Most Recent Comments

The focus of the Interstate Bridge Replacement must prioritize safety, sustainability, and long-term maintenance. Given the significant costs involved, the project must enhance public infrastructure to serve all modes of transportation and mitigate negative impacts on local communities. The proposed project may lead to a 62% increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), according to a study conducted by Just Crossing Alliance, which could worsen congestion, increase air pollution, and negatively affect water quality. Local communities in Portland and Vancouver are at risk of greater noise pollution and environmental degradation. A reliable health impact assessment must be conducted to understand and address the potential risks of these changes, particularly for vulnerable neighborhoods near the bridge. To achieve a more sustainable and equitable solution, the project should focus on improving safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation users. This includes ensuring safe, efficient routes for multimodal commuters while avoiding pedestrian exposure to high-traffic freight areas. The project should be at most what is necessary for improving congestion with sufficient justification, and prioritize enhancements to public transportation without excessive infrastructure expansion. Focusing on these priorities will ensure the project is cost-effective and better aligned with community needs.

The focus of the Interstate Bridge Replacement must prioritize safety, sustainability, and long-term maintenance. Given the significant costs involved, the project must enhance public infrastructure to serve all modes of transportation and mitigate negative impacts on local communities. The proposed project may lead to a 62% increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), according to a study conducted by Just Crossing Alliance, which could worsen congestion, increase air pollution, and negatively affect water quality. Local communities in Portland and Vancouver are at risk of greater noise pollution and environmental degradation. A reliable health impact assessment must be conducted to understand and address the potential risks of these changes, particularly for vulnerable neighborhoods near the bridge. To achieve a more sustainable and equitable solution, the project should focus on improving safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation users. This includes ensuring safe, efficient routes for multimodal commuters while avoiding pedestrian exposure to high-traffic freight areas. The project should be at most what is necessary for improving congestion with sufficient justification, and prioritize enhancements to public transportation without excessive infrastructure expansion. Focusing on these priorities will ensure the project is cost-effective and better aligned with community needs.

I live in North Portland and occasionally bike from to Vancouver, and if we're going to pour a bunch of money into the IBR project I'd love it if bikes/alt transit were taken more into consideration. Ideally the multiuse path would be on the same side of the bridge as the light rail, so people can use the transit elevators to access either the multiuse path or the transit station. I'd also like to avoid the half mile ramp "dip" that is planned on the Vancouver side, and instead stay elevated to the last MAX stop. Thanks!

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. Best regards.

Active transportation has been short-changed by this project. It does not make sense to separate bike/ped from light rail. Bike/ped and light rail should be coupled together to (a) allow the light rail line to act as a buffer for the bike/ped pathway and (b) provide both with access to the elevators - eliminating the need for the extraordinarily long spiral paths. I wonder if the main span of the bridge could be realigned to swing slightly east before curving to the north - thus moving the bridge slightly east when it hits the north shore. Regardless, it is important to get this right. This bridge needs to work for everyone long after we are all dead and buried. We need to have the courage to do what needs to be done for ourselves and for future generations.

First and foremost, this project ought to be focused on replacing this existing bridge while offering modes that were previously not accommodated. The DSEIS does not provide significant justification for a second auxiliary lane. If the project puts less emphasis on auto capacity, those resources can be channeled towards enhancements for transit and active transportation. Extra auto lanes should be omitted to accommodate multi-lane BRT or heavy rail track, making it a truly future proofed project. Light rail stations should be built with four car platforms to accommodate for future capacities. Active transportation should have meaningful separation from car traffic, for both safety and health reasons. The path(s) must be wide enough (18 ft at least if shared use) with a meaningful delineation between biking and walking spaces, with benches and viewpoints that can allow people to take breaks and appreciate the surroundings. The path(s) should include minimal grades and paths extend to evergreen in Vancouver. In Portland the paths should include seamless connections with the Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned connection at Kenton/Denver. As someone who cycles on the existing bridge these are very important to me, along with many others. Thank you for reading my feedback. Appreciate your time

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project must take into account the historical inequities of car dependency and move towards prioritizing public transit, walking and biking. Car dependency causes pollution as well as noise pollution, which has been shown to be harmful because it causes stress and therefore has many direct health impacts. We are also in the middle of a climate crisis and there is no room in any future transportation system that doesn't place public transit above private cars. Connections for cyclists must be easy to use and not include large ramps that must be negotiated. Public transit designs should take into account future demand and not just current needs or light rail systems.

