than not enough lanes. There will never be enough lanes until people stop driving personal vehicles as much as they do now. The demand for roadways comes from social and market conditions that have enabled (and in many cases forced) people to drive. 12 lanes will not cure the disease, they will merely prolong the pain. Rising fuel costs, urban revitalization (work and life), increased heavy-rail freight use –these are are all key components to reducing congestion. But they’re far more complex to implement and take far more time than simply paving over more ground and widening a bridge.

If you build it, they indeed will come.