Community activist Jeri Sundvall-Williams stands next to the I-5 Bridge. The Columbia River Crossing will expand the bridge, putting more tailpipes on the road. Activists like Sundvall-Williams fear that this will have a significant public health impact on the neighborhoods of north and northeast Portland. Photo by Michael Leighton.

By Jake Thomas
jthomas@portlandobserver.com

Environmental justice advocates aren’t satisfied with a proposed down-scaling of a new I-5 Bridge, maintaining that the public works project is still deeply flawed for its massive size and a potential health threat to people.

According to numerous studies, two of the most toxic parts of the city for air quality and ground contamination are in north and northeast Portland where I-5 cuts a swath on its connection to Vancouver. Winds push fumes, many of them carcinogenic, from the freeway into surrounding neighborhoods, contributing to the region’s high asthma rates.

Critics argue that expanding the I-5 Bridge will only put more tailpipes on the road and more pollutants into the neighborhoods.

Jeri Sundvall-Williams, a longtime community advocate, has been involved with the planning of the Columbia River Crossing since its early stages as a member of the CRC Task Force. She said the project has neglected environmental justice since nearly its inception.

Sundvall-Williams told the Portland Observer that she repeatedly brought up the public health impacts of the expanded bridge, only to have them fall on deaf ears. She ended up being one of two of 39 task force members who voted against the final proposal, along with Jill Fuglister from the Coalition for a Livable Future.

“We have to look at transportation as more than just building roads,” Sundvall-Williams said of the project.

She also takes issue with the Community and Environmental Justice Working Group, which is assigned to oversee the environmental justice components of the project.

Sundvall-Williams described them as being hand-picked by the Oregon Department of Transportation, and takes issue with none of them having training in environmental justice issues.

“Basically, they co-opted a group of people,” she said.

Ed Garren, a resident of north Portland and candidate for Portland City Council, also has similar concerns.

He said the entire process has been “un-democratic” and said that the group lacks the independence to raise serious issues.

Sundvall-Williams also finds it strange that members of the group met with a representative from the Federal Highway Administration for training a day after the Projects Sponsors Council was scheduled to vote on major changes to the CRC.

CRC spokesperson Carley Francis confirmed that members of the group don’t have any background or training in environmental justice, but said it was just “happenstance” that the group’s training came after major decisions were made. She added that the group will be doing outreach for the project next year.

In February, Portland City Council gave the green light to most car-friendly option for the bridge with 12 lanes. It also voted down amendments proposed by Commissioner Amanda Fritz to include environmental and public health advocates to an overseeing committee.

The decision drew harsh criticism from a range of people who said it would promote sprawl, contribute to carbon emissions, and was simply too costly.

In June, the Projects Sponsors Council began moving towards a smaller bridge. It eventually produced a Refinement Package, which scaled back the bridge to 10 lanes and a ramp that would displace homes and businesses in Hayden Island.

On Friday, the Project Sponsors Council backed down on approving the slimmed-down version of the massive public works projects that reduces the initial $4.2 billion cost to somewhere between $2.6 and $3.6 billion.

At the meeting, it was clear that the project had a problem with public support after a battery of people blasted it for its impact on the environment and livability in the region.

But critics are hoping that planners will make even more changes.

“It’s essentially the same large-scale project,” said Mara Gross, policy director for the Coalition for a Livable Future.

Gross describes the decision to move from 12 to 10 lanes as being purely “political,” and points out that it’s still wide enough for 12.

“I’d really like them to step back and look at what a good alternative looks like,” said Gross, who wants more congestion pricing on the bridge as well as more room for bikes and buses.

She still expects the bridge expansion to contribute to pollution in north and northeast Portland.

“It’s like you know someone is an axe murder, and them asking you to marry you, and saying ‘okay,’” said Sundvall-Williams.

However, there is still considerable support for the CRC among political leaders in both states, like State Rep. Tina Kotek, a Democrat who represents parts of north and northeast Portland.

“I think air quality will improve in north Portland,” said Kotek at a media event in support of the CRC.

Kotek said that congestion will be relieved with more lanes on the bridge, and points out that it will offer mass-transit and bicycle options, which will also help.

But Thomas Buchele, a professor of environmental law at Lewis & Clark Law School, said that such claims are hard to assess.

He explained that because the best way to determine the impact of the project is through the Environmental Impact Statement.

However, Buchele said that the document is woefully lacking.

After it was released, the Environmental Protection Agency released criticizing it.

The EIS was chastised by a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency for its methodology.

Additionally, Buchele said that the refinements to the bridge make it even harder to get a handle on the health impacts of the bridge because there has been no supplemental EIS to go along with it.

“These are not minor changes,” he said.