Most Recent Comments

There are several reasons to revisit the existing plan for this crossing, as detailed in the Just Crossing Alliance's "Active Transportation and Transit Vision." First, active transportation and transit should be connected in order to allow for smooth transition from one to the other. People would be more likely to utilize these modes of transport when they can do some combination of public transit and biking, etc. Putting the public transit on the opposite side of the bridge would make this much less convenient, and would likely deter many users. Second, active transportation users should have the same access to elevators as public transit users. Again, not having this access may deter people from choosing active transportation (especially if the ramp is as frustratingly long as the one currently proposed). Third, coupling public transit and active transportation fosters a more connected community that cares for and looks out for one another. Safety and aesthetic features (lighting, sidewalks, trees, etc.) would benefit both public transit users as well as active transportation users. Thank you for considering.

Stop telling us it’s rain as you piss on our faces. Similarly, stop selling my children’s future down river to turn a buck. We need land stewardship and infrastructure projects aligned with our stated goals on climate change mitigation, not a mega bridge that is the product of an orgy replete with profiteers and corrupt government agencies.

Hello, I’m a resident of the Woodlawn neighborhood and this proposed project concerns me. The solution to traffic is not more lanes or bigger highways, it isn’t expansion of car infrastructure. We need to be creating alternative and safe ways for people to get around our wonderful city. We need more and better bike lanes, affordable and safe busses and trains to disincentivize people from driving. This is going to be one of the biggest projects of our region, and we have a chance to make it really work for our communities and our businesses.

The way the bridge is currently designed will be bad for pedestrians/bikers and for light rail passengers because the pedestrian and bike path is separated from the light rail. The absurdly long ramp needed to reach the bike/ped path from the waterfront on the Vancouver side of the bridge will deter bikers and pedestrians and make it prohibitively difficult for some to use the bridge. Bikers and pedestrians should be able to use the elevators that are already going to be installed for the light rail goers. Another huge benefit of having the light rail and bike/ped path right next to each other is that it would allow people to transition from foot/bike traffic to riding the light rail or vice versa seamlessly. This is a bridge upgrade that needs to last for a generation. We cannot be short sighted about what the needs of this bridge will be in the future. If we want to encourage the use of public transit and active transit, we need to make sure that it is prioritized and that we do everything in our power to make it as user-friendly as possible.

What about mitigation for Hayden Island residents? Our lives will be affected for 10 to 15 years under construction. Is there any thought of compensation for Islanders? Promise of no tolls would be a start! A community improvement / visitor attraction / community center (subsidized grocery store during construction would be a nice idea!) would be a nice addition to Island - collaborative effort with IBR, Travel Portland singing the praises and telling the history of the Columbia River and its' Crossings. Feature Jantzen Beach history. Provide community support and info center during construction to area residents. Area playground, skate park, something fun to distract us from this nightmare! I found no mention of mitigation for island residents in the SDEIS. There was one line about how "the Manufacturered Home Community WILL be adversely affected by noise and air pollution" and what will be done for these fine people - or do they not count as they are low income? Don't make this mistake, IBR!

I'm writing to plead that we reconsider this project. There has never been a highway widening that didn't result in just creating more traffic - this will exacerbate other issues in the city without solving the problems a replacement bridge will create. The money that's being discussed here is so much, and could be put to so many better uses in metro. Please reconsider!

