Most Recent Comments

I fully support efforts to replace the current connection with a bridge that is seismically sound-- we need this bridge to survive any seismic events in the future. However, it amazes me that even though both states have policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these reductions aren’t a central part of the current vision. This large-scale project looks more like an expensive freeway expansion project than an investment in sustainable transportation and land use. The proposal gives insufficient focus to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), maximizing active transportation in the surrounding areas, or providing credible modeling that acknowledges the induced demand that would come from any capacity expansion. For these reasons, I request that you explore a more cost-effective direct replacement of the existing bridge with transit and active transportation improvements that does not include any capacity expansion.

I am a Portland resident who has lived in a car-free household for the last 15 years. We have chosen to extract ourselves from a dirty, polluting, and lethal transportation choice that is a major contributor to the worsening climate crisis. Members of my household walk, bike, and use public transportation to get where they need to go. It has been gratifying to see the recent improvements in car-free transportation infrastructure in my neighborhood. These improvements include better bike lanes protected from traffic, bendy buses that also allow easy transportation of bikes, the expanded MAX line to Milwaukie, and Tilikum Crossing. The IBR project must incorporate and improve upon these types of designs so that crossing the Columbia River is accessible, safe, and equitable to those of us who are car-free. With these issues in mind, I have the following comments on the IBR project: 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. As an experienced biker who has navigated the spiral to the Morrison Bridge and found it to be a real pain, a 100 foot high spiral would be an impediment to those who wish to explore active transportation across the IBR. • 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. Emily Platt Portland OR

I am submitting comments to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project as a leader and on behalf of FAMILIES FOR SAFE STREETS PDX Families for Safe Streets is an advocacy organization that exists to address our unacceptable - and worsening - road fatality crisis. Families for Safe Streets understands that all road fatalities are preventable and unacceptable, that it is a basic human right to be safe and to feel safe in Oregon's roads whether traveling by truck, car, bicycle, motorcycle, foot, wheelchair, or otherwise rolling. All of our members have either lost a family member or have been seriously injured in road traffic. The road fatality epidemic in the Portland metropolitan area is particularly dire. Despite the existence of a Vision Zero Program the number of fatalities has increased over the recent past, with a disproportionate rise in pedestrian fatalities. All decisions on the Interstate Bridge Replacement project should be informed by the undeniable fact that our transportation system contributes in significant and unacceptable ways to two concerning life-threatening crises: 1) climate collapse and 2) a worsening epidemic of violent and preventable road fatalities and serious injuries. To dismiss or downplay these crises by not ensuring they are addressed to the extent possible represents a willful acceptance of future harm to both individuals and the environment and a lack of concern for the damage that the system has already inflicted; to dismiss or downplay these crises represents a clear moral failing. To increase safety, the Interstate Bridge Replacement project must ensure complete and safe connections to the existing active transportation network. Given the significant amount of freight on and approaching the bridge, the pathways and connections for all non-vehicular (vulnerable) road users must be physically separated from all vehicular traffic, most especially where new ramps and interchanges will be constructed. To ensure safety and equity, it is imperative to ensure all road users are safe and feel safe. This will ensure that those who prefer to leave their car behind can do so without worrying about bodily harm or death. Maximizing the separation between vehicular traffic and vulnerable road users is imperative to ensuring walking, rolling, and biking routes are used to the extent possible. Specifically, the current design for the ramp from Vancouver Way to MLK North exposes low-impact road users to conflict with freight, because the proposed route is convoluted, traveling down, across, and back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Moreover, given the Marine Drive interchange is usually described as the most heavily used freight corridor in Oregon, additional alternatives that entirely separate walk/bike/roll travel around rather than through this important freight interchange must be studied. Connection to the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor presents a well-designed, safe separation for walk/bike/roll users along the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way corridor. This corridor provides an excellent example of the type of separation that should be extended to all Oregon active transit corridors. The proposed design for the Marine Drive Single Point Interchange presents a potential conflict between bike lanes and freight traffic and so alternatives need to be studied, including removing bike lanes from this interchange and reinvesting saved funds into enhancing other connections. These studies should explore how the project will meet the requirements of the Oregon Bike Bill without relying on shoulders of MLK and Marine Drive for bike travel. The Oregon Bike Bill allows for more design flexibility than the IBR project acknowledges. Given this, all allowable uses of the required 1% for bike/ped must be studied with a focus on promoting vulnerable road user safety. The Vancouver/Williams Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor's connection to the new main bridge multi-use path (MUP) is indirect and complicated. Northbound users must navigate bike lanes along the shoulders of northbound MLK, while southbound users must travel along a separated bike lane next to Union Court before joining southbound MLK on a shoulder bike lane. This is a crash waiting to happen. Additional alternatives must be explored. The 40-Mile Loop East/West Corridor is the main trail hub for Portland and when fully completed will connect most of the other trails in the region. Ensuring connections with the 40-Mile Loop are at potential is important for ease of use and wayfinding. The proposed eastbound connection to the Bridgeton Trail portion of the 40-Mile Loop must be improved. The current design requires out-of-direction travel, routing users around a traffic circle to access the multi-use path on the west side of the Harbor Bridge. This is both inconvenient and inefficient. Alternative designs need to be considered to provide a direct connection from the Bridgeton Trail to the east-side sidewalk of the Harbor Bridge. This would encourage more users to cross the bridge as the east sidewalk offers a scenic view of North Portland Harbor and Mt. Hood. Additionally, we request that the sidewalk on the east side of the Harbor Bridge be as wide as possible and built with wide viewing areas to rest and enjoy the view. Ensuring non-vehicular modes of travel are as safe and efficient as possible is imperative to ensuring individuals have robust transportation choices and can, if they prefer to, leave their cars behind. Reducing vehicular traffic is essential to combating congestion; we know that it is impossible to build our way out of congestion problems. Reducing vehicular traffic is also essential to increasing safety on our roads.

