Most Recent Comments

The delay of the Health Analysis that we’ve anticipated during this comment period has left us unable to review or respond to some of the project impacts of greatest concern to the communities Verde serves, including air and noise pollution. This analysis is essential to understanding the environmental justice implications of the project and how it contributes to cumulative public health impacts for populations living in proximity to the project area. Without this information, we are unable to fully assess the health risks and make informed comments. We ask that the Health Analysis be made available as soon as possible and that sufficient time is allowed for additional public comment once it is available.

We are alarmed by the potential displacement of up to 76 homes and 33 businesses within the project footprint. The displacement of residents, particularly in historically marginalized communities, could exacerbate existing inequities and disrupt lives. The project must include clear plans for minimizing displacement, providing adequate compensation, and offering relocation assistance where necessary. Special care should be taken to protect communities that have already been burdened by past infrastructure projects.

The findings of the Marshall Report on traffic modeling, which raises important questions about the accuracy of traffic forecasts and the assumptions driving this project, deserve a thorough review and response as part of this process. The report highlights faulty modeling in the DSEIS that overestimates traffic growth and underestimates alternative transportation options. We found it particularly concerning that the original DSEIS analysis does not account for the effects of induced demand. We believe it is essential that these concerns are fully addressed, particularly before committing to the construction of a second auxiliary lane. We urge the Program and its local and federal partners to carefully review and respond to these findings, as they may have significant implications for the proposed level of capacity and the GHG and air quality analyses “downstream” of the traffic modeling.

We are concerned that the proposed tolling policies do not assure that equitable pricing for low-income individuals will be in place when tolling goes into effect. Any tolling system must include discounts or other pricing policies that provide relief for low-income travelers as a baseline, not an afterthought. These policies must take effect when tolling begins, not after construction is completed. Exempting pre-construction tolling from these equity considerations would disproportionately burden communities that can least afford to pay. These policies should be guaranteed to be in place from the outset.

The repeated claim that a reduction in idling is the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is grossly incorrect and climate malfeasance. Driving an actual modal shift away from single-occupancy vehicles, by providing time-competitive and convenient alternatives, and by pricing unnecessary SOV trips out of peak hours (with wealth transfers to make equity focus groups whole) is the actual way. The insistence on reducing idling ignores the reality that drivers continue to drive once they have left the project corridor, before/after which they are very likely stuck in traffic anyways! If expanded capacity reduced traffic, we would see no traffic in the parts of Portland that have already seen lane expansions. There is no planet B, and our planet is larger than the project area. A project that induces more SOV travel throughout the region is admitting defeat during the final decades of control over our warming future. See Just Crossing Alliance's analysis with Traffic Engineer Norman Marshall, where he argues that free-flowing traffic throughput could be achieved with better demand management and an audit of the metered on-ramp system. As a regular i5 commuter, I have seen how the HOV lane is NOT respected! It is constantly used by single-occupancy vehicles throughout the day, especially in rush hour!!! I want to echo The Street Trust's comments that robust demand management should be implemented BEFORE the project is started, as the additional capacity promised by the new project may be proven objectively unnecessary afterwards. An $8 Billion megaproject cannot rely on the wholly unrelated decarbonization of the country's auto fleet to excuse its own carbon-positive infrastructure. This project cannot assume that EV adoption will meet these extraordinary projections (in fact, I am confident it will not; new car sales continuously slump and EV adoption in particular has been slow). This is doubly true with the recent election of Donald Trump as president with a trifecta in congress. We need to REDUCE vehicle-miles-traveled under the assumption that new cars continue to be massive gas-guzzlers. If we are proven wrong and EV adoption truly does rocket, then we will have saved thousands of lives in particulate emissions from tires+brake pads, and further climate change caused by the increased road infrastructure (which is an oil product mind you, EV fleet or not.) A project of this size, with so many stakeholders on the local, state and federal level, has to hold itself to a higher standard. We don't have time for performative, marginal steps in the right direction. We need bold, transformative change. Don't let us down.