ODOT shows that traffic volumes over the bridge are remarkably flat, up only 3% from 2003 to 2023. The IBR team is making the case that congestion will be greatly reduced, especially northbound in the evening rush hour. There are several factors that will or could REDUCE volume without all the extra lane: 1. Tolls - Shoppers. Most of the SB traffic going to Hayden Island is Washington shoppers avoiding sales tax. A round trip toll will change the savings calculation and fewer shoppers will visit, even though the proposed design makes Washington access easy while making Oregon access more difficult. 2. Tolls - Airport. The drive from Hayden Island to PDX is faster going on 14. Adding tolls will shift some drivers decision. 3. Tolls - Washington commuters. There will be one more incentive for Washington residents to work from home if their job permits. 4. HOV lane. The current HOV lane is a joke, a leftover from the first trunnion replacement. Overall demand could be reduced if the NB HOV lane continued PAST the bridge and was enforced, creating a strong speedy incentive to carpool or use transit to get across the bridge faster. If the extra "auxiliary" lanes are added we will still see congestion by encouraging more people to live further away from their jobs. If congestion is really the issue, let's address behavior and incentives, not add lanes.

The Just Crossing Alliance has been informed that the Health Analysis being led by the Washington State Department of Health will not be published until AFTER the conclusion of the DSEIS comment period. This is a deep disappointment and in our view a failure to meet the Metro MLPA condition requiring a Health Impact Assessment. The Alliance reserved the right to submit additional comments after the Health Analysis is published and requests that a supplemental 14-day comment period be opened once the Analysis is available.

I am a local Portland resident for the last 20 years who regularly rides a bike to commute to work and for recreation, and I use light rail and bus transit on a monthly basis. I'm submitting my opinion on the Interstate Bridge Replacement that the active transportation path (e.g., pedestrians & bicyclists) be alongside Light Rail and buffered from vehicular traffic by Light Rail. We want to use the same ramps, stairways, and ELEVATORS that will be provided to Light Rail users. Thank you for accepting public testimony on this important design decision.

