Most Recent Comments

Funding Risk * The Draft SEIS assumes that the Program will be funded through a combination of federal, state, and local sources, as well as tolls. However, the document does not provide a detailed funding plan or discuss the potential for cost overruns, which we know occur in almost all projects of this size and complexity. The document should include a fully developed funding plan and identify strategies for mitigating financial risks in the event of cost overruns or other unforseen events. Bicycle Access * The Draft SEIS acknowledges that "most survey respondents (72 percent) identified improving travel times as a top priority" when considering the river crossing, but does not adequately address concerns about bicycle and pedestrian access. While the document mentions a separated shared-use path (SUP) on the river crossing, it should provide more detail on how the Program will ensure safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the corridor. * The Draft SEIS states that the shared-use path will meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards, meaning a grade less than or equal to 5%. However, the fixed-span bridge configurations would place the shared-use path at a height of 116 feet. This height would necessitate a long, steep climb for cyclists, potentially discouraging bicycle use and creating accessibility challenges for some users. The Program should consider options for reducing the grade further, such as a longer, less steep path or a bicycle elevator. * The Draft SEIS states that the IBR Program has committed to providing the same or greater vertical clearance for the Oregon Slough Bridge than is currently offered. This would result in a minimum vertical clearance of 35 feet. This height raises similar concerns about accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians. The Program should explore design options that minimize the grade on both the Oregon Slough and Columbia River crossings to ensure that the SUP is accessible to all users. * The Draft SEIS fails to adequately address the potential for bridge openings to disrupt bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the single-level movable-span configuration. The document mentions the possibility of limiting openings to nighttime hours, but this may not be feasible or desirable. The Program should provide a more detailed analysis of the potential impacts of bridge openings on bicycle and pedestrian traffic and develop mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. Climate Issues * While the Draft SEIS discusses the project's climate framework, including a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it does not adequately address the potential for induced demand to increase emissions. Induced demand can lead to more vehicles on the road, offsetting any emissions reductions achieved through improved vehicle efficiency or mode shift. The Program should explicitly address induced demand in its climate analysis and explore strategies to mitigate its impact. * The Draft SEIS does not adequately account for the potential for induced demand, which is the phenomenon of increased traffic volume in response to increased roadway capacity. If planners believe there will be no induced demand, that assumption should be made explicit and be fully justified. Otherwise, a range of scenarios for induced demand should be included in the modeling and analysis. * The Draft SEIS acknowledges the need for climate change adaptation, particularly in light of sea-level rise and more frequent extreme weather events. However, it should provide more specific details on how the project will be designed and constructed to withstand these challenges. This should include considerations such as the selection of durable materials, the design of stormwater management systems, and the elevation of critical infrastructure. * The Draft SEIS should expa Andnd its discussion of embodied carbon, which refers to the emissions associated with the production, transportation, and installation of construction materials. The document mentions the use of low-carbon concrete and asphalt as a potential mitigation measure, but should provide a more comprehensive assessment of the project's embodied carbon footprint. This assessment should include an inventory of materials used and an analysis of strategies to reduce embodied carbon, such as material reuse and the selection of low-impact materials. Lack of Smaller, Less Impactful Options in the IBR Program There is limited discussion of smaller, less impactful alternatives, potentially raising concerns about a lack of comprehensive consideration for minimizing the program's footprint and its associated consequences. Project documents consistently emphasize options that involve substantial construction and modification of existing infrastructure. For example, the primary bridge replacement options involve either a double-deck or single-level fixed-span bridge, both requiring significant alterations to the surrounding roadway network. Alternative options are quickly dismissed as inadequate for addressing the program's stated Purpose and Need, which emphasizes improving traffic flow and accommodating future growth. This raises the question of whether a broader range of alternatives, potentially incorporating elements of TSM/TDM or focusing on more localized improvements, were adequately explored. The emphasis on capacity expansion, often linked to the concept of induced demand, might overshadow the potential for implementing demand management strategies to moderate traffic growth and reduce the need for large-scale infrastructure projects. There is limited discussion of whether smaller-scale, less impactful improvements, such as targeted intersection upgrades, signal optimization, or pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure enhancements could effectively address some of the program's objectives without resorting to large-scale interventions. There is also limited analysis about whether a simple bridge replacement without the capacity expansion and associated highway work could be acceptable when linked to user fees or other TDM strategies. The lack of emphasis on smaller, less impactful options suggests a potential for overlooking community concerns regarding construction disruptions, property acquisitions, and environmental impacts. By primarily focusing on large-scale interventions, the program might miss opportunities to address specific community needs through more tailored and localized solutions. The current emphasis on large-scale interventions raises the need for a more thorough exploration of smaller, less impactful options to ensure that the program's final decisions align with principles of sustainability and community engagement.

