Most Recent Comments

I believe it is necessary at this point to replace the bridge, but I do think its unnecessary to expand the width and number of lanes that the new bridge will have. I say this because the freeway that transitions onto and off the bridge will still only have four lanes after the completion of the new bridge. Expanding the width of the bridge will lead to more traffic on the bridge and consequently on the freeway, which will lead to more traffic jams on the freeway.

Hello, I am writing because I am concerned about the impact that expanding freeways and adding lanes to highways (and bridges) has on our environment. We must take care of our environment in order to have a livable planet for the next generation to inhabit. I understand that the bridge needs to be replaced and I appreciate that it is being replaced. However, replacing the bridge should not equate to increasing lanes and ability for more cars/trucks/etc to pollute our planet. I travel between Portland and Vancouver, and I do not have an automobile due to the impacts that automobiles have on our Earth. I bike between Portland and Vancouver. I think more people would bike if there was more space between the cars and the multi-use path on the bridge. The path is so narrow, and the dividers between the cars and the path are very short. It is honestly very loud and scary! Ideally, the path would be wider and more protected- and there would be a lane for transit- a train and/or busses in a transit lane. That way, bikers could be more safe and non-bikers who want to travel between cities but can't afford or don't want automobiles could travel by transit. Transit and the multi use path right next to each other would be ideal so people could go back and forth between transit and biking. I'd love to have the option to take transit part of the way! It would be important for transit elevators to be there as well so everyone can have access. If tolling is done for drivers, low income people should be given a discount or exemption from tolling. Thank you! Kristen Sartor

If this bridge is to be built, there are both rational and irrational choices that could be made. Please make the rational choice of placing the multi-use path adjacent to light-rail/bus lanes. The elevators that will be needed for transit must be able to accommodate people and their bikes, including large/heavy eBikes/cargo-bikes. Please make the rational choice of placing the multi-use path as far away from motor-traffic as much as possible by placing the transit lanes between the multi-use path and motor traffic lanes. Please make the rational choice of extending paths and adding connections to all current and future points-of-interest including a connection to Evergreen in Vancouver and the Vancouver/Williams couplet in Portland. A ten story spiral climb/decent as the only option in Vancouver is not rational. Please make the rational choice of planning for expanded rail capacity/rail systems. It would be irrational to limit the functionality of the bridge based on current transit capacity/systems. Please do not make the irrational choice to use massively inaccurate projections about future traffic volume. The region simply will not see the population/traffic growth that could possibly explain the traffic volumes stated. Vancouver: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. Portland: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave. link.

The transit stations being built alongside the bridge replacement project need to be made large enough for future demand. Metro and other local authorities are planning to begin running 4-car trains in Portland once the underground MAX tunnels downtown are complete; these plans have been available for some time. We should build our stations to meet the demands of these four car trains, rather than undertaking expensive renovation efforts in the near future.

I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways. This bridge should not expand freeways through my neighborhood, it will pollute our air and increase noise. I’d prefer the tunnel option, and keeping the planned lanes to 3 in each direction. Use the excess fund to c reconnect the neighborhoods divided by the initial construction of the freeway. This project cannot not be allowed to continue in its present plan.

It is absolutely crucial that the multi-use path be positioned adjacent to the transit way. The transit way will act as a buffer between pedestrians and car traffic, and the regular, passing trains will combat feelings of isolation in multi-use path users - the crossing is fairly long on foot. Additionally, the utility of the multi-use path decreases to users when they have to talk a long, circuitous route to reach their transit stop.

I bike from Portland to Vancouver, and it's important to me that the new bridge is safe and practical to use. I'd like the multiuse path to be on the same side of the bridge as the light rail, so people can use the transit elevators to access either the multiuse path or the transit station. I'd like to see the path on the Vancouver side remain elevated as far as the last MAX stop, to avoid bikes having to dip down a half mile ramp to the waterfront if that's not their destination.

The traffic modeling performed by Kate, the regional trip modeler used by Metro Regional Government, is wildly inaccurate. It fails to account for bottlenecks in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and estimates future trip numbers exceeding the maximum capacity of the existing span. Kate's problems have been recognized and acknowledged by Metro, but they have not moved on to a better model or undertaken meaningful re-calibration. New, thorough studies with a higher-quality model are necessary to give us accurate numbers of expected trips in the future.

The replacement bridge must be seismsically safe to account for a likely earthquake. It should include an extension for light rail. There should be bike and pedestrian improvements to allow access to all types of traffic. Thank you for your attention. Nancy Crumpacker

We need a new bridge to be future proof, especially for transit and for folks using active transportation methods like bicycling and walking. We need this bridge to be comfortable and accessible, with shade, barriers, and convenient connections, for people who are walking, biking, and using public transportation. We can't afford to continue subsidizing driving above these other methods of transportation. I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways and the Just Cross Alliance, focusing especially on better partnering of active transportation and transit.

