Most Recent Comments

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Modified LPA is expected to benefit transportation in 2045 by:​ Reducing crashes​ Increasing people moving through the corridor while reducing the number of vehicles on the road Improving access to public transit Providing safer and more accessible crossings for people who walk, bike and roll. Decreasing travel times and reducing the number of hours of congestion experienced at the bridge

The concept put forth in the most recent video on the IBR program appears extremely inefficient in space, resource use, and long term planning and transportation. Not only that, but it is exceedingly destructive for the communities that surround the interstate and their ability to connect across an effective river. It cannot go forth and would be a dark stain on Portland’s legacy of finding positive and innovative solutions to favor growth and sustainability. Tom McCall, Rob Straub, and countless others did not lay the groundwork of that vision for this to be when our city and region shy away from being a place on the very forefront of transportation planning.

Tremendous waste of finite money and finite time. Make Washington build light rail, toll the existing bridges and see what real demand is. We can’t $1,500 for a marked crosswalk for our elementary school but they’ll spend a few hundred million on community outreach for the most unpopular public’s works project in regional history. Gross negligence.

Somehow the height of the bridge means that people biking and walking will have to walk high up into the air and then go down long ramps to access hayden island or downtown vancouver yet the bridge still won't be high enough for what needs to pass underneath it according to the coast guard. The bridge height and massive width will also mean that it will degrade the view from the vancouver waterfront. It is clear that if any replacement bridge should be built it should not add lanes and it should be in the form of a tunnel. The current bridge could remain and be repurposed for active transportation and transit. This project is far too expensive because it focuses on freeway widening at the expense of actually replacing the existing bridge with a better solution.

The fact that we are willing to spend so much money on a project that goes against ALL climate pledges both the states of oregon and Washington have committed to is disgraceful. 7 Billion dollars that could be spent on our parks, schools, better alternative transportation options, hospitals, maintence of current roads. The list goes on and on. How does this bridge help meet our emission goals?

I live in Washington and occasionally visit Oregon through this area. Any time I have done this trip in the past has been by car, and it has been stressful. I would like to be able to make future trips by train but as someone with high anxiety there is a lot of friction to try something new. $7bn would be better spent on more frequent, easy to use transit so people like me don't drive alone in cars into increasingly dense and congested urban areas, adding to local congestion and pollution. If you instead choose to make this default mode easier and faster, you can expect more people like me to drive here alone in cars, locking in a future of MORE congestion and MORE pollution.

Right size, right now! This "bridge replacement" is a freeway expansion project masquerading as necessary infrastructure maintenance which ODOT and WashDOT are manufacturing consent for.

In 2024 we know better than to expand highways in the name of congestion, the environment, equity, or mobility. Spending this much money on a highway expansion is a huge mistake that will lock our region into increased congestion and pollution for decades. How on earth does displacing community, covering more land with environmentally harmful pavement, and increasing capacity for the most negatively impactful transportation mode do anything positive for our communities and the crises we are facing? This is outdated logic from past decades and we know better now. Do not do this.

Moving people should be the priority. Cars are one way to move people, every other mode moves more people faster. The plans do not move people more efficiently, they just increase capacity to the already inefficient mode. Additionally, it just moves the bottlenecks to the city centers. WSDOT has a history of overestimating the traffic in no-build scenarios. The 520 floating bridge is one example. It remains unexpanded and their traffic nightmares still haven't come to fruition for over 20 years. By providing support to transit and making that more efficient to use will reduce congestion by transforming how people can move in the region by giving them more options. Doubling down on a failed mode will just waste more taxpayer money. Increasing the highway footprint will displace homes, in places where housing is already short. Increasing the highway footprint displaces tax dollars, does either DOT provide support for the municipalities losing these dollars? Increasing the highway footprint increases maintenance costs, and with fewer tax dollars entering the system, does the plan offer sufficient ways to support these new costs? Increasing the highway footprint will increase the consumption of road space and therefore vehicle miles traveled, therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the highway footprint will increase the heat island effect created in the region. By their own admission, the increase in highway capacity will still experience congestion. So why spend $7 billion on it? Ridiculous. We know what works. It's not this.

