Most Recent Comments

We do need a new bridge, but it needs to be earthquake proof. Many of the residents that live on West Hayden Island are low income, and are forced to do their grocery shopping in Vancouver because there isn't a grocery store I re on the island anymore. These residents cannot afford to pay a toll everything they need to buy food. Many of our Island businesses have already closed down as have many of the businesses in Delta Park. I believe this is due to both the homeless crisis and what this bridge is going to do to our neighborhood. We need a better plan.

This project will only lead to furthering the contribution of motor traffic to climate change through the expansion of the highway and the increased road traffic it would induce. While it does try to be more green in it's construction this pales in comparison to the pollution that will be emitted by commuters using this bridge. We should be working towards stronger public transit focuses with projects like this being designed for public transit first, not as a nice to have as long as it doesn't negatively affect motorists. To this end the project should focus solely on redesigning the bridge, avoiding constructing interchanges or expanding the highway away from the bridge, as well as providing better access to public transit and cyclists, giving them the dedicated infrastructure they need to feel safe using the bridge.

The project promises benefits to transportation including reduced congestion and better travel times however this focus is flawed as it does not account for induced demand at all and would not realistically improve congestion. We've seen time and time again that expanding roads won't solve traffic and will just cause an increase in the number of people who will drive, leaving congestion the same as before. The project doesn't acknowledge this correctly as it tries to say that the number of commuters wouldn't go up with expansions which clearly goes against how induced demand works. Because of this I believe the project must instead be paired down to focus just on improving the bridge and adding public transit to it, and not focused on expanding and improving the highway beyond the bridge.

Portland: Neighbors Welcome is a member of the Just Crossing Alliance and we firmly support the recommendations outlined in their submitted testimony. We strongly urge the Interstate Bridge Project to act on the feedback provided by residents and community organizations to right-size this project and realign the design to connect and improve active and mass transit options. We agree that this important interstate connection should be seismically resilient, but the project has strayed far beyond that remit to become a five-mile highway widening project that poses enormous risks to the Portland region’s urban fabric, finances, environment, and quality of life. Specifically, the project as currently designed will: Supercharge auto-intensive development throughout the region Undermine progress towards co-locating homes, jobs, and commerce in complete communities Destroy existing homes and make others unbearable in the midst of a housing shortage Absorb financial, physical, and labor resources that would be better dedicated to new housing and active and mass transit projects Saddle the Portland Metro region with expensive long-term infrastructure that pollutes our neighborhoods and undermines our climate goals This proposal is completely out of step with the way that our region operates, and it 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.

As a regular bike commuter, I am worried about the active transportation considerations in this project as proposed. People utilizing more active modes of transportation is vital to the health and environmental goals of our region. However, attempting to use this bridge for active transportation when climbing up 100 foot spirals, dodging traffic, and trying to ignore the roaring traffic inches away will inherently limit the appeal, not to mention compromise people's safety. Limiting the need to climb, buffering the multi-use path with transit lanes, and prioritizing the convenience and safety of more vulnerable bridge users will encourage more active uses of the bridge. In turn, this will help achieve the climate goals of the project and our region, whilst also simply making it a bridge that people will be more happy to use. Please don't let active transportation be an afterthought for this project.

This bridge cannot be a cars-first, all others as an afterthought affair. Our car-centric culture is killing our environment, and we need to build infrastructure that both plans for a less car-centric future, and helps move us in that direction. Towards that end: - Fully half the bridge should be dedicated to walking, biking, and public transit, to create a space where people feel comfortable commuting away from the crush of cars. - All non-car infrastructure should be grouped/clustered together: walking on the outside, then cycling, then transit, then finally cars. This gives people moving the slowest the best views of our beautiful river. - The bridge should be a destination. People should *enjoy* moving across it, not just tolerate it. That means shade, benches, and viewpoints: places to rest as walkers and bikers make their way across and appreciate the view. - The bridge should be easy to access. Ease of access for walkers, bikers, and transit riders should be the highest priority; cars can travel further out of their way to ensure that slower-moving modes of transport have the easiest -- least out-of-the-way, shortest detour, most beautiful -- access routes.

