Most Recent Comments

I live in the other end of Portland, but always wish to see forward-thinking planning that addresses climate change, iterative improvements for multi-modal transportation (walking, biking, public transit and the interconnection between them all), and avoidance of the proven falsehood that widening roads reduces traffic. We are looking at a century of short-term planning that keeps kicking the can down the road for those in the future instead of thinking and planning and making smart choices.

We do not need more freeways. We need walkable cities with ample public transit. Another freeway will not reduce congestion. Study after study proves that more freeways do not lead to less congestion. I have driven in both Chicago and Seattle. Their freeways do not reduce congestion, they just add MORE congestion. Adding another freeway would just make the city uglier, take valuable land and pollute usable land. There is absolutely NO NEED for another freeway. Let's have a. walkable, livable city that focuses on clean energy, environment, and safety for the wildlife and people.

My name is Kevin Machiz and I'm a resident of Portland, Oregon. I'm disturbed by the information contained in the DSEIS on bicycling and active transportation, as well as on transit. The designs proposed and renderings available show that bicyclists and transit users will be subjected to a level of inconvenience that ultimately will impede the ability of the bridge to attract and satisfy these users. The proposal for an elevated transit stop at such an enormous height will negatively impact reliability and accessibility. Should the project move ahead with the proposed design, I recommend that the spiral ramp for bicyclists be submitted to the Guinness Book of World Records for longest such ramp on Earth. I'm left with an abiding impression that the design priority here is to maximize the number of automobiles using Interstate 5 regardless of monetary costs or negative impacts to other potential users of the bridge.

Bent Flyvberg and Dan Gardner in their authoritative book How Big Things Get Done, says planners should use "honest numbers" not "strategic misrepresentation" which are instead being used on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project. by ODOT and WashDOT. As fuel efficient cars and electric vehicles and work-at-home are reducing gas tax revenues for the two agencies, the agencies are looking at significant lay-offs and reduced budgets. This should be driving the agencies to question "WHY" they are doing projects like the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, Flyvberg & Gardner say. This project will NOT reduce congestion on I-5, it will simply move the congestion to the un-tolled Glenn Jackson Bridge and I-84, as the investment grade analysis on the earlier CRC project demonstrated factually. This project will NOT insure safety against the Cascadia Induction Fault Earthquake -- four minutes of shaking will endanger the numerous costly ramps that go six stories high through Downtown Vancouver and also across Hayden Island. There is no demonstrated need, either, for the costly six interchange improvements surrounding the bridge, which will cost even more than the bridge itself and damage the area surrounding them as visual barriers, as huge noise producers, and as attractors for vagrants trying to get out of the elements. Induced demand will spur urban sprawl in Clark County and into Cowlitz County. In Oregon, there were 38 forest fires raging in July this year as a result of Climate Change. By inducing more travel via vehicles using gasoline and diesel, this gargantuan freeway expansion will feed much more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. Freeway expansions DO NOT reduce congestion, contrary to the strategic misrepresentation. Decision-makers should also look at the track record of large projects involving ODOT and WashDOT. They are ALWAYS way over budget and they always take way more time than they are planned to take. The agencies should be looking at high speed rail from Eugene to Vancouver B.C. They should be seriously considering Jim Howell's one-billion-dollar design for a low bridge with a bascule opening alongside the existing bridges to the East. Costs would be much nearer $1 billion for Howell's bridge than for what will surely balloon to over $10 billion for the IBRP. Decision makers asking he question "why" should also take the time to review the work of leading Oregon economist Joe Cortright in City Observatory online. And they should not simply choose the enormously expensive 116 foot high bridge that is currently planned because it may not pass Coast Guard approval this time around, because of its impact on big ship movement on the Columbia. It is important to note as well that carcinogenic air pollution kills 460 persons a year in the Portland Metro area according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that this freeway will induce vehicle travel that will dramatically increase such air pollution and death. With commuter travel reduced as a result of work-at-home, the question of WHY we are doing this monster bridge does not lead to the conclusion we should do it as planned by the DOTs.

