Most Recent Comments

I just want to say that the nutty politics of the Just Crossing Alliance have convinced three colleagues of mine in the last few years to become much more conservative. The fact that you are trying to advocate for fewer freeway lanes, when so much pollution from ICE vehicles is caused by idling, is ludicrous. All it takes is a drive in any other metro area to understand that Portland's freeway system has not kept up with its population and we're suffering the consequences because of it. To ask for fewer lanes when there are only two crossings in a metro area of 3 million people is unconscionable. Your politics has contributed to the Republican sweep of Congress and the Presidency. Nice work!

I'm not sure if this is where this topic belongs, but I am concerned with the elevation of the multi-use path crossing the Columbia River. If the multi-use path cannot be lowered, then robust, well-maintained elevators need to be made available as a primary, reliable option for active transportation users. This challenge is especially made clear on the Vancouver access point. Under current design, active transportation users must descend as they approach the waterfront, then use a ½ mile long, 4.5% grade circular facility to climb up to the bridge before crossing the Columbia River. This is a significant barrier and prevents all user access, being ableist in design. The program needs to include a multi-use path at the bridge’s grade from Evergreen to the riverfront so that walkers/rollers/riders have direct access to the bridge. This is an extreme example of out of direction travel that is exacerbated by out of elevation travel, which we do not love. There is additional out of direction travel for people making trips that combine transit and walking/rolling/biking. Current design places active transportation and transit facilities on opposite sides of the bridge, meaning users using more than one mode have additional out of direction travel getting from one side to the other. These additional distances are especially challenging for people with mobility challenges. As a multi-modal user, I need access to the transportation facilities on the same side of the bridge. By ensuring accessibility to all my modes on one side, the design will intrinsically protect the rights and needs of a broad user base, including non-drivers, low-income residents, and individuals with disabilities. By including all active modal use on the same side of the bridge, it has the following benefits: Seamless Transition: Users should easily switch between transit and active transportation at any station, with no grade changes or distance barriers; Shared Elevator Access: Allowing active transportation users to share transit station elevators eliminates the need for additional infrastructure, making the design more efficient and accessible; Eyes on the Path: Transit operators and passengers provide a continuous presence, reducing the isolation felt on a multi-use path and enhancing safety and comfort; Emergency Egress: The multi-use path should double as an emergency exit route for the transit way, supporting user safety during unexpected events; Inclusive Design Principles: These principles ensure the accessibility and usability of both transit and active transportation facilities for individuals of all abilities. Walking/Biking/Rolling Connectivity to the Main Bridge Multi-use Path from Oregon Mainland The Interstate Bridge Replacement project must ensure complete and safe connections to the existing walking, biking, and rolling corridors in Oregon. Additionally, these pathways need to be as physically separated from freight traffic as possible, especially in areas where new ramps and interchanges will be constructed. Maximizing this separation is key to creating safer, more attractive, and therefore more heavily used walking, rolling, and biking routes. The more separate the better, the safer people feel, the more people will use this feature. What's the point in building something that wont get used? This part is imperative. A distinct separation of walk/bike/roll corridors from freight routes reduces conflicts between these two user groups. For example, the current design for the ramp from Vancouver Way to MLK North poses significant conflict with freight, as the proposed route travels down, across, and back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Given the Marine Drive interchange is usually described as the most heavily used freight corridor in Oregon, I believe additional alternatives need to be studied that entirely separate walk/bike/roll travel around rather than through this important freight interchange. Connection to the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) presents a well-designed, safe separation for walk/bike/roll users along the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way corridor. This corridor provides an excellent example of the type of separation that should be extended to all Oregon walk/bike/roll corridors to ensure safety and connectivity. The Vancouver/Williams Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor is a major north-south bike route in Portland, but its connection to the new main bridge multi-use path (MUP) is indirect and complicated. Northbound users must navigate bike lanes along the shoulders of northbound MLK, while southbound users must travel along a separated bike lane next to Union Court before joining southbound MLK on a shoulder bike lane. Additional alternatives should be explored in the SEIS to improve this connection. One potential solution is to extend the proposed Union Court separated bike lane further, creating a parallel cycle track or entirely separate path alongside MLK. This path could be located at the toe of the MLK embankment, providing a safe, barrier-separated corridor for both northbound and southbound travel. This would eliminate the need for bike lanes on the shoulders of MLK, significantly separating pedestrian, bike, and roller traffic from freight movements. These alternatives were previously proposed to the IBR project and have been studied by the City of Portland. I urge the SEIS to consider them further and to adopt separated facilities, especially in these most dangerous areas of heavy freight movement. The 40-Mile Loop East/West Corridor is the main trail hub for Portland and when fully completed will connect most of the other trails in the region together. Having excellent connections with the 40-Mile Loop is important for ease of use and wayfinding. The IBR is improving an important segment of the 40 Mile Loop and I like that! IBR’s addition to the 40 Mile Loop Trail connects to the west to the already built separated trail along west bound Marine Drive. This connection is well-designed, offering a safe and direct route for cyclists and pedestrians separated from other traffic. I fully support this. However, the proposed eastbound connection to the Bridgeton Trail portion of the 40-Mile Loop is not ideal. The current design requires out-of-direction travel, routing users around a traffic circle to access the multi-use path on the west side of the Harbor Bridge. This is not a convenient or efficient connection. I request that alternative designs be considered to provide a direct connection from the Bridgeton Trail to the east-side sidewalk of the Harbor Bridge. This would encourage more users to cross the bridge as the east sidewalk offers a scenic view of North Portland Harbor and Mt. Hood. Additionally, I request that the sidewalk on the east side of the Harbor Bridge be as wide as possible and built with wide viewing areas to rest and enjoy the view.

