Incoming Feed Items

The Interstate Bridge Project’s traffic projections pretend that the massive shift to “work-from-home” never happened

The IBR traffic projections rely almost entirely on pre-Covid-pandemic data, and ignore the dramatic change in travel patterns.

Traffic on  I-5 is still 7 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to Oregon DOT data

Traffic on the I-5 bridge is lower today that the purported 2005 baseline for the Columbia River Crossing project (135,000 vehicles per day).

Post-covid travel analyses have shown a permanent shift toward lower growth in vehicle miles traveled.

It’s a violation of NEPA to ignore scientific evidence that travel patterns have shifted and spend $7.5 billion on a project for a world that no longer exists.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project’s traffic and revenue forecasts appear to be built on increasingly shaky ground. New data from multiple transportation agencies shows that post-pandemic travel patterns have dramatically diverged from pre-pandemic trends, calling into question the fundamental assumptions underlying the multi-billion dollar project.  Traffic is now lower, and growing more slowly than prior to the pandemic, contrary to the assumptions built into IBR traffic projections.

Oregon and Washington have commissioned not just one forecast of future traffic levels on I-5 and I-205, but three different forecasts.

IBR officials are clinging to the one forecast that is the least accurate, and most error-prone, and have chosen to ignore two more accurate forecasts.

IBR relies on Metro’s Kate Model, which has an error factor of 14.5 percent and which over-estimates I-5 traffic by almost 20 percent.

IBR’s DSEIS makes no mention of the Stantec Level 2 forecast (with an error factor of 2.5 percent), or the CDM Smith Investment Grade Forecast (with an error factor of 0.8 to 2.5 percent).

The two states have paid $1.5 million for the CDM Smith Forecast and nearly $800,000 for the Stantec Level 2 Forecast.

Using a less accurate forecast and ignoring or suppressing more accurate forecasts in the EIS violates the National Environmental Policy Act.

IBR Traffic Forecasts Violate Portland Region’s Climate Commitments

Portland’s adopted Regional Transportation Plan commits the Metro area to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent over the next twenty-five years.

But the traffic forecasts used to justify the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Project call for more than a 25 percent increase in driving over that same time period

The RTP is required under state law to plan for a reduction in VMT per capita; the RTP is the way that regional and local governments show they comply with these state climate requirements

But the IBR planning is predicated on a world where we drive much more and not any less.

Projects like the IBR are required by state and federal law to be consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan, but they are being planned for traffic levels that flatly violate that plan and state requirements.

The $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement Project’s two-decade old “Purpose and Need” statement is simply wrong, and provides an invalid basis for the project’s required Environmental Impact Statement.

Contrary to claims by project proponents, the “Purpose and Need” statement isn’t chiseled in stone, rather it is required to be evolve to reflect reality and better information.  Yet IBR is relying on a 2005 purpose and need statement that rests on exaggerated traffic forecasts that have been proven wrong.

The IBR’s 2005 Purpose and Need Statement (still forms the basis for the 2024 SDEIS) claimed the I-5 needed to accommodate 1.7 percent more vehicles each year.  In reality, traffic growth has been less than a fifth of that amount, 0.3 percent from 2005 to 2019.

For decades, highway builders have been pushing a “predict and provide” paradigm, pretending that we needed to plan for an ever-increasing flood of vehicle traffic, and threatening gridlock if highways weren’t expanded.  But these self-serving predictions have consistently proven wrong.

Law and policy require that the “Purpose and Need” statement be reasonable, and not drawn so narrowly as to exclude alternatives, and that the statement evolve over time as conditions change. But IBR is using, nearly unchanged, a two-decade old statement that falsely claims that I-5 must accommodate ever greater traffic.

How can we trust Metro’s model to predict the future, when it can’t even match the present?

Metro’s Kate travel demand model, used to plan the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge, includes 25,000 phantom cars per day in its base year estimates.

The existing I-5 bridges over the Columbia River carried 138,800 vehicles on an average weekday in 2019, according to ODOT’s official traffic count data.

But not according to Metro’s Kate traffic model:  Kate claims the I-5 bridges carried 164,050 vehicles  in 2019

The difference shows Metro’s model isn’t accurate:  It can’t even replicate current conditions

And yet we’re expected to believe this same model can accurately predict traffic levels decades into the future?