I am deeply concerned that this project is becoming an expensive boondoggle. While the need for a bridge replacement is obvious, the project as proposed seems to contain significant expenses that do not appear to have justification. Dramatically expanding this highway with multiple additional lanes makes this a much larger and more expensive project than simply a replacement. Recent independent analysis has shown flaws in the data currently being used to justify the size of the project. Worst of all, that analysis indicates that this won't even actually reduce congestion due to bottlenecks in other places. This is poor stewardship of limited taxpayer dollars. It would be throwing away good money for a more expensive project, with a larger, more destructive footprint, while bringing zero benefits to the people. Please right-size this project to a more reasonable and true replacement, not a massive expansion.

Adding auxiliary lanes will waste land - build the bridge only.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I-5 Bridge Replacement. The plan needs a rethink: Freeway expansion is bad for the climate, bad for public health, bad for environmental justice, and Is Not Useful for mitigating traffic congestion, especially in the case of the I-5 bridge. According to Smart Mobility President Norman Marshall's Review of the IBR Project's DSEIS -- https://justcrossing.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Marshall_SDEIS_Modeling_Review_October2024.pdf -- the width of the bridge is not even the current cause of congestion! Southbound, the main congestion appears to be at N. Lombard St, and northbound, the slowest traffic is just south of N. Marine Drive. Neither is addressed by the Bridge Replacement Plan. When freeways are widened within cities, the environmental injustice and displacement that occurs is unconscionable. The congestion problem will only be solved with strategies that promote travel in modes other than the automobile. Any Bridge Replacement should be designed with public health, pollution reduction, and environmental justice with mode shift to active and public transportation as the guiding principles. New construction has its own embodied carbon and pollution burdens and should be carefully tailored to reduce impact and concrete tonnage. New roads and bridges should be designed to reduce the need for car and truck crossings and those related pollution and noise burdens. Any new I-5 Bridge construction should motivate and make it easy for people to cross the river on public transit and/or, on foot, bicycle, or other personal mobility devices. The current IBR project design is oversized, overburdening, and makes it difficult for people to choose sustainable modes of transportation. In Oregon and Washington, we pride ourselves on climate and environmental justice goals. IBR Project designers-- revise the plan so that our children and grandchildren can be proud of us.

I would like to see a delay in this project of at least 6 months. I've seen no definitive specifications on this project, only generalized claims as to its location and final form. Until those issues are clearly spelled out, I cannot support this project. I reside on Hayden island right in the (specifically undefined) pathway of this proposed abstraction.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement needs a more sensible connection between active transportation and public transit access. I've commuted by bike + public transit much of my life, and a half mile loop plus a hundred foot climb to the MAX proposed for the Vancouver side could be a dealbreaker even for me. Imagine, you need to get to work on time, the elevator's broken or slow that day, and you miss your train. Imagine, you're coming home from work, and it's 100 degrees outside, and you have to go down only to come back up in the heat. Oregon and Washington pride themselves on building active transportation and healthy communities and this plan goes 100% in the opposite direction. Please reconsider in line with the Just Crossing Alliance's Active Transportation and Transit vision https://justcrossing.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Just-Crossing-Alliance-Active-Transportation-Vision.pdf.

Need a calm way for pedestrians and cyclists to get across the river for the parks on the other side.

Adding More lanes will just increase SOVs and traffic will be right up where it was before.