State policy and the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) call for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in all sectors or our economy, including Transportation, the sector contributing the most ghg emissions. The DSEIS claims compared to the "No Build" alternative the MLPA will reduce GHG emissions. (See page 3.19-10: “Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Modified LPA is expected to reduce GHG emissions….“; and page 3.19-1, “The IBR Program aims to accelerate the local reduction of GHG emissions by developing alternatives to driving, managing transportation demand, and minimizing emissions associated with construction...;" and page 3.19-3, GHG reductions: “Less than 1% reduction from No Build in total CO2e emissions [MT CO2e/day] in 2045.”) The projected GHG emissions reductions are based in part on reduced VMT. (See page 3.19-16, “As shown in Table 3.19-5, the Modified LPA would reduce regional VMT, VHT, and VHD compared to the NoBuild Alternative.”) These assertions are flawed: They rely on overstated traffic projections in the "No Build" scenario (thereby making the MLPA traffic projection look more "even" with the "No Build" scenario): The DSEIS makes the assertion that the No-Build scenario will see continued growth of cross-bridge VMT over the next decades. However, multiple studies have concluded that the bridge has reached its maximum carrying capacity (at a peak of 5000 vehicles/hour), and continued growth is not plausible. IBRP's No-Build traffic predictions are based on Metro’s "Kate" modeling which overestimates the current level of traffic on the bridge – asserting that it carries over 6,000 vehicles per hour in the Northbound PM peak, even though actual traffic data show that flows are always less than 5,000 vehicles per hour. So, in comparison with the "No Build" scenario, and factoring the effects of Induced Demand (which the DSEIS does not do but is nonetheless a generally-accepted consequence of highway widening projects) the MLPA will undoubtedly increase VMT, and with it, also GHG emissions.. Even if the DSEIS assertions of GHG emissions reductions were accurate, they appear not to meet the requirements of the area's Regional Transportation Plan, which commits the Metro area to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent over the next 25 years. However, as referenced above, the DSEIS, overstates the projected VMT (and GHG emissions) of the No-Build scenario and then claims the MLPA achieves "Less than 1% reduction from No Build in total CO2e emissions...in 2045." In terms of VMT, the DSEIS summarizes the results of its modeling to show that the region will drive about 58.8 million miles in 2045.This represents annual VMT growth of about 1 percent per year, and essentially no-per capita decline in VMT, completely at odds with adopted regional policy. The IBRP should not be allowed to proceed with massive roadway widening over multiple miles, as called for in the MLPA, since this will worsen VMT and worsen emissions and violate the RTP. Instead the IBRP should, recheck its No-Build (and other) traffic projections, come into compliance with the RTP, and in the process reduce VMT and GHG emissions.

