Incoming Feed Items

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 prize committee is pleased to announce that Elliot Dolan-Evans’ article, titled ‘Pipes, profits and peace: toward a feminist political economy of gas during war’, published in the Review of International Political Economy, has won the 2024 Australian International Political Economy Network (AIPEN) Richard Higgott Journal Article Prize.

The committee awarded the prize to this article for its exploration of urgent questions surrounding the reform of international financial institutions during conflict, energy provisioning, and its impact on women and households.

The article provides a pathway for integrating feminist political economy with energy security studies, and in doing so offers an important and valuable contribution to IPE. Building on existing theories and research, the article presents a novel perspective, supported by new empirical details from the case of gas reform in Ukraine and its adverse effects on women and households during wartime.

To mark PPE@10 this feature continues a series of posts to celebrate ten years of Progress in Political Economy (PPE) as a blog that has addressed the worldliness of critical political economy issues since 2014. 

I had an argument with my best friend a few days ago. This might be a strange way to start this post, but it is related. She hinted that trying to deal with Brazil’s problems while living in Australia, as I am doing during my PhD, sounds “fake”. This comment touched on a fundamental point: bringing Latin America to the conversation, in Oceania, is not easy – we are, literally, worlds apart. However, as a revival of Marxist Dependency Theory asserts, we must insist on not just learning about the periphery but also on how to bring about transformational possibilities. This is particularly relevant when U.S. hegemony is being challenged and the BRICS are becoming too big to be ignored.

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.

The $7.5 billion plan to widen the I-5 bridges across the Columbia River is being sold, in part, based on claims that it will be used by millions of phantom trucks.  

Metro’s biased truck modeling over-states current I-5 truck traffic by almost 70 percent:  more than 2 million phantom trucks per year.  Metro’s model says more than 17,000 trucks crossed the I-5 bridges each day in 2019; ODOT’s traffic data shows fewer than 10,000 truck crossings.

Truck traffic on the I-5 bridges is going down, and has declined almost half since 2005

Previous truck growth predictions for the CRC proved to be wildly wrong; the project’s EIS predicted truck traffic would grow more than 2 percent per year between 2005 and 2030; instead, it has declined at an annual rate of nearly 5 percent.

The decline isn’t an anomaly:  statewide, Oregon truck freight volumes have declined 22 percent in the past 13 years, according to federal statistics

Metro’s truck traffic forecast isn’t based on a model:  It just appropriates a growth factor based on an unrealistic and inaccurate federal data series that US Department of Transportation officials concede is used for political purposes, not actual decision-making.

The Interstate Bridge Project proposes spending $7.5 billion to widen I-5, but misses the real bottleneck.

A new, independent analysis by national traffic expert Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., shows that the proposed IBR project fails to fix the real bottlenecks affecting I-5 traffic.

Traffic problems on I-5 are caused by bottlenecks outside the project area, that aren’t affected by the IBR project.  

IBR will make traffic problems worse, especially in the morning peak hour, by funneling more traffic into these bottlenecks.

The limited 3 lanes of I-5 in each direction between the Fremont Bridge and Lombard will continue to cause daily congestion.

The Oregon and Washington highway departments are planning to widen the freeway to ten or more lanes on a stretch of I-5 between Portland and Vancouver, rebuilding seven intersections and five miles of highway.  The community group Just Crossing Alliance retained national traffic modeling expert Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., to conduct a detailed review of the IBR’s traffic modeling.  But Marshall’s analysis shows this added capacity doesn’t address the real bottlenecks on I-5, which are actually further south of the actual project area.

IBR re-wrote the definition of congestion to make I-5 traffic look worse

For decades, Oregon DOT has defined traffic congestion as freeway speeds below 35 MPH.

Now, for the Interstate Bridge project, IBR has moved the goalposts:  now any speed under 45 MPH is counted as “congested.”

The definition of “congested” matters because its central to claims that in the future there will be more “hours of congestion” than there are today.  But by changing the yardstick to count traffic traveling at up to 45 miles per hour as “congested,” IBR has artificially inflated the problem.

The determination is based on an unpublished, incomplete ODOT study that was supposed to be finished a year ago.  The new 45 MPH threshold contradicts WSDOT research showing freeways like I-5 maximize vehicle flow at 38.5 to 47 MPH.

