ODOT will begin I-5 expansion project amid major budget uncertainty

A Metro committee vote this morning allows the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to step over a key procedural hurdle before they break ground on their $1.9 billion I-5 Rose Quarter project. The controversial project has been mired in lawsuits and budgetary uncertainty for years, so ODOT needed an emergency allocation from the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) of $250 million start construction.

But that funding pales in comparison to the overall price tag of the project, and ODOT says they’re still over $1 billion short. Add the federal funding pause and ODOT’s gap rises to $1.4 billion.

The latest funding came via an amendment to the regional project list managed by Metro known as the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, or MTIP. The amendment was presented and discussed briefly before passing (with just one vote in opposition) at Metro’s Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) meeting today.

When the OTC voted in December to dedicate $250 million to the project, ODOT was so eager to share the news they had an email drafted and sent before the OTC meeting ended. ODOT says they have a total of $850 million out of the $1.9 billion estimated price tag. But even that partial total isn’t nearly as solid as it seems.

Over half of what ODOT says is dedicated to the project is a $450 million grant awarded by the Biden Administration through the Reconnecting Communities program. The grant was ostensibly given to build the “Albina Vision” — the plan pushed by the nonprofit Albina Vision Trust to rebuild the black community displaced by construction of the freeway in the 1960s.

But a cloud looms over that grant because of President Donald Trump’s disdain for Biden-era investments, especially ones made in the name of racial justice. The federal funding freeze means no one knows for sure whether or not that $450 million can be counted on. On February 24th, I-5 Rose Quarter Project Director Megan Channel told Oregon lawmakers at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transportation that the funds, “are currently subject to the current pause on federal grant funding pursuant to federal executive order.” A website published by ODOT on February 7th to track the funding pause says that just $37.5 million of the $450 million Reconnecting Communities grant has been obligated to ODOT thus far. That leaves about half of what ODOT claims as funding for this project still solidly under Trump’s control.

When Oregon Senator Khanh Pham asked Channel how ODOT would pay for the $1.4 billion needed to complete the project, Channel acknowledged that the grant funding pause by Trump is a “unique situation” and that if it doesn’t come through, “All options would be on the table to help full that gap.”

Despite all this uncertainty, ODOT plans to break ground this summer. In the first phase of construction ODOT says they’ll build a section of the highway cover, begin the expansion of I-5 between I-405 and the Morrison Bridge, and do necessary upgrades to the Fremont Bridge.

Where the rest of the funding for the project will come from — or if it will ever come at all — remains to be seen. But for ODOT, all that matters is getting a shovel in the ground.

Chris Smith testifying on Zoom at the Metro meeting today.

ODOT understands high-profile megaprojects like this rely on inertia. The hardest part is getting them going (the former head of ODOT’s Urban Mobility Office remarked in that email that a project to widen I-5 at the Rose Quarter “has been in development for a generation.”) But once started, the hardest part is stopping them.

“This is the classic Robert Moses move of getting shovels in the ground and then keeping the community on the hook to pay for whatever it costs in the end,” said No More Freeways co-founder Chris Smith in testimony at the Metro meeting this morning. “I hope you will see through that and reject these amendment.”

The amendment passed. The sole vote in opposition came from Indi Namkoong, a transportation justice advocate with nonprofit Verde. Namkoong said she couldn’t support the funding because of, “The level of uncertain information on how much of this is going to deliver on our key goals around safety and equity.” Namkoong feels $250 million in ODOT funding deserves more public review and scrutiny. “There’s a lot that we don’t know,” she said.

The Street Trust Executive Director Sarah Iannarone is also on the TPAC committee. She abstained from today’s vote.

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

71 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Thorp
Thorp
1 month ago

This is insane. Odot just reported a billion dollar shortfall that will have to be covered by bonds and/or general fund revenue. Now they are committing to another $1.4 billion in spending that will have to similarly be drawn from money that could otherwise pay for other programs? Pure folly. What are we doing?

Watts
Watts
1 month ago
Reply to  Thorp

What are we doing?

Ask Tina Kotek. And I mean that seriously; contact her office and ask.