I live in Portland, and make most of my trips by bike, but the current I-5 crossing is a serious disincentive to cycling. It's too narrow to safely coexist with pedestrian traffic (narrow enough that hitting one's handlebars on the railing and crashing is a very real concern), and too loud to communicate effectively with other path users. Also, simply accessing the northbound on-ramp requires significant out-of-direction travel and several dangerous mode conflicts with auto traffic (for whom it must also be frustrating.) It's hostile enough to potentially dissuade someone who was 'brave' enough to try it once and had a bad experience, or convince people to avoid it in the first place. By contrast, the I-205 crossing is wider and easier to access, but loud enough to cause hearing damage. Coupled with being longer and a significant elevation change, it ends up being even more unpleasant than I-5. A workable, 'future-proof' design will need to prioritize accessibility and experience for walking/rolling/cycling users, as well as multi-modal users, in order to reduce demand on auto lanes enough that autos, freight, and buses aren't further slowed. That means minimal out-of-direction travel, access which is safe, friendly, and accessible, and a facility itself which feels inviting enough for a beginner to use. If we design with only experienced, able-bodied commuters in mind, we'll never get the mode share we want (and need). If we make people cross an 8-lane highway to get from the light rail to the bike path, people will give up and drive. The barrier to entry has to be LOW, or we'll just end up with more auto traffic that we can ever build out of.

To: Interstate Bridge Replacement Program I. Marilyn Costamagna, residing in Medford, OR, totally support the letter, which the Just Crossing Alliance (JCA) submitted on 6 November 2024, as an overview comment on a Draft Supplant EIS re: the IBR project. Here is a copy of the letter: The Just Crossing Alliance (JCA) comprises 36 environmental, transportation, land use and environmental justice organizations who are seeking the most equitable and sustainable possible outcomes from the IBR project. While we appreciate the need for seismic resilience in this important interstate connection and are enthusiastic about the opportunity for transit and active transportation connections, we find that this project is not, as advertised, a bridge replacement but rather a five mile freeway widening. Many JCA member organizations and allies have submitted detailed comments about various aspects of this project. This letter is intended as an overview summary to tie all of these together in five main themes: ● The need for more credible traffic modeling ● Maximizing the potential of active transportation and transit ● A need for stronger pricing policy and tolling equity ● Health impacts ● Right Sizing the project The need for more credible traffic modeling In our view the traffic modeling for this project fails on two major points: the no-build traffic is grossly overestimated and the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (MLPA) traffic is likely underestimated. The DSEIS essentially asserts the same demand for person trips in both alternatives and simply reassigns them to different modal and lane configurations. JCA has commissioned and submitted an independent analysis of IBR traffic modeling by Norman Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, a nationally recognized consultant in the field. The Marshall report makes it clear that the current roadway simply cannot convey the number of auto trips projected in the no-build and also fails to identify bottlenecks south of the project area that will continue to restrict mobility in the corridor. The existing bridge is already at full capacity during peak periods, traffic cannot grow significantly in the no-build. The CRC made this same forecasting error in the no-build and the historical evidence now makes this clear. In the MLPA case, the modeling fails to clearly account for how availability of additional capacity impacts travel demand - the phenomenon known as induced demand (some may call it latent demand - either label results in more auto trips). The induced demand effect is well understood by everyone except state DOTs and their consultants. We have submitted numerous articles and papers documenting this. The DSEIS itself does not mention induced demand, and the Transportation Technical report only analyzes “induced development” based on land use plan changes - and concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project. We appreciate that both the availability of transit and tolling will suppress auto travel demand to some degree. We hoped for a nuanced discussion of how induced demand due to more lanes (including collector-distributor lanes) would interact with pricing, but since induced demand is ignored we place little faith in the DSEIS analysis. We particularly reject the assertion that a second auxiliary lane would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing congestion. There is ample evidence that long term growth in traffic is proportional to increases in lane miles. We are also concerned that the two Transportation Commissions are approaching the project of setting toll rates in a manner centered much more around revenue raising than about demand management. The DSEIS bottom line is relatively little difference in auto Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) between the no-build and MLPA alternates. We believe that because of the reasons outlined above, VMT will be substantially greater in the MLPA case. Since almost all of the analysis of environmental effects (GHG, other emissions, health and safety impacts) flows from VMT levels, we simply don’t accept the DSEIS as an accurate assessment. The only path to an accurate assessment of these effects is a new Supplemental EIS with credible modeling. Maximizing the potential of transit and active transportation We are happy to see active transportation and high-capacity transit connections established across the Columbia River but believe the connections fall far short of what could or should be achieved. We are submitting a separate vision document with detailed recommendations, but in summary: ● The Light Rail configuration is sufficient for opening day of the bridge, but should be designed to accommodate the volume and frequency of service that will be required when the bottleneck at the Steel Bridge is eventually addressed with a transit tunnel under the Willamette River and downtown Portland, something we hope will occur before the 2045 horizon year of the DSEIS. Specifically, stations in the IBR project area should be dimensioned to support four-car trains. ● Beyond the horizon year we anticipate the need for higher capacity modes of transit (e.g., multi-lane BRT or heavy rail) to accommodate passenger movement demand. We should be considering now as we design the physical structure of the bridge how these might be put in place later in the service life of the structure. ● The multi-use path must be positioned adjacent to the transit way to allow seamless transfers between modes and to make the transit elevators available to path users. In this configuration transit would also serve to buffer path users from the noise, debris and other impacts of the auto lanes. The path should also be shaded to protect users in the much hotter summer months the DSEIS anticipates. ● Active transportation connections must be extended deeper into the community on both sides of the river, at least as far as Evergreen in downtown Vancouver and connecting to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in Portland. Need for stronger pricing policy and tolling equity An additional conclusion of the independent Marshall report was that even before constructing an IBR project current travel times could be reduced by a combination of better ramp metering and a corridor-wide pricing plan to manage demand including some form of the Regional Mobility Pricing Project previously proposed for the Oregon section of I-5. Such a policy would bolster transit demand, manage other bottlenecks in the corridor and decrease the need for additional auto lane capacity, helping right-size the project. JCA has followed the work of ODOT’s Equity and Mobility Advisory Committee with great interest. We are disappointed that this committee was disbanded but are strongly in support of its recommendation for a 50% toll discount for low-income households. We are alarmed that the tolling scenarios selected for Level 3 analysis do not assume that such a discount is in place at the inception of pre-completion tolling. Applying this discount from day one is essential to the equity of this project! Health and Equity impacts We have been told to anticipate that disappointingly the Health Analysis for the project will not be published until the final week of the comment period. From what we have read in the executive summary it seems clear that most of the results are based on what we view as faulty VMT analysis as discussed above, meaning they are not reliable or useful. Nonetheless it is apparent that the increase in traffic in either alternative will have negative health consequences for all populations. Transit benefits will flow disproportionately to white, non-Hispanic residents and the burdens of noise and tolls will be disproportionately borne by low-income and equity priority communities. We must do better. Right-sizing the project We believe the SDEIS analysis does not provide justification for a second auxiliary lane. We also continue to believe that this project would be much more appropriate if it were simply a bridge replacement with transit and active transportation connections, rather than a five mile freeway expansion.

