No Freeway Expansion

Context

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have for decades insisted that the proper response to urban congestion is continued widening of freeways. Both experience and academic research have built a solid case that expanding freeway capacity leads to an equal growth in traffic within a few years—it does not reduce traffic congestion.

At the same time, transportation is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (“Carbon Pollution from Transportation”), making freeway expansion fundamentally incompatible with climate goals. Continued freeway widening increases air pollution, noise, particulate matter from tire and brake wear, and displacement of homes and businesses, while failing to solve the congestion problems it promises to address.

Portland faces pressure to expand two major freeway projects: the Rose Quarter and the I-5 Bridge Replacement over the Columbia River. While these projects include beneficial elements such as pollution reduction measures, neighborhood reconnection, and seismic upgrades, these improvements can be achieved without adding traffic lanes that undermine climate and community health goals.

The current federal rollback of climate protections makes local and state opposition to freeway expansion more critical for maintaining emission reduction goals.

Additionally, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) faces a funding crisis. This creates an opportunity to advocate for redirecting any future transportation funding away from freeway expansion toward maintenance and alternative transportation infrastructure that supports climate goals.

Actions

Maintain current roadways and Interstates with a focus on equitable public health and economic outcomes, encourage alternative transportation, and do not expand freeways. In order to ensure accountability for freeway projects that encourage safety, public health, and emissions reductions, the City of Portland must:

1. Scrutinize all freeway expansion proposals to determine necessity and climate impact.
   • Any proposals must be subject to rigorous induced demand analysis and must be thoroughly vetted by the City.
2. Prioritize non- or low-emissions alternative transportation.
   • Alternative methods of transportation like transit, biking, and walking must be the foremost preferred modes to absorb increased mobility requirements.
3. Ensure that safety investments do not compromise climate and environmental health.
   • Safety and resilience investments like seismic upgrades are important to ensure the stability of current infrastructure and the safety of people who use roads, but they must not be used as an excuse to add additional lanes to expand freeways.
4. Consider equitable pricing and transportation demand management programs before freeway expansion.
   • Pricing and Transportation Demand Programs can effectively reduce traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and promote more sustainable transportation options by encouraging the use of public transit, cycling, and walking. These must be heavily considered before any freeway expansion proposal.
   • Ensuring that public transit is affordable and accessible is a necessary component.
5. Require the I-5 Bridge Replacement to do climate analysis that takes into account induced demand research:
   • The I-5 Bridge Replacement project’s environmental review completely ignores induced demand — the term doesn’t even appear in the index and isn’t incorporated into evaluation of alternatives.
   • Induced demand research shows a 10% increase in lane capacity produces a 9% increase in traffic, but planners falsely claim the same number of trips will occur whether the highway is widened or not.

Citations

Bult, Laura. “How highways make traffic worse.” Vox. February 12, 2021.

“Carbon Pollution from Transportation.” Environmental Protection Agency.

“Climate Considerations.” Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.

Manville, Michael. “Is congestion pricing fair to the poor?” Medium. August 14, 2017.