Most Recent Comments

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?

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DSEIS for the Interstate Bridge Replacement. 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 addresses our dual climate and road safety crises.

As a N portland resident and someone who has commuted to Vancouver for work, I am very concerned about various aspects of the pedestrian safety on the bridge. I used to ride my bike and often felt unsafe - please do all you can to make this bridge accessible and safe! See specific comments below. Thank you! 1. Current design has the multi-use path on one side of the bridge and transit on the other, about 200 feet apart. We know multimodal trips are key for pedestrians and putting these transportation options side-by-side reduces out of direction travel, eases transfers, and has a number of additional benefits. The multi-use path should be next to the MAX line, not on opposite sides of the bridge as it is currently designed. 2. Current design does not have elevators to the multi-use path. On the Vancouver waterfront, the multi-use path is approximately 100' in the air and requires a 1/2 mile long, 4.5% grade spiral ramp, and no elevator is available. This is ableist in design and due to the elevation and distance it excludes most pedestrians and folks with mobility challenges. The multi-use path needs to be lower or, at a minimum, have elevators available. 3. Current design has the multi-use path ending at the Vancouver waterfront where it descends a 1/2 mile spiral ramp at 4.5% grade. We believe the path must be extended to Evergreen Boulevard (site of the Vancouver library) along the transit line so pedestrians do not face 1/2 mile out of direction travel where they lose and must regain all the elevation. This extension also more effectively connects into the rest of the active transportation network throughout Vancouver. 4. For people to use active transportation, they must feel safe. We are asking for lighting throughout the multi-use path, separation from freeway traffic by placing the transit line between the multi-use path and the roadway, and building/planting natural and human-made shade.

Reliable Assessments: 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. Health Concerns: Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. Equity Priority: Freeway impacts—such as noise and tolls—disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities. Addressing this requires focused, equitable solutions.

Freeways have historically divided many neighborhoods and have had severe negative impacts for many populations especially those living close to the freeways. The new IBR design continues to rely on out of date research and does nothing to prioritize pedestrians or their safety. There must be lighting throughout the multi-use path, separation from freeway traffic by placing the transit line between the multi-use path and the roadway, and building/planting natural and human-made shade. Not only do these efforts increase safety and keep neighborhoods livable and intact, they would also add additional benefits to reduce impacts of climate change. The current design needs to be reworked.

Both states acknowledge and have new policies aimed at reducing emissions reductions. One well known way to do this is to decrease single occupancy travel in cars and to increase the use of active transit/public transit. These options also have societal benefits of reduced traffic noise and increase in health and well being. The design of the bridge should reflect and integrate and prioritize active and public transit over single occupancy vehicles and trucking. Instead the current design has the multi-use path on one side of the bridge and transit on the other, about 200 feet apart. The multi-use path should be next to the MAX line. Multimodal trips are key for pedestrians - putting these transportation options side-by-side has many benefits such as reduced out of direction travel and eased transfers.

We are concerned that sediment will enter our bay (Canoe Cove) from the piling placement and the fixed span. We have customers with large sailboats who will not go under, including those with masts taller than 120 feet. Additionally, the toll will affect our employees and customers in Washington. Also, we have large vessels coming and leaving by truck, and we are concerned about height restrictions for the trucking company. Thank you Pascal Le Guilly

Biking and walking have to be on the same side of the highway as transit. This is non-negotiable. JCA's concerns about data and assumptions need to be addressed in writing. They bring up important questions about the true benefits of this project. I support the project in general, but I think the benefits of the project need to be clearer and more substantial, considering the expense and disruption. With this being such a high-profile project, it is critical that this bridge shine as an example of inter-state, inter-agency collaboration around a modern, resilient bridge that supports a safe and convenient transportation system for all users, with an emphasis on vulnerable users and traffic/congestion mitigation. The CRC and current IBR measures are not adequate to this task. It is vital that the lead agencies recognize this and make the necessary changes to correct course.

Increasing freeway traffic will have a negative effect on the people who live nearby.

