Most Recent Comments

I find the IBR's latest design to still contain serious flaws. The JCA analysis makes many good points with the main one being that the project is simply too large. There's no need for a 10 lane bridge when traffic estimates have been wildly overestimated. The transit and active transportation portions have serious design flaws which will prevent most people from using the facilities: * a light rail station 100 ft above grade, which makes it the highest station in North America!, requiring people to climb 10 stories, use an elevator or huge ramp. * the bike lanes on the other side of the bridge from rail, making it much more difficult to travel via rail and bike together We need modern infrastructure which is more assertively climate friendly. Building flawed multimodal infrastructure while expanding car lanes is an awful idea. Mike https://bikeportland.org/2024/11/13/heres-how-to-make-the-7-5-billion-ibr-project-suck-less-391306

Thanks to TriMet, I was able to ditch my last private vehicle in 1979. Since then, I have used mass transit for: commuting to work for 40-plus years, for shopping, and for socializing. The more lanes built, the more traffic will increase: "Build it and they will come." GHGs will increase, brake, tire, and engine particulates and liquids will enter bodies of water, soil and the atmosphere, noise pollution will increase, arterial /access roads will have to be built, further increasing this project's physical footprint. This project idea is a continuation of 1950s thinking and values responsible for the interstate highway complex, welcomed by people at the time. Apparently, while the planet burns and melts, the minds responsible for this proposal cannot or will not adapt to this emergency, caused by gaseous pollution from combusting carbon products. Place more design weight on alternatives to accomodating personal ICE-powered vehicles. Adhere to both states' GHG reduction goals.

How can a person in a wheelchair access the bridge if that's their transportation? It's steep and long. Have you seen Hands Across the Bridge? We have folks celebrating recovery on the I-5 every year. We teach our kids at the community bike shop to ride the bridge. We have diverse people wanting do get over the bridge other than using a car. Are you considering us all?

The proposed bridge is to high, the bridge is to close to the water to allow river traffic flow, this proposed does not solve the traffic flow issues. It is not approachable due to access points to high and not available the time frame to complete is way to Long at 25 years and will create Kaos I say NO To the proposed bridge project Thanks Carol Kersley Hayden island resident

I am 72 and not getting younger or stronger. I CAN ride a 4% grade for .4 mile, but it's not getting easier. Other people would not be able to do that. We have a climate crisis and every project should help people choose active transportation when possible. How can you change that ramp to be less steep and shorter and more accessible to all?

Please make the ibr bridge 6 lanes on each side and no tolls and no light rail

The design around elevator access is concerning. Elevators serving both transit and active transportation would improve redundancy and safety, making bridge more efficient and reducing the maintenance burden into the future.

What sort of railing will separate the path user from the water? It needs to make the user feel safe, unlike the current bridge. I know a number of people who won't ride over the bridge.

Many non-auto trips are intermodal or multimodal. The bridge design proposal as it stands is not supportive of such trips. The approaches to the bridge vary for transit and bikers/walkers, making transfers difficult. It also enforces a commitment to the chosen mode even if plans need to be changed. Consider a user for wants to visit the new bridge and walk across it. Individuals with mobility concerns could benefit from the ability to ride the MAX onto the bridge, avoiding concerns about the grade, and then alight and walk.

Protecting people (noise, pollution, crashes) on the bridge should include railings that prevent people from jumping. Twice I've had to call 911 on the I-5 bridge to stop people from killing themselves. Will the railings protect people from that?

The multi-use path portion of the bridge should continue along the bridge itself to where the bridge reaches level with the surrounding area. This is much more efficient for riders traveling farther into Vancouver, as it requires less elevation change and minimizes extraneous travel distance/detours.

I am AGAINST highway I-5 lane expansion. There is clear and resounding evidence that adding lanes only excaserbates problems, as well as causes more ecological and physical issues for neighbors/surrounding neighborhoods, the environment, etc. Billions of dollars in funding unnecessary I-5 expansion while our schools are underfunded, our healthcare system is collapsing, and people are houseless is a waste of precious time, energy, and resources that SHOULD be used to directly effect people's lives and the planet for the better, not make things worse!!

