Metro memo determines there would be ‘no significant change’ after spending $7.5 billion

John Ley
For Clark County Today

Average citizens want to save travel time and reduce traffic congestion when it comes to spending transportation dollars. That means adding vehicle capacity either via new transportation corridors or expanding existing corridors. Yet, Portland’s Metro was part of a broader effort to prohibit the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) – and the Rose Quarter project – from adding new through lanes on Interstate 5.

A May 30 Metro memo reports multiple details of how the IBR addresses five project goals of its 2023 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The project summary is in preparation for Metro to amend project spending and funding allocation recommendations, ultimately going before the Oregon Transportation Commission at the end of July.

The 80-page document contains a host of financial data, as part of the IBR program’s efforts to begin spending significant sums of money. The IBR will continue preliminary design work and begin letting contracts for roughly $2 billion of construction. Details include funding for “pre completion tolling” work, obtaining needed right of way, and utility relocation.

Revelations in the evaluation include “neutral or no significant change” in travel mode share, meaning there won’t be an increase in people using transit, nor riding bikes or walking. The project also fails when it comes to reducing “daily metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions” in total, or on a per capita basis. Most importantly, it doesn’t improve on safety goals. In fact the proposal could be viewed as a failure, in most of the five RTP priorities for the project.

Metro reports “no significant change” is the grade for Equitable Transportation, Climate Action and Resilience, and Mobility Options.  The Thriving Economy is “trending toward the desired outcome,” a seeming disappointment for the largest public works project in the history of the Portland metro area. The Safe System goal is “not directly addressing the region’s desired outcome.” 

Clark County Today reported last fall that it will take over 41 years to offset the construction of GreenHouse Gas emissions. The proposal would only reduce CO2 emissions by 31 metric tons per day according to the IBR. An idling car emits about 20 times more pollution than a car traveling at 30 miles per hour, according to the EPA. 

This may be very startling information, considering the proposal allocates 54 percent of the bridge surface to bikes, pedestrians and transit. When the current design wants to spend $2 billion for the transit and active transportation components, it appears there is no return on investment. “No significant change.”

During the early phases of community input to the project, the majority of people listed reducing traffic congestion and saving travel time as their top priority. IBR community surveys report that 7 of 10 respondents want reduced traffic congestion. Southwest Washington residents told the IBR team that 78 percent want congestion relief. People in both states want to save time in their travels, which the project will apparently fail to deliver.

The current proposal actually makes things worse. The IBR reports morning travel times will more than double from 29 minutes to 60 minutes when going from Salmon Creek to the Fremont Bridge interchange. Furthermore, rush hour vehicles going zero to 20 miles per hour will jump from 28 percent today to 50 percent in 2045.

The apparent reason for the project’s failure to reduce congestion is explained in the memo. 

Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) Policy 1G and Action 1G.1 direct ODOT to maintain highway performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity.”

The second priority is to make minor improvements to existing highway facilities such as widening highway shoulders or adding auxiliary lanes, providing better access for alternative modes (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, bus shelters), extending or connecting local streets, and making other off-system improvements.

The third priority, not utilized, is adding general purpose lanes.

The memo says the RTP “is a blueprint to guide investments for all forms of travel – motor

vehicle, transit, bicycle and walking – and the movement of goods and freight throughout the Portland metropolitan region. The plan identifies current and future transportation needs.”

Yet the proposal Metro is being asked to approve fails to deliver on all five of the identified priorities of the RTP. Citizens might wonder how they can move forward, approving the expenditure of $2 billion, on a project the project team have promised will go up in cost? How can they approve of a project that fails their own goals?

During a meeting of Bi-state legislators last fall, it was noted that up to 15 years of construction will create 469,444 metric tons of CO2, according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS).  Doing nothing would be “cleaner” from a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions perspective.

Longtime Sen. Lynda Wilson noted a briefing slide indicating a carbon emission “savings” of just 31 metric tons of CO2 per day. “You’re looking at 31 metric tons of CO2,” she said. She noted she can buy an airplane ticket and buy a carbon offset. She was shocked at the result – “31 metric tons is very, very little; so for $7.5 billion dollars?”

This was comparing the “No Build” alternative and the LPA in 2045. In 2015, there were 22,273 metric tons (MT) of carbon emissions. Doing nothing shows a reduction to 11,440 MT. The LPA shows 11,409 MT. Not building the LPA delivers a 49 percent reduction in carbon emissions while also saving $7.5 billion.

Additionally, total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was just 79,000 less, or a 0.55 percent reduction compared to the No Build option. There will be a 3-million mile increase in daily VMT by 2045.

The evidence continues to mount that the IBR proposal is not green for the environment. It also fails to meet the people’s top priority – saving time and reducing traffic congestion. It doesn’t improve on safety metrics according to Metro.