I and another in my household frequently bike over the i5 bridge from Portland to Vancouver. I am excited for improved biking facilties, as well as light rail that extends into vancouver! I read with dismay that the biking facilities will have a 1/2 mile ramp at each end, and that the biking facilities are not even adjacent to the light rail facilities, meaning that for folks who might like to ride-and-bike, the route will be non-intuitive and non-welcoming. Please consider redesigning those facilities to actually encourage, rather than discouraging, multimodal usage. I am excited for a bridge that prioritizes non-motorized vehicles and is also seismically sound.

Hello, I am writing out of concern for the proposed scope of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. It's obviously a prudent investment to make the bridge seismically resilient, and to add the light rail extension and improvements for people walking and riding bikes. But there doesn't seem to be a compelling justification for a second auxiliary lane. Many groups have looked closely at the issue, and it seems clear that an updated study is needed to make sure that we don't waste an exorbitant amount of public funds to not solve a congestion problem when other alternatives should be seriously evaluated. None of us knows what the future holds, but this magnitude of investment demands a more clear-eyed approach that prioritizes the health and safety of local residents and our collective resilience to climate change while using realistic, accurate data to inform the design. It's beyond disappointing that ODOT has allowed the project to get this far based on false traffic projections.

Hi there, I live 1/2 mile from I-5 at Rosa Parks, and thus I suffer from the pollution from the highway as I breathe in and around my home. I am proud to live in a city with ambitious climate change prevention goals, and so I am looking forward to a future in which we have less non-transit, motorized vehicle traffic over this bridge. I see the current design widens the freeway, which will encourage more motorized transit and increase air pollution. I hope your design will change to continue to prioritize the environment - rather than expanding the freeway. Let's rebuild the bridge to be seismically sound and avoid as many drawbridge lifts, add let's transit and improve biking facilities! I want this, rather than inducing more demand for traffic by adding traffic lanes. I look forward to a new bridge that does not rely on the false estimates that were provided to the public about trucking traffic, and that encourages folks not to drive over it more than they already do today, so that the traffic pollution can stop poisoning (or at least not poison more!) the air in my neighborhood.