I have reviewed the SDEIS and the Marshall Report which concludes that the traffic modeling used in the SDEIS doesn't accurately project future traffic. I believe the traffic modeling used in the SDEIS will result in over-building the bridge, unnecessary costs, increased traffic demand, and increased carbon emissions. These results are counter to both Oregon and Washington climate impact goals and policies. I strongly urge the IBR team to revisit and revise the traffic modeling for the project to address these deficiencies.

THE IBR must be streamlined. There needs to be much better mass transit. It needs to be far more pedestrian and bike friendly. We need a bridge replacement, not a bridge replacement that includes extensive freeway expansion. Widening the freeway may reduce congestion for a brief while but as you all know, due to induced demand that relief will be short lived. And, why are you considering widening the freeway to shorten the commute for some people by a a few minutes at the expense of our children's livable future? Why are shorter commute times, in the short term, more important than lower emissions and fewer traffic deaths? We need a streamlined IBR, not the proposed overpriced, oversized project.

Friends: Both the Columbia Crossing and current IBR iterations strike me as largely devoid of common sense. Particular issues are: 1. The new bridge and connected egress and exit ramps stand as massive monuments to concrete. Wide, many, enormous, winding and more. I would suggest fewer, shorter and simpler entrance and exit points. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle ways need to be physically separate from vehicle and rail lanes, on the side and not in the middle (as with the Glenn Jackson bridge) and with lower access grades. 3. There should be no more than four lanes in each direction. Do not tag on wide and multiple lane access roads. There is no denying that the more lanes you had the more traffic you bring, reducing travel time. Please do not ignore induce traffic models. 4. Any compromise to use and convenience of light rail or buses should be discarded. We need to promote these forms of transportation and not prioritize automobiles. Thank you, Sam Friedenberg NE Portland Thank you.

We need to emphasize public transit and the Multi-Use pathway. We need to induce demand for non-automobile crossing. Climate change is an existential threat, and even if everybody could afford to replace their standard internal combustion engines with electrical vehicles, there are still a million other pollution problems from automobiles, including brake dust, drippings of Grease, tire wear particles and the resulting Urban runoff mortality syndrome for coho salmon, not to mention all of the externalities and problems and costs that result from the urban sprawl and other infrastructure built around oversized single occupancy vehicles. In emphasizing Transit and multi-use paths, Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, with the transit between vehicles and non-vehicle users, for seamless transfers, ease of use, and safety. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations.

ADD VEHICLE TOLLING: Tolls will inevitably suppress demand for driving, encourage more transit usage and cycling alternatives (if their routes are safe and not overly inconvenient). - TOLL CHARGES PRICED TO COVER MAINTENANCE AND FUND REDUCED-FARE TRANSIT PROGRAMS. - Multi-use PATH USERS DO NOT PAY TOLLS. - IMPLEMENT DISCOUNT PROGRAMS to ensure equity. Starting day one of tolling, have a LOW-INCOME DISCOUNT program (database built including out-of-state programs), and LOCAL-RESIDENT DISCOUNT (eg., homeowners or renters who live within 0.5 miles of freeway, issued a discount card).

