Most Recent Comments

The level of malfeasance in the analysis used for project justification is abhorrent. Stop trying to build more highway capacity and more on-ramps -- that is not what we or the world needs right now. Just add light rail, make it earthquake resistant, and call it a day. Stop wasting our money.

I support the Just Crossing Alliance letter. Please rightsize the project.

I am loosely following the design of the new Interstate bridge. I plan to ride Max to the bridge station and take the elevator down to street level. Don’t understand why bikes are on one side of the bridge and light rail on the other. I will NOT be using that ramp. Thank you for your work on this project!

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? We're all for a bridge replacement, but not t

The level of malfeasance in the analysis used for project justification is abhorrent. Stop trying to build more highway capacity and more on-ramps -- that is not what we or the world needs right now. Just add light rail, make it earthquake resistant, and call it a day. Stop wasting our money.

As a long time bicyclist pushing 80 years old, I was concerned when I read the new Interstate Bridge will be accessible by bicycle on the Vancouver via a 1/2mile circular ramp that will go up over 100 feet. This is going to be difficult to some folks on bicycles and pedestrians . It is also my understanding that rapid transit users will have an elevator available to them on the other Vancouver side. Why not make it possible for bike riders to use this elevator?

I am firmly against the I-5 replacement bridge project. I do not feel it will advantage us in any way and feel strongly against this project. Again I firmly oppose this massive $7-$12 billion dollar toll bridge that the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project (IBRP) is proposing for the new I-5 Bridge between Vancouver WA and Portland OR. The bridge they are proposing will take 15-years to build, will not be seismically sound to handle a major Cascade Seduction Zone earthquake, and will do little to ease traffic congestion on the bridge. The giant bridge and its excessive tolls will affect everyone transiting that I-5 bridge. The funds could be used to strengthen our community as a whole at a time it is truly in need.

Pass the question by Santiago Calatrava whose office is in Switzerland, (just send him a letter of inquiry and see if he responds.) All of the 'designs' I saw in the Oregonian are just pathetic, (current 'bridge fashion' thinking.) If we are going to spend resources to replace this very old bridge, we need to replace it w/ something we can be proud of and, not just for now, but for generations to come. Complaints about design after the build are pointless. His design for the Peace Bridge in Calgary, Canada is just one example of 'thinking new'. What we really don't need is 'group think rabbit hole' of just engineering and cost. BEAUTY, must be a factor, think Paris, France. Why does everyone say it is such a beautiful city? Thanks, I hope someone is listening.

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.

As a lifelong walker and bicyclist, I have ridden the current I-5 and I-205 bridges across the Columbia River, although I cannot say I enjoy the experience of being on and getting to and from the bridges. I fervently hoped the new IBR project would be a significant improvement. Now that I’m older (about to turn 70) I find myself more concerned about personal safety and comfort, about elevation gain, about wayfinding, about rain, sun and darkness, and about the ability to find a bathroom and a place to sit and rest a bit. I have the following comments on modified LPA as described in the active transportation section of the Transportation Technical Report: 1. While I appreciate the separation between the proposed multi-use path (MUP) and fast moving traffic, along with the noise, debris, and air pollution it generates, I am concerned about personal safety and comfort and emergency access. How will emergency responders be able to access the MUP? How will users be protected from the heat in summer and the rain in winter? The bridge is a very long span to be out in the elements. On city streets I can duck under a tree or in the shade of a building. Will the MUP and the connections to it be adequately lit? 2. How will the agencies prevent homeless people from settling on the bridge and under the underpasses leading to the bridge? I have stopped riding the I-205 path and Springwater Corridor by myself because of aggressive behavior by and debris left by homeless people. Just yesterday I participated in a SOLVE cleanup along the I-205 path. How will the IBR path be kept free of homeless people and their stuff? 3. Access to and from the transit stations relies heavily on elevators. My experience with the elevator e.g. at the Hollywood station is that it is out of order more often than not. Same with the elevators at the Bob Stacey Crossing in SE Portland. When I had a hip replacement operation a few years ago I had to rely heavily on elevator access to transit. Obviously many disabled people face that issue all the time. It is crucial that there be redundancy in elevators, that they be of the very best quality, and that they be very well maintained. 4. All transit stations should have bathrooms and well lit places to sit in the shade and out of the rain. Getting old is plenty undignified as it is. Many older people can no longer drive and must rely on transit. It is an unfortunate fact of life that older people have to go to the bathroom and take a rest more often. 5. There should also be elevator access to the multi-use path, especially on the Vancouver side, to allow the disabled and pedestrians to avoid the long steep spiral. One way to efficiently accomplish that is to have the MUP on the same side as transit. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

This project includes excessive freeway expansion at the great expense of neighboring communities. My elderly relative lives just a block away from the proposed project area, and I am very concerned about the impacts on her. I am worried about her potentially being displaced, or if not, having to deal with more air and noise pollution. She lives in a low-income senior housing, along with dozens of other low-income seniors. Please rightsizing the project.