I am writing to express my opposition to the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project (IBRP) as currently proposed. While infrastructure improvements are necessary, this project is deeply flawed and raises serious concerns regarding cost, accessibility, environmental impact, and seismic safety. The staggering estimated cost of $7–12 billion is unjustifiable, especially when the plan fails to address the primary issue of traffic congestion on the I-5 corridor. Such an enormous financial commitment risks diverting critical funding from social programs and other essential infrastructure needs, creating long-term economic strain on the region. The tolling structure intended to fund the bridge would impose significant financial hardship on residents and commuters who rely on this crossing. These tolls would disproportionately affect working families, creating barriers to mobility and economic opportunity. Furthermore, the proposed design is functionally and aesthetically problematic. The reduced vertical clearance of 116 feet is inadequate to accommodate larger vessels navigating the Columbia River, which could disrupt commerce and limit opportunities for upstream communities. The height and bulk of the bridge would also detract from the area’s natural and urban beauty. Seismic resilience is another critical issue. It is unacceptable that the proposed design does not ensure safety in the event of a major earthquake, particularly given the likelihood of a Cascadia Subduction Zone event in the next few decades. The potential for ground liquefaction in this area only exacerbates these safety concerns. Accessibility features also appear to have been poorly planned. For example, the bike and pedestrian ramp at Delta Park is far too long and steep to be practical for everyday use. Similarly, elevated transit stations on Vancouver and Hayden Island will pose challenges for users, especially during inevitable elevator outages. These design flaws would make the bridge less usable for the communities it is intended to serve. The extended construction timeline is another troubling aspect. A 15-year build would disrupt the lives of residents and businesses, especially those on Hayden Island and in nearby areas. The impacts on property values, quality of life, and local economies are unacceptable for a project that provides so little benefit in return. Given these serious issues, I urge decision-makers to halt the current plan and fully explore alternatives. A fresh review process, with ample public input, is essential. One such alternative worth considering is an immersed tunnel design, which has proven successful in other regions and could provide a safer, more sustainable, and more cost-effective solution. The IBRP, as it stands, represents a missed opportunity to create infrastructure that truly serves our region’s needs. I implore you to reconsider this plan and prioritize options that are equitable, environmentally responsible, and designed with the future in mind.

Instead of a new/ expanded I-5 bridge, there should be more public transportation between Portland and Vancouver. There are so many people who live in Vancouver yet work in Portland so just making some public transportation between the two cities would make more sense. Possibly a new(separate) bridge just for public transportation?

Why do we feel deceived with all the talk, just build a bridge like you asked.

The IBR is such an incredible opportunity to build thoughtful, safe, useful, and connective public infrastructure that will affect our region's communities for generations. Please, include safe, easily accessible protected bike paths that link to existing and planned networks on both sides of the bridge. Please include public transportation infrastructure that serves current AND future needs and incentivizes the use of public transportation. And do not use this project to expand highway lanes, which are polluting the air, dividing communities, and moving our region backwards, not forwards toward a cleaner, more thoughtful, people-first region.

There is no question that the bridge needs to be replaced. But this is NOT the correct plan of action. I strongly oppose this expansion as proposed. ODOT and WSDOT are proposing a massive, $7+ billion, five mile highway expansion That will not solve the problem and only cause more issues with transportation (including pedestrians and cycling. After looking at the numbers it's clear that ODOT and WSDOT are simply lying to the public on the traffic projections. As reported in Willamette Week: “A new examination of the assumptions underlying the proposed Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver says the project relies on bogus numbers. The new study was commissioned by the Just Crossing Alliance, which wants to reduce the freeway component of the project but supports parts of it, including the seismic replacement, light rail extension and bike and pedestrian improvements.”

I am extremely disappointed to see the current plan for the IBR to be so short-sighted in so many ways. My 2 biggest concerns: 1- Though at the present time there are capacity limitations of the Steel Bridge, the Regional Transportation Plan expects the need for expansion, which will include 4-car trains through Portland. Unless the IBR also plans for increased transit capacity, there will be no solution to getting those larger trains across the river. When I look at the passenger capacity of various transportation modes, it makes no sense that we are planning to increase single car traffic lanes and not planning for expansion of various rail options. 2- The siting of the transit on the opposite side and/or on different levels of the bridge from the active transportation lines makes no sense. It will make it much more difficult for people to be able to transfer. The proposed steep, spiral path down to Vancouver would also be extremely challenging for bikers and walkers in both directions. In addition, if the multi-use path is separated from the vehicular traffic lanes, the transit lines will shield bikers and walkers from noise and exhaust pollution from cars. Thank you for considering these concerns.

Just wanted my voice to be counted among the many who desire planning that prioritizes people and de-emphasizes car-centric thinking. I wish for a safe, connected bikeway across the Columbia and affordable mass transit, both of which will encourage fewer car trips between Portland and Vancouver.