Firstly, i personally vote NO to the FREEWAY EXPANSION part of this project The committees (Portland and Vancouver together) HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DATE, TO ACTIVELY REDUCE EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME! Please GO BACK TO THE PROJECT DRAWING BOARD and this time, PRIORITIZE TRANSIT & CYCLING ENHANCEMENTS WITH ONLY THE BRIDGE-REPLACEMENT, no lane expansions. The #1 priority should be FOCUS ON REDUCING PERSONAL-USE VEHICLE VOLUMES! Allowing for increased traffic, under any scenario, poses serious health risks for many living within several miles and exacerbates negative outcomes for our sister cities and states overall. Reducing volume, simply reduces the negative Health Concerns of local residents. You can achieve the goals by: A) MAKING TRANSIT MORE CONVENIENT & AFFORDABLE, THAN DRIVING. - BUILD SPEEDRAIL or have four-car Max trains - Allow for multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit - Prices need to be kept affordable! (cheaper than the cost of gas/parking). Fund price reductions by other State or federal programs. - Create marketing campaigns around Low-Income prices and employer reimbursement programs. - Get creative with promotions, like “7 day free Commuter trials” and ways to encourage usage by free rides on special days, such as getting Vancouverits to “First Thursday Free Day” or Portlanders to go to “Vancouver Days” as ideas. B) DESIGNING SAFE and CONVENIENT CYCLING/PEDESTRIAN MULTI-USE PATH, prioritizing the convenience, safety and NOISE PROTECTIONS, over vehicles. - TRANSIT & MULTI-USE PATH should be next to each other — not separated by a half-mile ramp and 10+ freeway lanes. - POSITION DESIGNATED TRANSIT LANES TO BUFFER PATH. This will reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. (The 205 multi-use path is the Worst example, pebbles being flung by tires at 60-70 miles per hour, hitting cyclists as they ride in the middle. Whoever designed that should have to live there for a month! Its horrible horrible horrible, go watch Youtube video!) * CONVENIENT ACCESS TO TRANSIT ELEVATORS, especially at elevated stations… making extra consideration for Disabled. * PATH WIDTH AND TURNS ACCOMMODATE THE GROWING LARGER CARGO BIKE COMMUNITY. These types of bikes truly can keep cars off the road and should be given higher priority than a car. * On VANCOUVER SIDE: The path should extend to Evergreen, to prevent the need for using a ridiculous 100-foot high spiral… again, not designed by someone who cycles. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!!! * On PORTLAND SIDE: Add bullard protected greenway connections to the N.Vancouver/Williams corridor, in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver link. C) ADDING VEHICLE TOLLING: Tolls will inevitably suppress demand for driving, encourage more transit usage and cycling alternatives (if their routes are safe and not overly inconvenient). - PRICED TO COVER MAINTENANCE AND FUND REDUCED FARE TRANSIT PROGRAMS. - Multi-use PATH USERS DO NOT PAY TOLLS. - IMPLEMENT DISCOUNT PROGRAMS to ensure equity. Starting day one of tolling, have a LOW-INCOME DISCOUNT program (database built including out-of-state programs), and LOCAL-RESIDENT DISCOUNT (eg., homeowners or renters who live within 0.5 miles of freeway, issued a discount card).

We need an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS) using INDUCED DEMAND TRAFFIC MODELING, so the environmental (and health) impact assessment is BASED ON FUTURE TRAFFIC, not existing.

- POSITION DESIGNATED TRANSIT LANES TO BUFFER MULTI-USE PATH. This will reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. (The 205 multi-use path is the Worst example, not only by the lane position but how pebbles are flung by tires at 60-70 miles per hour, hitting cyclists as they ride. Whoever designed that should have to live there for a month! Its horrible horrible horrible, go watch Youtube video!)