Regarding the Interstate Bridge Replacement, I am opposed to any auxiliary car traffic lanes, especially on the Oregon side, but also on the Washington side. This crossing should provide excellent infrastructure for transit, especially rail transit, bikes, and pedestrians. It should encourage use of these modes in crossings generally and should not promote car traffic by the inclusion of auxiliary lanes. The latter will simply increase congestion, air pollution, and carbon pollution in the surround neighborhoods.

Please consider locating the multimodal path directly adjacent to transit connections. Please also consider extending the path to Evergreen; the 100 foot tall spiral as currently proposed would be difficult or infeasible for many users to use.

I'm making CAC, please remember safety concerns and people with disabilities. For best access and safety, place multi-use path next to MAX, on river side and put in lighting. An elevator is needed at Vancouver waterfront for wheelchair access (a 1/2 mile, steep access ramp is not acceptable). Best option for access: extend multi-use path into downtown Vancouver so path connects smoothly and safely to city ped and bicycle grid. This also makes a steep access ramp less necessary. A ped and cycle centered experience will really put Vancouver on the map and make for a much better connector. 😊. Thank you!

Please design the bridge for convenient, safe public transit and active transportation. Today's kids have never known a summer in WA/OR without wildfire smoke and 100-degree heat. They're inheriting a climate that is less livable every year. Yet parents are told that for their children's safety, they have to drive their family everywhere, preferably in the biggest vehicle they can afford, which adds incrementally to climate change. We need to build infrastructure that gives everyone safe and reasonable alternatives to driving. Transit and multi-use paths should not be an afterthought, nor should they be designed solely for athletes and daredevils. One design element will ensure that these components of the river crossing are widely usable and therefore a worthwhile investment. Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other. This makes it easy to transfer from one travel mode to the other, enabling people to travel farther and more conveniently without a car. This also makes the transit elevators accessible to path users. The transit lanes can act as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes, which reduces noise, debris, and danger on the path. This design makes the path available to cyclists of all experience levels, which is vital for getting people out of cars and reducing fossil fuel emissions. If we want to have a livable climate in the future, IBR has to prioritize active transit and public transportation now.

The current design for the replacement I-5 bridge between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA is way too over-engineered for cars. For the amount of resources being requested to construct it, this design should reflect a sustainable future: one that delivers high quality transit and multi-modal connections on the corridor. The current design does not deliver that. Car traffic is the most demanding, least efficient, most costly, and most dangerous means of travel. This bridge replacement is an opportunity to correct transportation mistakes of the past, rather than double down on them. Last, the long term of bill of maintaining this infrastructure will be most costly if it's focused on cars. We can't guarantee that funding will be easily accessible in the future. Please revisit the drawing board by REDUCING CAR CAPACITY and INCREASING RAIL AND BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE. Thank you.

As someone that has lost a family member to traffic violence, know that the choices you make in the design and implementation of this project can a will cost vulnerable road user their lives. Think about your friends and family using the active and public transportation options that will be created as part of this project would they want to use the facilities that you are designing? Not just as a recreational activity but as their primary mode of transportation. As we all know, and has been thoroughly studied, the addition of lanes will not ease or reduce road use in the long run. This project with a 50+ year lifespan needs to not only meet the requirements of today but the transportation needs of the future. Remember that induced demand will not only drive the additional vehicle use and sprawl of the metro, but the non-car facilities will induce demand along the route for all other forms of transit. Thank you.

We need mass transit and bike lanes included in this project. Putting either of these two transportation methods off will only increase their costs and make them prohibitive for future project. Please act now!

