Most Recent Comments

The proposed replacement for the I5 bridge could offer great advantages for transit, cycling and walking. However the current design presents problems that mean it is unlikely to deliver those advantages in practice. The design should be adjusted so that the multi-use path is on the same side as transit, so people can easily transfer from one to the other. This will facilitate greater use of those options and a corresponding reduction in car traffic. The transit lane should also be positioned between the multi-use path and the car traffic lanes, to reduce the impact on walkers and cyclists. To experience the impact of having a multi-use path right next to freeway traffic, try the path on the I-205 bridge, where the noise and other traffic effects are extremely unpleasant.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project simply must allow for public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic as its primary method of connecting Portland to SW Washington. Commuting by vehicle has already proven to be a non-scalable option for high population areas. The only viable alternative for the bridge is to make it multi-modal and allow actually effective transportation via light rail and bike/walk infrastructure.

I am writing with regard to the proposed Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project for the I5 connection of Oregon and Washington. While I am in favor of a project to update the bridge and facilitate safe travel via multiple modes, I believe the currently proposed project is much too large and is potentially using old projections of traffic growth which may no longer represent current trends. Thus I encourage a thorough review of project goals and budget to verify that they balance this project with other transportation needs across the two states. Using the words of the No More Freeways group, I too am "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." Thank you, Curtis Gardner Portland, OR

As someone who bikes and uses public transport, I urge you to make this project more convenient and SAFE for those of us who are not adding to the pollution burden that more combustion engines will entail. Please put access to transit on the same side of the bridge as the bike trails. The current proposed design has some scary features for people who use multiple modes. If I need to put my bike on a train, or get off the train with my bike, will I have to cross the whole bridge to do that? Up, down, across, when it could be made easily accessible with no changes of grade/elevation or distance barriers. Putting access to transit on the same side of the bridge as the multiuse path will have other benefits, including providing emergency exits in transit emergencies, and sharing of elevators which will streamline construction. But please make it easy and safe for people to bring bikes on (& off) public transit. And while I am on my bike, will I need to be dodging trucks? Physical separation between walk/bike/roll corridors and freight routes will protect us from trucks veering into our lane. For example, in the current proposed design for the ramp from Vancouver Way to MLK North, the proposed bike/walk/roll route travels down, across, and back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Surely there can be a redesign that separates walk/bike/roll travel sending it around rather than through the Marine Drive interchange. I urge you to bring the multiuse corridors together with the transit corridors, but to separate these from freight routes. Thank you for your attention.

Hello, I am writing to express my concern for the proposed IBR. As a cyclist, pedestrian, and primarily non-driver, I do not believe the current proposed IBR is equitably aligned with non-driving users. While IBR will serve as an important freight connection, for the cost of approximately $7 billion is would be a tragedy to overbuild the number of driving lines while leaving transit, cycling and pedestrian access at a perfunctory level. If we can afford the best for vehicles, why can that same liberal spending not be applied to non-driving uses? Of course, I don't propose we spend needlessly. It is well reported already that the traffic projections used to justify the exorbitant lane sizes and numbers are at best grossly overestimated, and at worst, intentionally inflated to push the desired agenda for the project. This is the moment for our transportation leaders to listen to the community rather than pushing forward the same tired driving-centric worldview that has created missed opportunities of vibrant urban planning. Portland and Vancouver do need a bridge, and that bridge needs to include freight and cars. But don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of non-driving users of this bridge. Finally, in concrete terms, I am most critically requesting reconsideration of separating the transit access from the pedestrian crossing. A bridge design that has the transit access disconnected from the pathway will surely result in pedestrian deaths and demonstrates the lack of consideration pedestrians and non-drivers have been given in IBR's design in general. Signed, Albert Miller