I have asthma, live within 1/2 mile of 1-5 and already suffer when the wind stops blowing. Allowing for increased traffic, under any scenario, poses serious health risks for many living within several miles of both our sister cities. Reducing volume, is key to improving air quality, and reducing the negative Health impact of local residents. Please get a BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS) done, using INDUCED DEMAND TRAFFIC MODELING, so the health impact assessment is BASED ON FUTURE TRAFFIC, not existing. We need to NOT expand the lanes, but instead focus on improving transit and cycling so people have better reasons to stop driving.

Please GO BACK TO THE PROJECT DRAWING BOARD and this time, prioritize improving transit and path enhancements WITH ONLY THE BRIDGE-REPLACEMENT, no lane expansions. Because if you do build more lanes, you need to HIGHLY COMPENSATE miles and miles of nearby residents who live within a mile of the freeway, for their health impact. Portland has gone far too long with impacting this community. It’s time to pay up big!

DESIGNING SAFE and CONVENIENT MULTI-USE PATH, prioritizing the convenience, safety and NOISE PROTECTIONS of pedestrians and cyclists, over vehicles. - Multi-use PATH USERS DO NOT PAY TOLLS. - Design TRANSIT & MULTI-USE PATH next to each other — not separated by a half-mile ramp and 10+ freeway lanes. - POSITION DESIGNATED TRANSIT LANES TO BUFFER PATH. This will reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. (The 205 multi-use path is the Worst example, pebbles being flung by tires at 60-70 miles per hour, hitting cyclists as they ride in the middle. Whoever designed that should have to live there for a month! Its horrible horrible horrible, go watch Youtube video!) * CONVENIENT ACCESS TO TRANSIT ELEVATORS, especially at elevated stations… * Make EXTRA CONSIDERATION FOR DISABLED with pathways, route and turns. It should be MORE convenient. Do not make them push their wheelchairs further, just to make it more convenient for cars! Dont make them ride into the street, to go up on ramp. * WIDER PATHS AND TURNS to accommodate disabled and growing community of LARGER CARGO BIKES. These types of bikes truly replace the need to drive cars, and should be given higher priority than a car. * On VANCOUVER SIDE: The path should extend to Evergreen, to prevent the need for using a ridiculous 100-foot high spiral… again, not designed by someone who cycles. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!!! * On PORTLAND SIDE: Add bullard protected greenway connections to the N.Vancouver/Williams corridor, in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver link.

FIND FUNDING - TO MAKE TRANSIT FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT & AFFORDABLE, THAN DRIVING. - BUILD SPEEDRAIL or have four-car MAX trains, to get more people to places faster than car traffic. - Allow for a multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit - Bridge Tolls fund supplemental pricing so transit prices are kept affordable! It must be cheaper than the cost of gas/parking. - Make taking transit less confusing, especially with transfers. Make ticketing & pricing for Train, Bus, and Streetcar aligned under one pricing model. No longer should there be three tickets to transfer from the bus to Max to streetcar; it should be one ticket. - Create marketing campaigns around Low-Income prices and employer reimbursement programs. - Get creative with promotions, like “7 day free Commuter trials” and ways to encourage usage by free rides on special days, such as getting Vancouverits to “First Thursday Free Day” or Portlanders to go to “Vancouver Days” as ideas.

The project as it is currently designed is ill conceived from multiple angles. These include: - By overestimating demand growth since the conception of the project, it has been designed to expand the highway too much. - Economic modeling frequently underestimates the price elasticity of demand which means much of the demand management can be accomplished by tolling alone on a bridge or tunnel the same size as today. - The Coast Guard is unlikely to accede to the plans for a fixed span bridge without enough height. However reaching that height with the planned widening will blight Hayden Island and Vancouver's downtown and emerging waterfront area. - The plans for light rail on the opposite side of the highway from bike and walk facilities will disadvantage those users unnecessarily since they are complementary (multi-modal doesn't mean taking a long winding ramp down, crossing under a highway and then taking an elevator back up). - The existing project dtaff are hopelessly conflicted and unable to overcome their private interests (conflicts of interest related for example to past and potential future employment with contractors regardless of whether the project is built that cannot be mitigated purely by disclosure of these conflicts). - This project will never be funded the way it is designed and ultimately that is likely to come at the cost of the parts of the project that are aligned with Oregon and Washington's climate targets. This project does far more than replace a bridge. It is a 5 mile widening of a highway that has been demonstrated to not address congestion because of other bottlenecks and induced demand. It will adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods in 2 states as well as contributing to climate. The bridge needs to be replaced but we should maintain existing structures for walk, bike and transit and go with an immersed tunnel for private vehicles the same dimensions as today and tolling to improve land use allocation and speed up approval by the Coast Guard before costs escalate further.