Rose Angel
Rose Angel
1 month ago
Reply to  Watts

I called Tina Kotek’s office to ask for pushback against this project. Here is that phone number for anybody else who would like to do so.
503-378-4582
Cheers

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  Thorp

We can spend $400 Million per year enabling addicts and those that refuse to get mental health help to live in tents on the street but can’t build an infrastructure project that will benefit that will benefit the entire PacNW economy for generations, got it!

Thorp
Thorp
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

The issue that I raised is that ODOT is trying to create an unfunded liability. If you think a freeway expansion is needed, figure out a way to pay for it. Either raise taxes or get a concrete commitment from the feds. Don’t just start ringing up charges on the credit card with no plan to pay for it. Same goes for homeless services. Spend within your means.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  Thorp

Every other grift figures out a way lol

I’m down for toll lanes for those a part of the expansion. This has been a tactic of choice in many blue AND red states. Saw exactly this in both SLC and Charlotte in the last two months

AB
AB
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

It’s historically a very common way to pay for big infrastructure projects. If I’m not mistaken, the OG I-5 bridge also used tolls at first to repay its construction costs.

Serenity
Serenity
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

I think I just sprained my eyeballs. They won’t roll any harder. Just imagine this: ODOT/PBOT/whoever spend the funds they’ve actually secured on fixing & improving upon the infrastructure they already have.
Pretty sure that would benefit the entire economy far more than expanding a freeway.

Art Lewellan
Art Lewellan
30 days ago
Reply to  Nathan K

To say “this infrastructure project will benefit the entire Pacific NW economy for generations” is utter BS.

Metro is once again placing development ahead of public health and safety. No Metro Council member will live in this proposed development because to walk anywhere or catch a bus or streetcar puts residents in harm’s way. Residents must grow eyes on the back of their heads to nimbly navigate crosswalks lined with speeding reckless traffic, ie, “Reckless Endangerment.” When pedestrians are hit by an idiot motorist, injured or killed, that is “Negligent Homicide.” Metro is essentially saying “It’ll just be a black person who died, so who cares?”

To label the segment of I-5 from the Fremont Bridge to the I-84 interchange a “bottleneck” is a lie. Metro Council Lynn Peterson and ODOT director Kris Strickler are lying about that and have no interest in public health and safety.

Salvaging minimal improvements to address existing traffic hazards are possible at a fraction of the proposed cost. I-5 does not need to be widened with more lanes. But it does need a new southbound on-ramp located at Weidler with a bridge lane from Broadway. This new on-ramp is downhill which gets motorists up to speed quicker, has better visibility and more distance to merge right-to-Left to access I-5 where motorists on I-5 must merge Left-to-Right lanes to access I-84. Also, the latest southbound exit “flyover” bridge to access Weidler eastbound is worth the investment and would allow the existing southbound exit to Broadway to be separated from the Vancouver Ave traffic.

Nathan K
Nathan K
30 days ago
Reply to  Art Lewellan

Your feelings on the topic are will noted, with your claims on “health and safety” are unfounded.

I did actually appreciate your last paragraphs discussing realized issues like the on-off ramps. The other big one is the westbound i-84 to 405. This requiring traffic to 405 to merge into those only two through I-5 Lanes. This always causes a kluster f*ck, honestly one that does not even impact me anymore since I do not long live in Northwest. This is mostly what I see as the “bottleneck” and embarrassment.

Art Lewellan
Art Lewellan
29 days ago
Reply to  Nathan K

Nathan, I live near the Rose Quarter and can attest to my claim that I-5 there is NOT a bottleneck. Daily bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Fremont and Marquam bridges are true bottlenecks. Traffic on I-5 through the Rose Quarter is separated at safe distances at not excessive speeds.

As for your claim that my concerns about public health and safety are unfounded, I beg to differ. The recent ODOT/Metro decision to relocate the southbound off-ramp from Broadway to Wheeler Way is a blind “hairpin turn” that will result in rear end collisions and multi-car pile ups. Locating housing near freeway on/off ramps is a HEALTH hazard from air pollution and pedestrian crosswalks that face long lines of multi-lane speeding traffic.