I am a low income Vancouver resident. What scares me most about this project is the idea that it could be completed without the light rail expansion. Clark County's CTRAN network must link up to a cheap and convenient transportation option in downtown Vancouver, and that option must be light rail. Do not let the potential loss of federal money from the new administration prevent this necessary improvement. If cuts are necessary in any way, cut down the number of lanes for cars, rather than eliminating the most equitable, climate friendly, and efficient transportation option from the project.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) contains serious flaws in its traffic analysis. One of the most serious issues is the document’s failure to account for induced demand, which will inevitably result from adding (auxiliary) lane capacity to I-5. This induced demand will create a significant environmental impact in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and local air and noise pollution from the added vehicle-miles traveled. This induced demand is distinct from the induced development that occurs in response to adding a new roadway. The SEIS must update its traffic forecast for the build alternative to reflect induced demand and its associated environmental impacts. Another flaw is the SEIS’ reliance on Metro’s poorly-calibrated traffic model that overestimates daily traffic on the Interstate Bridge. That model has a region-wide root mean square error (RSME) of 14.5%, compared to the 2023 Stantec/IBR 2 model’s RMSE of 2.5%. For traffic on the Bridge, the Metro model overestimated 2019 daily traffic by 18.5%. The SEIS must update its traffic forecasts using better-calibrated and validated traffic models. Additionally, the SEIS shows no-build traffic forecasts that exceed the Interstate Bridge’s capacity. These unrealistic forecasts underscore that the traffic analysis underpinning the SEIS is untethered from reality. These also must be amended to reflect the physical constraints on the Interstate Bridge.

Please see the attached comment letter from No More Freeways

Comment Two with Attachment: Conceptual Design Report - IBRP Tunnel Option North Bank Connections The most important item in the SEIS is the fact that the public was lied to by the IBR team when they were comparing options to replace the bridge. The public was explicitly told that the tunnel option could not provide connections to critical streets on Hayden Island and Downtown Vancouver. That was a blatant lie made to deceive the public into believing the tunnel was not worth a detailed evaluation. It is no wonder that only 22 percent of the population trusts government to do the right thing. In my 40 years as a consulting civil engineer helping local government implement public infrastructure projects, never once did I see agency staff lie to the public. This is the first time and it is totally outrageous. Please stop by 215 West 4th Street in Vancouver and look at the to-scale model that was built to show clearly that tunnel connections to critical streets can easily be made. The IBR lie will become very apparent. I have attached one engineering report to this comment also demonstrating that fact. A second report was attached a previous comment.

The project represents an excellent opportunity to improve area connectivity while meeting its mandate to "improve connectivity and... operations of publish transit modal connectivity options in the area". I am a daily cyclist, and I have travelled to Vancouver from NE Portland via bicycle. The analysis should include opportunities to connect to existing cycling infrastructure such as the Vancouver/Williams corridor and the 40 mile Loop. The multi purpose trail and transit should be located on the same side of the bridge. During the winter, I frequently switch between cycling and transit to avoid the rain. Having transit, pedestrians, and cyclists on the path also helps prevent the place from feeling too isolated and therefore dangerous. When I first made this journey, I had to pull over repeatedly and check the map, and I had to make some risky course corrections near on-ramps. Better connectivity to Williams could make cycling a more viable option and reduce risk of injury. Upon hearing that I had made the trek from NE Portland to Vancouver, a friend responded "Isn't that the shittiest ride in the area? Just awful". It would be great for that assessment to become untrue.

