Most Recent Comments

see attachment I-5 Bridge Replacement Program leaders, critics make their case

see attachment IBR Program incompetence and deception

I wish to go on record to say that I oppose the bridge design as it has been presented. Not only does it limit travel for non car users, given the current political situation, we can expect that federal funds will be non existent for this, leaving the cost to the taxpayers of Oregon and Washington. Can’t speak for Washington, but I know that Oregon doesn’t have the money to maintain existing roads let alone build this. Design needs to be something that we can afford. This isn’t it ,

see attachment Unnecessay deadly design is criminal negligence

see attachment IBR's deadly bribe

See attachment Manufactured public consent

The option of the C-Street off-ramp would induce further demand to introduce more vehicles in downtown Vancouver. The city's Transportation System Plan, Parking Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Climate Action Plan all signify a strong removal of surface parking, a reduction in road capacity downtown, as well as a stronger emphasis on walking, bicycling, and transit usage. Even though this is true for all of Vancouver, downtown is especially constrained given the small area to work with. Have these City Plans been taken into account for the C-Street off-ramp option, and have the negative effects of the increase of traffic, congestion, air pollution, and safety risks to pedestrians and bicyclists been included in the Draft SEIS for inducing more vehicle traffic into downtown Vancouver via the C-Street off-ramp?

Please take this opportunity to upgrade the I-5 bridge to make transportation more accessible for everyone. Tolling Equity: Implement a low-income toll discount program from the first day of pre-completion tolling. This will help prevent financial burdens on vulnerable communities. Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations. Vancouver connection: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. Portland connection: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave.

Specifically regarding the Vancouver side of the project, several buildings will be demolished and more land will be utilized to expand the overall surface area dedicated to I5 in the project area. Would it be possible to mitigate these by not implementing the collector/distributors in the current design, as to not expand the width of the project area? It would be beneficial to reduce the overall size of the freeway, as we have historically already seen the drastically negative impact of freeways in cities, the I5 splitting Vancouver being no exception.

Given the regional model used is not up to date with the latest trends in the movement to transit and multi-modal transportation, how can the current designs adequately and accurately assume the forecasted car traffic?