One actual improvement is adding a new southbound on-ramp from Weidler, but it is not shown on recent ODOT renderings. This new on-ramp redirects traffic away from 3 stoplights that are intimidating to pedestrians. And the on-ramp itself is also safer than the current on-ramp at Wheeler Way.

Michael
Michael
1 month ago
Reply to  Thorp

That’s the difference of capital and expense funding. Two different buckets of money, leading to the paradoxical result that ODOT can spend billions of dollars on highway expansions at the same time they’re laying off snowplow operators. The main driver of this weird split is the Federal government’s incentive structure. You get grant money for performing big infrastructure investments. You don’t get grant money for doing vegetation management. Choosing to do the latter at the expense of the former leaves money on the table, money that your constituents paid in taxes and will now see no benefit for.

Thorp
Thorp
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael

Yes, but ODOT recently admitted that its accounting has been faulty, and that it can’t even limit its capital spending to the money that the feds have given out as grants. Further, the current federal administration has announced a policy of deprioritizing funding to states with low birth and marriage rates (Oregon is in the bottom ten of both categories). Oregon cannot rely on the feds to give us one red cent of capital money that we don’t claw out of them with lawsuits over the next four years. It’s a terrible time for the state transportion agency to be committing to major capital projects.

You are correct that HISTORICALLY, the federal government has had an incentive structure that prioritized capital projects, but that’s not true under Trump. Now they prioritize patronage, loyalty, and acquiescence. It’s a totally different game, and it would be idiotic for Oregon to assume that the feds are going to keep funding freeway projects the way they used to.

Serenity
Serenity
1 month ago
Reply to  Thorp

Sounds like they need to fire their accountants, and get better ones.

Art Lewellan
Art Lewellan
30 days ago
Reply to  Thorp

I’m considering a call for a federal investigation into this idiotic Rose Quarter I-5 proposal alongside the Columbia River I-5 Bridge replacement AND the SW Corridor MAX extension to Tigard/Tualatin, all terrible examples of inexcusably bad engineering.

However, it’s likely the Trump clown car show will instead lend support to these projects that benefit car-related corporate business interests; Finance, Insurance, sales, marketing (as seen on TV), roadway construction and car-dependent housing and commercial districts.

Watts
Watts
1 month ago

The Street Trust Executive Director Sarah Iannarone is also on the TPAC committee. She abstained from today’s vote.

Brave stance, as always.

Fred
Fred
1 month ago
Reply to  Watts

My reaction also! – a real profile in courage.

Angus Peters
Angus Peters
1 month ago
Reply to  Watts

Can’t look like you’re against racial justice….that would be tantamount to racism.

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 month ago

This project and the nearby Columbia Bridge whatchamacallit just reek of political irony. They will get delayed by at least 4 years and likely cancelled altogether.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
1 month ago
Reply to  david hampsten

But meanwhile the minimum increment of funding, the ante in the poker game, is $100,000,000.00. I wrote out all the zeros because they seem to get lost in this game.

Because I just don’t know: is the billion that ODOT is missing on the Grand I-5 Boondoggle the same as the billion that they somehow “lost” in their recent budget? If so, we can untie that knot with one chop of the cleaver.

The Oregon legislature can’t stomach the entire bill for ODOT’s grandiose plans but they will groan and cough up 100 million on demand. It’s a shakedown. What is broken over at the Street Trust such that they have no opinion about this? It’s not uniquely Sarah I. because the people who hired her can also fire her.

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 month ago

Oregon has a big hang up with grandiose projects. They want a 20-lane Columbia Bridge for several billions, but all they can actually afford is to continue to prop up a pair of aged steel truss (or are they iron?) lift bridges. They want this project that in most states would be considered very modest, widening a congested section of freeway, but they can’t really afford that either. They want their local streets paved smooth but even that is a bit more than they can chew. Instead of a subway, there’s a deep underground tram station that serves the zoo. And instead of proposing modest affordable projects and plans, they keep pushing goals that are lofty and unattainable by pretty much any jurisdiction.