The inclusion of robust public and active transportation infrastructure will be critical to ensuring that this project does not leave communities on both sides of the river behind. As our partners in the Just Crossing Alliance have put it, the DSEIS indicates that this project’s “[mobility] benefits will flow disproportionately to white, non-Hispanic residents and the burdens of noise and tolls will be disproportionately borne by low-income and equity priority communities”. Public and active transportation are some of the best tools we have to begin to correct that imbalance. Equity priority communities, including the low-income Oregonians of color that Verde serves, often rely more heavily on non-auto modes of transportation and often face barriers to access. Without robust, future-proofed investments in public and active transportation options, the project risks perpetuating existing disparities and providing a lackluster return on investment in the coming decades. We urge that these components be fully integrated and prioritized in the final design, in line with the Just Crossing Alliance’s Active Transportation and Transit Vision document as well as the work of the Active Transportation Working Group.

I moved to the Portland Metro area because I believed in the Metro’s six desired outcomes, one being “ The region is a leader on climate change, on minimizing contributions to global warming.” This expansion will not make us a leader on climate change, in fact it will be playing into the mistakes of our past and repeating them. I’m not even thirty years old, yet it seems everywhere I look, government and corporate entities are acting like we are living in a world without climate change. Please, I beg you, for myself and my future children, for my neighbors, for our world… do not continue this. It is a misstep and it will not solve any problems— only create new ones.

I heard that you guys are spending $5 million to destroy over $500,000 per year in tax revenue. With deals like this we're going to go broke in no time. This is on top of spending way too much money on this project. We shouldn't be putting all of our financial eggs in one basket, and we shouldn't be widening freeways. The return on investment is negative on these kind of projects and you know it. The data has been out there for years. Please stop this thing and go back to the drawing board.

RE: IBR /Interstate Bridge Replacement It is essential that the proposed IBR (Interstate 5, Portland-Vancouver crossing), at perhaps the most significant confluence of commercial, cultural, & ecological resources in the region, proceed promptly and with broad public input. I have been an area commuter & resident for more than 50 years, and I ask that the project... * Prioritize a streamlined crossing, focusing on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and multi-modal active transportation (such as pedestrian access) -- without extensive freeway expansion. * Locate transit and a multi-use path next to each other, for safety & ease of access. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Andrew Butz SE 9th Avenue, 97202

It's time to understand we're approaching a crossing in the wrong manner. No new bridges. Because of the impact during any construction, including salmon migration, seismic resiliency, and bloat it's time to right size our future. Build a tunnel for continued vehicular traffic. It spares Vancouver from a razing by transportation planners who rather destroy a city the think of economic options for accommodating a need for multimodal crossings. As presented the bridge will mean more extreme dangers to vehicles with it's focus on addressing congestion with more lanes. When has that worked? Build a tunnel to constrain the need to thrust humanity's blight over Hayden Island and give us the opportunity to develop the land we save in further commercial, housing, and tourism attractions. Route transit and pedestrian options over the existing bridge to extend the life and connection of the local community to the crossing between our two states. No more freeway expansion, it literally is mortgaging our future. Sensible and safe crossings, community focused development, planning for high capacity multi modal transportation are essential to lead our region into the next century.

I find the current plan insufficient in support for bicycles and walking. Those modes need to be well connected to both ends of the bridge on both east and west sides of the bridge. This would make the bridge much more accessible to these modes and connect them to the users of these modes. In addition, this would allow easy access to the MAX train station, which is on only one side of the bridge. The stated goal for the new bridge is reducing congestion and earthquake resilience. The current design achieves only one of those goals, earthquake resilience. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce car and truck traffic by making other modes more attractive. See studies of induced demand.