My personal interests, which I hope coincide with yours, are to protect the health and wellbeing of my own grandchildren and all children whether alive now or yet to be born. The IBR project should be forward-thinking and in keeping with projections based on climate science. Oregon has goals to lower carbon pollution. Transportation is a major contributor. Have the planning and designs for the IBR project taken these into account in a serious way? To me, doing so means the bridge replacement design should prioritize public transit and multi-modal forms of transportation over freeway expansion. Doing so will also protect the health of families living in close proximity to the miles of freeway expansion in current design options. In sum, I am in favor of recommendations to scale back the size, scope and cost of this project. Let’s replace the existing Interstate bridge by making it safe, user-friendly and accessible to all who need to use it. Let’s make the new bridge adaptable to a future in which one person per car is no longer the most desirable – or only - way to get around.

Hi, Portland resident and cyclist here that would like to comment on the IBR Draft SEIS because the design proposed for active transportation - cycling and pedestrian use specifically - seems likely to discourage rather than encourage those modes of use. My main concerns are: - The giant 10 story spiral off ramp for cyclists and pedestrians on the Vancouver end. That would seem like a terrible pedestrian or riding experience - and the mere thought of having to navigate will discourage it's use. Isn't there an option for an elevator or to extend the exit further north towards the Northern end of Vancouver which is at higher elevation? - The positioning of the bike/pedestrian lane adjacent to car traffic lanes. As an occasional cyclist user of the existing bridge I can tell you that proximity to traffic while riding sucks. As a former Brooklyn New York resident I bike commuted daily to downtown Manhattan for years over the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges and they both provided much better isolation from traffic to what is being proposed here. A better option would be positioning the bike/pedestrian lane next to the light rail allowing the light rail to act as a buffer from the cars. That would also encourage multimodal use by making transferring between the light rail and walking or cycling much easier. Thanks, Nick Peeters