I live in an incredibly mediocre city of 300,000 who decided about 20 years ago that they would get their state DOT (NCDOT) to build them a huge multilane freeway bypass ring road. After 20 years and a billion dollars, it’s been completed, but now they have to repair the parts that are 19 years old; next year it will the 18-year-old parts, and so on. They funded their local match with a 2% sales tax on food. If that sounds highly regressive, keep in mind that Portland has both a “poll tax” for the arts AND an indirect 1% sales tax on food businesses that made over $500 million in gross sales such as Krogers (Fred Myers & Quality) and Amazon (Whole Foods). As a consequence of investing so much money on the new bypass, all new businesses (and many existing ones) are moving to business nodes on the bypass, further emptying out our already depressed downtown and inner neighborhoods – our city density is further thinning out and our very bad sprawl is getting much worse – which in turn will make city maintenance much harder and more expensive.

It goes without saying that our pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are simply awful, that half of our city has no public transit service of any sort, that we have huge income inequality and that our city is not only segregated by race but also by income, educational attainment, and health outcomes.

And how do our city leaders react to all of this? They often cite their “peer cities” and their successes and failures, including Portland Oregon, for reasons to do this and do that, even when it’s wildly inappropriate. Our city tore out nearly its entire set of old buildings and replaced them with empty parking lots or brutalist parking decks, “because that is what Charlotte and Portland did.” They put in painted bike lanes on 35 mph stroads because Portland did it first, so it must be OK and progressive. There are lots of other cities that are inspired by Portland, because Portland is seen by mayors and other civic leaders nationwide as a city with modest resources, high growth, lots of smart people, and generally progressive – and more importantly, they ignore everything that might be negative about Portland.

Serenity
Serenity
1 month ago
Reply to  david hampsten

Probably… but I wouldn’t count on it, David.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  david hampsten

Let’s hope NOT!

km
km
1 month ago

This is just wildly irresponsible given the federal chaos, the uncertain economic outlook, and the fact that they’re crying to the legislature that they have no money to maintain roads. I emailed my state reps and sent a message to the governor’s office for whatever that’s worth. Probably not much, but elected reps really need to take some ownership and responsibility here at some point.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  km

Hopefully you are calling to Portland City council and MultCo to lecture them in their irresponsible spending too!

Granpa
Granpa
1 month ago

With Oregon amongst the bluest of states and with our new president being a vindictive and cruel person, one can expect trump to withhold committed funds for the project. Knowing Oregon already has a budget shortfall, he may wait until construction is begun (with no turning back) to withdraw the funds so to inflict the greatest suffering on Oregonians. ODOT reads this blog and with eyes open, will likely step into this conspicuously visible trap.

Matt S.
Matt S.
1 month ago
Reply to  Granpa

Make sure the project says nothing about DEI, Trump will personally drive the bulldozer from DC to stop everything.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
1 month ago
Reply to  Granpa

I can see him fully funding it but it has to be called the “Trump Traverse”.

SD
SD
1 month ago

When did Metro become an ODOT rubber stamp?

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 month ago
Reply to  SD

As soon as Metro was created. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) get a certain percentage off the top for any approved transportation project by any state DOT within their jurisdiction, so they have a financial incentive to approve any and all projects, including federal grants.

Art Lewellan
Art Lewellan
30 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

FYI David, during the years 1993-98, Metro pushed a MAX light rail proposal dubbed the “North/South” extension. Voters rejected it despite being threatened “If voters reject this plan, it will be the LAST light rail.” I urged Metro Council then to go back to the drawing broad. Within 5 months, the segment with the most objectionable impacts was relocated out of ODOT jurisdiction (Rose Quarter to North Lombard) along the embankment of I-5 to nearby Interstate Ave with better sidewalks/crosswalks and more transit patronage.

The North/South MAX extension was included in a replacement of the I-5 Columbia River Bridge that was later peer reviewed and declared “structurally unsound” in 2011. It was WsDOT who controlled the CRC planning process those years and still hold control over both State DOTs and transit planning agencies.

Portland replaced a westbank freeway with Tom McCall Waterfront Park, built the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade and Riverside bikeway that extends miles east. Portland built a near car-free transit mall downtown. Portland extended its South & North park blocks into the Pearl District. Portland built its streetcar lines that remain Portland’s most productive transit system post Covid 19 pandemic. Feel free to regard Portland in the worst light you care to observe, but I have no doubt there are plenty of US cities worse off.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago

The comments on here are incredible. Since moving to Portland there is rarely a tax that doesn’t pass and we’ll let the city/county spend spend spend until the budget bulges from the seems.