I've been driving my own automobile since 1994 - I was sixteen and my father was tired of driving me back and forth to college, so he gave me his old car. In 30 years of car ownership I have lived in two of the most congested cities in the country: Washington D.C., and Austin Texas. I've driven a car in many car-infested places including Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa. I have seen so much car traffic - I don't even want to think about how much time I've spent sitting in traffic during my life. I've spent many hours in stop-and-go on I-270 (the Dwight D. Eisenhower highway - 16 lanes) waiting to get to the Beltway. I lived less than a mile from I-95 (10 lanes) and my preferred route to work took twice as long so that I didn't have to sit on the highway. Occasionally I would have to take I-495 (10 lanes) around the east side of DC to do a presentation on the other side of the city, and I dreaded getting stuck at the Route 50 (10 lanes) highway interchange, where there was congestion from 5am to 10pm during a "normal" weekday. When I moved to Austin the MoPac expressway (8 lanes) was under construction to add a tolled express lane in either direction, but congestion didn't improve after the lanes were added. Everyone in Austin knows to avoid I-35 (the Purple Heart Trail, 6 travel lanes and 4 frontage lanes), especially since it's going to be a decade of construction before they're done widening it to 20 total travel lanes. The frontage lanes are also some of the deadliest places in the entire city to be a pedestrian or cyclist. In every city and state that I've lived in for the last decade, there's been a "comprehensive plan" or similar - a policy document that describes our goals. Those goals are always to promote walking, cycling, public transportation, and to discourage extra VMT (vehicle miles traveled). We publish these policies over and over and over again - when are we going to start engineering like they're true? I understand that for the most part, our elected officials don't understand induced demand. I understand that our entire transportation system, from the elected officials to the newest intern in the planning office, is motivated by a cadre of suburban homeowners who love to scream about traffic congestion. And I understand that when you combine those two facts, it's much easier to just agree to add some more lanes and hope that it'll work this time. We need to stop pretending that more lanes solves traffic problems. I'm looking at the Purpose and Need statement, because every engineering project should proceed from the purpose and needs. For section 1.3.1 - I agree with several points: we should improve traffic safety, public transportation, and structural integrity. The parts that concern me relate to improving highway freight operations and traffic operations. Maybe you don't agree with the concept of induced demand, but we don't even need to go there yet. Improving highway operations means moving more vehicles through this area. Why is this a desired outcome? The north side of the bridge lands in the middle of downtown Vancouver - why does highway freight need to go through the middle of the downtown? Why does high speed motor traffic need to go through the downtown? Highway operations generate significant pollution - air pollution from microparticles and exhaust, audio pollution from tire road noise, and light pollution from headlights. This highway drowns the local neighborhood in pollution. Why is this a desired outcome? Why are we not crafting policy that would remove or reduce this pollution? What would happen if the LPA reduced the number of travel lanes and reduced the speed limit on the bridge? Wouldn't it divert that truck traffic onto the I-205, away from the valuable downtown area? Induced demand says that it would reduce the number of trips taken by private vehicles, potentially moving those trips to a different travel mode. Even without induced demand, it would make a huge difference to the quality of life for people living in downtown Vancouver. On the south side of the river, all that long-distance traffic gets routed through Portland, including where I live in the Buckman neighborhood. I would personally love it if y'all could reduce the amount of pollution flowing through my neighborhood. I would love to have the river back. I would love to see development reoccur in those blighted blocks near I-5 - blocks that are undesirable because they're right next to a major interstate highway. There are many city blocks that are effectively worthless because of the car traffic flowing nearby. Induced demand says that increasing the lanes on the bridge will actually increase traffic in my neighborhood, so not only am I in the "exhaust zone" but adding lanes to the bridge will increase congestion on my local streets too. Why are you not centering the policies that we know would help resolve those problems? When we get to section 1.3.2 - the first paragraph centers travel demand and congestion. Why aren't we going back to those high-level goals of reducing car traffic and co2 emissions? Why don't we build a bridge that really prioritizes public transit and active transportation - a bridge that would actually *help* us reach our climate goals? Paragraph 2 - Why does the "most important freight highway on the West Coast" go right through the center of two cities, and more importantly why are you not making changes to move that route further away from the cities? Why are you not crafting policies to shift freight operations back onto railroads, which generate significantly less pollution? Paragraph 3 is a good goal, but this plan doesn't significantly improve bus schedules because it doesn't actually prioritize bus traffic. Why not put a dedicated BRT lane on the bridge? BRT would help us achieve our climate and equity goals. Even if BRT isn't an option, surely there must be some technical solution to prioritizing bus traffic that would be far more effective than more general-purpose travel lanes. Paragraph 4 is fine, but slowing traffic would certainly help achieve safety goals, and would be significantly cheaper than the proposed huge, speedy intersections. Why not just slow the traffic? Paragraph 5 is fine, but bike/ped facilities are on the wrong side of the bridge. Putting it on the same side as the transit makes so much more sense, to allow for flexible multimodal connections and infrastructure sharing. Also on the list of things that would make more sense: not being a hundred feet in the air. Being ADA compliant is important to me (a disabled veteran), but the enormous spiraling ramps will make this an uncomfortable and rarely-used route. The Tillicum is a great example - it's very comfortable to cross. Contrast the I-205 bridge which was described to me by an avid cyclist: "I scream the entire time I'm on the 205, but nobody can hear me over the traffic noise." I understand the need for a new bridge to meet seismic goals, but we should be building a bridge that reduces car and truck traffic through our cities, with comfortable active transportation, and that prioritizes public transportation. I moved here because after 30 years of car ownership, I never want to own a car again. I want to see us reach our climate goals. I want to see cities where everyone can move around, no matter if they own an expensive car or not. I want to be able to easily ride my bike to Vancouver. Please choose climate and equity. Please remove the extra vehicular lanes. Please lower the speed limit and narrow the travel lanes. Please choose the movable span option to lower the height of the bridge and provide comfortable active transportation. Please move the active transportation to the same side as the public transportation. Please add tolling to reduce the incentive for private vehicles to use this bridge, and provide equitable solutions to gently move citizens away from expensive motor vehicles.

As an ER doctor, I urge you to reconsider the impacts that freeway expansion projects like this one will have on community health. Traffic models are extremely imperfect, and should be secondary to historical data showing unequivocally that additional roadway space induces more driving, thereby exacerbating air quality issues that significantly impact the patients I see in my ER every day. We know that chronic respiratory illnesses such as asthma and COPD are strongly correlated with proximity to freeways. Making the freeway larger will only make these problems worse. This is to say nothing of climate change. In my ER, we are already seeing increased rates of heat stroke due to extreme heat events, as well as respiratory problems due to wildfire smoke. Infrastructure that incentivizes and facilitates driving over other, less damaging modes of travel only serves to lock us into an unsustainable transportation system that will be harder and costlier to fix in the future. I strongly urge you to prioritize a design that addresses these issues with the solutions that we already know will scale back the rate of single-occupancy vehicle use: robust public transportation (bus and rail) with dedicated rights-of-way, and biking and pedestrian facilities that are fully separated from the noise and exhaust of vehicular and freight traffic. Thank you, Christopher Hale, MD

Right-Sizing the Project: The DSEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective.