Support for Core Project Goals I strongly support the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project as a vital investment for our growing region. This project should prioritize: Public Transit Expansion: To reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and improve access for all. Active Transportation Infrastructure: Safe and efficient routes for pedestrians and cyclists. Seismic Upgrades: Ensuring the bridge is resilient and prepared for a major earthquake. Safety Enhancements: Reducing crashes and improving travel reliability for all users. Concerns with Traffic Modeling and Freeway Expansion I have significant concerns about the project's justification for expanding freeway capacity. Research consistently shows that adding lanes does not alleviate traffic congestion in the long term due to induced demand. Key studies include: Duranton and Turner (2011): Demonstrated that increasing road capacity results in proportional increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Handy and Boarnet (2014): Highlighted the limitations of highway expansion as a congestion mitigation strategy. Given these findings, I urge the project team to provide transparent information on the traffic modeling used in the SEIS. Specifically: What assumptions underlie the traffic and demand projections? How have induced demand and climate impact considerations been integrated into the analysis? Why is a second auxiliary lane deemed necessary, and what evidence supports its inclusion? Rethinking Regional Priorities This project offers a unique opportunity to create a bridge that reflects the future needs of our region, emphasizing climate resilience and equitable transportation options. A design that prioritizes public transit, active transportation, and seismic safety aligns with Oregon and Washington’s climate and equity goals. By contrast, perpetuating outdated norms around freeway expansion undermines these priorities. Cost-Effectiveness and Streamlined Solutions A more streamlined solution focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancement, and active transportation could provide significant cost savings while delivering the greatest benefits. Expanding the freeway not only risks inflating project costs but may also compromise long-term regional goals. I urge decision-makers to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of alternatives that do not include additional freeway lanes. Final Thoughts This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redefine transportation in our region. Let’s commit to building infrastructure that supports a sustainable, equitable, and forward-thinking future. The SEIS should reflect a comprehensive approach that prioritizes long-term regional needs over short-term congestion relief through freeway expansion. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello, After reviewing the new study by the Just Crossing Alliance on the ODOT/WSDOT I-5 Bridge proposal, I agree with Just Crossing's analysis which wants to reduce the freeway component of the project. As an Oregon state and Multnomah County taxpayer I think it is too expensive and would induce more demand. I also support the study authors' support for the much needed seismic replacement, light rail extension and bike and pedestrian improvements.

I have two main problems with the IBR. 1. At $7.5B, the cost is astronomical. NY completed two major bridge projects in 2017 at cost of $2B and $3.9B 2. It will not withstand a major earthquake Time to go back to the drawing board.

Please do not build the IBR project. Please fund commuter heavy rail on the existing freight tracks ASAP with frequent service from Vancouver to Oregon City and regular service from Longview to Salem.

Dear Interstate Bridge Replacement Project committee members, As a long-time resident of Portland who loves our city and region I urge you to reject the proposed project. Failure to look at transportation alternatives, contribution to the alarming effects of climate catastrophe, waste of public monies that should instead go to meet human needs and investing in green energy- these are but some of the reasons that I urge you to do the right thing. Thank you, Alon Raab

This project not only needs to provide for biking and public transit, but also needs to consider the impact on surrounding communities and environments with regard to health and racial justice.

