Most Recent Comments

Please prioritize active transportation, public transportation, and public health in this project. We do not need endless car lanes expanding in every direction, there is ample data to prove that adding more lanes does not decrease traffic congestion, it adds more cars to the road. Please don't use public funds to add more cars to the road! Having reliable and safe public and active transportation options across the interstate bridge will make our region a safer, healthier, and more accessible place to live and will serve so many more people than only those who have access to a car.

The proposed bridge design does not dampen VMT; with the proposed investments VMT is expected to increase by 62%. This is insufficient to combat climate change in any meaningful way. Induced demand has been well established throughout the world, and a bigger bridge with more automobile lanes will not do anything to lessen long-term demand. Such a bridge should rightly be expected to do the opposite and increase demand. Stronger measures to prevent increased auto-traffic are needed, including tolling and road pricing. These can also help prevent non-auto modes from subsidizing continuing greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution (including tire particulate matter).

The DSEIS fails to include the most up to date and accurate traffic forecasts for the project area. If the all available projections were included in the report it would that show that traffic is forecasted to remain at the present level in the no build scenario and decrease substantially and permanently if the project were to be completed and tolls across the bridge implemented. For this reason the new proposed auxiliary lanes are not justified and the report fails to accurate assess the impacts the project would have on the local environment.

Given the length of night in winter, powerful lighting is necessary on any bridge replacement to ensure safety and comfort. This is particularly important along the active transportation path.

The multi-use path requires shading given summer heat and its continuing increase in frequency and intensity. Places to rest (e.g., benches, etc.) along the multi-use path are also necessary for those who are not in ideal health but still need access to the bridge. Shading should ideally be arboreal to leverage the ability of trees to lower temperatures in their immediate area and counteract the urban heat island effect through their respiratory process.

It is unclear to me how emergency vehicles are expected to respond to the multi-use path. Embedded rail track would allow these vehicles to access entirety of bridge. Any approach to emergency response that expects responders to park on shoulder of Interstate 5, traverse a barrier, and access the MUP or transit -way would be too slow. Emergency situations require immediate response. Such a plan would also indicate insufficient separation/protection for cyclists, walkers, etc. from fast moving vehicles.

I am very concerned that the current plan for the I5 bridge includes a completely disconnected public transit and bike system, both of which are very inaccessible at over 100ft in the air. Not only this, the transit and bike paths are positioned on opposite sides of the car travel section of the bridge, meaning people would have to bike down the ramp and ride up another ramp on the other side to access public transit. It is an enormous waste of resources to allow such a poorly connected active transportation plan to move forward, as it almost assures that only a small percentage of people will make use of the access points to the bridge, and excludes less able bodied people from easily being able to connect biking and transit to reach their destination. Please reconsider ways to make the bike and public transit infrastructure actually connect and make sense so that people can easily and conveniently choose the healthier and more sustainable options of walking, taking transit, and biking to their destinations on both sides of the Columbia.

As a frequent traveler across the I5 bridge over the Columbia River, I am concerned about the accuracy of current traffic modeling. The existing issues with these models render health impact assessments, such as those regarding air quality and safety, unreliable. It's imperative that a new, more realistic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) be developed to better reflect the actual conditions. Moreover, the potential increase in traffic, regardless of the scenario, presents significant health risks. This rise in traffic could worsen health outcomes, particularly for priority communities. It's crucial that we address these concerns thoroughly in our planning and assessments.

I am disgusted with ODOTs bridge. It is a billion dollar boondoggle where the consulting company makes recommendations to build with their own company and naturally want it bigger so they make more money. we don't need this big. Big is very bad. The bicycle entry and exit vortex of 6 stories is not tenable. The bridge pilings will need to be much bigger to hit solid ground. The approaches will wipe out prime real estate in Vancouver and turn a vibrant people-oriented area in to a roaring uninhabitable nightmare of asphalt and concrete. Please do not let this climate disaster happen. Right size it. Make public transportation and biking accessible and affordable. Don't rely on fabrications of data.

The light rail extension needs to have embedded rail ties. This provides operational redundancy, especially during extreme weather events. Rail catenary is known to have issues during freezing rain which happens consistently in the local area due to high winds along Columbia River. To maintain service, bus substitution may be necessary. These buses will function much better if they can follow the existing rail route instead of trying to divert and detour as would be necessary on Interstate 5 to serve MAX stops. Embedded rail ties support emergency responders and provides them the best option to directly access necessary portions of the bridge, regardless of emergency type. The MAX yellow-line faces long-term capacity issues due to the Steel Bridge. Rail ties allow bus services to travel across the same track and boost cross-bridge frequencies. Future bus lines would be able to serve East-West destinations without requiring an increase in MAX frequency. The marginal cost of embedding rail ties now is much lower than the cost to correct the mistake of not embedding at some future point. That would require an entire new project, an entire new team, detours and service interruptions, etc. Conversely, doing it now during construction would incur a much lower monetary cost. It would also have lower impacts on travelers while there are no trains utilizing the bridge or people moving on foot and bike nearby. The MAX system already has many instances of a lower-cost capital option in the short term causing operational issues that must be handled in the long-term. Consider the recently finished change to the Red Line to handle trains depart PDX airport and traveling west. The IBR project needs to avoid such pitfalls.