Transportation is our largest source of climate pollution, and we need to make sure that transit and the multi-modal path on this bridge are top notch and that tolling is appropriate to encourage people to minimize car trips. If we have a class A light rail system to get across the Columbia River and connect our two cities, while drivers have a proper-sized toll to pay, we have a shot at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Anything less is a disservice to our children and the future of our two states.

We need to be investing in public transit and electric buses not more highways that encourage people to drive cars. Climate change is real and is the biggest threat and danger that we face. We need to take it seriously.

I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways and the Just Crossing Alliance

As a person dependent on my bicycle for transportation, I am very concerned about the height and grade to reach the bridge, especially on the Vancouver side. a 4.5% grade circular path is not accessible for many people, even able-bodied riders. We MUST make traveling across the I-5 bridge more appealing for people riding and rolling across the bridge. The bridge will need to have a lower path or elevators (that work consistently and well!) for users. I have experienced many elevators (like the one on the Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge) frequently out of service and always very slow. I'll also add that a route that tacks a mile on to the trip to access the bridge on bike is really disappointing. I am also concerned about connectivity between the bridge and existing multi-modal infrastructure, specifically the Williams/Vancouver corridor (which I frequently use for commuting). There are also specific points with the new design that will cause conflicts between freight and multi-modal users - I urge you to find solutions that prioritize separated infrastructure for people biking and walking. The Marine Drive interchange is one area that has been highlighted as a potential conflict zone. Again, we must make biking and walking attractive and safe for people of all ages and abilities - not just the strong and fearless. In addition, the multi-use trail must be located on the same side of the bridge as transit. It makes no sense to have these facilities on different sides, as it makes it very inconvenient to access transit or to change from transit to bicycling/walking without going out of direction. Having transit on the same side as the multi-modal path will also add the benefit of providing a buffer between general traffic and the MUP (including a buffer from the garbage that sometimes flies off/out of automobiles), and transit operators and riders provide an extra presence for the path to reduce the feeling of isolation and increasing the feeling of safety. Additionally, adequate lighting on the trail is necessary for the safety of users.

Active transportation must be a priority and not an afterthought and the 5-23-23 Draft Map fails to do this. Supporting active transit and public transit is necessary for this project to hit our region's environmental and equity goals. Mobility should be accessible without the high-entry cost of a personal vehicle. The current configuration of making active users cross under the bridge then a terribly awkward and wasteful spiral is not up to the needs of efficiency and safety. You can see a spiral solution like this goes underutilized at N Lombard at I-5 where desire paths cut across dirt and to cross a freeway entrance to avoid the spiral ramp. Freeway designs need to take into account the human powered transit needs to be highly efficient. The solution to I-5 needs to be to pair active transit multi-use on the same side as the Max transit. The new I-5 multi-use path needs to also be highly efficient both at the bridge crossings and to access from the Expo center and into Downtown Vancouver avoiding putting vulnerable roadway users near dangerous high speed arterials. The new configuration needs to minimize traffic crossings especially from traffic about to enter or exit a high-speed freeway.

In the single deck configuration the design should use the public transit space as a buffer from the freeway to avoid the very awful experience on the 205 multi-use path. The I-205 configuration is unacceptable and a near total failure. If the I-5 double deck configuration is to be used it should be both well-lit and dry. Every precaution to avoid run-off from the freeway above to not fall onto the users below should be taken. Taking these steps will help better connect our two cities to foster more community and growth.

I object to the inclusion of a second auxiliary lane in the IBR project. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) fails to provide sufficient justification for this addition, and it risks prioritizing freeway expansion over more pressing community and environmental needs. Instead, the IBR project should focus on a streamlined plan centered on replacing the aging bridge, enhancing transit options, and improving active transportation infrastructure. This approach would be both more cost-effective and better aligned with the values of our region. Adding a second auxiliary lane would exacerbate several critical issues: ** Air Quality: Both Portland and Vancouver already suffer from poor air quality, and increased traffic emissions would further degrade public health and environmental conditions. * Noise Pollution: Downtown Vancouver’s quality of life would be significantly impacted by higher levels of noise pollution resulting from expanded freeway capacity. * Increased Emissions: The environmental impact extends beyond traffic. The materials required for additional bridge construction, coupled with the lifetime emissions from induced traffic, would significantly increase the project’s carbon footprint. Expanding freeway capacity has repeatedly proven ineffective at reducing congestion, as evidenced by Los Angeles’ endless cycle of freeway expansions that only induce more traffic. This is not the path we should follow in the Pacific Northwest—a region known for its commitment to sustainability and smart urban planning. I urge decision-makers to reject the proposal for a second auxiliary lane and focus on a future-oriented project that truly serves the needs of our communities while protecting our environment.