Please see attached comments supplemental to our letter of November 11, 2024

As a resident of North Portland that lives near the IBR Program area, I am gravely concerned about the framing of the proposed project and the scale of investment in an automobile-focused freeway expansion project. The DSEIS does not adequately disclose the purpose and need of the project, obfuscates the impacts with misleading traffic models, and touts multi-modal connections that would be prohibitively difficult to use. As there are no commitments to limit trips on the bridge, this project will encourage more driving and exacerbate automobile-focused land uses — with much more significant impacts than disclosed in this misleading impact statement. These comments are my own and not affiliated with any organization. Purpose and need The purpose and need are outdated and no longer apply. In 2005, when the purpose and need statements were written, 134,000 vehicles crossed the Interstate Bridge daily. The need statement claimed traffic would increase by 35% in the following 20 years, which would mean 181,000 trips over the bridge every day, by 2025. As of 2023, vehicle trips are DOWN since 2005, now at 131,867 trips per day. The DSEIS does not disclose this, and instead doubles down on the unrealistic traffic predictions by saying demand will increase another 25% in the next 20 years. This lack of disclosure appears misleading and could be interpreted as intentionally deceptive. Traffic modeling Future volume modeling appears to contradict documented and understood travel behaviors by predicting that volumes on the wider freeway and bridge will be lower with the expanded freeway and interchanges compared with the no-build. This is especially alarming with the four auxiliary lane (two in each direction) alternatives, where the additional lanes will clearly attract more vehicles to the bridge and yet the model shows no discernible difference compared with the two auxiliary lane option. If this is indeed what the model predicts, then it appears the project has surpassed the technical limitations of the model and calls into question the other modeled volumes the program team are basing the project design on. VMT targets State rules call for the reduction of VMT in the state (OAR 660 Division 44 (Metropolitan Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction rule) and OAR 660 Division 12 set VMT/capita reduction targets of 20% reduction by 2035, 25% reduction by 2040, 30% reduction by 2045 and 35% reduction by 2050 (from 2005 levels)). With a wider freeway that is easier to drive, people will be attracted to driving more, conflicting with these goals. We need commitments from both states that the number of trips over the bridge will be actively monitored and tolling prices will be actively adjusted, in real time, to maintain volumes below these targets. Meeting these targets calls into question the need for the wider freeway, as mentioned above. City modal goals The city of Portland's modal goals calls driving trips (single-occupancy and carshare combined) to make up less than 42.5% of trips in the city by 2035. How does this project move us toward this goal? With the city moving to meet this goal, the need for a wider freeway is again called into question. Abysmal bike, pedestrian, and transit access With the state's goal to reduce VMT and the city's goal to increase trips by bike and transit, it is concerning to see the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities built to be prohibitively difficult to access. The ramp to reach the bicycle and pedestrian facility on the Vancouver side of the bridge requires 1/2 mile of additional travel to just to get from street level to the path height - a gain of 100 feet of elevation! This is an absurd amount of out of direction travel and an absurd height for a path! The light rail platform is also at this prohibitively high elevation, but on the opposite side of the freeway, which would require going down the 100 feet, crossing under the freeway, then going back up the 100 feet again to make a transit/biking or transit/walking connection with the bridge. These must be redesigned to prioritize easy, comfortable, and convenient access to the bike, pedestrian, and transit facilities. It is worthless to build them at all if they are prohibitively difficult to access. The path for walking and biking across this vital bridge must also be comfortable and quiet, incorporating features that minimize road noise and views of freeway traffic, while optimizing views of the beautiful river beyond. Land use To meet our goals for reducing VMT and trips by automobile, we will need to prioritize transit-oriented development near transit stations and prohibit automobile-focused land uses (including parking lots, box stores, and drive-thrus). We also need to restrict peripheral sprawl in Washington State that will be enabled by faster trips on the wider highway. Land use analysis and neighborhood analysis does not mention decreased travel times would encourage peripheral development and increased sprawl. It also does not mention how the wider freeway encourages Washingtonians to travel to Oregon to take advantage of Oregon's lack of a sales tax and encourage box store and parking lot developments. Hayden Island has already been exploited by developers targeting Washington shoppers and is vulnerable to further development that would impact neighborhood cohesion. Land value is likely to increase near expanded interchanges and transit stations. This is likely to place displacement pressures on low-income residents and local businesses. Equitable transit-oriented development must be included with the project to minimize risk of displacement and encourage land uses that support transit and multi-modal travel. Environmental justice Without commitments from WSDOT and ODOT to use pricing to maintain vehicle trips below targets, the wider freeway will put more cars on the road — increasing local air pollution from exhaust and tire particulates in the project area and for roads leading to the project area. Communities adjacent to the interstate on the north side of the Columbia River have been identified by the Climate and Environmental Justice Screening Tool as disadvantaged. These disadvantaged communities will bear a disproportionate share of the increased pollution. Mitigations Why is adding additional auxiliary lanes considered a "mitigation" strategy? The impacts from additional cars on the freeway, drawn by the additional lanes, have not been disclosed and would be expected to conflict with goals to reduce VMT — and cause additional impacts to air quality, noise, the climate, and neighborhood cohesion. Mitigation strategies listed for long term effects are not emissions-related and would not contribute to meaningfully mitigate the impacts from the project. Mobility hubs, for example, would not mitigate emissions without investments in transit, bikeshare, micro-mobility, and comfortable, convenient, and safe active transportation infrastructure. This program provides an investment in transit, but as currently designed, fails to provide any of the other needed investments. Also, "telecommuting options, compressed work week/flexible work schedules" are listed as a mitigation strategy, but the IBR Program does not have the authority to implement these. Cumulative The cumulative analysis fails to adequately assess the impact of the original construction of this freeway on the surrounding communities and region. This investment continues to invest public money into maintaining these impacts and, as mentioned above, will exacerbate the impacts without a committed pricing strategy.