I am staunchly against the expansion of I-5. Countless studies prove that adding lanes only induces demand, meaning this is an egregious waste of 7 billion dollars that could otherwise go toward bolstering our infrastructure and communities. Expanding the freeway guarantees an increase in emissions for years to come, something we CANNOT afford as we have already passed 1.5°C planetary warming in 2024 and hurtle toward 2°C. Instead, I strongly implore you to right-size the IBR.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the current expansion plans for the bridge and instead prioritize a two-lane option that includes express transit or train services. This approach would address key environmental, social, and traffic concerns, particularly in light of the challenges posed by climate change and car pollution. Expanding the freeway with additional lanes under the assumption that it will reduce congestion is not only flawed but contradictory to what studies have shown about induced demand. More lanes inevitably lead to more cars, exacerbating traffic and worsening pollution. Increasing lanes won’t resolve the very congestion the project aims to mitigate, as even the project’s own reports acknowledge. We are facing an urgent climate crisis, and the notion that increasing lanes could somehow reduce greenhouse gas emissions by alleviating congestion is, frankly, ridiculous. Car pollution is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, and freeway expansions have historically only worsened this. What we need instead is to reduce our reliance on vehicles, something that can be achieved with improved public transit and a focus on sustainable transportation options, like trains and express transit. The project’s continued reliance on a nearly 20-year-old problem statement fails to address the pressing environmental realities of today. The pessimistic view that we cannot contain global warming to less than 2°C is deeply concerning. Infrastructure investments should work toward achieving climate resilience, not perpetuating the systems contributing to the problem. More lanes represent an outdated, car-centric solution when we should be investing in modes of transit that reduce emissions and support sustainable urban growth. Furthermore, increasing freeway capacity has historically displaced businesses and people, particularly in underserved communities. The bridge project risks continuing this trend, leading to further loss and community disruption, all for the sake of a design that doesn't address the underlying issues. I urge you to prioritize a future-forward solution with two lanes and express transit. This would help address congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and avoid further displacement—all while modernizing our infrastructure for the long term.

The budgeted cost of this project is incongruous with even the “claimed” benefits of its completion. The reality that local and regional impacts of this project will be negligible in the long run make this a complete misuse of funding that should be going towards more sustainable and resilient societal improvements. It is long past time that the auto industry is cut off from its subsidization by local governments.

My wife works in Vancouver and can't wait for the light rail expansion! We would also love it if there was a safe and straightforward way to bike along I-5. Please don't use the money to add more lanes or even worse make the interchanges wider. We have already given up too much space to the interstate.

Please do not fund and move forward with this project, that would only add to the climate crisis. Please instead invest this money into safe infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation. We do not need more freeways and money invested in expansion of an exploitive system. We need safe routes for cycling, potholes fixed on roads, and high speed public transit.

Hello, I feel that the tax payers dollars being utilized to increase freeway expansion (which goes against our sustainability goals), is detrimental to not only the states of Oregon and Washington but to the future people who will inhabit these states. These funds could be used to improve the deteriorating bridges we have in Portland that are vital connections for transportation such as the Steel Bridge. We could use these funds to make Portland and Vancouver leaders in the country when it comes to public transportation. Instead of an expanded highway, we could see expanded high frequency MAX lines that could connect our cities together without compromising on our climate goals. By expanding I-5, we continue to encourage a car dependent society, which is straining our governments and citizens financially. We could expand C-Tran and make it a service that far more Vancouver residents could use and rely upon. If we are serious about saving our planet, we need to invest our tax dollars into public transportation, not increased car infrastructure. Look at the multitude of other U.S. cities that have continued to invest into their highways. They only see more traffic and the same problems. More lanes does not alleviate traffic when the lanes are supplying the most inefficient form of mass transportation; cars. I kindly ask that we do not repeat history by expanding I-5, destroying homes, businesses, and our planet in the process. We can be better and do better than this when it comes to utilizing transportation funds. Thank you.

