Lawyer claims groundbreaking for I-5 Rose Quarter project would be illegal

View of I-5 and Moda Center from N Flint Ave. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

After getting a green light from the Oregon Transportation Commission last month to go forward with a plan to widen I-5 at the Rose Quarter, the Oregon Department of Transportation is moving forward with an initial construction phase of the project. I’ve heard a ribbon cutting ceremony to mark the groundbreaking of this multi-billion dollar megaproject could happen as soon as a week or two.

But lawyers representing a nonprofit that has filed a lawsuit to stop the project have a message for ODOT: Not so fast.

As I shared in a story July 23rd, ODOT officials recently suffered a setback in the lawsuit when, just days before a trial was to begin, the agency formally withdrew documents that were meant to show the project was compatible with Portland’s Comprehensive Plan. The trial has been rescheduled to January. No More Freeways expected ODOT to re-submit documents to convince the court their plan was compatible, but a 30-day window to do that expired over the weekend.

According to No More Freeways lawyer Karl Anuta, this means ODOT no longer has a “formal demonstration of compatibility,” so they are not authorized to do a groundbreaking.

In a letter from Anuta’s office to ODOT dated August 5th, Anuta writes:

“… the existing City of Portland Comprehensive Plan authorizes a Rose Quarter project, but not the same Rose Quarter project that ODOT is now proposing to build. The current proposal is simply not consistent with the one that the City expressly adopted as a Facilities Plan into the City Comprehensive Plan. There were significant changes in the location and function of key features of the project, which ODOT made before it approved the current Rose Quarter project that is specified… That requires that changes be made to the City Comprehensive Plan before the currently proposed Rose Quarter project can be found to be consistent with that Plan. Those changes have yet to be made.

Thus, ODOT cannot lawfully proceed with construction. For that reason alone, any “groundbreaking” or “initiation of Phase 1A” should be postponed or canceled. However, in addition to the illegality or moving forward when there is a lack of mandatory Findings, as a policy matter ODOT should not proceed with this project until the agency can establish that funding is actually available.”

I have not yet reached out to ODOT for comment, but this is just the latest snag in the project. Whether or not they announce a groundbreaking event remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

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

26 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael
Michael
9 days ago

Too bad Oregon’s court dockets aren’t open to the public. I’d be very interested to know if NMF has filed a motion for an injunction pending the trial.

Serenity
Serenity
9 days ago

Good.

Fred
Fred
9 days ago

Hope this tactic works. It’s ridiculous – but totally on brand – that the OTC said “Go ahead” when there isn’t money to finish the project.

What contractor would build you a house unless you could prove you had the funds to pay him?

Granpa
Granpa
9 days ago
Reply to  Fred

That would be a contractor with lawyers

Chris Smith
9 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Unfortunately, thanks to OTC, they do have money for Phase 1A ($75M) stolen from other projects. But it dries up after that.

david hampsten
david hampsten
8 days ago
Reply to  Chris Smith

But isn’t that what both the USDOT and the very late Robert Moses (who’s still dead last I checked) encouraged? To “borrow” money from new and future projects to pay for the current one?

soren
soren
7 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

Moses helped build a shit ton of public housing using this mechanism. And, ironically, it was Jacobs that was notoriously opposed to building dense public housing because she believed these projects altered the “social fabric” of the twee lower-density neighborhoods she favored.

Serenity
Serenity
8 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Completely ridiculous.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
9 days ago

If there is one thing Trump has taught us, frivolous lawsuits can be filed to delay progress indefinitely.

JaredO
JaredO
8 days ago

If it’s frivolous, it will get thrown out and the lawyers can be sanctioned and fined. But it’s not actually frivolous. But you know that.

It’s also not actually progress.

It’s also not indefinite.

If there’s one thing Trump has taught us, it’s that random people asserting things on the internet will be believed.

Middle of the Road Guy
Middle of the Road Guy
8 days ago
Reply to  JaredO

And that people in ideological bubble rooms always think they are correct.

Paul
Paul
8 days ago

People in any kind of room always think they are correct. Who thinks they are wrong?

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
8 days ago

Only when your supporters threaten Judges and their families with bodily harm if they don’t side with their Orange Haired God, then yes.
Don’t think that’ll happen with this project.

Sky
Sky
6 days ago

Its been proven time and time again thay adding another lane just creates more traffic. Thats the opposite of progress.

José G
José G
8 days ago

No More Freeway’s lawyers delay tactics will end up just making this project (which regardless of your views is going to happen) more expensive for taxpayers. This adage is holding true: “The lawyers always win and in dysfunctional Portland the taxpayers always lose”.

Nick
Nick
8 days ago
Reply to  José G

The lawyers win yes, but if it’s costs enough and looks this bad every time they try and do an expansion in Portland that’s going to have an impact. What’s your alternative solution?

Thorp
Thorp
8 days ago
Reply to  José G

The people win if they don’t build this stupid project using imaginary funds that haven’t even been allocated by the legislature.

J1mb0
J1mb0
8 days ago
Reply to  José G

Just like the SW Corridor MAX line is going to happen?

It’s very possible for this project to not happen, and it’s unlikely that it will happen. You need money to build things, and no one wants to pay the real price for this.

soren
soren
8 days ago
Reply to  José G

Delay tactics that prevent a multi-billion dollar boondoggle from being funded saves taxpayer money.

david hampsten
david hampsten
8 days ago

Personally I’ve never heard of any jurisdiction stopping a highway project because it isn’t yet in the comp plan, usually they do a comp plan amendment after-the-fact, so this might be interesting – or it might not be – to see if ODOT even cares.

Chris Smith
8 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

We’d love to force ODOT to go to the current Portland City Council to ask for a vote to allow this project to advance 🙂

Jake9
Jake9
8 days ago
Reply to  Chris Smith

Why would you want that? I’m pretty sure they would green light the project in an instant. Not all of them, but a majority would. I’m guessing they would rely on the Albina resurrection angle to get the money flowing to the minority contractors even though there is practically no hope of the freeway caps being built. A few vocal minority contractors get a lot of state money and the council members get some of that back as donations during election season. Everyone else gets a bunch of pollution.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
7 days ago
Reply to  Jake9

I think you are guessing. I’ve got no beef with minority contractors as a group, I’ve supported myself with a small business for years. How much of the $2 Billion is likely to go to minority contractors? Since we’re guessing, I guess it’s a single digit percentage. How about we line these folks up to build bike and ped infrastructure with a slice of the money that would otherwise go to debt service on more freeway lanes for the next 30 years?

Can you count to seven? Which seven or more councilors do you think will green light more freeways?

Jake9
Jake9
7 days ago

Have you been following what’s going on?
Minority contractors are going to be big recipients of the Rose Quarter work.

https://bikeportland.org/2025/07/24/transportation-commission-says-state-can-move-forward-with-i-5-rose-quarter-project-395587

You’re not thinking it through if you think the widening project is only about transportation. It’s being sold as a way to way to bring money into the Black community (through contracts) and to re-establish the Albina neighborhood/community. Whether it will or not is irrelevant to a lot of people, they are saying it will.
I am guessing that the DSA contingent (Peacocks + Novick equals 7) will indeed vote for the Albina restitution that so happens to also be a freeway widening project.

Thomas
Thomas
7 days ago

Just let them do phase 1a. It’s mostly work that’s good to do regardless of whether the highway is ever actually expanded and not doing it will probably be just as expensive as not doing it.

I get fighting the later phases even if I think they are worth doing but at this point the rest is already dead in the water.

Dave Farmer
Dave Farmer
7 days ago

The most important item is stopping the caps. Unaffordable and no money to build anything on top.