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.

What City Observatory Did This Week There’s a critical flaw in the planning of the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge project: Metro’s Kate travel demand model is wildly inflating I-5 traffic numbers. The model claims 164,050

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.