To help encourage people to use more efficient methods of transportation, we need to make sure we’re encouraging the correct behaviors. We need a bridge that welcomes people walking, and biking, and accessing public transit—by ensuring seamless, accessible pathways without extra distance or difficult grades. Easy, convenient, and safe access to the bridge extends well beyond the bridge and relies on connections with safe bike paths and sidewalks. By integrating open views, rest areas, and close and fast transit access, the bridge can become a safe, enjoyable route for all. To ensure public safety, we absolutely need protective barriers, well-lit routes, and comfortable features like shading and rain protection. A commitment to inclusive design prioritizes the safety and comfort of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds, especially underserved and vulnerable groups. We can’t afford to continue subsidizing driving above walking, biking, rolling, and using transit. We need a bridge design that maximizes value with adaptable features and without costly retrofits. By building with durable, cost-effective materials and enhancing local access, the bridge can become a sustainable, high-value investment for local businesses, job access, and community development.

This current design doesn't include improvements to existing cycling/pedestrian/non-car user infrastructure and will not help Portland meet our climate goals. In fact, it's likely to make pollution and gridlock worse - check out this article from Yale Climate Connections: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/10/why-widening-highways-doesnt-reduce-traffic-congestion/ Choice quote: "We rearrange our travel patterns because of highway expansions, and the new driving that results is what we call induced travel. And research has shown that because of induced travel, congestion returns to previous levels about five to 10 years after the highway is widened." Please come up with a different solution that doesn't contribute to further wrecking our climate and community, Sincerely, Gabrielle Roth

Regarding the IBR Project advisory committee comment period, my comment pertains to concerns over capacity and operations for light rail operations between Portland and Vancouver. The current Yellow Line light rail runs only every 15 minutes and is heavily constrained by the lack of an operations and maintenance facility along with the slow street running segment on Interstate Avenue. Extending the Yellow Line to Vancouver without addressing these issues wouldn't result in a project that is effective at convincing people to ditch their cars. Operations improvements need to be made to allow for more trains to run faster at least between Vancouver and Interstate/Rose Quarter station and an operations and maintenance facility should be heavily considered to accommodate the increase in service.

I do not think that we should expand the freeway or add tolls. The root issue is a dependence on vehicle traffic when we should instead invest in transportation methods that are not car dependent. Tolls disproportionately affect low-income communities, even with low-income discount programs. Expanding the bridge will also likely displace unhoused populations, and the money could be better spent on affordable housing solutions.

To whom it may concern, I just finished reading the Smart Mobility review of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project DSEIS. The review is easy-to-understand and thoroughly demonstrates that the IBR DSEIS is faulty. Among other points, average weekday bridge traffic is systematically lower than FEIS and DSEIS forecasts. Congestion on the bridge is limited to a few hours a day when commuters in single occupancy vehicles go to or come home from work. With the increase in work-from-home, the number of daily commuters is and will remain lower than forecast and this has not been accounted for. Congestion pricing on I5 and I205 bridges would provide an incentive for car pooling, displace traffic to times with available capacity, and possibly increase use of public transit. Reducing the number of on and off ramps, including those on Hayden Island, would enhance traffic fluidity. Thus, I-5 already has the capacity needed and the justification for this bridge- and freeway-widening project is defective and a wasteful use of limited transportation funds. Please right-size this project. Replace the bridge with a structure which is more earthquake resilient, but do not increase its capacity.

I am commenting on the IBR Draft SEIS because I am concerned about the displacement of ecosystems, businesses, and residents in the surrounding area. Instead of increasing lanes during the climate crisis, we should be investing in building infrastructure within walkable distances of people's homes, so that cars are not necessary to go to the doctor, get groceries, or other basic necessities. We should invest in making walking or biking a safe and pleasant experience without being surrounded by exhaust fumes and speeding cars.

I am commenting on the IBR Draft SEIS because I think this money would be better spent on affordable housing. Expanding lanes could potentially not even improve traffic, meanwhile it would increase traffic jams over the course of 4-10 years while construction is under way and displace existing houseless communities, residential communities, and businesses. What is more important, adding lanes to a bridge or making sure citizens have a roof over their head?