I stand firmly opposed to the boondoggle to widen I-5 through Portland. The $7.5B estimate for the project (which will surely overrun, maybe doubling in cost) could be spent on innumerable projects with great impact for the region in economic and social terms. More lanes leads to more cars. Spend the money to improve existing infrastructure to facilitate multi-modal movement throughout the city before spending massive sums on a project that will only make things worse over the long term.

We need a bridge that welcomes everyone—walking, biking, and rolling and accessing public transit—by ensuring seamless, accessible pathways. By integrating open views, rest areas, and close transit access, the bridge can become a safe, enjoyable route for all. We need for protective barriers, well-lit routes, and comfortable features like shading and rain protection, creating a welcoming space for everyone. A commitment to inclusive design prioritizes the safety and comfort of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds, especially underserved and vulnerable groups. We want a climate-resilient bridge that supports active and public transportation, reducing reliance on cars and cutting emissions long-term. We can’t afford to continue subsidizing driving above walking, biking, rolling, and using transit.

Even without the climate crisis, prioritizing car traffic is not justified by any measure. Economically and socially, we need to prioritize transit and active transportation. However, because of the climate crisis, it is impossible to support the long-term maintenance of car-dependent infrastructure. The costs of the climate crisis are going to overwhelm our systems. We need to use our resources today to build infrastructure that can be used even in a future of massive economic crashes and environmental challenges. Active transportation and efficient public transit are going to be much more feasible than maintaining so many private cars. I urge the bridge planning to focus first and foremost on these modes that will actually serve us into the future and then minimize the expense and extent of car-focused aspects of the project. Keep in mind what we will need to have in 50 years. Do not build what you imagine we need in 2025, build what we can be confident will serve us in 2060. That means active transport and practical mass transit.

I would like this project to focus as much as possible on delivering world-class transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and discouraging the use of single occupancy vehicles. The bike / ped path should be located on the same side as the transit to facilitate integration of those modes, and the transit tracks should be in between the roadway and the bike / ped path to create a buffer. Induced demand should be considered and as few vehicle travel lanes and interchanges as possible should be built. This project is a big opportunity for the region to take real action on global warming, environmental degradation, and livable communities by prioritizing transit, bicycles, and pedestrians and actively discouraging SOVs.

New Bridge across the Columbia and Washington/Oregon: First, let me acknowledge it is very difficult to design this bridge to work for everyone and include every idea. I support the following: 1. Toll, though it pains me to say so, with a pass for those who need to transit back and forth for work. 2. Elevators at either end of the bridge to accommodate those who have a variety of disabilities. Actually, I believe this is mandatory for construction of walkways. 3. Set a total cut off for comments and begin construction! Becky Tooley Oregon Resident

Expanding the I-5 bridge by adding lanes is an unnecessary expense.. Population trends and climate change make this expansion a waste and misspend scarce transportation funds. Furthermore the decrease in existing housing is going to exacerbate homelessness. No one willingly lives next to a freeway, except no people who can't afford to live anywhere else. We need reliable frequent public transit, not more cars.

This Project is either going to go ahead as one of the last gasps of a failed auto-mobility at all costs paradigm or be restructured as a right-sized sane project. if you must build this project, please take the advice of the advocates and - Add Better Connections For Bikes! 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. Allow for 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. Make sure that you build for future Transit capacity expansion. The connection between downtown Portland and Vancouver is one of the strongest Transit corridors in the region and it has been under-served since the Yellow line was built in its current configuration. If you want to actually do the right thing, this project should go back to the drawing board with a much lower budget and try to build for the future for less car-based transit. This means many things but I don't expect the power brokers to actually take this serious. Others have articulated good ideas better than I can recreate here. When you're ready to ACTUALLY LISTEN, we are ready to talk.

Hello, This is a monumental build. We need to think about the long term for this project. We need to build with our futures in mind. I don't think the current project prioritizes the health and we'll being of future generations. As designed now it will be more pollution as well as noise, and backed up traffic. We know that more and more lanes of traffic does nothing to solve our transportation issues. We need other modes like public transit and biking options tgat allow us to reduce our greenhouse gases and prioritize people. Please consider a different approach for our future. Thank you.

Please do not overbuild the new I-5 bridge. Please prioritize human use over motor vehicle use, especially safety. When building pedestrian/bike and public transit facilities, pretend someone will use these together and don't make them go far to connect.