Given the pain involved in designing, approving, financing, and building the new Interstate bridge, it is important that the right decisions are made up front. This means that the bridge needs to be designed for the future, not the past. Perhaps most important is the need to plan for non-motorized traffic. This should not be an afterthought but should have the highest priority along with seismic and cost considerations. Failure to do this will result in a situation not unlike the current bridge which discourages non-motorized transit. 1) If the multi-use path cannot be lowered, then robust, well-maintained elevators need to be made available as a primary, reliable option for active transportation users. This means that the multi-use path should be at the bridge’s grade from the Vancouver library to the riverfront so that active users have direct access to the bridge. The Vancouver Dip must be eliminated! 2) The design should ensure that active users can easily switch between transit and active transportation at any station, with no grade changes or distance barriers. This encourages users (especially commuters) to forgo their cars, resulting in reduced traffic and air pollution on both sides of the river. To make this happen the active users need to be able to share the elevators used by light rail. Not only is this more efficient but it can result in a significant cost savings for the plan. 3) The design needs to be such that the multi-use path is readily visible by light rail transit operators and passengers. This will make the multi-use path feel more open and safe. Speaking as someone who has ridden most of the multi-use paths in the metro area I can attest to the negative feelings I get when the path is "hidden" as opposed to something like the multi-use path on the levy in Portland. 4) There needs to be proper placement of the multi-use path to protect against noise and debris. Again, from personal experience I can state that I dread cycling over either the current Interstate Bridge or the Glen Jackson Bridge. The noise is intolerable (I actually worry about the noise damaging my hearing) and road debris is always a concern. 5) The design for the multi-use path should result in an enjoyable experience. This means that the path needs to be shaded from summer sun and protected from winter elements. Lighting of the path is also a critical element. Proper lighting results in a pathway that feels safe. 6) Motorized transportation should not be prioritized over active user transportation. Many of the active users, like myself, also drive and pay into the gas tax and also own homes and pay property taxes. Do not assume that someone on a bike or walking is doing so because they can't afford a car and therefore their concerns should not be given equal weight during the design process. Actually, it shouldn't matter what a person's income is when it comes to designing the bridge. Design for people, not cars. 7) Plan for the future, not the past! Climate change requires that we do everything we can to mitigate and prevent the looming disaster. The future will see far fewer cars on the road and more use of light rail and active transit. Plan for this future; our children's and grandchildren's future. The past is gone and will never come again. Make this bridge the envy of the nation and show how we can build toward a TRULY better future.

This bridge needs to be accessible to people who are not able to navigate it. My niece is disabled and she would never be able to enjoy crossing it. We need an elevator!

The current design for the IBR is based on outdated traffic modeling and does not adequately meet the needs of our communities. Please carefully consider and do all you can to incorporate the recommendations for design improvements provided by the Just Crossing Alliance Active Transportation and Transit Vision report. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build the best solution that considers the realities of today and the likeliest realities of the next 50+ years. By increasing capacity for vehicles, you are facing the reality of Induced Demand. Except for designing the bridge for better, smoother interconnections, I implore you to NOT add any additional vehicle capacity.

As a frequent traveler to see family in Vancouver, WA, we enjoy going between Vancouver and Portland for recreational activities and leisure. The traffic congestion can be frustrating. I would very much like to see public transportation across the bridge as well as a separated bike/ped way. We need to prioritize alternative modes of transportation when building new projects and retrofitting old for environmental reasons and quality of life for all transportation users.

No more freeway expansions without increasing the availability and convenience of all other forms of transportation! The lack of public transit, walking, and biking infrastructure is the other side of the induced demand coin- People who commute in cars on I-5 often have no viable choice of transportation besides a car. Improving this bridge is a necessity, but there is no justification for additional car lanes, especially as the bridge is not in itself a bottleneck. Make public transit easy and fast, and traffic will be reduced .

Considering the perilous state of the world (climate, wars, mass migrations, and more), enabling projects like the I-5 crossing are a part of the "Don't look up" phenomenon. The Pacific Northwest has escaped much of the weather-related devastation present in other parts of the country and the world so far. Scientists have absolutely no doubt "so far" will be short-lived. It is almost past time to recognize this future and act accordingly. End the I-5 project!