The MLPA SEIS draws on traffic models that have failed to predict today’s conditions, let alone future demand, and is therefore unrealistic and inappropriate for decision-making. A new, improved SEIS is required. The project’s emphasis on handling increased auto/truck traffic is counter to our community’s interests, such as our stated climate goals, right to clean air, and need for improved public transit and active transportation to Hayden Island and across the Columbia River. The MLPA risks worsening health outcomes for the already overburdened diverse, lower-income neighborhoods of North Portland. Personally, I cannot afford additional days where the outdoor air is unsafe for sensitive persons to breathe. An equitable solution is necessary.

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 relies on invalid traffic modeling which 1) mis-assigns the bridge as the cause of I-5 congestion, 2) uses Metro’s outdated “static traffic assignment” methodology which wildly overstates future traffic growth (the logical errors of this method are apparent to even this non-expert) and 3), makes a strong case that I-5 already has the capacity to carry more throughput and suggests auditing the existing ramp metering system to see why it does such a poor job. In short, the review completely undercuts the justification for this bridge-widening project. I’m angry that IBR has gotten as far along as it has with only this simplistic and erroneous data to support it. Please right-size this project. Replace the existing bridge with a structure which can better survive an earthquake, and then just stop.

Please ensure excellent user access and a positive transportation experience for people walking, biking, and rolling - We need a bridge that welcomes everyone—walking, biking, and rolling and accessing public transit—by ensuring seamless, accessible pathways without extra distance or difficult grades. By integrating open views, rest areas, and close transit access, the bridge can become a safe, enjoyable route for all. We need to emphasize the need for protective barriers, well-lit routes, and comfortable features like shading and rain protection, creating a welcoming space for everyone. A commitment to inclusive design prioritizes the safety and comfort of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds, especially underserved and vulnerable groups. We want a climate-resilient bridge that supports active and public transportation, reducing reliance on cars and cutting emissions long-term. An environmentally friendly design promotes cleaner, healthier spaces, with natural buffers and materials that help protect public health and the environment. We can’t afford to continue subsidizing driving above walking, biking, rolling, and using transit. When we advocate for a bridge design that maximizes value with adaptable features, we are supporting future needs without costly retrofits. By building with durable, cost-effective materials and enhancing local access, the bridge can become a sustainable, high-value investment for local businesses, job access, and community development.

The proposed bridge width will allow for even more auto lanes than stated, inducing demand and worsening traffic bottlenecks such as that in the Overlook area of North Portland (I-5 / I-405 interchange). A design that is challenging or deterrent to active transportation, combined with no improvement in express-bus travel time, will result in more auto traffic and unmet climate goals. This fails to serve our community’s priorities. The proposal is not a bridge replacement but extremely oversized, off-target mega-highway.

I’d imperative that the planning committee ensures the biking and walking path on the I-5 expansion bridge is thoughtfully designed to maximize accessibility and multimodal connectivity. Specifically, I urge that the biking and walking path be placed on the same side as the transit facilities. This will allow for seamless integration with public transit, making it easier for commuters to combine biking, walking, and transit options. Additionally, I recommend that the path remain elevated all the way to the last transit station at Evergreen Boulevard. This design will enhance safety, efficiency, and usability for all non-motorized travelers.