I am deeply concerned about the environmental consequences of the proposed design. Transportation is Oregon’s largest source of climate pollution, and the Interstate Bridge Replacement project must prioritize reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to align with our state and regional carbon reduction goals. Climate action must be a top priority for Portland, where diverse communities are already feeling the impacts of a warming planet. The Pacific Northwest is not immune to climate change; in fact, I see its effects becoming more severe every year. At work, I’ve had to help run cooling centers during extreme heat events to protect our community, particularly low-income and vulnerable residents. During smoke-filled summers, I’ve handed out masks and air filters to residents who otherwise wouldn’t have access to clean air. Personally, I’ve watched the forests I love to hike in burn, with trails closed and air quality too dangerous for outdoor adventures. These experiences are not just disruptions—they are wake-up calls. The region must lead with bold action to reduce emissions and build resilience against these worsening conditions. This includes investing in sustainable infrastructure, expanding access to public transportation, and creating green spaces that help mitigate heat and improve air quality. The current design projects a 62% increase in study-area VMT, which directly contradicts the climate objectives outlined in the project’s own goals. This increase in auto travel will not only exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions but also heighten local air and water pollution, impacting communities along the corridor, particularly low-income residents who already face disproportionate health burdens. To truly address these concerns, the project must provide robust alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel. Investments in world-class active transportation infrastructure—such as a seamless, protected multi-use path—coupled with enhanced public transit options, are essential. Additionally, I urge the project team to explore tolling structures that incentivize non-driving modes while providing equity-focused rebates for low-income commuters. We cannot afford a design that locks us into decades of increased emissions and environmental degradation. I implore you to consider sustainable, multimodal options that prioritize environmental health and align with Oregon’s climate goals.

I live in Portland and frequently visit Vancouver, and I prefer not to drive. The active transportation facilities described in the DSEIS leave much to be desired, in my opinion. Motor vehicles are clearly the star of the IBR show, while active transportation options and transit are bit players. This is the opposite of how it should be. The fixed span options turn crossing the river into an arduous hill-climb for pedestrians and conventional cyclists, especially traveling from Vancouver to Portland. The proposal that pedestrians and cyclists must add an extra half mile to their trip in order to climb ten stories up a ramp to the shared use path on the bridge is thoroughly unserious. New facilities for active transportation should always make active transportation accessible to users of many different physical capabilities. This design fail that test. Only the most committed active movers are going to walk or bike up that ramp. The shared use path should be extended along the MAX tracks to Evergreen, which is it roughly the same elevation as the bridge at the waterfront. It is also more convenient to most destinations in Vancouver. For this and many other reasons, the shared use path should be adjacent to the MAX tracks instead of on an entirely different bridge. This gives active movers the option to reach the shared use path via the elevators or stairs at MAX stations. Easy access between the shared use path and MAX stations also facilitates multimodal journeys, which will become even more important if the MAX is extended further into Washington in the future. Finally, in the single deck configuration, positioning the MAX tracks between the roadway and the shared use path would lessen the noise and air quality impacts that users of the shared use path would experience due to roadway traffic. On the Portland side, like many cyclists, I will travel to and from the new bridge via the Williams/Vancouver corridor. The IBR project would benefit from including an improved connection to these facilities to replace the current Rube Goldberg contraption of a bike route. Active transportation and transit must not be second class citizens on the IBR. Single occupancy vehicles are a blight on our region, and it is a moral imperative that the IBR project offer excellent alternatives to driving between Oregon and Washington. Do better. Thank you, Jeff Weitzel Portland