I was pleased to see that the plans include extending the commuter rail across the river, and improving bicycle/pedestrian access. (The current bike lane is precarious and not very accommodating.) However, as I understand the plans, these two improvements do not complement each other. Many riders might prefer to use the train to get from Portland to Vancouver, or vice versa, and then use their bicycle or other vehicle to complete their journey. The current plan does not make it appear this will be a seamless transition at any of the planned new stations. As a driver, I have not experienced the I-5 bridge as the main impediment to traffic. (In fact it may function as a natural calming mechanism, since drivers seem to slow as they approach.) Heading north from Oregon, the MLK, Interstate Ave, and Hayden Island interchanges dump the clogging traffic onto the highway; heading south, it appears that the I-405 exit induces the slowdown. It is not clear from the plans how widening the bridge will in any way alleviate those issues.

Reliable Assessments: 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. Health Concerns: Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities.

Tolling Equity: Implement a low-income toll discount program from the first day of pre-completion tolling. This will help prevent financial burdens on vulnerable communities. Equity Priority: Freeway impacts—such as noise and tolls—disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities. Addressing this requires focused, equitable solutions.

Future-Proofing for Capacity: Stations should be built to support four-car trains now to align with future downtown transit tunnel upgrades. 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. Induced Demand Consideration: Traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projections for transit and road use.

IBR Cmment: The current Interstate 5 bridge replacement proposal falls far short of the disaster response needs of the Portland-Vancouver area. In rush to replace the present structure, insufficient attention is being given to the seismic resistance of the proposed structure. This interstate bridge becomes a critical linkage for disaster mitigation resources for potentially millions of persons affected by a Cascade subduction earthquake. Existing OR-WA linkages in the lower Columbia are all seismically vulnerable ( Astoria-Megler, Longview and 205 Jackson bridges will fail). The future I-5 bridge becomes the principal surface transportation link, joining the resources of the Puget Sound area and the Willamette Valley and south. Despite the length and alluvial footings of the future structure, geophysical engineering solutions exist that are an absolute necessity to assure survival of many residents and the entire economy of the region. Given all that has been learned in recent decades about our seismic risk, it is negligent, if not unconscionable, to advance the current proposal without sufficient seismic resistance engineering. Charles L Rosenfeld, PhD Professor Emeritus, Geosciences OSU Oregon Registered Geologist G550 (Retired) Former Chair, Commission on Natural Hazards, Int'l Congress of Scientific Unions

Side-by-side Integration: Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations. Noise and Safety: Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. Better Connections: 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.

The interstate bridge project must center a cost effective direct replacement that includes improved public transport, pedestrians, a focus on climate change, and enenomic and social justice. Freeway expansion has been proven to only increase traffic by providing space for more folks to drive. Happens every time. We need a plan that benefits all Portlanders that leads to lasting improvements we can continue to add on to in the future.

As a pedestrian and runner, I don't feel this design feels safe enough. Please add lighting ALL THROUGHOUT the multi-use path, and separate pedestrians from freeway traffic by placing the transit line between the multi-use path and the roadway. Also, it is miserable to use a path without any kind of shade, so please build or plant natural and human-made shade.

This project is a necessary connection in our region, but it cannot become a car-first solution. Transit and multi-use path facilities need to be aligned to make the various combinations of walking, adaptive mobility, bicycling, and as many modes of transit as useful as possible. We will continue to need freight access across the Columbia and we need to plan for a future that is far less, not more, dependent on personal autos. An overbuilt bridge will further stress our already limited maintenance resources and the only way to reduce the width is to move more car trips to transit and active transportation. Freight can be prioritized through lane management and tolling.

Hello, I am just learning of this project through my Portland Public Schools community -- I live on the east side of Portland with two grade school kids and a husband who bikes to work downtown. We are very concerned about any transportation measures that focus more on high volumes of traffic and less on the quality of life of city residents. This proposed scale of this project sounds totally inappropriate for the site. I grew up in Buffalo NY which made a HORRIBLE mistake in placing a highway through a historic downtown neighborhood in the 1960s that was previously part of a Frederick Law Olmstead park system. That highway was dangerous and really ruined a large section of the city of Buffalo, creating a cascade of negative social and environmental impacts. Recent measures to try to reverse that bad decision, create non-car transportation options and revert the traffic to slower speeds have been complicated, expensive and in some cases lethal. I would HATE for Portland to make the mistakes that we should have learned from urban transportation policies in the 1960s and yet this project seems to be exactly that history all over again. Please, please right size it and this about more than just moving cars from Point A to Point B!

No more freeway expansions. We must start investing in expanding and improving public transportation. An expansion of our freeway system will not fix traffic and will emit tons more air pollution effecting our community.

I support a new I-5 bridge between Washington and Oregon. I do not support highway expansion to 5 lanes on I-5. I used to live in North Portland, and this will only cause more congestion and worse, more bike and pedestrian fatalities, as those who leave the crowded highway will interact with the neighborhoods along the highway. This will increase congestion, increase poor air quality, and increase fatalities. As an avid cyclist and pedestrian and driver, I do not want to ride my bike with my children in danger of cars and air pollution. There are schools and libraries near the highway, or even abutting the highway, that need to be protected. Please do not expand the I-5 corridor. Research has proven this will not reduce traffic congestion.