Catching up on the Interstate Bridge freeway project with Je Amaechi (Video)

The project to expand five miles of Interstate 5 between Portland and Vancouver and replace the Interstate Bridge reached a big milestone last month with the release of the federally-mandated Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program DEIS (actually the SDEIS in this case because it’s a “supplemental” EIS that builds on the old EIS from the Columbia River Crossing project which was the precursor to the IBR) reveals key details about what we’ll get for the estimated $7.5 billion price tag and it opens a public comment period that runs through November 18th.

I plan to dive into the weeds of the active transportation infrastructure and other salient elements of the DEIS in future days and weeks, but to re-ignite our coverage of this megaproject, I interviewed someone who’s deep in the activism trenches. Je Amaechi (“Jay A-may-chee”) is a community organizer with Just Crossing Alliance, a coalition of dozens of environmental, transportation, and social justice nonprofits working to influence the project. Among the partner organizations is BikeLoud PDX, The Street Trust, No More Freeways, Oregon Trails Coalition, Oregon Walks, and others.

“One thing all the members have in common is this urgent need to mitigate and adapt to climate change and the need to balance all the fiscal needs with all the other infrastructure priorities,” Amaechi said during our video interview on Wednesday.

Amaechi and her crew are working hard to educate our community about the project. Given the dizzying amount of information to get a handle on, Just Crossing Alliance has put together a helpful list of links to official public hearings and other events. Amaechi also wants to help log as many official comments as possible. Why? “These public comments are important is because it’s building a record for potential future actions,” she shared. “Public comments become part of the official record… so they can’t say, ‘Well, we didn’t know this,’ or, ‘We weren’t aware.'”

“The assumption that we have to build it in a Robert Moses-style freeway expansion way and the prioritization of car infrastructure: That’s the thing that fundamentally we don’t agree with and we say that there are better ways that we can design this bridge for a future that like more Portlanders want to see.”

– Je Amaechi, Just Crossing Alliance

The way I see it, comments like, “Don’t build this bridge!” probably won’t be very influential because at this point it doesn’t look like anything can stop the project’s inertia. So far Oregon and Washington departments of transportation have raised over $4 billion (split between federal grants and state allocations). Barring some unforeseen opposition or glitch, it will likely move forward eventually.

Even Just Crossing Alliance isn’t trying to stop the project. Their goal is to right-size it and bend project leaders — and the elected officials who hold the pursestrings — toward new perspectives and possibilities.

When it comes to the DEIS, Amaechi said the over-arching concern is its “defeatist way of thinking.” In other words, she thinks it assumes the status quo of car and truck-centric transportation will exist well into the future (projects and models in the DEIS are based on 2045). “This way of thinking limits the possibilities for this bridge and how it could serve a lot of different populations,” she said.

Amaechi says many folks are worried about the financial commitment this bridge demands — both from our state coffers and from the pockets of everyday folks. Tolls will be a big part of the revenue picture, and those tolls are likely to hit some groups much harder than others if carveouts and subsidies aren’t well-crafted.

Then there’s the simple fact that this is a massive expansion of freeway lanes and driving capacity.

“The assumption that we have to build it in a Robert Moses-style freeway expansion way and the prioritization of car infrastructure: That’s the thing that fundamentally we don’t agree with and we say that there are better ways that we can design this bridge for a future that like more Portlanders want to see,” Amaechi said.

“This idea that we’re alleviating congestion by adding lanes is something that has been disproven many, many times,” she added. “And in fact, the opposite has been proven to be true. Induced demand is slightly mentioned [in the DEIS], but it’s not addressed in a realistic way.”

Amaechi believes the modeling and design options laid out in the DEIS make it clear that DOTs on both sides of the river are planning for a future many Just Crossing Alliance partners and their supporters simply don’t want. She acknowledges that people will continue to drive and need goods delivered by trucks in the future, but if our projects tilt too much toward serving those needs, we’ll be locked into the same earth and community-destroying ways of life that have hastened climate catastrophe across the globe.

With an investment of this size, we should build infrastructure that truly moves the needle for biking, walking and transit. Current plans for the bikeways begin on N Expo Road by Delta Park dog park, where the IBR will create a bike lane toward Expo Center to connect to new paths and bridges over the Columbia River. While the DEIS talks about shared-use paths and protected bikeways, Amaechi says it will take work to make sure the project builds excellent and safe bike infrastructure that is welcoming too all riders and skill levels.