I strongly support improving and expanding active transportation infrastructure in Portland, particularly in areas like Northeast Portland, where many people rely on alternatives to cars. As someone who has been car-free for most of the past 15 years and experienced mobility challenges, I’ve personally navigated the city during a long recovery from foot surgery. This journey highlighted just how critical safe, accessible infrastructure is—not just for those of us managing temporary or permanent mobility issues, but for everyone, including older adults, families, and individuals without access to a car. While I’ve made significant progress in healing, I am acutely aware that my long-term mobility may change as I age. The prospect of a future with limited ability to navigate inaccessible or unsafe sidewalks, streets, and crossings concerns me. My hope is for Portland Metro, including Vancouver, to be a leader in equitable and inclusive transportation planning, ensuring all residents—regardless of physical ability—can access opportunities, resources, and connections across our city. Investments in sidewalks, bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, and public transit are investments in equity and community well-being. I urge you to prioritize policies and projects that reflect these values. With this project, I am particularly concerned that the current design creates significant barriers for active transportation users, especially those with mobility challenges. One of the most glaring issues is the “Vancouver Dip,” which forces users to navigate a 4.5% grade circular facility, adding unnecessary elevation and distance to the crossing. This design is not only inconvenient but also ableist, as it disproportionately affects people with disabilities and those unable to handle steep grades. A better solution would be a multi-use path that connects directly from Evergreen in Vancouver to the bridge’s grade, providing a straightforward and accessible route. Additionally, the placement of active transportation and transit facilities on opposite sides of the bridge creates further inefficiencies for multimodal users. Consolidating these facilities on the same side would allow seamless transitions between biking, walking, and public transit, while also enhancing safety and comfort through increased visibility and shared amenities like elevators. Lastly, the multi-use path must include noise and debris shielding, ample lighting, and shading to ensure safety and usability year-round. These features are not optional but essential to making active transportation a viable and attractive alternative to driving. Please prioritize inclusive and user-friendly design principles to ensure this bridge serves everyone equitably, from walkers and bikers to public transit users.

Please go back to the drawing board. This NOT a 21st century bridge. The proposed bridge is way too wide with excesdive driving lanes which will soon fill due to induced demand. The bridge is too tall making it hard to walk or bike over and negatively impacting both waterfronts, especially Vancouvers. It will also impact the airport. It is also too low and will impact and permanently limit industry. You could include a submerged tunnel or include a lift. Focus on transit and bikes and future flexibility for river travel

Please plan for the future, and ensure maximum safety and efficiency for all travelers, especially those on foot or otherwise exposed to the elements and traffic hazards. I agree with all these points: 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. 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. 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. 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. Thank you for considering people friendly options.

The bridge replacement described in the Draft SEIS is the wrong bridge. It has too many cars crossing it in too many lanes. Norman Marshall of Smart Mobility, in a report commissioned by the Just Crossing Alliance, finds that DSEIS uses traffic projections so flawed as to be "useless", and also suggests that the true sources of congestion on the I-5 Columbia River crossing will not be addressed by the IBR project because they are traffic bottlenecks outside of the project's geographic extent. Are we about to spend billions of extra dollars on this project just to fail solve the wrong problems? It's wrong problems all the way down. Designing this bridge to accommodate a modeled traffic projection was fundamentally misguided from the start. The City of Portland and other IBR agency partners have statutory goals to dramatically reduce the share of automobiles in their transportation mixes, and with good reason. Single occupancy vehicles clog our roads, poison our air, and use up valuable land for their storage. The IBR should be sized for the number of automobile crossings we want for our region, not the number we would expect if our regional governments did nothing to change our transportation mix. So START OVER. Shake off the car-brain group-think. Convene a region-wide planning process to shift as many car trips to other more sustainable modes as possible, especially over the Columbia River. When this bridge is finally built, the best way for people to cross it should be on a train, a bus, a bicycle or personal mobility device, or on foot. Let's build a right-sized bridge that supports a sustainable and equitable future for our region, not one that reinforces the outdated and harmful hegemony of the single occupancy vehicle. Thank you, Jeff Weitzel Portland

The I5 bridge can be repaired for a lot less money than the planned replacement project. Use the funds to add a third bridge so perhaps WA residents can commute to Hillsboro or travelers can completely bypass the downtown area. This will alleviate so much traffic on 1-5 thru Portland. there are better, more cost effective ways to solve the problems.