Yet the progressive crowd suddenly turns into fiscal conservatives when major important infrastructure projects come up. Ones that benefit the entire state and West Coast. I’m sorry I’m not buying the “it’s to expensive” BS argument. Anyone can pick up a copy of the Willamette Week in any given month to read of waste, local government inefficiencies, if not straight up grift.

Perhaps ODOT forgot to give a few choice environmental non-profits the big grant that demanded (i.e. extortion) to back off their political wranglings.

Dan R
Dan R
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

You are right, we never get enough for our money due to government waste.

It is also true that we don’t need to expand the highway, if you use tools like congestion pricing you can fix traffic. There has never been a freeway expansion that has fixed traffic.

Granpa
Granpa
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

Yet it is entirely in-character for the right wing crowd to become fiscally irresponsible when their team is in power. You are right that liberal Portland has enabled many taxes and although we pay them, we don’t get the quality of services or outcomes that high taxes should deliver. This time it is not (just) a bunch of Lycra clad tree hugging idealists protesting the freeway widening. The egregious spending of money that doesn’t exist while hard earned tax dollars vanish into a vortex of incompetence has gotten hard nosed pragmatists pissed. As federal funding is not to be counted on, a 1 billion dollar + project while a billion in debt is just too much.

John V
John V
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

How about “it’s too expensive and we also don’t want it“?
Also there is a big difference between the little things you’re probably complaining about (“spend spend spend” a few hundred thousand on paint for bike lanes) vs many billions of dollars of a disruptive mega project that commits generations to a future we don’t want.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
1 month ago
Reply to  John V

That’s just it. A small group of loud, vocal people don’t want it. There’s nothing that can be done to change their minds.

There’s also no obligation to listen to them, or ascribe any power to them.

They don’t speak for everyone, and I’ll wager they seldom use the bridge and are not impacted edby it.

Mary S
Mary S
1 month ago

Comment of the week! Hard for the small group of vocal loud people to hear, but this comment is spot on!

Micah
Micah
1 month ago

The bridge has lots of impacts beyond the convenience of the people that travel it frequently.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
1 month ago
Reply to  Micah

Yes. Possibly the worst impact will be that we have committed decades of tax revenue to financing big highway projects. Any better use for that money in the future is excluded.

We can’t count on the feds to finance our roads. It’s also crazy to design them with the notion that we can have both interstate travel at speed and flexible capacity at peak demand. Freeway intersections are bad for cities and suburban development implies congestion on interstate highways.

qqq
qqq
1 month ago

They don’t speak for everyone, and I’ll wager they seldom use the bridge and are not impacted edby it.

I’ve never heard an opponent say they speak for everyone.

The biggest negative impacts of the bridge are on people who are not on the bridge.

And given the high cost and that it’s a public project, it’d be difficult to find ANYONE in Oregon who’s not affected by it, even if they’re not taxpayers.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  qqq

I promise you a rural farmer would rather his taxes go to this than assuring the state is putting and maintaining tampons in the elementary boys restrooms statewide

Trike Guy
Trike Guy
1 month ago

Fortunately I decided over 30 years ago not to have kids so I wouldn’t have to worry about how badly the world goes to hell.

I did underestimate the speed at which things would degrade, but I still have hopes to have a decent rest of my life.

6.5 years – Expat paying no OR taxes (so go ahead and rack up $2bn* more in debt for the dubious privilege of more air pollution).

25 years – likely the first stages of cognitive decline (early 80’s is the usual age for the men in my family) so I won’t be worrying much about the environmental disaster that no one wants to stop.

29 years – I’ll no longer be around.

I really hope that the kids of the silent majority that want this sort of crap hold their parents accountable someday. Soon enough that I’ll have the faculties left to enjoy it.

*Keep in mind that ODOT can’t finish a capital project in budget and will likely go at least 50% past the projected total

** Also, keep in mind that simply being able to see the long term consequences of our current path didn’t blind me to the stupidity of many of hte “progressive” policies – the results of which should have been just as apparent as the long term consequences of unrestrained freeway expansion.