The case for the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement project is based on deeply flawed traffic models that ignore the bridge’s capacity limits, and predict plainly unrealistic levels of traffic growth if the bridge isn’t expanded.  These grossly overestimated projections make future traffic look worse and overstate the need and understate the environmental and financial costs associated with freeway expansion.

The current I-5 bridge can carry no more than 5,000 vehicles northbound in the afternoon peak hour.  All of the available statistics, and every one of the experts that has looked at the bridge has concluded that it is already operating at its maximum capacity.

But, Metro’s regional travel demand model, Kate, pretends that the bridge now carries more than 6,200 vehicles per hour–a thousand more cars and trucks per hour than can actually fit across the bridge.

And the Kate model, used for the IBR environmental analysis, makes the  absurd prediction that peak hour PM traffic will increase further beyond its capacity—even if the IBR project isn’t built.

And IBR officials altered the outputs of the Metro model to produce an event higher—and more preposterous–prediction that the “No-Build” version of the bridge would somehow carry 6,900 vehicles per hour in the northbound peak in 2045. 

The case for the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement Project is based on traffic projections from Metro’s “Kate” travel demand model.  But there’s a huge problem:  Kate doesn’t accurately model even current levels of traffic. 

The model has a high overall error factor, and importantly, consistently over-estimates traffic on the existing I-5 bridges. 

Metro has prepared a validation report—not published on its website—showing the Kate model assigns vastly more traffic to I-5 than actually use the bridge. 

The model essentially adds 20,000 non-existent cars and trucks to I-5 each day in 2019—more than 6 million vehicles annually. 

The Metro forecast prepared for the Columbia River Crossing showed the same problems, over-predicting traffic growth by a factor of four between 2005 and 2019.  The model claimed growth would be 1.3 percent per year; the reality was 0.3 percent growth.

Ironically, Oregon and Washington have paid private sector firms to develop much more accurate models of regional traffic–but they’ve excluded these more realistic models from the IBR environmental impact statement–in likely violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Introduction

To improve the health and well-being of communities oppressed by racism and white supremacy, advocates for justice need to challenge some deeply held cultural assumptions, values, and practices.

This prerogative raises a series of questions:

• How can we disrupt the narratives that perpetuate racism and white privilege?
• What counternarratives and stories need to be told to shift cultural consciousness?
• What kinds of alliances, infrastructure, and institutions are necessary?

During a two-day convening, health practitioners, race theorists, academics, activists, community organizers, and cultural and media strategists met to examine these questions, reflect, learn, and share ideas. 

This convening report summary seeks to spark wider conversations—particularly in this fraught political moment—and mobilize people and resources in an effort to advance narratives that promote racial justice and expand our understanding of health, human rights, and the public good.

Introduction

‘Narrative change’ seems to be a catch-phrase at present. A number of foundations—including the Open Society Foundations—have engaged in narrative change work and a number of donors have funded narrative change projects. Hardly a conversation or meeting happens without the term ‘narrative change’ being used.

However, when a term becomes a trend, there is the danger that it starts to become shorthand for thinking—a term without precision—where everybody thinks they know what it means, but nobody really does for sure. Therefore, we need to be able to define the concept of ‘narrative change’ more precisely, to understand what it is and what it is not, why it is important, and how we go about it.

Firstly, what do we mean when we talk about narrative? A narrative consists of a collection or body of stories of characters, joined in some common problem as fixers (heroes), causes (villains) or the harmed (victims) in a temporal trajectory (plot) leading towards resolution within a particular setting or context (Jones & McBeth 2010; Frank 2010).

These stories together or collectively convey a common worldview or meaning—an interpretation of the world and how it works (Frank 2010; Fisher 1984). This worldview embeds within it particular power relationships.

Introduction

For communicators, activists, advocates, and content creators to understand what kinds of stories they can tell to convey the realities of poverty, they need first to understand what existing narratives they’re up against.

This report identifies the major poverty narratives found in the existing body of narrative research and offers practical advice about how to deploy counter-narratives to create better stories—and, ultimately, create social change.