Comment One with Attachment: Engineering Report - An Assessment of the Decision To Reject a Tunnel as a Viable Option to Replace the I-5 Bridge Over the Columbia River The most important item in the SEIS is the fact that the public was lied to by the IBR team when they were comparing options to replace the bridge. The public was explicitly told that the tunnel option could not provide connections to critical streets on Hayden Island and Downtown Vancouver. That was a blatant lie made to deceive the public into believing the tunnel was not worth a detailed evaluation. It is no wonder that only 22 percent of the population trusts government to do the right thing. In my 40 years as a consulting civil engineer helping local government implement public infrastructure projects, never once did I see agency staff lie to the public. This is the first time and it is totally outrageous. Please stop by 215 West 4th Street in Vancouver and look at the to-scale model that was built to show clearly that tunnel connections to critical streets can easily be made. The IBR lie will become very apparent. I have attached one engineering reports to this comment also demonstrating that fact. A second report will be attached to another comment.

I fully support building a replacement I-5 Columbia River bridge that will be safe and usable after a Cascadia Subduction Zone Event (CSZE) of 9.0 or higher. However, I strongly oppose a replacement I-5 Columbia River bridge that is wrapped in a freeway expansion project. The IBRP should not be allowed to proceed with the MLPA in its current form with massive roadway widening over a 5-mile stretch as this will worsen VMT, GHG emissions and is hideously expensive. Rather, the IBRP should design and build just an actual replacement bridge or tunnel, not a freeway expansion that happens to contain a replacement bridge. We need a replacement bridge or tunnel that is fiscally responsible for our region, something that meets the objective of I-5 continuity after a CSZE, and something that will not induce increased traffic demand and lead to increasing GHG emissions. Even without an unfunded mega-freeway expansion project like the current GMLPA, we do not have the budget or increased revenue to properly maintain our current transportation system, expand public transit, reduce GHG emissions, and increase the viability of active transportation across the state. The $1B of guaranteed funding for Oregon's portion of this freeway expansion came from General Obligation bonds. Therefore we have started this freeway expansion by proposing to paying for it in part by taking from public education, public health & safety, wildfire management and a host of other priorities that are more important than a freeway expansion that will not reduce congestion in the long term.

It is irresponsible to spend $9,000,000,000 on a project that will verifiably make the lives of everyone around it worse. I don't understand why we as a city are committing to a project that we don't have the money for and that no one in the city approves of. I think the people behind this package are aware of it which is why we don't have a solid environmental impact statement, renderings, or traffic flow analysis (https://cityobservatory.org/cooking-the-books-how-ibr-used-post-processing-to-alter-the-metro-model/). The truth is being obfuscated by some powerful people that stand to line their pockets with a project that would displace thousands of our most at risk residents. I won't stand for this waste of public funds. If we're going to plunge ourselves into debt for an overly-ambitious project, I would rather it be an expansion of the MAX system so more people will be off the roads and using a more efficient form of transit. We could even build an entire bike highway network crisscrossing the Portland-Vancouver metro area for a fraction of the cost. I elected my officials in Portland to protect us from wild state and national level bloat like this highway expansion. I hope some of them hear my call and use their power to block this reckless use of our local funds.

If we're serious about decarbonization and moving towards a sustainable future, I don't understand why we're investing in the most consumptive and wasteful form of transit. Even if every car on the road was electric, the global and human impact of lithium mining is still intolerable. Not to mention the inefficiency of a 6,000 lb car moving one person across town. If we're going to take the climate emergency seriously, we need to divest for car-centric infrastructure and use those funds for trains, street cars, and bikes. I'm very disappointed in the lack of cohesive environmental impact statement and I don't understand why a massive highway expansion has been shoehorned into earthquake-proofing a bridge. How about we just earthquake-proof the bridge and leave it at that? There is not a compelling case for why over 1,000 homes need to be demolished for more asphalt. I'm all for updating old infrastructure but we don't need to massively scale up an outdated and infective transit method in the process. It's not the 60s anymore; follow the science and invest in the future of our climate.