After reviewing the draft SEIS documents for the interstate bridge replacement program, it is clear that this project has exploded in scope and needs to be right-sized. The two most important goals of the project -- building a seismically safe I-5 bridge and connecting Vancouver to Portland's light rail system -- are in serious jeopardy after being bundled with a massive freeway expansion. Building miles of additional lanes on either side of the river will make it impossible to meet the climate goals of the project by inducing huge amounts of traffic and significantly increasing the embodied carbon of the project. The planned freeway widening also creates a huge financial obligation that endangers the fiscal stability of both Oregon and Washington. Planners must revisit the project and create a new design that includes a bridge replacements and light rail expansion, without wasting enormous sums of money adding new lanes to I-5.

Hello, I am providing comment on the I-5 interstate bridge replacement project. I have seen images of the proposal and there are some obvious weaknesses that will disincentive carbon savings. As we are facing the existential threat of climate change, we must dramatically reduce the human drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. This project must comply with these needs. The project proposes light rail and active transport lanes, which is essential. However, the proposal makes these options inaccessible while prioritizing ease of single vehicle transit. The needed changes are obvious. -Mass transit lanes and active transport lanes must be adjacent to each other. People bring their bikes to light rail and putting 8+ lanes of traffic between these two creates a barrier that is painfully loud and smelly. -Active transit is susceptible to the extreme noise generated by vehicle tires on roads at even modest speeds. It is painful to be exposed to that level of noise. It is also very dangerous, as bikes will be unable to hear their surroundings. Using the mass transit lanes as a barrier between active transport and auto traffic improves safety, comfort, and will foster use. -This plan gives auto traffic almost three times the dedicated space compared to light rail and active transport. Induced demand is a demonstrated fact. Build more lanes, you will get more cars driving. If you make more light rail and more bike paths, people will use those. This project is dedicating excessive space to the least desirable for of transportation. Cut one lane in each direction for auto traffic and allocate additional space for light rail and active transport. -Bike lanes need to extend to the end of the project, not end at the water front, 100 feet in the air. This is an obvious need.

Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. The largest source of greenhouse gasses in the Pacific Northwest is transportation. This project proposed to spend billions of tax payer money in a way that will significantly increase emissions from transportation by incentivizing more trips in single occupancy vehicles. The designers and authorities have an obligation to build something which will not condemn future generations to air pollution and environmental disaster.

We need to be spending our money building the world that we want. In my community, that is not the ability to look like a copy of every other American city with wide highways dividing the entire thing. This project is a wolf in sheep's clothing, calling itself a bridge replacement but truly being a 7ish mile highway expansion. This project won't even relieve congestion, just move it around a bit and lop off the congestion at the 'shoulders' of the peak. Additionally, and most importantly, it will increase car use tremendously through the project area which will have major downstream effects regionally. The fact that I have been hearing about this project for the past 18 years (since I moved to Oregon) and the project has not changed materially the number of interchanges or width of the road despite this being the main complaints that I hear about the project is a sign that government is not remotely responsive to the public. Consultants and project managers should be embarrassed with the product they are putting out to the public and I hope that this project does not happen AT ALL even though I could support a bridge modernization project. I just don't trust that with over 400 Million spent so far and over $2 Billion committed by the states that this project will be the right size for our COMMUNITIES to thrive. Our region doesn't even have that bad of traffic. Just look north to Seattle and see how much worse off their road network is than ours. This project is a giant handout to construction companies and will not be seen as a benefit after it is built. Please stop and look at other options including a lower level bridge (with drawbridge), tunnel, or rehabbing the existing bridges while adding one more bridge to support a moderate amount of additional vehicle traffic plus transit. This project just is not a winner as drawn up and I can't believe I am having to fight AGAIN against it.

Among the reasons to right-size the project (ie, without adding more freeway lanes): Induced demand is real. We can't expand our way out of congestion, because additional roads invite additional vehicles. Downstream costs include maintenance. With ODOT in financial difficulties and federal dollars soon subject to a budget-slashing new administration, we shouldn't build more than we can safely maintain without shortchanging other roads and bridges around the state.

My concerns are as follows - I walk, bike, and use public transport exclusively: 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. 2) The multi-use path should be next to the MAX line, not on opposite sides of the bridge as it is currently designed. 3) 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. 4) 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. Thank you!

I'm firmly against the IBRP bridge designs. It's too expensive and too high of a bridge for our communities. The toll's will be a burden on all of us, and our elderly will be severely impacted by the 15 years of contruction to complete the bridge.