This exaggeration is key to false claims about the severity of current and likely future traffic conditions, and is an illegal basis for the project’s federally required environmental analysis.

Traffic modeling is guided by a series of professional and administrative guidelines.  In the case of the proposed $7.5 Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, IBR and Metro modelers did not follow or violated these guidelines in many ways as they prepared their traffic demand modeling.  IBR modelers:

• Didn’t assess accuracy of their previous modeling
• Failed to calibrate their models to observed traffic levels
• Failed to accurately account for capacity constraints
• Ignored other models and more accurate data that contradicted their conclusions
• Failed to exhibit scientific integrity
• Failed to document their data and methods
• Failed to commission an independent review of their analysis

Each of these errors constitutes a violation of professional standards for traffic forecasting, and invalidates the claims made the the IBR Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

To hear project officials tell it, traffic projections emerge from the immaculate and objective Metro “Kate” traffic model

But in reality, IBR traffic projections are not the outputs of the Kate travel demand model.  Instead, IBR consultants have altered the Metro numbers, something the label “post-processing.”

But what they’ve done, doesn’t meet the professional standards for post-processing—they cooked the books.

Post-processing of Kate’s estimates isn’t needed because Kate produces detailed, daily and hourly estimates for the I-5 bridges

IBR made contradictory, and unexplained adjustments to Kate predictions: moving thousands of daily vehicles from I-5 to I-205, and hundreds of peak hour vehicles from I-205 to I-5.

IBR consultants failed to follow the accepted and required practice of fully documenting their so-called “post-processing” calculations

IBR traffic estimates can’t be replicated using the post-processing steps described in the DSEIS

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project has been caught fudging its traffic numbers. While IBR officials repeatedly claimed their traffic forecasts came directly from Metro’s supposedly authoritative regional travel model, internal documents reveal IBR consultants secretly altered these numbers without proper documentation or justification.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

President Donald Trump’s electoral victory makes him an anomaly in the annals of U.S. history—not only for winning non-consecutive terms, which no one has accomplished since Grover Cleveland over a century ago, but also for surviving multiple assassination attempts and becoming the first elected president convicted of felony crimes.  

Whether or not the convictions are justified, prognosticators have rightly called his win one of the greatest comebacks ever in American politics—greater even than Richard Nixon’s rise from the ashes after losing to John F. Kennedy in 1960.  

Unlike in 2016, when he failed to clinch the popular vote but won the Electoral College, Trump outpaced Kamala Harris by nearly 2.5 million votes, making gains among racial, gender, age, and geographic demographics with whom Democrats typically have excelled, particularly blacks, Latinos, and blue-collar workers.  

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

In a case of tragic coincidence, the place most closely associated with the uplifting story of Jesus Christ, Christmas and the teachings of the Bible is now being subject to some of the most sustained and severe death and destruction that modern society has seen.

Rev. Munther Isaac, the pastor at the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem and the Lutheran Church in Beit Sahour, joins host Chris Hedges on this special episode of The Chris Hedges Report to revisit the story of Christmas and how it relates to Palestine then and now.

Assigned Media interviews journalist and author, Nico Lang.

A specter is haunting the contemporary Right.

This particular ghost goes by the name “woke Right”—a term pushed by admitted non-conservative James Lindsay, and subsequently adopted by others such as Konstantin Kisin.

Part of the term’s attractiveness is its amorphousness. It clearly can mean many things to many people, from targeting alleged racism or anti-Semitism on the Right to simply referring to a person on the Right whom “classical liberals” (hereafter “liberals”) dislike. To the extent that the term has any coherence, it is a critique of the right-wing’s so-called use of identity politics. 

There is an aspect of the “woke Right” accusation that is inherently parasitic. With the Right having successfully stigmatized “wokeness”—most voters now realize it’s insane and dangerous—liberals are now attempting to apply that term to the Right, claiming that its critique of the Left has gone too far.

The approvals were made on 19 December, just before Australia shuts down for the Christmas break.

The three mines are already so large that they would almost cover greater Sydney, or most Australian cities.

“Today’s approval is yet another example of the Australian Government deciding to create more climate change rather than less. Another time that Minister Plibersek was on the side of coal companies, not the environment,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Putting this out just before Christmas is a classic ‘taking out the trash’ tactic. While Australians are trying to enjoy the end of the year, the Minister is doing the bidding of multinational coal companies.