I am frequently on Hayden Island and if you aren't there everyday you don't realize how bad the public infrastructure is. It is very hard for people to walk or bike on the Island and there is a massive demand for more public transportation since it's not safe to walk or bike. Widening the freeway will make these problems worse and hurt the people who live / work on the island. Please consider instead of investing in widening the freeway that we invest in better public transportation alternatives and SAFE walking / biking paths for people on the island. Please spend some time walking around the island during busy hours and consider how widening the freeway will adversely affect people.

I use the crossing multiple times a week on my bicycle, there need to be easy connections from local access to the bridge, current situation is ridiculous light rail is essential to making the bridge work for all keep plan simple with minimal work beyond the crossings, a bigger road will not solve congestion, good alternatives will

I am a North Portland resident (Kenton). All studies I have seen easily state increasing capacity increases traffic and overall emissions, which is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. Even worse much of these emissions are in my neighborhood. My preference would be to keep the bridge and just retrofit it for any concerns with safety. The costs I saw showed that we could easily do this for many decades before even coming close to the cost of the new bridge. That said I'm sure you're already planning to replace it, so my requests would be that it includes MAX access up to Vancouver (something that certainly would be helpful for me and many others). In additional to light rail, it needs to prioritize the safe travel of cyclists and pedestrians to be able to not only use the bridge but also any connections to it as well. I am supportive of tolling to be added to help deal with congestion, but insist it be done with equity in mind. My understand is that ODOT has a program already around this. Again, my preference is that we don't replace the existing bridge to increase capacity, that is a short sighted plan that has been proven in many studies. We should be trying to find ways to reduce traffic, which means alternate means of transportation (active and public). Thank you.

This project doesn't look like it will solve the issues it claims to solve. Building more lanes and widening freeways does not improve traffic in the long term. We need proven solutions that work and are are affordable, adding more lanes has shown by example to be a bad use of money and time, and just makes the climate emergency worse.

Right size this project. We are in a climate crisis and we will be fighting an uphill battle to lessen carbon emissions, both those caused directly by gas vehicle traffic and those caused by repair from electric vehicle traffic (road repair from heavier vehicles, output from mining, etc.) I want to be able to get across this bridge in multiple manners of travel and not be reliant on my expensive car travel. we can't afford it in every sense of the word. Prioritize racial and economic equity in every step of the project. 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. Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. 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. 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. Traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projections for transit and road use. Implement a low-income toll discount program from the first day of pre-completion tolling. This will help prevent financial burdens on vulnerable communities. Freeway impacts—such as noise and tolls—disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities. Use economically and racially focused, equitable solutions. 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. Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. 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.

Too many car lanes, too many exits. Delete the 4th plain exit.

Hello, as someone who uses the freeway and bridge nearly 5x a week, I'd like to comment that I do NOT want a freeway expansion. I would greatly appreciate safer / wider biking and pedestrian crossing along with public transportation with better connections to Williams. I would not need or want to drive if we invested in alternative transportation. I would like to see a study on Immersed Tube Tunnel as a viable alternative to a freeway expansion. 100% no one I have talked to in my neighborhood wants a freeway expansion. We all want better alternative options.

Comments by Third Act Oregon Equitable, Accessible, Safe and Green Transportation for All As elders and Third Act Oregon members deeply concerned about climate change and equitable access to safe, clean and reliable transportation, we advocate for an IBR that travelers of all abilities can easily use, decreases greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces the pollution burden on nearby historically marginalized communities. Importantly, robust public transit and active transportation options are essential for car-free or non-driving elders who wish to access amenities on either side of the Columbia River. Such transportation choices will enhance elder quality of life and help elders age in place. With these issues in mind, we have the following comments: 1. Facilitate Active Transportation: 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 link. 2. Expand Access to Public Transportation 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. 3. Ensure 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 4. Reduce Negative Health Effects Reliable Assessments: Current traffic modeling issues mean that health impact assessments (air quality, safety, etc.) are unreliable. Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. A new, more realistic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is needed. 5. Right-Size the IBR The draft SEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. We should avoid subsidizing private auto travel at expense of walkers/rollers/cyclists. Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective. 6. Improve the Environment and Climate Transportation is Oregon’s largest source of climate pollution. Building excellent active transportation and transit facilities will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Global impacts: The current design does little to reduce auto travel. Shifting travel modes to active transport and transit is the most effective way of reducing VMT and meeting specific state/regional carbon reduction goals. Local impacts: If the IBR project fails to reduce VMT, impacts to local communities include (1) additional air pollution (particulate and GH gases). (2) Degraded water quality from road-way run-off containing chemicals, oil, and tire and brake particulates, and (3) Additional noise pollution to surrounding communities. Third Act Oregon Oregon@thirdact.org

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.