We should consider the future. Individual cars burning fossil fuel is not sustainable.

I absolutely oppose the IBR project.

As a condo owner and business owner on the island, the amount of money and distruption to the island with little to no traffic relief this bridge it not the solution. 1. 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.

Hello, We absolutely do not need to add more lanes to the I-5 corridor in the face of accelerating climate change. What we need is a new, taller bridge that does not stop traffic between Canada and Mexico and also incorporates ample opportunities for pedestrians, cyclist and also light rail expansion to Vancouver and beyond. It's time to get this done the right way without pressure from ODOT's car obsessed leadership. Thank you, Spencer Kroll

Recommendations for Improving Transit Connection Facilities in the IBR Project Dear IBR Project Team, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed design for the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project, specifically as it relates to the transit and active transportation facilities. While the $7.5 billion investment represents a critical opportunity to modernize the I-5 corridor between Portland and Vancouver, certain design elements will limit the project’s usability, accessibility, and environmental impact if left unaddressed. Concerns and Recommendations 1. Transit Station Accessibility: The proposed elevated transit stations in Vancouver, at heights of approximately 100 feet (10 stories), will create significant accessibility challenges for users. This design will deter riders and reduce the overall effectiveness of the public transit component of the project. Station designs must prioritize ease of access, particularly for individuals with mobility limitations, to ensure widespread use and long-term success. 2. Bike Path Placement and Connectivity: Placing the bike path on the east side of the bridge, away from the transit line, creates a disconnect between active transportation and public transit. This separation, compounded by the lack of direct connections or elevators linking the Vancouver waterfront to the bike path, forces cyclists into an unnecessary one-mile detour that includes a half-mile spiral ramp. Such a design will discourage use and undermine the goal of fostering seamless multimodal transportation. 3. Integrated Multimodal Design: To maximize the project’s impact, bike paths must be co-located alongside transit lines. This adjustment will allow for direct transfers between active transportation and public transit modes, increasing convenience and encouraging adoption. Additionally, keeping the bike path elevated will eliminate unnecessary detours and improve accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Why These Changes Matter By aligning bike and transit facilities and prioritizing user-friendly designs, the IBR project will better meet the needs of the community while advancing regional goals of sustainability, reduced congestion, and equitable access to transportation. Investing in integrated and accessible infrastructure now will ensure higher usage rates and demonstrate a commitment to forward-thinking urban planning. The IBR project represents an unparalleled opportunity to enhance transportation infrastructure in the region. To fully realize this potential, I urge you to adopt the above recommendations in the project’s final design. Thank you for your commitment to delivering a project that truly serves all members of our community. Sincerely, Phillip M Ross

Public comment on the SEIS for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program: We should be focused on the following: + 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: o Vancouver: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. o Portland: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave. link. + Public Transit • Future-Proofing for Capacity: o Stations should be built to support four-car trains now to align with future downtown transit tunnel upgrades. o 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. o 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. + Health Analysis • Reliable Assessments: 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. • Health Concerns: Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. + Project Scope and Justification • Right-Sizing the Project: o The DSEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. o Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective.

The size and footprint of this new bridge and the interchange improvements are unacceptable. If a new bridge is needed, it doesn't need "auxiliary lanes" that are secretly additional lanes, and any traffic forecasts need to factor in induced demand and the effects of tolling to reduce peak congestion.

I carefully followed the CRC I-5 Bridge proposal 2008-2013 when it was duly cancelled for two specific reasons: Instead of Double-deck design, single-deck is the only sensible option. Hayden Island Access design flaws (exit-ramps were inherently dangerous, steep uphill on-ramps meant noisy traffic, more air pollution, merging more dangerous). With single-deck design, I favor 4-lanes southbound and 5-lanes northbound (extra lane for heavier afternoon traffic and because the exits to SR14 and downtown Vancouver are too close together), 4-lanes southbound because there'll be only 1 exit to Marine Drive. Adding 2-lanes for transit to southbound span (4+2 = 6 lanes), adding 1-lane northbound for the ped/bikeway, (5+1 = 6 lanes) thus both spans are equal width, a likely reduction of costs. On further examination, the current design presents wholly unacceptable traffic hazards and excessive construction. It's particularly bad engineering which suggests ODOT & Wsdot are "padding their paychecks" to rip off taxpayers. Based on my experience analyzing transportation planning, I can understand why conservatives despise government.