Contents

Introduction 3
Existing Poverty Narratives 6
Counter-Narratives and Strategies
for Shifting Poverty Narratives 18
Outstanding Questions and Areas for Further Research 28
Summary Recommendations: How to Tell Effective New Stories 30
Endnotes 34
About FrameWorks 46

Summary Recommendations

How to Tell Effective New Stories

There are still questions about the larger counter-narratives discussed above, and more research is needed to answer these questions. Future research should focus on refining and supplementing the counter-narratives reviewed above in order to understand how these narratives can be used most effectively, including how they might be combined.

On this episode of After America, Timor-Leste President José Ramos-Horta joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the US-China relationship and his disillusionment with the Western response to the Israel’s actions in Gaza.

This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 9 October 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: His Excellency José Ramos-Horta, President of Timor-Leste and Nobel Peace Laureate // @JoseRamosHorta1

Host: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

Statement of the Secretary-General on Israeli legislation on UNRWA, United Nations (October 2024)

UNRWA cannot be replaced, say UN top officials in response to Knesset ban, United Nations (October 2024)

Occupied Palestinian Territory, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Introduction

In this article Brett Davidson explores lessons and gives practical advice about the role of storytelling in political advocacy.

*Note: This article has been modified with formatting changes e.g. quotes, bullet points, headings, images and weblinks.

Abstract

A number of authors interested in how to translate evidence into policy identify the importance of policy narrative and argue that advocates of scientific evidence need to tell good stories to grab the attention and appeal to the emotions of policymakers. Yet, this general call for better narratives is incomplete without concrete examples and evidence of their effectiveness.

This article shows how these processes are described in the “grey” literature—defined as literature which is produced by all levels of government, academics, business and industry, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers.

This literature is often missed by scientists but more important to activists and advocates within social movements and the non-profit sector who frequently engage with or seek to influence policymakers.

Introduction

Funders may be reluctant to support narrative work because progress is difficult to evaluate. Are these objections valid?

The article “Measuring Narrative Change: Moving from Theory to Practice” by Brett Davidson in the Stanford Social Innovation Review SSIR discusses the importance of measuring narrative change in social impact work.

It highlights how narratives shape perceptions and behaviours influencing societal change. It emphasies the need for practical frameworks and tools to assess narrative shifts effectively. Overall, the piece advocates for a systematic approach to understanding and measuring narrative change, enabling organizations to enhance their impact in social movements.

The question about assessing progress in narrative change has to become less theoretical and much more applied. How does a small organization with a limited budget assess progress? What sort of evidence is appropriate and “good enough” for them while being compelling enough to convince funders to invest in their work? What tools might we develop or adapt that would enable such an organization to gather useful evidence to help it learn and become more effective, without imposing a huge extra burden?

On this episode of After America, Yanis Varoufakis joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the prospect of a grand deal between the US and China on climate, how Trump emerged from the Obama presidency, and why America isn’t a real democracy.

This discussion was recorded on Friday 1 November 2024 and things may have changed since recording.

Guest: Yanis Varoufakis, economist, politician, author and the former finance minister of Greece // @yanisvaroufakis

Host: Emma Shortis, Director of International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Show notes:

‘The end of capitalism with Yanis Varoufakis’, Follow the Money (March 2024)

Yanis Varoufakis – Technofeudalism, National Press Club Address (March 2024)

Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions

Subscribe for regular updates from the Australia Institute.

How low can we go? To cut the carbon that goes into buildings to net zero, we need radical change Philip Oldfield, Gerard Reinmuth and…

Sustainability scientists challenge the dominant economic system Mark Diesendorf It is a rare event whenever scientists directly challenge the theory, political power and cultural embeddedness…

 

Redlands is the latest Southern California town to fall victim to right-wing efforts to turn the historically blue state red… but these bad actors are having a hard time keeping their neuroses in check!

These companies have never paid company tax, despite exporting the equivalent of 15 years of gas used by Australians in the eastern states.

These companies have also been exempted from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, the tax that is supposed to cover gas production in Australia.

“It is amazing that companies making $36 billion of income exporting Australian gas could pay no company tax, said Mark Ogge, Principle Adviser at the Australia institute.

“If you paid any tax in 2022-23, you paid more than all these gas corporations combined.

“Australians are missing out on schools, hospitals, housing and cost of living relief because foreign-owned gas exporters are taking us for a ride, and our governments are doing nothing about it.”

The post Gas companies export $36 billion of gas from Queensland, pay zero tax … again appeared first on The Australia Institute.