To whom it may concern, PLACE Initiative is a national nonprofit that works to provide solutions to the climate and social justice crises using place-based, community-driven programs centered around responsible land use planning to prevent urban sprawl and combat systemic inequities. Comprised of planners, geographers, designers, and climate adaptation professionals, we at PI know that the built environment cannot be ignored within the discussion of climate change, and we envision a world where conservation of open space, efficient use of natural resources, and reduction of carbon emissions are as important to the planning of cities and towns as is fiscal growth. In our analysis of why transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects appear to be stalled across Oregon, the preliminary findings are that most of the available money (as a percentage of total transportation spending impacting the state) and bandwidth (in terms of state and regional planning capacity) is being diverted to freeway expansion projects, including the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project. If these were big, transformational investment projects that would usher in a brighter future for residents, that would be one thing. However, multiple independent analyses indicate that all of these freeway expansion projects are unnecessary, and largely are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, committed without an adequate examination of the opportunity costs of not using those same dollars to instead expand bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure across the state (and across state lines). For instance, the Just Crossing Alliance (JCA) has released (available at: https://justcrossing.org/2024/10/23/independent-traffic-modeling-analysis-garbage-in-garbage-out/) an independent assessment of IBR traffic modeling, conducted by our colleague, national transportation modeling expert Norman Marshall, president of Smart Mobility. Mr. Marshall specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior, and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs. A key finding of the report is that the Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) forecasts more traffic in the corridor in the no-build scenario than is physically possible (a similar error in the CRC EIS has been confirmed by historical data). JCA members reacted to the information noting that if the no-build forecast is invalid, then all the environmental analysis in the DSEIS is without basis! Other conclusions of the Marshall report include that: The Interstate bridge is not the I-5 bottleneck in either direction Widening the bridge would do nothing to improve I-5 congestion, and could make it worse, because expanded bridge capacity will funnel even more traffic into the actual, unresolved bottlenecks. Congestion to the south “meters” traffic on the bridge during peak periods, and traffic cannot grow without road expansion to the south Metro’s regional Kate model, relied on in the DSEIS, significantly overestimates peak period traffic today, and forecasts impossible traffic growth in the future The DSEIS modeling is useless for understanding future traffic conditions because it overstates future traffic growth and fails to account for capacity limitations. This impossible traffic growth forecast is the basis for the DSEIS traffic metrics, i.e., garbage in – garbage out Higher speed AND higher throughput are possible, without expansion, through better ramp metering, and/or system-wide tolling Implementing system-wide tolling on I-5 would actually address the I-5 congestion that the IBR project falsely claims to address. ODOT’s Regional Mobility Pricing Project analysis (September 11, 2023) found that system-wide tolling would improve speeds, and increase throughput. Transit investments could help address I-5 congestion, but the SDEIS models are not reliable in evaluating transit alternatives. The JCA has also released an “Active Transportation and Transit Vision” report (https://justcrossing.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Just-Crossing-Alliance-Active-Transportation-Vision.pdf), which further suggests that: “The Climate section of the DSEIS 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.” We would concur, and suggest trees be planted on both sides of the multi-use path, so it is shaded in both morning and afternoon hours. The tree root structures on the bridge could also be used to help absorb bridge runoff and pre-treat it before it leaves the bridge structure. “On the Washington side, the multi-use path stops at the waterfront. This does not match the need and leaves us with a challenging spiral path ascending/descending more than 100 feet. It also puts travelers from northern parts of Vancouver in the challenging position of traveling downhill through the city, then having to gain that elevation back on the ramp system. The Active Transportation Working Group has identified this as “the Vancouver dip.” Instead, the multi-use path should continue north, at least to the “community connector” at Evergreen and most appropriately to the northern extent of the project area.” This lack of attention to the details of how non-auto users might interact with the new structures is indicative of a lack of professional competency amongst the bridge team, amongst their myopic focus on constructing new facilities for cars, at all costs. Shame on the project team. “On the Oregon side, while the connection to the Kenton neighborhood appears reasonably robust, the connections to the MLK corridor area will leave active transportation users in no-man’s land. Securing a complete, safe and comfortable connection to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor is a priority. The Active Transportation Working Group has also identified a lack of connections to the 40-mile loop and we look forward to additional detailed connectivity suggestions in their comments.” We concur completely. A project of this size must result in net benefits for all; ignoring important connections for bicycles and pedestrians is just further proof of the incompetency of all involved with the state DOTs running this project. In a separate comment letter, the JCA further recommends (https://justcrossing.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JCA-Overview-DSEIS-Comment-Letter.pdf) that: “The multi-use path must be positioned adjacent to the transit way to allow seamless transfers between modes and to make the transit elevators available to path users. In this configuration transit would also serve to buffer path users from the noise, debris and other impacts of the auto lanes. The path should also be shaded to protect users in the much hotter summer months the DSEIS anticipates.” We concur. “An additional conclusion of the independent Marshall report was that even before constructing an IBR project current travel times could be reduced by a combination of better ramp metering and a corridor-wide pricing plan to manage demand including some form of the Regional Mobility Pricing Project previously proposed for the Oregon section of I-5. Such a policy would bolster transit demand, manage other bottlenecks in the corridor and decrease the need for additional auto lane capacity, helping right-size the project.” We concur. “Transit 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. We must do better.” We concur. This project will perpetuate inequitable outcomes, doubling down on a history of inequity in this region that is rooted in white supremacy. There is no reasonable justification for such a project. We have grave concerns about how much of this project is related to widening the freeway and its approach structures and ramps on the Washington side of the river; we would much prefer to see the scope of this project limited to the bridge itself, and not include these other freeway-widening elements that have contributed to more than a doubling in costs to replace the bridge. We still believe that the Common Sense Crossing approach, of retrofitting the existing bridge, then building a new, parallel span just for light rail, bikes, pedestrians, and local access traffic to and from Hayden Island, would result in an overall lower-cost project and, in combination with tolls and pricing, could deliver more congestion relief benefits for less cost. We continue to object to the obscenely large price tag of this un-needed bridge mega-project. We concur with the JCA’s, who find that “this project is not, as advertised, a bridge replacement but rather a five mile freeway widening.” We therefore recommend that this project be shelved for the foreseeable future. Instead, we recommend that the relevant transportation agencies coordinate to undertake the following actions: Undertake work to drill new pilings and retrofit the existing bridges so they could withstand a major earthquake Implement variable-rate pricing in the corridor for the purpose of managing congestion Use toll proceeds to pay for the construction of a new, local-access-only bridge that supports light rail, bicycles, and pedestrians, connecting from Vancouver to Hayden Island, and another bridge with a similar cross-section from Hayden Island on into Portland Also use toll proceeds to increase transit frequencies on the Amtrak Cascades line, including new commuter rail service from Vancouver into Portland, with trains running at least once every 15 minutes during peak hours Use toll proceeds to purchase the railroad ROW from Seattle to Portland, allowing for the ROW to be electrified, to add tracks, and to manage rail operations to balance new high-frequency rail commuter operations with freight rail movements Use toll proceeds to construct new bicycle paths connecting to and from the bridge at Vancouver, Hayden Island, and Oregon. Then, once these actions are complete, it could be possible that the time will be right in 2045 or 2050 to resume work on this bridge replacement project, if further analysis at that time continues to show a need for a new facility. Until that time, this project should be canceled, and all employees who worked on it should be let go and given the freedom to seek other employment opportunities. There have been sufficient professional mistakes made on this project that nobody who worked on it, and did not object strenuously, should be ever allowed to work on a similar transportation project or for a transportation agency again. Sincerely yours, Garlynn G. Woodsong Executive Director PLACE Initiative 239 NW 13th Ave, Suite 303 Portland, OR 97209 United States