The IBR as currently proposed is not a "replacement" but a maximized autos-first megaproject. As designed, it will add vehicle lanes unnecessary for slow predicted growth. The skewed prioritization of autos is clear in the poor facilities proposed for transit and active transportation. Particularly problematic are: - Extremely elevated transit stations. Elevator outages will leave active transportation users stranded, a particular risk for children, elders, and people with disabilities. - Lack of direct connection between transit stations and multiuse paths. - Long grades and 100-foot-rise spiral ramp will challenge and deter some bicyclists and pedestrians. - Multiuse path users should have easy access to elevators in the proposed design. - Multiuse path and connections remain difficult and confusing, not meaningfully improved over current conditions despite proposed improvements to wayfinding. - Proposal fails to improve express-bus travel times. IBR must be right-sized to meet climate goals and reflect our community’s priorities.

Please use ALL the provided studies and focus your efforts on guiding the region toward less driving, not more. Anything else is violating the climate pledges and science you must use as guidance. Thank you.

My comments are primarily focused on tolling and related impacts. Our family feels that tolling would put unfair and unsustainable burden on Hayden Island residents. We’ve only lived on the island two years and have already become de facto Vancouver residents consuming more and more goods and services in WA than our home state. As I often say “ its almost like we don’t live in Portland anymore, except for the property taxes”. Besides obvious logistical advantages, Vancouver is more convenient, cleaner and safer than Portland! On average, we travel by car to Vancouver 5 days a week for: Grocery Store- Fred Meyer on HWY 14 Dentist Healthcare appointments Restaurants and bars in downtown Beauty/Nail spa Planet Fitness Examples of basic things Hayden Island lacks Restaurants Full service Grocery Store Drycleaner Florist Gym/health club Barber Shop Pet/Doggie daycare Mail shipping service, IE UPS Store The two lists nearly mirror each other ironically 😊 Our family also uses SR 14 for a better /safer route to the airport and Costco and other items in on the east side of Portland. Our daughter works at the airport and often uses the I5 bridge and SR 14. Given the dearth of services on Hayden Island, we feel like we have little choice but to either go south into Portland or go north to Vancouver and most of the time we go north! For the goods and services we continue to travel to Portland for, we often face 30-45 minute travel time home, even from local North Portland locations in the 97217 zip code! Currently, my wife commutes to Swan Island and I work from home however if the the time comes to change employers or lease office space, locations in Vancouver would be much more practical and convenient than Portland. This begs the question; how fair is it for people to pay tolls to gain access to life-sustaining jobs if there are no other alternatives to paying? In short, tolling puts Hayden Island residents between a rock and hard place with few choices but PAY or MOVE. I continue to have hopes that Hayden Island will one day have more goods and services allowing residents to “stay local” but best case that’s years from now after the replacement bridge is completed. Until that day comes (if ever) Hayden Island residents should be EXEMPT from tolls! As far as mass transit is concerned, focus on bus, NOT trains to lower costs and promote flexibility. Adding 1/3 higher cost to the bridge for a feature few will use is foolhardy and doesn't serve the public interest. Best regards, Tom Ford

We need to emphasize the need for protective barriers, well-lit routes, and comfortable features like shading for the hotter days with climate change, and rain protection, creating a welcoming space for everyone. A commitment to inclusive design prioritizes the safety and comfort of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds, especially underserved and vulnerable groups. This project is going to shape the next 100 years of transportation in the region. Keep in mind the future where we will be with less cars, more people using transit and micro-mobility. Please prioritise easy access to any light rail, no giant elevators. And people make it easy for people to walk/bike over without these giant loops.

Highways are a blight on any urban setting and a relic of obsolete city planning from decades past. No highway through the city should be expanded, only means of public transit or bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure should be invested in. Highways belong at the edges of city, not cutting through their centers like a knife. Don’t let Portland turn into Milwaukee with a hastily expanded highway that ruins neighborhoods and takes an incalculable toll on the local environment.

We need a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). More car traffic means negative impacts on the health of people in North Portland. These impacts will disproportionally impact marginalized and working class people.