I want to provide input into decision-making around the interstate bridge. It is important to prioritize mass transit and bicycle access, and use metering/toll options to smooth traffic flow (both on the bridge and in other bottlenecks), while not increasing the number of lanes, since that only induces further demand. Equity is also important, so tolling needs to flex lower for low-income people. Thank you for your good work.

The $7-12 billion cost is outrageous, while doing little to solve I-5 traffic congestion at the I-5 bridge. The massive bridge will inevitably experience massive cost overruns, causing a redirection of funding meant for social programs. Bridge tolls at $3-$15 each way, will impose a heavy and daily financial burden on all adjacent communities. 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. 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. 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?

The project should prioritize active transportation and include a max line, protected bike lanes, and dedicated bus lanes.

Increasing throughput for motor vehicles will increase the runoff of tire particulate matter into our rivers, which have been known to cause mass salmon die-offs. We should right-size the bridge to ensure that we aren't worsening this situation.

This project is far too expensive while also saddling the Portland area with increased future road maintenance obligations, stormwater liabilities through the increased impermeable surface area, and bulldozing properties which produce revenue in order to replace it with roads, which do not pay taxes. We should save this money and invest instead further in our community through public transportation and active transportation improvements which improve health and save residents money on transportation costs.

We should double down on space-efficient transportation modes and phase out space-inefficient systems as much as possible. We should not build auxiliary lanes or new interchanges or ramps for this project, and instead future-proof the light rail by making sure to allow for four-car trains, in line with future plans for the light rail system.

The 7.5 billion cost to this project (and likely more, by the end) is far too high and we don't have a clear funding source established for half that cost. Focus on what matters, replace the bridge, add the max line and biking/walking path, but skip all of the extra, unnecessary additions to the freeway system that are bundled in with the bridge replacement.

The project as currently designed will lower the perceived cost of driving, which will result in higher auto traffic being funneled into the Portland region, at a time when our region is struggling to escape the trap of auto-dependence. We should not build the bridge to accommodate projected future auto traffic, especially when that projection is built on a modeling procedure that has historically inflated the number of vehicles that actually end up driving over the bridge to preposterous levels. Let's build for the world that we know we have to achieve, for our climate and for the livability of future generations. Right-size this bridge and focus on transit capacity and minimizing impact on the surrounding communities.

Hi, I'm concerned about the inaccuracy of the traffic studies used as justification for widening the freeway and increasing pollution. We know that increasing lanes does not decrease demand and leads to more pollution, more VMT. Right size the bridge, please. And offer improve alternative transit options.

Hi, I'm concerned about the new bridge design not prioritizing alternative transit modes. First, it should offer increased rail capacity, with the capability to have multiple lines. The bridge should be designed with the option to convert a section into high speed rail. We are making such a big investment, and high speed rail is a something we need to bring to Cascadia to meet our climate goals. Additionally, rail should be able to accommodate full passenger trains (even if high speed rail doesn't happen.) Stations should accommodate 4 car light rail trains. In terms of pedestrian/bike, this path should be shaded and adjacent to the train lines, instead of on the other side, to help shield from pollution and provide better connections. At the Vancouver side, bikes shouldn't have to use a 100 ft spiral. Rather, they should be able to continue straight for a connection.

It really is hard to know where to begin. Starting with a construction outline of a flawed, failed decades-old project so you didn't have to start over with your environmental review. Or rejecting early tolling as a way to manage demand for our roads. Or designing a Texas style 8/10/12 lane freeway, where surely one (or maybe two!!) extra merging lanes might help the flow. Or indifference to active transportation (walking and biking) by increasing distances and forcing the use of a harrowing 10 story circular ramp to connect to ground level. It's ALL BAD. You had already made your decision of what you wanted to build and thought 7 miles of freeway expansion could all be bundled into a "seismic resilient bridge" bridge project. Not to mention you haven't figured out the funding for your bloated project. And if it is ever build, because Vancouver will certainly fight and complain and litigate about tolls, it will THEN be a monument to the hubris of late 20th/early 21st century freeway planning. Overdesigned, overbuilt and contributing to increased emissions which will destroy our quality of life. You have a chance to transform the region and look forward. But this project will "transform", with a giant grey hulk looming over the (currently) revitalized Vancouver waterfront and Hayden Island communities to save an average of a few minutes. What a waste of "planning". Please do not move forward with this project in the current form. Focus on solving an earthquake resilient bridge and be open with fresh eyes and a fresh construction boundary to ways to make things better for all users.