As a regular user of the I5 bridge over the Columbia River, I am deeply invested in the discussions around its replacement. It's crucial that any new infrastructure is forward-thinking. I believe that the stations should be designed to accommodate four-car trains right from the start. This would synchronize with the anticipated upgrades to the downtown transit tunnel. Additionally, planning for higher-capacity transit solutions, like multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or heavy rail, is essential. These should look beyond the current 2045 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) timeline. We need to build with a vision that extends into the future, ensuring our infrastructure can meet the demands of the coming decades.

I'm concerned about a two-level bridge; I worry about the impacts on the aesthetics of the bridge and the ability to enjoy the surrounding view, as well as the level of maintenance that would be required to keep the pedestrian level safe and clean.

As a city councilor in Oregon's fastest growing city, I appreciate the challenges of managing traffic and growth. I urge you to reconsider the IBR project in light of its cost. What alternative means exist to achieve the same goals? As virtually every city across the country has shown, expanding capacity for motor vehicles does not work in the medium and long run. If Oregon and Washington families were asked to allocate the several hundred dollars per capita that the IBR project represents, they would reject it because it is an obscene cost with so little in return. Commit to less traffic in the long run by expanding alternatives to driving. Right size the bridge and address seismic concerns. Address traffic today by exploring equitable congestion pricing options. Don't mortgage our children and grandchildren's future on something they will be paying for long after any supposed benefit to driving has evaporated. This is so costly it affects the entire population of both states, not just one region.

I'm concerned with the current design of biking and walking infrastructure associated with the new bridge. The heights of the transit stations and the infrastructure required to support them seem irresponsible and inconceivable - they will actively discourage users and will be costly. In addition they are not co-located with consideration to existing transit (Max). Please give bikes and pedestrian infrastructure the same care and consideration that cars receive. I'm also very concerned with the cost of this project and its burden on the Orgon general fund - we can't even properly fund schools. Requiring an additional $1B from the general fund when there are so many other needs is unconscionable for our state. I agree with the bridge replacement, but it needs to be right-sized for our needs and our budget.

East-west connections between cross-bridge transit and east-west transit on both Washington and Oregon sides is necessary. Proposed light rail extension is north-south connectivity, but many travelers need to go east-west after crossing the Columbia River. Major employment, residential, recreational, and industrial areas are located along the riverfront on both sides. Transit and active transportation access to these areas is key to a successful bridge replacement.

Please put multi-modal transportation options side by side to make it as easy as possible for those traveling without a car. Please limit the scope of this project to reduce our reliance on vehicles. There do not need to be so many vehicle lanes but there should be options to expand public transit like a Rapid Transit bus. We need more and better options to connect public transportation further across the river (expanded path to Evergreen) and on the Portland side to connect to areas like N. Williams.

The Columbia River Bridge has a pedestrian grade of 4.5% and that is way too steep for wheelchairs and people with disabilities to utilize. Please put in a much needed elevator to accommodate them. Thank you so much! Janet Trygstad

We are well past the point of understanding that car-first design is a non-starter. The IBR project needs to tie communities together and serve future generations. Reduce the ludicrous number of lanes for cars. Put light rail first. Roll out the red carpet for active modes. Thank you!

The current plans for the I-5 bridge replacement are bloated and out of proportion with the region's actual needs. The bridge absolutely needs replacing. It doesn't need multiple extra lanes of traffic and the subsequent displacement of homes and businesses. The "need" for this level of infrastructure is smoke and mirrors, based on faulty assumptions. Instead, let's focus on dedicated bus lanes, light rail, bike lanes, and traffic that doesn't make Portland look like Los Angeles. We should be planning for high-capacity transit systems in the future, like four-car MAX trains, bus rapid transit, and heavy rail (Amtrak) passenger trains. Building ever-more lanes of freeway will just bring more cars.

No more freeways More public transportation

This project presents a unique opportunity to reimagine the connection between Portland and Vancouver in a human-sized way, focusing on a user-friendly integration of transit, biking and walking side by side (for easy transfers, navigation, and safety). The expected bottlenecks the project will create south of the bridge in North Portland will further restrict mobility, especially for people using public transportation given the increased bus route times from downtown Vancouver to downtown Portland. The no-build scenario is misleading, as traffic cannot grow more since it's already at maximum capacity during peak hours. Adding an auxiliary lane with the hope of reducing emissions is a DEVASTATING response to traffic planning by ODOT. This goes against creating more livable cities and will inevitably lead to induced demand. The IBR project should work with the planned future transportation improvements in Portland (e.g., the MAX tunnel under the Willamette). The bridge should be designed with consideration for heavy rail since changing infrastructure in a meaningful way and on such a scale after it's been built is highly unrealistic. Build for the future, not for the present moment!

Hello! I regularly 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.

Dear IBR Committee: I am writing to object to the current plan to utilize existing floating home communities in close proximity to the Interstate Bridge as a staging ground for equipment and construction activities. These floating home communities are comprised of families; adults and children who are active on the water regularly. Staging construction equipment, barges, materials, etc. within these communities is both dangerous (a liability) and highly disruptive to their day to day lives, when there are open vacant spaces on the South Bank of the channel available for staging and which would be a much safer, saner space to utilize. This proposed inequitable, greatly disparate impact to the residential communities and families should be reconsidered when planning the IBR.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project is already projected to cost over $7 billion. We all know that construction projects always cost more than projected, in part because material and labor costs go up in the time from approval to completion, in part because unexpected things always happen. The financially and environmentally responsible thing to do is to keep costs down by keeping the number of lanes and miles of project down to the minimum actually needed. I trust the Just Crossing Alliance in their analysis, and you should too.

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.