I'm appalled by the gamesmanship and data manipulation of traffic projections undertaken by the IBR's planning team, as uncovered by the independent consultants hired by the Just Crossing Alliance and covered in Willamette Week. Our two states desperately need a seismically-sound, multimodal crossing to connect these two communities, and it's disturbing to read the brazen dishonesty baked into the clearly inaccurate traffic projections on which this entire $7 billion highway project is based. To move forward with this project as currently designed based on obviously flawed and inaccurate data would be in direct defiance of federal law and any coherent attempts at accountable, transparency governance. The largest public works project in the history of the Pacific Northwest has been artificially bloated by self-interested consultants, and this oversized bridge project is simply too large, too polluting, and too expensive for the communities of Portland and Vancouver to absorb. I support the approach of right-sizing this bridge and inclusion of transit as articulated in the positions of the Just Crossing Alliance and No More Freeways

I cannot express how wrong this project proposal is. The size of this project, both in dollars and geographic footprint, is to much. Right size this and don't make Hayden Island look like on large freeway interchange.

I rely on bikes and transit as my only means of transportation. I often combine the two in multimodal trips - biking to a transit station, taking transit, and biking to my final destination. When I travel between Portland and Vancouver, I bike. One of the most important things I think about when planning a bike ride is how direct the route is, and how much elevation gain there is. The current design incorporates an unnecessarily long, and mandatory, 1/2 mile loop to descend to the waterfront on the Vancouver side. For people whose final destination is further up the hill, this represents a big loss of elevation - and momentum - that has to be earned back later. That extra climbing can be very discouraging to a bike trip. Instead, the walking and biking path should be on the same side as the MAX line, so that they can share infrastructure and access. In particular, the MAX elevators should be usable to access the bike path, and it should be easy to bike directly to the MAX stations. Putting the path and the MAX line on the same side also means that an elevator can be used to access the waterfront, while the path continues at elevation all the way to Evergreen, making for a much more pleasant trip without unnecessary dips. Putting the path and the MAX line provides another crucial benefit: it provides a buffer so that the path is not directly next to high speed, noisy, stinky traffic. I've biked on the I-205 path a number of times, and the extreme proximity to traffic is a huge disincentive to making the trip. By the time I reach the other end of the bridge I usually have some temporary hearing loss from the traffic noise. Ideally both the path and the MAX line should be on the East side of the bridge, with the path on the easternmost side. This provides walkers and bikers with beautiful views of Mt. Hood and the Columbia River, and could make the Interstate Bridge a tourist attraction like the Golden Gate Bridge.