I'm a bicyclist who sometimes rides across the existing I-5 bridge. I am concerned that the new bike and walking path design will be a significant obstacle to "active transportation" across the new bridge because of its height at the Vancouver side. 100 feet is a very large elevation to climb, and the 4.5% grade will be challenging for many walkers and bicyclists. I suggest providing an elevator and extending the path so that it can have a longer/gentler grade. Placing the path on the western side of the bridge would be ever better. Situated on the outside of the transit tracks, the path could share elevators with the transit system; allow walkers and cyclists to convert to/from transit users; and buffer the path from the highway noise. It could extend along the transit route further into north Vancouver, eliminating the need for the huge spiral path.

The active transportation lanes should be on the same side as the train with access to elevators

It is crucial that the team consider connections between the neighborhoods that the bridge access will serve. I don’t know how many unused bike paths/lanes I’ve seen that simply aren’t used because they’re along a busy highway with no local connections. Crossing North Portland can feel like playing Frogger. I think it’s essential to provide common sense bike access between the Williams/Vancouver Ave area, the Kenton/Denver Ave area, and the bridge on-ramp for bike. If you make it easy, bikes will use it. If you don’t, people (including myself) will point the bridge out to friends visiting Portland as the massive waste of tax dollars that it is. Try reaching the magnum opus of the Tilikum Bridge on your bike from Barbur Blvd, and you’ll see what I mean…

Ease of use for bicycle riders, pedestrians, & public transportation riders should be a top priority. Public transportation & the multi-use path should be integrated together & next to each other. Connections should be added to the Vancouver/Williams corridor and to the Kenton/Denver Ave. link. The path in Vancouver should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. We need induced demand for public transportation, walking, & bicycling. Side-by-side Integration: Transit and the multi-use path 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. Noise and Safety: Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. Better Connections: Vancouver: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. Portland: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave. link.

I oppose the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) as currently proposed, because the proposed IBR is not the right size. I drive round trip across the Columbia River on the I-5 bridge about 50 times per year. I drive during the daytime on weekdays and weekends but not during peak traffic hours. I have rarely faced any delays. I have many concerns about the oversized impact of the proposed new I-5 bridge, given that the traffic hour congestion should be relieved by adding dedicated public transportation lanes, lower-stress-and-convenient active transportation means, and other related means. Specifically, there has not been sufficient justification provided for a second auxiliary lane in the proposed IBR by the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Furthermore, the assumptions used to suggest an amount of increased vehicle demand are faulty and presumably were made to justify the project rather than to inform the project in an unbiased manner. Specifically, in my professional opinion I disagree with the statement in the SEIS that “Daily traffic demand over the Interstate Bridge is projected to increase by more than 35% during the next 20 years,” due to insufficient evidence to lead to that claim. Additionally, I am offended that such a statement in the “Chapter 1 Purpose and Need” of the SEIS is not accompanied by a citation so that statistical analysis could be validated and so that scenarios utilizing the same data but different assumptions could be easily modeled. That is to say, I agree with adding dedicated public transportation lanes to the new I-5 bridge design and providing safer and easier active transportation options. Reasonable non-vehicular lane options will reduce the vehicular demand. I strongly disagree about the need to add more vehicle lanes in the proposed design. Discussions around the total project cost, induced demand, climate change, and impact to the expanded area are but a few of many strong reasons to avoid building vehicle capacity that would be too large and not needed. Additionally, in my personal experience, there is no need.

This proposal is incompatible with our collective aspirations for the kind of place we want to live in. Spending upwards of $7 billion to massively expand the bridge and the highways that feed it in both directions is an approach better suited for 20th century Texas than 21st century Oregon and Washington. The IBR team must go back to the drawing board and generate a design that will (1) sustain essential interstate connectivity in the face of an earthquake, (2) improve active and mass transit links between Portland and Vancouver, and (3) minimize impacts on our homes, communities, and budgets.

Please listen to the science of induced demand. If you choose to ignore that, then think about what this money could be used for instead, better schools and better public art. More accessible and frequent public transit that reduces then need for more asphalt. How much is the maintenance cost and has that money already been set aside?