Stop this! Widening the new bridge to cars does nothing to improve the connection between Portland and Vancouver. You already admit that it won't Reduce congestion during commute hours. Reduce the lanes and increase the areas used by people who walk, bike and take public transit. Stop being an enabler to climate change!

Please do not use the IBR bridge modernization project as an opportunity for highway expansion. It is financially and ecologically irresponsible, and will lower the quality of life for Portland residents. There are many people here who highly value an urban environment that includes walking, biking, and transit, and the proposed expansion will negatively impact all of these by incentivizing further car use, while moving us further away from climate change goals that are becoming more obviously necessary every year. My personal opinion is that the project should be limited to modernization / earthquake-proofing the highway, and that any remaining budget should go into improved transit for the region, to help encourage a “park and ride” lifestyle for those living outside the urban core who want or need access to downtown Portland.

Can we please start learning actual lessons from decades of research that demonstrates highway widening projects are more damaging than they are helpful. I think the majority of Americans at this point are growing frustrated and are decidedly more interested in looking towards the future and spending our massive transportation budget on projects that are actually beneficial to those who don’t want to solely rely on cars. A quick look at almost any major American city on Google Maps should immediately make us recoil and shake our heads in disappointment and embarrassment at the absolute mess that highways have created through our cities. The ever-widening scars of asphalt and concrete need to be a mistake that we start fixing, and any new widening proposals should be flatly rejected. This project on I5 will only serve to create more demand, increase traffic and pollution, displace vulnerable communities, and do absolutely nothing to heal the scars of our past highway mistakes. I beg you to reconsider alternate, less damaging options. Thanks for your time and consideration, Mike Martorelli Seattle, WA

Don’t do this wasteful, stupid, toxic boondoggle. Literally either state could use the funding in so many better ways than a repeat of the worst choices made in building the highway system the first time.

I urge the IBR project to focus on replacing the interstate bridge and brining MAX to Vancouver. Unnecessary interchange rebuilds should not be part of this project and are far too costly.

I want to be as clear as possible: your freeway expansion is unnecessary. We do not need I5 to be wider. What we need is light rail and transit only lanes to ferry commuters from Vancouver to their jobs. This project will only induce more traffic, no matter how many absurdly long slip lanes you add. I5 should be rerouted via I205 for intercity traffic and the I5 bridge turned into a train bridge—as it was originally intended for. Either that, or I5 be rerouted through a tunnel, not a bridge. Your freeway expansion project will displace people, make downtown Vancouver worse, and it WILL FIX NOTHING. It will only funnel money into the hands of freeway builders. Break the addiction. Do not build the bridge.

The current design seems to highlight a lot of past transportation planning sins without trying to make a better interstate connection. No rail, more lanes, more pavement, no consideration of induced demand, and just focus on the almighty single passenger vehicle throughout. I implore planners, policy makers, and engineers (of which I am one) to consider a connection that maximizes transit potential, maximizes freight by rail, and minimizes impacts on climate. Thank you.

Please stop wasting taxpayer money and destroying our future to please a few truck companies, construction contractors. This bridge is a travesty and a gross incompetent wast of money. Shame on WSDOT, state highways without sidewalks and you can mortgage our future to help tax evaders live in WA and shop in Oregon. Gross incompetence.

This project is an exorbitant waste of money and resources that would be far better spent maintenance and rail. The simple fact of the matter is that an expansion of the interstate of this scale not only wastes public dollars, but destroys land and land values in the vicinity of this monstrosity. Stop trying to make this happen.

As a resident of Portland I find this project to be a gross misappropriation of funds. Given the climate crisis and the necessity to shift transportation mode, expanding the interstate makes no sense for our long term plans. I would like to see the bridge replaced, but without lane expansions as is currently being proposed. I would like to see any available extra funds being allocated to mode shift away from single passenger cars.