It is well documented (https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/induced_traffic_and_induced_demand_lee.pdf) that adding lanes to highways only induce more traffic within as little as six months and does little to increase throughput. As a resident who doesn't own a car, it's discouraging to see nearly 9B dollars go to a bloated project that will not do anything to solve congestion. Instead of burning money to add 7 500M dollar interchanges, I'd prefer that we "right-size" this project and only earthquake-proof the bridge. The 3.5B we save could be used on solutions that effectively reduce car congestion like expanded transit access, a concrete-protected bike lane network, or any other viable alternatives to driving. Time and time again we've seen that adding lanes destroys cities and bankrupts local governments. If I wanted to live in Huston or Coral Gables, I would simply have moved there. Portland is supposed to be a shining example of how a city can look when it isn't strangled by interstates and parking lots. Let's be better as a community and be responsible with our spending. We don't need a super highway with sprawling interchanges; we need a viable alternatives to driving.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. This YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB_9Va0fx_o) does a great job of explaining how additional highway capacity affects driver choices. I realize your rules don't allow links, so the transcript is below, but it really is worth a viewing. 0:00 if i had the ability to make everyone in 0:01 the world instantly 0:03 understand one concept it would be the 0:06 importance of relying on the scientific 0:08 method 0:09 but if i had the ability to make 0:10 everyone understand two things 0:12 the second would almost certainly be the 0:14 concept of induced 0:16 demand because if everyone understood 0:18 this 0:19 one concept it would literally change 0:21 the way we structure our society 0:23 and the way we build cities and suburbs 0:25 overnight 0:27 and if we had done it sooner we could 0:29 potentially have avoided or at least 0:31 greatly delayed our current climate 0:33 crisis 0:35 and at its most basic level induced 0:37 demand 0:38 is the idea that any change you make to 0:41 the road network 0:42 including either expanding or removing 0:44 capacity 0:46 has an effect on people's decisions on 0:48 whether to drive 0:50 if you make a highway two lanes wider 0:52 for instance momentarily it does make 0:55 traffic flow better 0:56 and everyone's happy all of a sudden 0:58 there's more capacity on the road and 1:00 people's habits haven't yet changed 1:03 to adapt to it however pretty quickly 1:06 people realize that the highway is now 1:08 much faster 1:09 since there's less congestion individual 1:13 people 1:13 will then change the way they get around 1:15 to take advantage 1:17 like say a guy that used to take the 1:19 train will all of a sudden realize that 1:20 driving is quicker and easier 1:22 and just do that a woman that used to go 1:25 to see her mom 1:26 in the afternoon because the traffic was 1:28 too bad at the morning rush 1:30 thereby spreading out the congestion 1:32 we'll now go in the morning instead 1:35 a guy that used to bike will drive all 1:37 sorts of little changes 1:38 because the things that used to keep 1:40 them from traveling on the road 1:42 the traffic and the delay have been 1:44 lessened 1:45 the road itself has literally induced 1:48 more people to use it more and it will 1:52 fill up to the point where it is at the 1:54 same congestion level as before 1:57 which is the point where the hassle and 1:59 delay of traffic 2:00 dissuade people again from using it 2:04 so now instead of four lanes of traffic 2:07 at a shitty congestion level of 80 2:09 or whatever you have six lanes of 2:11 traffic at that level 2:13 and those people will then eventually 2:15 leave the highway 2:17 and make more traffic everywhere 2:20 the key realization here is the road 2:22 itself 2:23 has an effect on people's behavior and 2:26 people's behavior 2:28 generates the traffic the number of 2:32 people that choose to drive 2:34 is not fixed taking away space 2:38 in the same way will reduce traffic 2:41 especially 2:42 if you take it away to build an 2:44 alternate form of transportation 2:46 like a bus or a bike lane that can 2:49 handle 2:49 that traffic and give people a reason to 2:52 switch 2:53 this is the concept of induced demand 2:55 and it's incredibly 2:56 important that everybody understands it

The climate crisis will surely convince more and more people to user public transportation rather than individual vehicles. Therefore the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program must go beyond fulfilling present needs but instead plan for future demands of mass transit modalities. Stations should be built to support four-car trains now to align with future downtown transit tunnel upgrades. Any new bridge must include plans for multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and/or heavy rail traffic.