“With every heatwave and every bushfire this summer, Australians should remember that their government is making this problem worse, not better.”

The post Minister’s early Christmas gift to coal companies appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Join me live now to ask me a question.

This month, the Australian economic debate was hijacked by a report from the world’s most powerful consulting firm: McKinsey & Co. The consulting firm apparently found that declining living standards represent a “national emergency” – and the care economy, regulations and Australia’s corporate tax rate are to blame for low productivity growth.

The only problem? The report is secret; McKinsey has only shared it with a select group. This is a well-known tactic used by consulting firms to keep their assumptions and conclusions from being scrutinised and criticised.

Not that you would know it from the uncritical reception the report has received from some politicians and journalists, particularly the Australian Financial Review which used the report to attack the government and advocate for its own policy wish list: to cut corporate taxes, encourage industrial relations ‘flexibility’ (in other words, wind back worker and union rights), and cut public spending. The report has been similarly used by the Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, to criticise the government.

New data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the poorest 10% of households in the UK are still paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest. The UK’s tax system is meant to operate progressively, asking the richest to contribute more in order to tax the middle and poorest […]

The post UK Still Taxes the Poorest More Than the Richest appeared first on Equality Trust.

Her claim that more gas is needed to help with climate change is contradicted by reports from the International Energy Agency, the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.

Key facts:

• Foreign-owned gas companies export 80% of Australia’s gas
• Nurses and teachers pay more tax than the gas industry
• To date, not a single LNG project has paid a cent in Petroleum Resource Rent Tax

“With Christmas here and a cost-of-living crisis on, Minister King decided to write a piece supporting multinational gas companies,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.

“Oddly for a Christmas piece, Minister King makes no mention of the gift that Australians give to gas companies, year in, year out – free gas.

“Australia got literally nothing for the gas that companies like Chevron, Exxon and Inpex sold for $149 billion over the last four years.

“Gas companies have tripled prices for Australians in recent years, by exporting the majority of the country’s gas. This has contributed directly to the tough Christmas many Australians are about to have.

“It is strange that while Australians are paying more money for their own gas, the Minister wants to write about gas somehow being good for the climate.

“More gas is bad for the climate. More gas exports are bad for Australian gas prices. Australians are being ripped off by the gas industry and they know it.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Unidentified Federal Operations | The Roundtable Ep. 248

Vulnerable people include those living below the poverty line, who also have at least one long-term health issue, and/or who are 65 years and older.

Our report finds that vulnerability to heat is unevenly distributed across Australia.

In most states and territories, coastal areas tend to be cooler and have lower concentrations of vulnerable people than inland and rural areas.

This means that extreme heat poses a greater threat to outer-urban and rural areas than inner-urban areas, especially those near the sea.

The states and territories most vulnerable to extreme heat are the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.

After acknowledging that economic growth is at its lowest level since the 1990s, the RBA chose not to cut rates in December, leaving Australians to wait months for a potential rate cut.

“Economic management is a full-time job yet the RBA is taking a two-month summer holiday,” said Greg Jericho, The Australia Institute’s Chief Economist.

“Michele Bullock and Jim Chalmers constantly tell us they’re ‘fine tuning’ the economy. That can’t be done with the RBA board all at the cricket.

“With so many Australians suffering, the RBA should cut short its holiday and come back to work in January.”

“The board is currently scheduled to meet on February 17 and 18. It should meet on January 20 and 21,” said Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“If it’s good enough for most Australians to be back at work by then, it’s good enough for the RBA.

“Christmas is a busy time for the economy. Its certainly a difficult, expensive time for consumers. There would be plenty to discuss in January.

“Mortgage holders shouldn’t have to wait one day longer than necessary for an interest rate cut which, let’s face it, is already long overdue.”

The post Rate cut already overdue: RBA should meet in January appeared first on The Australia Institute.

Join me tonight on my YouTube channel for a live Q&A at 4pm PT / 7pm ET. I will pull questions from the comments of this post, my X, and live on YouTube. We will discuss the future of The Middle East. To post your questions here, you must be a paid subscriber to my Substack. Please attempt to keep your questions direct and relatively brief, as I cannot read entire paragraphs during the show.