The problem isn’t ideology. The problem is that human beings are, by and large, short sighted, narcissistic and not overly bright.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  John V

“We” as in privileged inner Portland dwelling white elitists! Luckily it’s the “Interstate” highway not the Portland Highway System. I didn’t vote for Trump but i can only hope he ramrods the Rose Quarter and Columbia Bridge projects into fruition. These are a national embarrassment

Dylan
Dylan
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

This isn’t a majorly important project though. This is a freeway widening project that by and large is over priced for virtually no gain

Douglas K.
Douglas K.
1 month ago
Reply to  Dylan

Peak-hour tolling on I-5 and I-84 would solve the congestion problem overnight while generating revenue for highway maintenance. No megaproject boondoggle required.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  Douglas K.

No thanks. Toll expansion lanes and move on

Micah
Micah
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

Toll all the lanes at all hours. Same with 205.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  Dylan

No this is correcting an engineering bottleneck and traffic interchange. Not “freeway” expansion, as the freeway is already 3-5 lanes in each direction beyond the rose Quarter

qqq
qqq
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

. Ones that benefit the entire state and West Coast. 

Possibly opponents feel that the West Coast isn’t paying its fair share, for one thing–especially when the negative impacts are borne entirely by people in Portland, not San Diego or Bellingham or anywhere else on the West Coast, or in Oregon for that matter.

qqq
qqq
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

Since moving to Portland there is rarely a tax that doesn’t pass

Even assuming that it’s true that tax measures rarely fail in Portland, isn’t opposing an incredibly expensive project that doesn’t seem worth the cost a GOOD example of fiscal conservatism?

And look at what you’re saying–you’re criticizing people for passing TAX MEASURES. That means they’re voting to tax themselves for things they want. They’re saying, “We’re want this enough we’re willing to pay for it”. They’re not saying, “We want this but don’t want our taxes to change.”

It sounds like people opposing the ODOT project understand that they can’t afford to tax themselves for every project that pops up, so they choose which ones seem beneficial enough to tax themselves on.

Anyone can pick up a copy of the Willamette Week in any given month to read of waste, local government inefficiencies, if not straight up grift.

The opponents of this expansion read those same articles in WW and elsewhere, many of which focus on….ODOT! It’s a reason to OPPOSE the expansion, not support it.

So I don’t see the logic of your argument.

PS
PS
1 month ago
Reply to  qqq

They’re saying, “We’re want this enough we’re willing to pay for it”. They’re not saying, “We want this but don’t want our taxes to change.”

If you have to set the income level that pays the tax at $125k for individuals and $200k for couples, this statement can’t be true, there aren’t enough people making this kind of money for the bills to pass. People are literally voting for things they don’t have to pay for, pretty sure that is the genesis of the complaints about recent taxes.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  PS

Bingo! My household will be taking it’s contribution out of MultCo in two weeks

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  qqq

Well sorry you don’t see beyond the Portland metro area. This is the “Interstate” highway system. Not the “Portland Freeway”

qqq
qqq
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

What in my comment led you to feel compelled to tell me that I don’t see beyond the Portland metro area, or don’t understand the highway system?

Thorp
Thorp
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

ODOT pulls in billions of dollars in gas tax revenue annually. They need to learn to budget in a way that is consistent with their revenue. Same goes for other public agencies. It’s shocking that Multnomah county is massively over committed on spending for homeless services. It’s also shocking that ODOT is massively over committed on spending on road building. Both can be true. They are not mutually exclusive. The problem in this case is not overspending, in particular. It is overspending on the hope and prayer that maybe the feds will pick up the bill down the road even though they haven’t committed to it, or maybe the legislature will figure out how to cover it someday.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan K

If this were about “…infrastructure projects…that benefit the entire state and West Coast…” I-5 N wouldn’t look the way it does, with multiple on-ramps between I-84 and Washington Highway 14. Three lanes are plenty to carry the amount of traffic. The bottleneck is not caused by a lack of pavement, it’s caused by all the places where entering and exiting traffic create turbulence in the flow.

