Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the I5 Interchange Modeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Modeling shows limited payoff for a second I‑5 interchange; staff does not recommend it
Summary
Staff presented modeling for limited and full I‑5 interchanges (Alternatives 3 and 3A) and said modeling by ODOT showed little network benefit, induced demand, and the site likely does not meet ODOT interchange requirements. Staff did not recommend pursuing a new interchange.
City staff presented two interchange alternatives — a limited and a full interchange on I‑5 — and reported ODOT modeling showed little measurable system benefit for Woodburn. The city had both alternatives modeled by ODOT and staff summarized the findings.
Chris Kirk said the ODOT modeling results were “a little bit surprising” and that the analyses showed the interchange alternatives produced minimal relief on the nearby state route (214/219) and could induce additional demand on the new south arterial. “Essentially, you don't get any significant results,” Kirk said, summarizing the modeling outcomes. He also noted ODOT told staff the site did not meet the agency’s requirements for new interchanges.
Because of the limited payback, high cost, proximity to the existing interchange and ODOT standards, staff did not recommend including a new interchange in the preferred alternative and suggested keeping interchange modeling and alternative options in the technical appendices. The Planning Commission heard the technical explanation and the staff recommendation to pursue Alternative 2 (South Arterial and local network improvements) rather than a new I‑5 interchange.