I am writing to encourage those who are working on the IBR project - a massive undertaking, to be sure, and upon which the economic future of the Pacific Northwest weighs heavily - to please remember that we are talking about an incredibly long-lasting piece of infrastructure. I wonder about the people who built the original bridge - did they think it would be in use for over 100 years? How could they have known that car use would explode the way that it did, or that people would willingly give up hours of every day going back and forth over that bridge? Entire months, perhaps even years of people's lives, spent going back and forth over a bridge that likely wasn't designed for a fraction of the traffic it sees now... I encourage you to think far into the future, another 100 years from now, and to think about how our great grandchildren might use this structure. Think about how, in their lifetimes, they have probably experienced more climate calamities than we could have imagined and yet couldn't be bothered to prevent. Think back to how, in our own parents' childhoods, as cars began choking up every new lane of road that was built, leaded gasoline poisoned the air that people who lived next to highways breathed. And yet, somehow they were still the lucky ones since they were not forced out of homes that were demolished to build highway on-ramps. Finally, think about how, in the late 1940's to early 1950's, Robert Moses, considered a hero by many city planners even still today, made sure that highways connecting Long Island, New York, with the mainland had no room for public transit lines, and that overpasses were too low for buses, thus sentencing residents of Long Island to decades in a pastoral prison. In other words, please plan as if you live in a society in the year 2024, and that improving people's lives and building infrastructure with climate resilience in mind are not mutually exclusive concepts. Please plan for every imaginable form of transit, please consider impacts to nearby residents, and please prioritize health, safety, and environmental benefits. Thank you.

I bike from my home in Portland to Vancouver to see friends frequently. Biking, walking, and MAX transit should all be on the same side of the bridge. I like to be able to move fluidly between riding my bike and hauling it onto the MAX. Non-vehicle traffic (pedestrian, cycling, and public transit) should get priority and preference. Highways and bridges that cater to cars first with everything else as a distant afterthought just amount to more cars on the road and more traffic in the longrun.

Please accept the attached comments from the Bird Alliance of Oregon.

As we can see that climate change is an omni present issue that affects the entire globe, the Climate section of the DSEIS does not adequately address this important issue. It makes it clear that ambient temperatures around the bridge will frequently exceed 100°F in summer months. Factoring in heat island effects, this will make the active transportation path unusable unless the multi-use path is shaded. Shading with plantings could additionally act as “the lungs of the bridge” helping with air quality.

On the Oregon side, while the connection to the Kenton neighborhood appears reasonably robust (which leads into an affluent area of North Portland), the connections to the MLK corridor area leave less to be desired. While I understand that both the Kenton neighborhood and the businesses/residences in the MLK corridor share the same zip code the socioeconomic status of the residents in both of those areas are drastically different. When considering the Environmental Justice tool from EPA, the EJ40, it will spit out the same results for both areas. While I understand that this is a common tool when seeking equality, it's just a tool. The demographics of the Kenton area is far different than the MLK corridor when considering socioeconomic factors such as people of color, low-income, limited english speaking population, under age 5 and over age 64. The current design alienates those that either work or reside in the MLK corridor and surrounding areas and appears to lean towards accommodating those that live and or work in the more affluent areas of NE/N Portland. The area on the East side of I-5 has been and currently still is a lower income area and predominately non-white presenting. Further alienation of that community will further perpetuate a divide and place unnecessary sideboards on those that need to commute in and out of the area.

This is a massive project, and that inherently means there's risk of unforscene obstacles and cost escalation. If this project goes forward it must be a phased project; with the only critical component, the bridge replacement itself, being built first before the rest of the freeway expansion and junction changes. The region will be just fine without rebuilt interchanges, but the bridges do need replacing.

The plan needs to include safe, efficient, convenient, transport mode appropriate bicycle (and pedestrian) features. Success here will encourage active transportation mode commuting, local resident sightseeing and exercise activities and business travelers exploring the areas renowned bicycling infrastructure. Yes, business travelers and tourists rent bicycles and go exploring. To many, a forty-mile ride is the beginning of a good day.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement DEIS is insufficient and needs to be reworked to provide more realistic traffic modeling, provide greater analysis regarding possible benefits of enhanced transit options, and deeper analysis on pricing policy, tolling equity, and the health effects of projected increased traffic. Also, the DEIS does not provide credible rationale for a second auxiliary lane.

