The I-5 Rose Quarter project received a stay of execution today thanks to last-minute maneuvering from leaders of Albina Vision Trust, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and three Metro councilors.
As I reported last month, the beleaguered, $2 billion project that aims to expand I-5 between I-84 and the Fremont Bridge and build highway caps and other surface street improvements, faced the possibility of being defunded by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). After years of delays due to lawsuits, a skyrocketing price tag, and a political roller coaster ride, the project is at a low point. Desperate to maintain inertia, the Oregon Department of Transportation asked the OTC how to spend the remaining $167 million in the project’s construction coffers. Option 1 would use the money to begin an early phase of construction, Option 2 would use the funds to finish design and make it shovel-ready for full construction later on, and Option 3 would pause funding and re-allocate it to other projects (note that ODOT claims the funds could only be used on other regional highway expansion projects).
ODOT Rose Quarter Program Director Monica Blanchard poked serious holes in Option 3, saying that, in addition to ODOT staff and project advisory committees being against it (big surprise), “Portland’s Black community would see this as walking back on commitments, and cancelling the project would be further eroding their trust in ODOT.”
Even facing steep odds, the fact that a defund option was even on the table was a huge development.
No More Freeways (NMF), a nonprofit that’s filed multiple lawsuits against the project, put out a call to action among its members that resulted in over 200 comments in favor of Option 3 filed with the OTC before today’s meeting. NMF sensed an opportunity to strike a mortal blow to the project. But Albina Vision Trust, a nonprofit that supports the project and wants to rebuild a neighborhood on top of the highway caps, also sensed an opportunity — not just to save the funding, but to bend the project even closer to their vision.
And they called in some influential partners to make it happen.
In a letter to the OTC dated December 10th, AVT Executive Director Winta Yohannes — along with Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, Metro President Lynn Peterson, Metro Councilor and Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Chair Juan Carlos Gonzalez, and Metro Councilor Ashton Simpson — said all three options proposed by ODOT, “fail to adequately balance investment that would concurrently advance I-5 mainline and highway cover related improvements.”
These influential partners proposed a fourth option, one that wasn’t known to the public until the meeting was already underway. Their Option 4 sought to use the $167 million to move the project forward, but to spend that money on project elements identified, “in collaboration with regional partners,” and “to ensure parity of mainline and highway cover improvements.”
Yohannes, speaking at the OTC meeting today, said, “We need to make sure that what’s [constructed] at each stage maintains the coalition that is ultimately supporting this project… we’re saying, ‘We want to work with you.'” “At a time when this project is facing so many threats,” Yohannes continued. “We think that our power is working together… we believe we can come to a thoughtful phased approach that everybody supports and that ultimately contributes to the overall success of the project.”
“I find your comments very persuasive,” responded Commissioner Lee Beyer (a former state legislator and one of the architects of the 2017 transportation bill that funded the Rose Quarter project). And so too did the other three commissioners present at today’s meeting. They all voted to support Option 4. The plan now is to bring this issue back to the OTC in February or March with a more detailed preliminary construction plan — a plan that is shaped by project partners and not just ODOT staff.
So the I-5 Rose Quarter project lives on, and AVT — the group that has held the keys to the project for years now — found a way to assert even more influence over its future.
What about those 200-plus folks who sent in comments hoping to defund the project? Commissioner Jeff Baker acknowledged them at the end of the meeting.
“There were a lot of impassioned comments that come into us on Option 3, and I would encourage those that have a real strong feeling on Option 3 to do what I did: to learn about this project, go take a walk with Mr. [JT] Flowers… I think an understanding of this project and what it all means, not only the public investment, the private investment from Mr. [Phil] Knight, the [Portland] Trailblazers, and what this project means to the community — it’s very enlightening. And by walking it and seeing it, and hearing from somebody who grew up in the neighborhood, I think it would be really good to at least understand what it’s all about. It may harden their feelings, but I have a feeling that once they really understand and walk through it, it might be very enlightening.”
So in the end, Option 4 is much better than Option 1 (which was a very likely choice going into the meeting). It’s not the defunding some project skeptics wanted, but Option 4 introduces a bit more delay and more accountability from AVT, the City of Portland, and Metro that should provide some checks on ODOT’s worst impulses.
— See ODOT’s press release about the decision here.
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.
“”Portland’s Black community would this as walking back on commitments, and cancelling the project would be further eroding their trust in ODOT.””
This is nonsense. Erode their trust in what? ODOT giving them bribe money or reparations or whatever you want to call it or for ODOT to do the right thing which would be to invest in human/public transportation?
At this point I vote for option 5 which is simply to give the 167 million to the AVT and not widen or cap anything. They get the money which is clearly all they want and everyone gets better health and a better environment by not widening the road for more ice vehicles. (Sorry 2Wheels, I don’t share your rosy future of electrics with the current administration)
It’s a bad solution, but at this point in the insanity not widening and capping the freeway is paramount.
Would be great to have an ‘option 4’ where they build the caps without the freeway expansion. I really want to see the caps happen. Regardless, if they choose to move the project forward there needs to be assurances that the funding for the caps is guaranteed.
That won’t happen John. There’s a clear understanding now that — if the project continues to move forward — it will be done in a way that makes relatively equal progress on the widening and the caps, at least that’s what I think AVT and their partners did today.
Option 3 was never really an option. They just put it out there to act like they’re considering all options and taking public opposition seriously. They aren’t. Honestly Option 4 is better than what ODOT originally proposed which would be to start the widening and get to the caps later (assuming they have the money.) Then when the legislature can’t fund it and and the feds won’t they just throw up their hands and say oh well we tried here’s your nice wider freeway!
I don’t fully understand what “option 4” is hoping to get to. Are the “mainline” improvements the widening portions? It looks like the way the project is currently phased, the widening and expansion of auxiliary lanes are supposed to happen before any caps are built, would this proposal be able to change that order? If AVT is getting more of a say would it be possible to get caps without widening?
I still don’t see any real consideration of whether or not it makes sense to keep spending on a project that no one knows how to fund. It’s just two well meaning groups pitted against each other as if this were a purely ideological issue. It’s not. There’s no money for this. It doesn’t matter who would or wouldn’t benefit.