A new I-5 bridge should: Maximize transit, including at potential future HSR crossing. We need to stop building more traffic lanes on our freeways and start moving people more efficiently. Let's leave the highway capacity for freight and non commuters who cannot be served by rail or transit.

I cannot support the current design plans for the new interstate bridge. The active transportation designs for bikes and pedestrians are not only ugly and uninviting, they are ridiculous designs that in essence make the bridge a wall. No one will regularly ride up a 150' corkscrew to a cantilevered platform and back down. Maybe convert the existing I-5 bridge to a bike/ped facility? Regardless the proposed options for active transportation on the new bridge may check a design box but they do nothing to support or encourage active transportation uses. Start over!

I want to voice concerns regarding the current plans for the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project. While I fully support the need for a new, seismically sound bridge between Oregon and Washington, the proposed design raises significant concerns regarding its scope, cost, and overall impact. First, the project is overly ambitious—more than a simple bridge replacement. The scale of this proposal results in excessive costs, undue impacts on surrounding neighborhoods in South Vancouver and North Portland, and disruptions to bicycle and transit users. The economic and traffic models guiding these plans appear flawed, leading to an overbuilt structure that risks exacerbating congestion on I-205 while creating unnecessary burdens on the community. Additionally, the lack of transparency in the planning process is troubling. This is a massive public investment, and the community deserves clear and honest communication about its implications. Tolls, for instance, will likely reduce congestion on the bridge, which underscores the need to downsize auxiliary lanes, streamline interchange designs, and reduce overpass heights. Smarter, more efficient planning is essential. The proposed design also neglects critical considerations for active transportation and public transit. Plans to place light rail and active transportation routes on opposite sides of the bridge—and the use of a cumbersome, 100-foot high spiral ramp for access—show a lack of care and foresight. Connections to key corridors, such as Vancouver’s Evergreen and Portland’s Vancouver/Williams routes, should be prioritized to promote accessibility and efficiency. In terms of public transit, stations should be built to accommodate future needs, such as four-car trains to align with downtown transit upgrades. Forward-looking infrastructure must also consider higher-capacity transit systems, like multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or heavy rail, to meet long-term demands. Finally, this project must address economic and racial equity. A low-income toll discount program should be in place from day one of tolling to prevent undue financial strain on vulnerable communities. Furthermore, freeway impacts such as noise and environmental effects often disproportionately harm historically marginalized groups. We must prioritize equity in every aspect of this project. In conclusion, while a new Interstate Bridge is essential, the current proposal is an overreach. By scaling back the design, improving transit and active transportation integration, and prioritizing equity and sustainability, we can create an infrastructure project that meets our region’s needs today and tomorrow. Thank you for your time and consideration.

The proposed IBR project is too big. It is much more than a Interstate Bridge Replacement. Oregon and Washington need a new seismically sound bridge. But the project as currently proposed is too large, too costly, too impactful on both South Vancouver and north Portland, too inconvenient for bicycle and transit users, and based on faulty modeling and economic analysis. The lack of transparency alone is deeply concerning. The tolls necessary to help pay for the project will themselves reduce congestion thereby resulting in an overdesigned, overbuilt bridge, and too much congestion on I-205. Let's reduce the proposed auxiliary lanes, reduce the proposed interchanges, widening north and south, and overpass heights, make the necessary changes to support transit and bicycle uses, and consider adding lifts.

Those of us who live close the freeway already have to deal with bad air quality. I run 3 hepa filters in my house. If you aren't aware, most hepa filters can last between 3 months to a year. Mine look awful after just a month. My porch always has a light layer of freeway pollution on it. A freeway expansion is the worst thing you can do for our health.

I am writing out of concern that the plans for the Interstate Bridge project have not been adequately considered with the needs and interests of the public in mind. Careless plans -- such as the placement of light rail and active transportation on opposite sides of the bridge, and the design of the ridiculous corkscrew -- reflect a lack of due diligence and misuse of public funds. This project is a massive investment. Surely, we can find smarter and more creative ways to design the project to maximize efficiency, minimize negative impacts, and achieve goals related to the environment, social justice, economic vitality, and more.

