Most Recent Comments

This generational project will determine the future of active transportation of the region. Failure to consider and prioritize the experience of active transportation users will limit the use of the crossing to a privileged few, wasting the effort put into this area. With full consideration of the experience of active transportation users, and a few tweaks, we can set up the generations to come with a crossing that serves all users. For example, including a multi-use path at the bridge’s grade to the riverfront so that walkers/rollers/riders have direct access to the bridge. Provide plentiful connections to public transit and other modes.

Hello, I am writing in favor of a CRC that plans for present and future transportation needs of our region. We need light rail, we need walking and rolling access that is safe, and accessible. We need to encourage less traffic and more options for people to commute. We need a bridge that serves all people not just car drivers. We can’t put this off any longer and can’t fool ourselves about this bridge’s role in mitigating carbon emissions. This bridge can make our region a leader again in smart, inclusive transportation that takes a holistic approach to multiple issues. For example, a good path will encourage commuters to use e-bikes to commute over the bridge reducing bridge traffic and emissions. Thank you.

Quick note as I’m currently trekking and traveling in Portugal. As a Portland resident of 40 years and someone who worked in downtown Vancouver for 10 years, I came to know the Interstate Bridge very well. Long story short, I can’t support the current IBR design. For an alternative approach, check out the bridge on the A4 in Portugal. I’ve attached a screenshot for reference—it’s worth considering!

Access for All, LLC, led by people with disabilities, advocates for full inclusion for people of all abilities in projects and programs available to the greater community. We specialize in access to outdoor developed areas and our comments, in the attachment, reflect these missions. In review of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Draft, we are primarily concerned with how the bridge design impacts the safety, connectivity, accessibility and user experience of people walking, using mobility devices and accessing transit.

I would like to register my firm opposition to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project for a number of reasons, any one of which should give pause to planners of a project of this magnitude. The cost burden is absurdly high, and given the time projections for completion of the project, will probably grow much higher by the year 2040, not to mention the enormous toll burden this would place on the thousands of daily commuters essentially indentured to using the bridge daily. The structure doesn’t meet seismic standards necessary to withstand the major earthquake virtually every expert has told us is bound to happen, sooner or later. The enormous height of the project, aside from being an incredible eyesore, doesn’t even provide the same clearances that are currently available for commerce designed and constructed well over 100 years ago. Hayden Island and its thousands of residents seems to be a sacrificial lamb in terms of land use, with access and neighborhood livability an afterthought at best. The project won’t even meet the desired goals in terms of traffic congestion alleviation in the corridor. How is it that the enormous cost of planning over what has now consumed at least two decades has nothing more to show than this bloated, underthought and ugly monument to current American problem solving? I have long been in support of replacing the aging and no doubt fragile relic we now use but this project is a severe disappointment and disservice to the community and taxpayers at large. Sincerely, Mark Fischer

I support bridge replacement, but not the costly IBRP designs that clearly does not meet it's stated purpose and need. A refresher on purpose and need: a) improve travel safety and traffic operations on the I-5 river crossing and associated interchanges; (b) improve connectivity, reliability, travel times, and operations of public transportation modal alternatives in the Program area; (c) improve highway freight mobility and address interstate travel and commerce needs in the Program area; and (d) improve the I-5 river crossing’s structural integrity (seismic stability). (See attached for full document) 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. 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?

There is only one chance to get this right. We won’t be building another bridge like this in any of our lifetimes. Please prioritize transit on this bridge! Pedestrian and bike infrastructure should also be included. But nothing should be built without some form of train link over the bridge.

I have deep misgivings about the climate impacts of this project. As the most expensive infrastructure project in Oregon's history, this bridge will be a testament to the future residents of our region on what our priorities were at this time. A bridge that overwhelmingly favors carbon-intensive modes of transportation will lock in higher carbon (and other pollutant) emissions for generations to come. A larger bridge and additional lanes will not reduce pollution. Any increase in car capacity will simply become filled with induced demand. This is not the legacy we should leave behind, when the impact will be poorer air quality and more severe climate change, while the future drivers will left frustrated and simply demanding an even larger bridge. We should use this project as an opportunity to be a leader on climate change, and make this a true multi-modal and environmentally just bridge that we can all be proud of.

I am writing to express support for prioritizing the future capacity of public transit on the new bridge. This new bridge will stand for many decades to come, so it is important for it to be built to support the future needs of our region, which will be different from today's. That means supporting higher capacity transit in the future. This could include measures such as ensuring that train stations are built to potentially support four-car trains when downtown light rail is upgraded, ensuring there is space for multi-lane BRT or heavy rail, and ensuring capacity for a future Cascadia high speed rail line.