State policy, generally, and the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), specifically, call for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in all sectors or our economy, including Transportation, the most ghg emissions contributing sector.    The DSEIS claims compared to the "No Build" alternative the MLPA will reduce GHG emissions. (See page 3.19-10: “Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Modified LPA is expected to reduce GHG emissions….“; and page 3.19-1, “The IBR Program aims to accelerate the local reduction of GHG emissions by developing alternatives to driving, managing transportation demand, and minimizing emissions associated with construction...;" and page 3.19-3, GHG reductions: “Less than 1% reduction from No Build in total CO2e emissions [MT CO2e/day] in 2045.”)  The projected GHG emissions reductions are based in part on reduced VMT. (See page 3.19-16, “As shown in Table 3.19-5, the Modified LPA would reduce regional VMT, VHT, and VHD compared to the NoBuild Alternative.”)   These assertions are flawed:They rely on overstated traffic projections in the "No Build" scenario (thereby making the MLPA traffic projection look more "even" with the "No Build" scenario): The DSEIS makes the assertion that the No-Build scenario will see continued growth of cross-bridge VMT over the next decades. However, multiple studies have concluded that the bridge has reached its maximum carrying capacity (at a peak of 5000 vehicles/hour), and continued growth is not plausible. IBRP's No-Build traffic predictions are based on Metro’s "Kate" modeling which overestimates the current level of traffic on the bridge – asserting that it carries over 6,000 vehicles per hour in the Northbound PM peak, even though actual traffic data show that flows are always less than 5,000 vehicles per hour. So, in comparison with the "No Build" scenario, and factoring the effects of Induced Demand (which the DSEIS does not do but is nonetheless a generally-accepted consequence of highway widening projects) the MLPA will undoubtedly increase VMT, and with it, also GHG emissions.. Even if the DSEIS assertions of GHG emissions reductions were accurate, they appear not to meet the requirements of the area's Regional Transportation Plan, which commits the Metro area to reduce total vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent over the next 25 years.  However, as referenced above, the DSEIS, overstates the projected VMT (and GHG emissions) of the No-Build scenario and then claims the MLPA achieves "Less than 1% reduction from No Build in total CO2e emissions...in 2045."  In terms of VMT, the DSEIS summarizes the results of its modeling to show that the region will drive about 58.8 million miles in 2045.This represents annual VMT growth of about 1 percent per year, and essentially no-per capita decline in VMT, completely at odds with adopted regional policy. The IBRP should not be allowed to proceed with massive roadway widening over multiple miles, as called for in the MLPA, since this will worsen VMT and worsen emissions and violate the RTP. Instead the IBRP should, recheck its No-Build (and other) traffic projections, come into compliance with the RTP, and in the process reduce VMT and GHG emissions.

I appreciate the inclusion of a light rail option and of a multi-use path in the design alternatives in the DSEIS. It is important to provide safe travel alternatives for the 25% of people who do not or cannot drive, for those who want to help reduce traffic pollution for health or climate reasons, or for those who wish to keep both personal travel expenses and public costs of the bridge replacement as manageable as possible. Having alternative modes that allow people to get where they're going safely and conveniently without a car helps reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. However, the DSEIS alternatives should be changed from having the transit and multi-use "lanes" separated on opposite sides of the bridge, to putting them next to each other, with the light rail next to traffic, providing a buffer for active transportation. This greatly enhances safety for active transportation, mitigates noise, and facilitates access to transit. Relocating the multi-use lane also should allow for extending it: on the Vancouver side, to eliminate the need to use the 100-ft access spiral; and on the Portland side, to improve connections to popular parts of town.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article suggests that at some level, 2/3rds of the public understand that adding lanes does not help congestion.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article reviews differences in attitude about induced demand between planners and engineers.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article suggests reason why it may be difficult to get people to accept the idea of induced demand.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article describes the "Shift Calculator" by the Rocky Mountain Institute which computes induced demand VMT estimates.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached Texas Observer article documents the failure of expansion of the Katy Freeway to 23 lanes to reduce congestion.

maximize the potential for active transportation and transit, integrated and side- by-side prepare now for near term light rail improvements and make sure that there is ease of access for multiple integrated access points northern access point should be at ‘community connector’ at Evergreen and have a secure , safe tie in to Vancouver/Williams corridor in the South the multi use path should be shaded given the heat island effect on the bridge

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached CityLab University primer overviews these effects.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached LA Weekly article documents that a $1.1B effort to add lanes to I-405 in LA did not improve congeston.