The IBR project represents a colossal misuse of resources that will worsen congestion, harm housing affordability, and deepen transportation inequities. This $7.5 billion freeway expansion will induce more driving, leading to the same gridlock it claims to solve while increasing pollution and urban sprawl. Instead of investing in sustainable, equitable transit solutions, this project prioritizes car infrastructure that displaces communities and drives up housing costs. Low-income residents and transit users will be left behind, forced to bear the burden of increased sprawl and unaffordable transportation systems. The financial cost is staggering, diverting billions from critical needs like education, bridge repairs, and public transit. State budgets are stretched thin, and prioritizing this mega-project means other essential services will suffer—all for the benefit of construction firms and developers. Reject the IBR project and push for investments in affordable housing, expanded public transit, and climate-resilient infrastructure. This project is a step in the wrong direction—let’s stand up for solutions that serve everyone, not just wealthy interests.

The current IBR plans lack cycling infrastructure that connects to key areas. Ideally, there should be a direct bike/pedestrian connection to the Columbia Slough path and the Kenton neighborhood. This direct connection would help eliminate numerous pinch points and potential conflict areas between cars and cyclists.

In the IBR construction plan, what assurances are there that pedestrian and cycling paths will remain accessible and connected to key areas such as the Columbia Slough, Kenton, Hayden Island, and Vancouver throughout the construction period?

Why aren’t elevators being considered in the IBR design to help avoid the initial elevation climb from the waterfront to the pedestrian and bike path?

Why don’t the current visualizations and designs of the IBR bridge extend all the way to the Evergreen Blvd community connector? Traveling from Main Street to the IBR bridge shouldn’t require losing elevation only to have to climb back up using the corkscrew approach. I propose incorporating a pedestrian/bike path that begins at the Evergreen Blvd path.

What measures are being considered in the IBR design to mitigate the impact of rain and inclement weather on the pedestrian and cycling path? Currently, the proximity of the I-5 bridge to the pedestrian/cycling path creates an unpleasant experience, with road debris and spray affecting users. Additionally, heavy rainfall can make the path slippery and hazardous.

I'm writing in regards to the Interstate Bridge replacement project. True multi-modal transportation is an absolute necessity if the goal is to reduce congestion and carbon pollution from our region. The plan now had some serious gaps in regards to linking the bike route to the rest of the transportation options and if unaddressed it is going to actively prevent the adoption of less polluting transportation methods. If the bike path cannot be reached immediately upon exit of the public transit options, it will dissuade users for safety and convenience reasons. Either this project needs to take bike transportation, convenience, and safety necessary, or it seems to me it's just another project fated to be outdated and a green light for spending for no true advantage. The public is probably on high notice because the I5 expansion in the Rose Quarter appears to be yet another attempt to budget for a project only bureaucrats want. Studies showing congestion won't be impacted unless changes are made further up and down the corridor also make this project seem like trying to look helpful while actually just wasting public dollars. Either the project needs to be geared for the population to actually use in a better future, or reconsidered altogether.

How will the IBR project address multiple modes of transportation on the pedestrian and cycling path? Currently, the I-5 bridge accommodates various forms of transportation, including e-motorcycles and gas-powered bicycles, likely because the interstate/automobile portion is unsafe for them. It’s important to plan for these users, as more people opt for transportation methods beyond walking, cycling, and public transit. Without accommodating these users, we risk pedestrian and cyclist injuries due to differences in speed and proximity to slower-moving individuals. Proper consideration and planning are essential to create a safe and functional shared path for all.