The new bridge is likely to be much higher than the existing one, requiring bike riders to scale some sort of long spiral ramp to reach the top. “For people who are new to biking, just looking at one of those spirals is very scary — especially if they’re talking about these things being 100 feet in the air.”

If you’re curious how changes proposed in this project will connect (or not) to the existing bike network, sign up for “Riding Toward the Future: Exploring IBR’s Impact on Active Transportation in Oregon.” The ride is Saturday (10/12) at 3:00 pm and will be co-hosted by Oregon Walks, 40-Mile Loop, and The Street Trust.

And stay tuned to BikePortland, the JCA’s work and the official IBR website to stay engaged on this important project.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, contact me via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a paying subscriber.

Thanks for reading.

BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.

Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

11 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ITOTS
ITOTS
30 days ago

When it comes to the DEIS, Amaechi said the over-arching concern is its “defeatist way of thinking.” In other words, she thinks it assumes the status quo of car and truck-centric transportation will exist well into the future (projects and models in the DEIS are based on 2045)…“This idea that we’re alleviating congestion by adding lanes is something that has been disproven many, many times,” she added. “And in fact, the opposite has been proven to be true. Induced demand is slightly mentioned [in the DEIS], but it’s not addressed in a realistic way.”

Two things:

First, even without any projected growth in traffic, the DOTs/IBR can and would determine that for safety and operational reasons they require the new auxiliary lanes. They can make a case for auxiliary/merge lanes based on close spacing of interchanges, short merge distances, and grades alone. Given the ultimate judge is Federal Highways they would easily win any dispute there. The DOTs don’t even need to have a fight about whether or not induced demand exists or is accounted for because they don’t have to rely on increased traffic volumes to justify their wider design.

Second, it’s actually Metro that allows/requires them to build a wider highway. Metro maintains the regional travel demand model and the list of projects and programs that go into it. When the impact of all of the region’s planned projects and programs are tallied up, Metro’s travel demand model is still saying that auto traffic is going to increase across the Columbia river by year 2045 (or pretty much any other year in the future) such that doing nothing leads to carmaggedon. IBR is required to plan to accommodate that predicted future, to study the impacts of not doing so (which is part of what is in the SDEIS), and to design a facility that meets DOT mobility standards—hours of congestion on the main line, level of service at intersections. 

So go tell Metro to fix its modeling, principally by adding projects and programs that get the region to the mobility, safety, and sustainability outcomes we want without these kinds of mega projects—at least inside the reductive reality of the model. And then fund the projects that are going to get people to move around the region differently. It’s Metro’s model that tells us we need this $10B project. That’s all the cover the DOTs need. 

Making plans to bring about a future that you say you don’t actually want to come to pass is absurd. But thems the rules (currently).

There are other (saner and still rigorous) ways.

Let's Active
Let's Active
30 days ago

Yes, came here to say this (but am glad ITOTS beat me to it with a much better explanation). We are at the mercy of the Metro RTP’s traffic model for many of our projects in the region. FHWA demands that future traffic be built on the Metro model. If FHWA isn’t happy, the money isn’t going to be delivered. Can’t get away from that…

Randy
Randy
30 days ago

I just don’t envision a massive increase in bike traffic between pdx and Vancouver. I also don’t get how a 5 mile stretch of highway and new bridge will increase traffic . It’s clear the bridge must be replaced and lanes added to accommodate even the existing volume of traffic. 5 lanes in each direction should allow traffic to flow more quickly and allow goods and services to be delivered. Look at the traffic congestion on the 205 bridge. It’s congested going north at rush hour since people are avoiding I-5. The I-5 bridge should be at least as large as 205. Plus redesign of some of the interchanges will help tremendously. Let’s get to work!

Will
Will
29 days ago
Reply to  Randy

Doesn’t really look like this project is going to do anything but make traffic worse in Oregon.

1000013111
ITOTS
ITOTS
29 days ago
Reply to  Will

This is among the most important takeaways for Portland, who should be HIGHLY concerned about the impact of traffic diverting from I-5 onto parallel city surface streets that host important biking routes, transit lines, and main streets – MLK, Vancouver/Williams, Albina/Mississippi, Interstate, Denver.