I support the seismic replacement, light rail extension, and bike and pedestrian improvements on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. However, any other costs outside of the aforementioned ones, including widening the bridge, will do nothing but waste tax dollars and will certainly not relieve congestion. Additionally, I would hate to see the city I love so much turn into a sprawling mass of highway. Freeway expansion projects result in induced demand, not reduced congestion. As an occasional (and generally reluctant) driver, I support congestion pricing instead of freeway expansion, even though it will mean money out of my pocket. I bike or take transit far more often than I drive and vastly prefer those transportation methods over driving. But it is far too easy to drive in this city, and to drive faster than the speed limit, as I have seen increasingly over time. We need to put more time, energy, and money into enfranchising citizens to opt for cleaner and less dangerous transportation options.

This project is generational infrastructure. Accordingly, we must look forward to future generations to consider the impacts. Locking ourselves into billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure is the wrong direction — we can't meet climate goals while expanding auto capacity. We can't afford to make decisions that ignore the urgent need for decarbonizing our transportation system. Instead of spending billions on highway expansions that aren't necessary to seismically upgrade the bridge, we need to be heavily investing in active transportation and public transit.

The projections made by this project are inaccurate, as admitted by project staff and reported by multiple news outlets. They predict a present that doesn't exist, let alone a future that's even further off the mark. We're getting farther from the traffic counts being relied on to justify this project, not closer. Expanding highway capacity is unnecessary, and if we do so we can expect to induce demand for more driving. The only proven method for managing urban congestion is pricing it fairly, and using the revenue to improve non-driving modes.

Public transit and bicycle lanes must connect to business districts where people travel to. There should be a Vancouver/Williams connection. Additionally, cyclists should be separated from cars as much as possible, riding next to high speed vehicles en masse is noisy, dangerous, and does not increase safety. Place the bus lanes between cyclists and private vehicles as a buffer to provide more safety to cyclists as they travel. They are some of the most vulnerable road users while providing the most benefit in terms of air quality, carbon impact, noise pollution, traffic reduction, impact to the roads, health, and community.

We should not be using more land for freeways. Destroying neighborhoods for more lanes and ramps is a mistake, we should use what we have more efficiently. This project should be right-sized so it can be more efficiently built, and lower cost to maintain. Freeway expansion has historically damaged so many places, especially minorities and low-income people.

I strongly oppose increasing lanes for private vehicles due to the induced demand it creates. Give people real options for public transit that are fast, safe, reliable. Consider tolls as this project is very expensive and maintenance will be needed, this project should not take away funds from other public infrastructure projects; the individual users and corporations that utilize this bridge most should pay towards its cost. Riding public transit soul should be incentivized over private vehicle use.

This plan doesn’t meet the needs of multi-modal transit. A half mile distance between the bike lane and bus stop makes this connection difficult and too long. If you are counting on moving more people across the bridge, we need bus only lanes for rapid bus transit, bus service frequent enough to compete with and beat car transit times (with bus only lanes, it should be faster to get through traffic) plus carpool lanes, and safe and accessible bike lanes. Moving people in private vehicles is the most inefficient and carbon-heavy option, we don’t need more lanes (which will only create induced demand and more private car users). The bridge should prioritize public transit over cars.

To Whom It May Concern: I have been a resident in the floating home community on Hayden Island for the past 45 years. I lived here when they opened the I-205 bridge. At that time the traffic on I-5 was reduced by approximately 50%. It would make perfect sense to build a third bridge to the west of Hayden Island. This would, once again, reduce the traffic by approximately 50% on I-5. With the continued maintenance over the years on the I-5 bridge it is still in great condition. The most sensible thing would be to build a third bridge over the Columbia River. Why has there been no consideration regarding building a third bridge? Also, I do not want to see light rail (the crime train) stop on Hayden Island. The reason is the daily reports across the city regarding the negative issues surrounding light rail i.e. shooting, knifing, fights, bullying, etc. Also, our floating home community will be negatively impacted by the loss of several families homes. Thank you for your consideration Sharon Rixen 1895 N Jantzen Avenue Portland, Or 97217

It has been noted the bridge is grossly oversized for the demand that it will see. The bridge design should be reevaluated to the appropriate loads.