I urge ODOT and WSDOT to prioritize a smaller, lower-cost bridge replacement. The proposed bridge with highway lane expansions will have negative climate effects, will impose more costs on the public, and is likely not needed to meet our regions' needs, as population growth in Oregon and the Portland region have slowed significantly over recent years. The larger project will create financial hardship for lower-income families, will convert more land to environmentally-unfriendly uses, and will simply serve to enrich contractors and agency staff. Our public agencies have a duty of trust to steward public resources and look out for the long-term environmental needs of our communities. A replacement of the current bridge that adds transit and pedestrian capacity is the best option.

I've heard that emergency services will be able to access the bridge path for riders and pedestrians who need help. True? The only bone I ever broke (and I'm 72) was on the multi-use path from Hayden Island to PDX. A pedestrian stepped suddenly to the left, just as I was slowly and cautiously riding by. I went down and broke my hand. Clear separation of modes - will you do that?

I have been tracking this project, in various iterations, for decades. Although I have several concerns with the current proposal, my primary one is that the project is not right-sized, in terms of length or width. Specifically, (1) The DSEIS fails to justify the need for an proposed 2nd auxiliary travel lane, and (2) the project budget proposed for new ramps, and other upgrades along this 5-mile corridor would yield more public benefits by being re-directed towards simply replacing the bridge (for seismic safety), and improving associated transit & active transportation systems. The lesser cost of this approach could be handled through an equitable system of tolling that would yield the additional benefit of reducing peak congestion impacts to this stretch of highway, thereby reducing travel times and accidents. Thank you for your consideration.

If the bike/ped path is underneath the bridge, it could become useless to us for transportation if it becomes a campground. Now when we ride a path we can divert to a side street or perhaps ride on a shoulder, the road, or the grass. None of that is easy and we've quit using the 205 path south of that bridge for distant commutes due to its being impassable or dangerous due to glass and other debris. How do you intend to protect our access to transportation in this scenario?

Please focus the I5 Columbia crossing on alternative transportation and seismic resilience--NOT on highway expansion. OR and WA both have ambitious climate action plans that are utterly incompatible with highway expansion. We need better rail service and better bus service on better HOV lanes. Adding freeway lanes to address traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to address obesity.

The proposed design creates a barrier to use by active transportation travelers. The proposed access on the Vancouver side adds a significant distance to any cross-bridge trips. Additionally, while some may think the incline is not onerous, it will be in hot weather which is becoming (and will continue to become) more and more common.

We know that noise and pollution from traffic has a disproportionate effect on historically underserved and otherwise disadvantaged communities. We also know that the effects of climate change are greatest on the most vulnerable. We know that adding lanes creates additional traffic through induced demand. The current proposal is therefore a huge setback in the area of Environmental Justice, which both states are committed to. We need a cost-effective, direct replacement that adds seismic resilience, light rail, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, without adding lanes that will harm our most vulnerable communities.

I think the new highway expanision proposal is a bad idea, and a waste of money considering the Willamette Week reported "new examination of the assumptions underlying the proposed Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver says the project relies on bogus numbers." there must be a better way, and we, as Oregonians, should find it. this proposal is flawed, and will not be a solution to our porblems.

People walking and wheeling on the bridge should have the same access points to MAX that other users have. I bike mostly and frequently use MAX on the same trip.

Adding freeway lanes is incompatible with carbon emission reductions committed to by both Oregon and Washington. We need a cost-effective direct replacement of the existing bridge which adds seismic resilience, light rail, and pedestrian and bike infrastructure. Additional lanes will incur enormous costs and take us in the wrong direction on emissions.

To Whom it May Concern, Thank you for this comment period. I have so many concerns about the current plans for the Interstate Bridge Crossing but just have a few minutes before the deadline. I have lived in Portland since 1995 and have loved the improvements to bike lanes and Active Transportation infrastructure. I live in St. Johns and unfortunately our community already faces intense cut through traffic from commuters traveling to and from Vancouver. I want to ride my bike or take transit everywhere I go and I want this for our kids! Please do not create a sprawling massive bridge that doesn't meet our needs for clean air and livability! Please think long term with transit as a priority. Thank you.

Adding freeway lanes generates additional traffic, which creates more carbon emissions. Today's taxpayers, and future generations, need an IBR that will cost effectively make the crossing seismically resilient, and add light rail, bike, and pedestrian improvements. The current proposal is a massive expansion which will shatter our attempts to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce automobile dependency. This project will increase traffic and vehicle miles traveled, with severe adverse impacts on vulnerable communities.

This expansion of highways is unconscionable. We need public transportation, i.e. train or bus service. Congestion pricing should then be enforced to reduce vehicular traffic.