I've read about ODOT'S challenges modeling traffic correctly throughout this study. I hope ODOT will acknowledge their mistakes, for everybody makes mistakes, and create a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) that better reflects real conditions. This is important because any increased traffic is going to cause pollution that will burden me, and especially burden communities who don't have my intergenerational privileges, especially communities of color that have historically borne the brunt of freeway noise, pollution and displacement.

Hello, As a Portland citizen who utilizes the Interstate Bridge on a frequent basis, I would urge you to consider the following areas in your planning process. 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. link. Public Transit: * 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. Economic and Racial Justice: * 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. Thank you for your consideration! Abel Q

Don't load us down with this over developed project which will do much more for fossil fuels and heavy traffic, especially big trucks with all their noise and pollution. The destruction and damage to our environment is the most important thing to focus on now.

Please shrink the I-5 bridge replacement project! It is siphoning off dollars that are needed in so many other areas. And it will only lead to more driving, more air pollution, more greenhouse gas emissions. We can't afford it. Why is Oregon DOT obsessed with dumping billions of dollars into highways instead of redesigning our transportation options to make them safer and cleaner?

I love my car, especially when it is raining and the MAX won't get me close to where I need to go. I look to ODOT and other government agencies to create long term infrastructure improvements that will help me leave my car at home more so that my short term trips match up with my long term values--and Oregon's long term values-- of cleaner air, walkable streets, and trying to reduce the ongoing catastrophe that is human caused climate change.

I am concerned that ODOT is still working towards adding car lanes to the IBR (I-5). Transportation planners have excellent data on how adding lanes actually induces demand. More demand for private car travel is not what our Portland and Vancouver communities need-- we need more public transit, more pedestrian access, and a seismically upgraded bridge that is as cost effective as possible. The extra car lane is not justified by the DSEIS.

I'm writing to express concerns about the proposed I-5 bridge & lane expansion. I'm concerned that adding more vehicle lanes will create induced demand, and only lead to more vehicles & carbon emissions. I'm concerned about the noise impact of additional lanes, as well as the detrioration of the urban fabric next to the bridge (in both Portland and Vancouver). I applaud the inclusion of the MAX line going to Vancouver. I believe engineers should aim to reduce the environmental impact of the project while helping to preserve the beautiful neighborhoods in Portland and downtown Vancouver that make these great places to live and great tourist destinations.

I believe that an bridge upgrade must focus on integrating non-vehicular (car) traffic. Active transportation and public transit should be able to seamlessly use the new bridge so that alternatives to driving become more feasible. In this regard, for true Multi-use infrastructure more vulnerable road users should be insulated from vehicular traffic and various forms of travel (cycling, walking, transit) should be side-by-side integrated, for seamless transfers and ease of use. There should be buffers between multi-use and vehicle lanes to reduce exposure to exhaust, noise, debris, and enhance user safety. Elevated access should be convenient for better connections especially for those who have disabilities or choose to walk or bike. This includes elevators and other forms of path access. Specifically, in Vancouver, the path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral and in Portland there should be added connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave! Transit should consider a future that is less car-dependent and make considerations for future capacity. It should extend into Vancouver to allow for commuters to access Portland and vice-versa. Both light rail and bus connections should be considered for a variety of connections. Stations should be integrated with multi use paths for walk/ride and bike/ride options and should be built to support four-car trains now to align with future downtown transit tunnel upgrades. There should also be plans for 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! At a basis this project should consider induced demand. Enhancing car-traffic use options allows for more car use and dependence. However the same goes for alternative transportation methods: providing multi-use and transit options will allow bridge users to consider alternatives to cars. Traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projections for transit and road use. Prioritizing a streamlined project should focus on transit enhancements, and active transportation rather than simply expanding the freeway. These considerations would be more beneficial and have benefits for bridge users, environmental impact of traffic and could be a model for the rest of the country as a successfully multi-use integrated interstate expansion!