The lack of consideration this project has given to the stated needs of Hayden Island residents - the people whose homes and businesses the project will be building on and directly affecting for upwards of a decade - is frankly shameful. Imposing daily quality-of-life issues, a loss of property value, and then mandatory tolls for using the main method of leaving the island, without any significant mitigation efforts, isn't how we should be treating neighbors, especially those with low and fixed incomes. Hayden Islanders have been trying to get the people in charge of successive bridge update projects to listen to and address their needs for over 10 years now: it's time to actually do that, not blithely ignore the human cost of such an expansive undertaking.

Hi I have been watching this plan unfold since the beginning and see ibr folks posing this imposing megastructure as a win for the community and the environment just cause it has a walking path and a train line. I however have seen no efforts in how they will make it usable or tie it in practically with existing destinations. The spirals on both ends make it look like it will be a hostile no mans land. No clear indicator was given regarding connection to transit not does it seem any thought was given to how pleasant it would be to use. It seems to me that light rail and pedestrian paths were tacked on as an afterthought to green wash this road widening project. A bridge that high and practically 5 lanes in each direction (when counting the full lane wide shoulders) is impractically large and in of its self a wasteful use of our limited budget. Not only that, there are excessive widening projects tacked on that totally have nothing to do with creating a earthquake resistant crossing. The traffic model it's based on was flawed and the alternatives investigated were rigged. It seems to me this project is determined to be forced on Oregonians without looking for a more just and actually climate sensitive alternative. I know we need to replace the aging bridges however this bridge is not the solution. It's too big, it's too ugly, it is too car centric and it's hiding too much freeway expansion. Please actually look at alternatives that make pedestrians bikers and transit users first class citizens on this infrastructure project.

I am against the IBR because it feels like a plan that wasn’t genuine and did not stick to its promise from the beginning. I do not think we should have this and put a pause on it because it’s not giving what it was suppose to be.

Please see the attached letter.

Hello, . As you know Climate change is an existential threat. Every government action should keep this in mind. That being said, The new I-5 bridge can be a shining star and an example of multimodal travel. It needs to have a welcoming and user-friendly bike/walking path. Commuters their own car should not be prioritized over other means of travel. In order for this to happen I am in agreement with the suggestions of Oregon walks and the Street Trust. I agree that the multimodal path should be accessible to the light rail. I think that the current plan to have a 100 foot path down to the ground from the bike path is obscene.Travel by foot/bike or transit should be prioritized not punished with a grueling climb. Additionally I humbly request that along the multimodal lane that there are rest points. It would be so amazing to have multiple bump outs large enough for 5 people to stand out of the way of travel and to rest and take in the views. This bridge can be an asset and attraction. Having areas for benches and informative plaques would be an educational tool and allow for travelers to have a unique view. I encourage you to think about 50 years from now traveling on the bridge and noting what you are so thankful the planners included. The sellwood bridge and tilikum bridge both have these and they could be even better. I think there should be a toll system so that the users have to cover some of the costs. There should be excemptions for low income individuals and residents of Hayden island to get from the island to oregon. This would be a better solution than having a separate bridge for Hayden island. Thankyou for all your hard work. I am excited to see the best version we can have.

I cannot find a past example of a freeway bridge with a parallel pedestrian path for this length, at this height, anywhere in the world. How can we be so sure this will be a pleasant experience for those who walk and roll? Will they be subject to intense wind and cold at that height? How loud will road noise be from above in the dual-layer truss bridge alternative? How many people walk across the pedestrian facilities of the Glenn Jackson Bridge (i-205) every day? How can we ask the public to comment on a pedestrian experience they have no reference for? Will the pedestrian path be sufficiently lighted and visible as to be safe for all users? And, will there be protections included day one to prevent jump attempts off of the bridge and its approaches? To be clear, I think bike/ped facilities across the river are a necessary inclusion for any new river crossing; my concerns are with the placement and design of the path.