Please reconsider the I-5 bridge tolls and construction. It will lower our property values considerably and many Hayden Island residents do most of their commerce in Vancouver because it is so much closer than Portland and these tolls will be a very big expense!! PLease consider Hayden Island residents and the enormous impact this new construction will have on us. Also, the added expense of a MAX line seems to be an excessive and unwanted expense by most people. The MAX is bleeding money as it is, why make the bleed worse!!!

I-5 Bridge Replacement project needs to privilege public transit for cyclists, pedestrians and commuters beyond personal motorists. Increase induced demand for high-impact transit by enabling multi-modal transit options including cycling, walking, and enhanced public transit to connect communities. If enacting a toll structure for motorists makes fiscal sense and in turn reduces one-occupant automobile traffic, so much the better.

Dear Project Leadership, I am writing to express my deep concern about the current $7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement proposal. While I support the need to address seismic safety and aging infrastructure, the current plan represents a massive, missed opportunity to create truly sustainable transportation infrastructure for our region's future. The proposal's emphasis on expanding highway lanes at such enormous expense fails to adequately address the pressing challenges of climate change and community connectivity. By relegating cycling and pedestrian infrastructure to secondary consideration, this project perpetuates outdated car-centric planning that we know leads to increased emissions, reduced quality of life, and less accessible communities. The billions earmarked for additional lanes could instead be invested in robust public transit, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure that would better serve all members of our community while advancing our climate goals. Evidence consistently shows that highway expansion projects like this one induce additional vehicle demand rather than solving congestion. As both a taxpayer and community member, I cannot support spending $7.5 billion on infrastructure that will likely worsen our environmental challenges while failing to provide meaningful, sustainable transportation alternatives. I urge you to reconsider this approach in favor of a more forward-thinking design that prioritizes people over cars.

I advise you to consider induced demand in the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. Building more highway will almost certainly not reduce traffic congestion. This will contribute to climate change and adverse health outcomes. Other portions of the proposed project, including the seismic reinforcement, light rail extension, and accommodations bike and pedestrian traffic, are praiseworthy. These aspects should be prioritized over highway expansion.

I am writing to convey that I am primarily interested in this bridge being accessible and convenient to forms of transportation other than the private automobile. More than anything else, it needs to be a vibrant and dynamic part of our Public Transportation, Cycling, and Walking infrastructure (as well as other non-car conveyances).

We want to register our concerns with the proposed Interstate bridge replacement. Our property on Hayden Island is home to Schooner Creek Boat Works. We are concerned with sediments entering the bay from work in the water. We also need to allow the large sailboats to pass under the bridge. We have concerns of the tolls hindering our employees from washington. Finally we need to be sure large trucks with boats can get to the island and our location. Please consider these concerns in the plan. Thanks, Kevin Flanigan

The $7-12 billion cost is outrageous, while doing little to solve I-5 traffic congestion at the I-5 bridge. 2. The massive bridge will inevitably experience massive cost overruns, causing a redirection of funding meant for social programs. 3. Bridge tolls will impose a heavy and daily financial burden on all adjacent communities. 4. IBR's fixed-spans offer only 116 feet of vertical clearance above water, a full 62 ft less than today's drawbridge which will significantly restrict larger commercial vessels from using the Columbia River to support upstream communities. 5. The 175 ft bridge height will be an eyesore that will detract from the current scenic beauty of the crossing. 6. Per the committee, IBR bridge plans will not be engineered to withstand a major Cascade Seduction Zone earthquake! Scientists are currently predicting there is about a 37% chance that a mega-thrust earthquake in this fault zone will occur in the next 50 years. 7. The IBR is an area where ground liquefaction is "expected" during a major earthquake. Liquefaction is a major threat to any bridge. 8. The Delta Park 30ft high 1/4 mile corkscrew bike & pedestrian access ramp, is too long & steep for the general public. 9. At 100ft above ground, the Vancouver transit station will be a long reach as elevator outages do happen. 10. At 30ft above ground, the Hayden Island transit station will also be a long reach subject to periodic elevator outages. 11. The 18-lane interchange planned for Hayden Island will create a very wide ugly swath of multiple pavement lanes across prime retail property, and a navigational nightmare for the visiting public and islanders. 12. The bridge's 15-year construction period will create a huge loss of quality of life, income, & property values for Hayden Island and adjacent communities. 13. Insist on an additional 120 days for public review & comment, given IBR's refusal to release full bridge information. 14. An "Independent Engineering Commission" should investigate & evaluate the option of more suitable, far less costly, and considerably more environmentally friendly "Immersed Tunnel!" If it was selected for a similar project in Vancouver BC, then why not here?