Anyone who drives north on I-5 during rush hour will experience an increase in speed on the Columbia River bridge, the one that supposedly needs more lanes. The speed increase is due to the fact that it is a long straight stretch with no ramps.

The cheapest way to speed I-5 traffic would be to build a 2 lane bridge to Hayden Island and remove the freeway ramps.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago

A 2 lane bridge!? This is alternative facts

Robert Wallis
Robert Wallis
1 month ago

This absurd project is step 1 of many future steps planned for the widening of I-5 through Portland. I am very grateful to Chris Smith and his colleagues at No More Freeways for their efforts to resist what will someday be seen as a total fiasco. Grateful to Bike Portland as well for their honest reporting on the subject.

Mark smith
Mark smith
1 month ago

So how’s odot doing in the carpool department? Got carpool lanes on every freeway in the metro? No?

Shocked! I tell you shocked,

I’ll be even more shocked if this comment gets published because apparently my comments don’t get published anymore)

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark smith

That was something ODOT could have done years ago. But nope, Zero Vision is their motto.

Angus Peters
Angus Peters
1 month ago

“The amendment passed. The sole vote in opposition came from Indi Namkoong, a transportation justice advocate with nonprofit Verde”

So Namkoong opposes the vision of the Albina Trust…that’s interesting.

Nathan K
Nathan K
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus Peters

Verde!? Isn’t this where Candace Avalos hails!?

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
1 month ago

Let’s get this done!

Ian
Ian
1 month ago

If anything, they should be removing the portion of I-5 that cuts through Portland, not widening it. Look what Seattle just did with their waterfront as an example.

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian

Or Vancouver BC. Convert the whole I-5 corridor to a grand French tree-lined boulevard, 30 mph maximum, 10 mph on the narrow adjacent frontage roads, like parts of K Street in DC. Replace onramps and offramps with perpendicular intersections with signals and roundabouts, add more buildable land. Protected bike lanes and intersections, of course.

PS
PS
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian

They didn’t remove I-5 though, that is still coursing through the heart of Seattle 6 blocks from the waterfront.

BB
BB
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian

27 years ago Mayor Katz proposed covering I-405.
13 years ago Mayor Adams proposed Tunneling I-5 along the East bank.
9 years ago Mayor Hales proposed we allow tent camping on Portland streets.
Hales is clearly the visionary winner in this city.

idlebytes
idlebytes
1 month ago

Let’s not forget that this project was originally sold to the legislature 8 years ago as a $450 million project to add lanes and fix a ramp. Two years later ODOT revised their estimate to $750 million because costs went up and their original proposal didn’t include inflation. Now we’re at a staggering $1.9 billion cost for this project over four times the original estimate.

At this point I can’t believe the legislature would continue to trust ODOT about any aspect of this project. So far they’ve only funded $400 million but they know if they start now they’ll at least get their additional lanes and then can say they need more money to do all the other things they promised to get this project approved. It’s absolutely ridiculous anyone would trust ODOT at this point. They shouldn’t be allowed to continue on this project until they have the funding to do the things they promised to do to get it approved.

The city came to the table with promises of moving a school, reconnecting the community and not expanding the freeway but only removing a bottleneck. We should pull our support for this until ODOT provides the funding for the aspects of it that got us to the table in the first place.

Serenity
Serenity
1 month ago

How dare they?! They keep taking safe crossings away, and whining about not having money. Now they are planning to break ground on a multi billion dollar freeway expansion with unsecured funding?

JaredO
JaredO
1 month ago

When ODOT says “All options would be on the table to help full that gap.” people need to ask them to spell out exactly what they mean.

Because what it means is – stop the project, steal from safety and maintenance, steal from other projects, or …???

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 month ago
Reply to  JaredO

Most government infrastructure projects of any sort are not paid for with money saved away or in the bank, but rather by borrowing money through municipal bonds paid back at a certain rate over a 30-year period, a lot like a mortgage. How its paid back and with what funding (and how reliable it is) often determines the interest rate on the bonds. Basically the State of Oregon will borrow everything needed to “fill the gap” and later figure out how to pay for it.