Commentary

History shows IBR modeling is simply wrong

Highway department’s are selling multi-billion dollar highway widening projects based on flawed traffic projections. The projections prepared for the predecessor of the proposed $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement project predicted traffic would grow 1.3 percent per year after 2005.  In reality, traffic across the I-5 bridges has increased by only about 0.1 percent per year […]

History shows IBR modeling is simply wrong Read More »

The Week Observed, November 9, 2024

What City Observatory Did This Week IBR Traffic Forecasts Violate Portland Region’s Climate Commitments.  Portland’s adopted Regional Transportation Plan commits the Metro area to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent over the next twenty-five years. But the traffic forecasts used to justify the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Project call for more

The Week Observed, November 9, 2024 Read More »

IBR: Planning for a world that no longer exists

The Interstate Bridge Project’s traffic projections pretend that the massive shift to “work-from-home” never happened The IBR traffic projections rely almost entirely on pre-Covid-pandemic data, and ignore the dramatic change in travel patterns. Traffic on  I-5 is still 7 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to Oregon DOT data Traffic on the I-5 bridge is lower

IBR: Planning for a world that no longer exists Read More »

IBR contradicts region’s climate commitments

IBR Traffic Forecasts Violate Portland Region’s Climate Commitments Portland’s adopted Regional Transportation Plan commits the Metro area to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent over the next twenty-five years. But the traffic forecasts used to justify the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Project call for more than a 25 percent increase in

IBR contradicts region’s climate commitments Read More »

Needless purposes: How IBR violates NEPA

The $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement Project’s two-decade old “Purpose and Need” statement is simply wrong, and provides an invalid basis for the project’s required Environmental Impact Statement. Contrary to claims by project proponents, the “Purpose and Need” statement isn’t chiseled in stone, rather it is required to be evolve to reflect reality and better

Needless purposes: How IBR violates NEPA Read More »

Metro’s Kate Model: 25,000 phantom cars a day on the I-5 bridge

How can we trust Metro’s model to predict the future, when it can’t even match the present? Metro’s Kate travel demand model, used to plan the $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge, includes 25,000 phantom cars per day in its base year estimates. The existing I-5 bridges over the Columbia River carried 138,800 vehicles on an average

Metro’s Kate Model: 25,000 phantom cars a day on the I-5 bridge Read More »

IBR traffic modeling violates professional standards and federal rules

Traffic modeling is guided by a series of professional and administrative guidelines.  In the case of the proposed $7.5 Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, IBR and Metro modelers did not follow or violated these guidelines in many ways as they prepared their traffic demand modeling.  IBR modelers: Didn’t assess accuracy of their previous modeling Failed to

IBR traffic modeling violates professional standards and federal rules Read More »

Cooking the Books: How IBR used “Post-Processing” to alter the Metro Model

To hear project officials tell it, traffic projections emerge from the immaculate and objective Metro “Kate” traffic model But in reality, IBR traffic projections are not the outputs of the Kate travel demand model.  Instead, IBR consultants have altered the Metro numbers, something the label “post-processing.” But what they’ve done, doesn’t meet the professional standards

Cooking the Books: How IBR used “Post-Processing” to alter the Metro Model Read More »