I bike from Portland to Vancouver, and it's important to me that the new bridge is safe and practical to use. I'd like the multiuse path to 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 like to see the path on the Vancouver side remain elevated as far as the last MAX stop, to avoid bikes having to dip down a half mile ramp to the waterfront if that's not their destination.

I live on Hayden island. I would like more focus on retaining and supporting businesses on Hayden island. More free spaces, less concrete.

The present design if much larger than it needs to be - which will only add more cars. We need to be moving toward more rapid transit. Additionally tolling needs to occur with reduced rates for residents of Hayden Island.

I regularly bicycle across the existing I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. It is loud, debris-laden, and results in poor air quality for anyone outside a car or truck. The proposed IBR bike/ped path is barely an improvement over the current situation. The proposed path is directly adjacent to the northbound traffic lanes, which will continue to be agonizingly noisy. The proximity to traffic lanes will also continue to cause active users (bicyclists and pedestrians) to be exposed to motor vehicle exhaust for the entire length of the crossing. In addition, the proposed path will accumulate garbage thrown or blown from vehicles, vehicle parts, glass, and other debris. We have two examples of similar bike/ped facilities in the area: the Glen Jackson bridge and the NE Pedestrian Trail along I-84 east of NE 122nd Ave. Both of these off-road paths are extremely unpleasant and unsafe to use due to the noise, poor air quality, and debris. Rather than encouraging people to use active transportation to cross the river, the proposed IBR plan will do the opposite; encourage people to use their car. It's hard to imagine anyone walking or bicycling across the proposed bridge for pleasure with the proposed alignment. In addition to the poor location of the bike/ped path, the elevation gains at Hayden Island and in Vancouver will be formidable challenges for many potential users, adding unnecessary out-of-direction travel to reach the other side. The long spiral ramps will also be dangerous to descend during wet or icy conditions. The bike/ped route should be at no greater slope and length than the LRT route. A much better configuration would be to align the bike/ped path on the west side of the proposed LRT route, and extend at least to the Expo Station on the Portland side and to the Evergreen Station on the Vancouver side. To make this a true multi-modal facility, the bike/ped path should have access to the proposed elevators and platforms for the Hayden Island LRT Station and the Waterfront LRT Station, allowing travelers the flexibility to walk, bicycle, or use the LRT for all or part of their trip.

Comments attached as separate document.

The bipartisan approved Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) provides a strong platform for investment in Cascadia High Speed Rail which has concluded multiple studies including a corridor plan by a concept plan technical expert. A part of the IIJA is the TIFIA funding program, which requires that infrastructure projects costing more than $750 milliaon to include the study of a private sector alternative if it reduces costs, which our CHSR Corridor Concept Plan clearly does. FWHA has also created multi-modal "MEGA" and "INFRA" funding programs for alternatives such as high-speed rail that can complement the I-5 Columbia River Crossing Project by satisying signicant environmental problems and equity goals. These funding programs and the National Environmental Protection Act require that major transportation projects must meet important CO2 reduction and equity goals inorder to qualify for funding. Cascadia High Speed Rail, LLC studies have proven that we can meet these goals by reducing 30% of the congestion on I-5, whereas the IBR Program cannot. We are open to meet and discuss how we can work together in partnership. CHSR, LLC has corridor plans near I-5, BNSF, and Hwy. 217 to a new Columbia River Bridge Crossing west of the BNSF Bridge for CHSR, BNSF, and vehicles. For multiple reasons a new I-5 Bridge is not feasible. CHSR, LLC has also developed plans for dual underground tunnels, one on each side of the existing I-5 Bridge showing connections to all existing entrances and exits. Each tunnel would be double stacked, four lanes per tunnel, eight lanes total and cost less than a monolithic bridge.