As a longtime Oregon resident, I encourage the IBR Project to select a design that focuses on improving the I5 bridge for all users, including transit and active transportation users. A substantial investment in public-transit capacity as part of the IBR could significantly reduce regional demand for auto throughput while reducing project costs. This should maximize the benefit to all regional residents and provide a faster path to project completion.

I believe that prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective. The DSEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. I feel that increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. Current traffic modeling issues mean that health impact assessments (air quality, safety, etc.) are unreliable. A new, more realistic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) is needed. In addition, traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projections for transit and road use. I think we need to Plan for even higher capacity transit systems, such as multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or heavy rail, beyond the 2045 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) horizon. We must ensure today’s infrastructure can adapt to tomorrow’s needs. And stations should be built to support four-car trains now to align with future downtown transit tunnel upgrades. As for active transportation, transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety.

Hi, I grew up in Portland and have been a resident of the Piedmont neighborhood near the intersection of Lombard & Albina since 2012. I-5 and car traffic negatively affect too much of my life - it is a source of noise, air pollution, speeding, and all the infrastructure around my neighborhood prioritizes cars and trucks getting on the freeway to go to Washington. The heavy presence of cars and trucks all around makes it unsafe and unpleasant to cycle or walk. My neighbors and I deserve infrastructure that makes it easy and pleasant to walk, cycle, and take public transportation. We cannot be investing in projects that accelerate the climate crisis. I don't really have a discourse in traffic modeling but I do have a discourse in living in N Portland near I-5 in the escalating heat and record rainfall and ice storms and wind - I am writing to echo points made by the advocacy group No More Freeways, who have written to you: "We remain staunchly supportive of efforts to invest in the construction of a right-sized replacement of this seismically vulnerable facility in line with our region’s adopted goals for cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion, improved public transportation alternatives, safer streets and climate action. Yet as we articulate in this supplemental letter, this massive highway expansion masquerading as a mere “bridge replacement” deeply jeopardizes Oregon and Washington’s budgets as well as our carbon pollution reduction targets." Please give attention to the letter ("Supplemental Comments on IBR DSEIS") provided today by Joe Cortright, City Observatory and Chris Smith, No More Freeways as you plan and implement this infrastructure. Sincerely, Jennifer

Please plan for and build transit stations that allow room for four car MAX trains. To best respond to climate change we need to prepare and begin shifting more and more travel to higher capacity methods than private cars and trucks. One of the most convenient high capacity modes in our region is the MAX train which will likely be expanded to four cars once a MAX tunnel is built under Portland, a priority TriMet project.

To Whom It May Concern, I am a long-time Portland resident and an avid cyclist. It is very important to me that the new I5 bridge exhibits excellent connectivity and safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Please ensure that cyclists and pedestrians can easily and safely access the bridge by selecting a design that promotes connectivity. A bridge that is highly accessible to walkers, runners and bikers will add to the climate-forward and health-oriented infrastructure our community is known for.

Please put the multi-use path and public transit on the same side of the bridge. I am a Portland resident who often goes to Vancouver for business and shopping, and I use bike. walking and public transit as my main modes. Often I use a combination of bike and transit, and having these two modes on the same side of the bridge is key for riders like me. This also allows the transit lane to be used as a safety buffer, separating pedestrians and bikes from car traffic.

I would love for the city to stop investing in infrastructure for cars. I try to bike and use public transportation to get around and there are still improvements to be made to public transit and bike and walkability safety through the city. I want to see more max lines, more speed bumps, physical barriers between car and bike lanes. Efforts to reduce speeding through the city and improve dangerous traffic conditions on roads like 82nd and high crash intersections. Let’s make getting around the city on bike and foot safer and more convenient. Let’s stop prioritizing cars in a city where we really don’t have anywhere for people to park as is. Many people in my neighborhood and community tell me that they would use public transit more often if it was faster and more accessible.

In addition to avoiding and limiting environmental and cultural impacts, the new bridge must be designed and constructed to ensure ease of access for pedestrians and bicyclists, and convenient connections to transit. Ramps, elevators and routes between non-motorized and transit systems must be comfortable and easy to use for all, including those with limited mobility. A well designed bridge must provide folks with accessible and safe routes to get around without a car, which will also help to contribute to a more just and healthy environment. Effective connections on either side of the bridge are crucial to providing meaningful multi-modal access.

Make changes to the Interstate Bridge project now before community gets impacted unnecessarily: Prioritize multi-use paths and Plan for four-car trains and don't make the bridge ridiculously huge with extra auxilary transit lanes. Find a design alternative to the 100 ft spiral and make sure Vancouver/Williams corridor and Kenton/Denver Ave. have connections. Plan to offer toll exemptions for poor people.