SD
SD
29 days ago
Reply to  Randy

Cancer cells often have high a need nutrients and create a lot of waste. One of the ways they manage this is by stimulating the growth of blood vessels into and out of the tumors that they form. Many tumors express a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor. In fact, there is a class of anticancer drugs that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor called VEGF inhibitors.

It is a mistake to only look at a stretch of road and the people who are shoving their mostly-empty, oversized lounges through them and not look at where people are coming from and going to. This would be like looking at a blood vessel in a tumor and thinking that the vessel was the disease and ignoring the surrounding mass. Maintaining size limits is a healthy way to prevent the highly predictable, wasteful, overgrowth of human habitat.

Let’s get to work!!! on rational growth that doesn’t destroy our environment and mental health!!! and instead builds efficient, sustainable places to live!!!

Chris I
Chris I
27 days ago
Reply to  Randy

Making the Columbia Crossing 10 lanes will move the I-5 bottleneck down to North Portland, where I-5 is 6 lanes. This is going to create a lot of spillover onto N Portland surface streets. Hopefully you don’t live in this area.

stephan
stephan
29 days ago

I think this assessment is not realistic because it does not take induced demand into account.

Here is my comment I submitted:

“The Environmental Impact Statement understates the number of vehicles and trucks that would use the bridge because it does not take into account induced demand. Over fifty years of evidence have shown that whenever a highway is expanded, the number of vehicles using that highway increases, and congestion remains unchanged. Put differently, expanding highways is a great way to increase the number of vehicles and trucks, but it is not a solution to congestion.

The modeling assumes that under the no-build alternative, congestion and estimated travel time would substantially decrease (Table 2 of the executive summary). The model also assumes that the number of persons crossing over the Interstate Bridge per day via general-purpose vehicles or truck decreases — from 196,600 + 30,100 = 226,700 under the no-build alternative to 191,200 + 29,200 = 220,400 under the modified locally preferred alternative (LPA). These modeling assumptions are not consistent with induced demand.

A more realistic modeling of the environmental impact would incorporate induced demand into the model by assuming that the modified LPA would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles and trucks crossing the bridge such that congestion and estimated travel time remains unchanged compared to the no-build alternative.I urge ODOT, WSDOT and EPA to amend the SEIS to provide a more realistic assessment of the expected environmental impact of the project.”

Art Lewellan
Art Lewellan
27 days ago

I studiously followed the CRC I-5 Bridge proposal 2008-2013 when it was duly cancelled for two specific reasons: Instead of Double-deck design, single-deck is the only sensible option. Plus, Hayden Island Access design flaws (exit-ramps were inherently dangerous, steep uphill on-ramps meant noisy traffic, more air pollution, merging more dangerous). Back then I supported the Concept #1 design “off-island” access to Hayden Island from Marine Drive. The current access is likewise from Marine Drive from the east side of I-5.  

With single-deck design, I favor 4-lanes southbound and 5-lanes northbound (extra lane for heavier afternoon traffic and because the exits to SR14 and downtown Vancouver are too close together), 4-lanes southbound because there’ll be only 1 exit to Marine Drive. Adding 2-lanes for transit to southbound span (4+2 = 6 lanes), adding 1-lane for the ped/bikeway (5+1 = 6 lanes) thus both spans are equal width, a likely reduction of costs. 

The current aging bridges are basically 2-lane acting as 3-lane with no shoulders. Elevating I-5 above the railroad tracks will smooth traffic flow, but adding lanes will induce lane changes as motorists today view any open lane as a passing lane. 

The (single) ped/bike ramp from Hayden shouldn’t be much higher than it is now. The Ped/bike ramp on the Vancouver side may indeed be much more of a climb than now.

In 2013, the CRC project was cancelled because it fell short of the Coast Guard minimum river clearance standard of 125′ – short by 10′. The single-deck bridge river clearance should be near 135′. Willamette Week awhile back misreported the clearance standard was 178′, the height with the lift span drawn to the top.

Sarah Risser
Sarah Risser
24 days ago

Enjoyed this. Very helpful