As someone who primarily uses a bike and transit to get around the metro region, and who cares about environmental justice, I would like to see better side-by-side integration of transit and active transportation. The multi-use path and transit 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. When I traveled regularly between North Portland and downtown Vancouver for my job, I always wore ear plugs as the noise around the bridgeheads and on the bridge was ear-splitting. By positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. Another issue that made travel hard was the difficult connections. I want to see a smooth, seamless connection that’s at least as easy as that of drivers. In Vancouver: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. In Portland: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave. link. I frequently combined transit and biking since it was faster than just biking. For the future capacity of this once-in-a-lifetime rebuilding opportunity, 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. I’m in favor of tolling to reflect the actual cost of driving, but tolls are often regressive. So I support tolling equity and think that by implementing a low-income toll discount program from the first day of pre-completion tolling, it will help prevent financial burdens on vulnerable communities. Freeway impacts—such as noise and tolls—disproportionately affect historically marginalized communities. Addressing this requires focused, equitable solutions. ODOT and WSDOT should not ignore these impacts.

1) Marry transit and active transportation on the same side of the bridge: 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) Address the current design that excludes pedestrians and people with mobility challenges: 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) Extend the multi-use path north into Vancouver: 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) Implement robust safety measures: 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.

With traffic violence worsening in the Portland metro area and human-induced climate change raising temperatures globally, safe and efficient multi-modal transportation must be a top priority throughout the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. The current plan places the biking path and transit access on opposite sides of high-volume auto traffic, creating a physical barrier that hinders potential multi-modal uses. Additionally, cyclists must travel up a half mile ramp to reach the bike path while pedestrians must take a detour up stairs without elevator access to reach the path from the planned transit station. This plan is highly inaccessible to people with disabilities or anyone choosing to travel outside of a personal automobile, yet it could be easily remedied by placing the multi-use path adjacent to the transit lanes and extending the path until the final transit station. This change would not only improve convenience and accessibility by minimizing the physical distance travelled and allowing for a shared elevator, but it could reduce noise and enhance safety for walkers and bikers by positioning transit lanes between automobiles and the path. Such an expensive project must focus on the future and ensure that design decisions are not near-sighted shortcuts; rather, as Metro's Regional Transportation Plan advocates, money should be spent on infrastructure that improves safety and reliability for walkers, bikers, and transit users.

As a cyclist, I urge planners to reconsider a few aspects of the IBR proposed design and create a solution that prioritizes safety and convenience for all modes of transportation. The current plan routes the bike path across a major freight intersection with grade changes near freight-heavy areas. In addition, the draft separates access for the light rail and multiuse path, which complicates blended trips. Coupling the light rail with the bike path would improve safety for all. Please reconsider the design to separate vehicle travel lanes using barriers or raised active transportation pathways. Complete separation creates safety for people that are walking or biking and can also make travel more efficient for freight users. Thank you.

The scale of this project is far out of sync with the need. We do need seismic upgrades to the bridge and higher-quality transit, biking, walking, and rolling facilities. However, the majority of this project's costs are going to widening highways that aren't necessary for those goals. The opportunity cost for billions upon billions of dollars is enormous — for the price of the unnecessary highway expansions in this project, we could be funding frequent regional transit; making safety improvements where they are needed most (on our high-crash corridors throughout the Metro region, not on this stretch of highway); funding safe routes to school; and so on. Even the projections included in this project are inaccurate — they predict a present that doesn't exist, let alone a future that's even further off the mark. We're getting farther from the traffic counts being relied on to justify this project, not closer. Spending $7B+ on this is theft from frontline communities who are experiencing the historical and ongoing effects of environmental racism. Communities of color and low income communities have the strongest need for improved air quality, safer streets, and better mobility; wasting this money to expand highways (and just move the bottlenecks a little bit down the road) deprives those communities of the funds needed to make real improvements in their lives.

Transit facilities and paths for biking, walking, and rolling should be side by side, to simplify transfers, wayfinding, and ease of use. Multi-use paths should be much easier to use than today, which require circuitous and poorly-signed routes. They should be as direct as possible, connecting to high-quality facilities at both ends. Placing transit lanes between active transportation multi-use paths and standard travel lanes makes those multi-use paths safer, more pleasant, and more likely to be used. Both ramps and elevators should be provided when there is a significant elevation change, and elevator maintenance and repairs must be prioritized and planned for. (For example, having spare parts at the ready instead of waiting for weeks after a breakdown occurs.)

The proposed Interstate Bridge Replacement raises concerns for multimodal transportation. One key issue is the bike route crossing a busy freight intersection, endangering cyclists and making active transportation difficult. Additionally, the separate access for the light rail and the multiuse path complicates blended trips and misses an opportunity for safer design. Coupling the light rail and bike path could allow the train to act as a buffer between cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle traffic, enhancing safety for all road users. To meet modern mobility needs, the design should offer better integration and protection for all modes.