Most Recent Comments

To Whom It May Concern, As a resident and business owner on Hayden Island, I am deeply concerned about the proposed I-5 bridge design and the devastating impact it will have on our community. I live and work here, and I see firsthand how this project will affect the people around me—especially our elderly neighbors, who will bear the brunt of the disruption without seeing much benefit. The proposed bridge, estimated to cost between an enormous cost and a lengthy timeline, with significant tolls. Despite its massive scale, this project offers very little improvement to the traffic problems on I-5, while causing significant harm to the community. Here are my key concerns: Excessive Costs with Minimal Benefits: Spending such an enormous amount on this bridge is difficult to justify, especially when it provides so little relief for our traffic congestion, as indicated by my research and community meetings. It’s hard to justify such a cost when the benefits for the community are so limited. Economic Hardship for Residents: The tolls, that will add up quickly, will create a daily financial burden for everyone, especially our elderly residents who may live on fixed incomes. This added cost will make it harder for people to get to medical appointments, see family, or even go about their daily routines. Environmental and Safety Risks: The proposed bridge height is significantly lower than the current drawbridge, which will restrict larger commercial vessels from accessing upstream communities. This will hurt businesses that rely on river access. On top of that, the design isn’t built to withstand a major earthquake, which puts our entire community at risk—something we simply cannot afford, especially given our vulnerability to the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Impact on Quality of Life: The proposed interchange for Hayden Island will pave over large parts of our community, creating an unsightly expanse of concrete that cuts through prime retail and residential areas. For elderly residents, this will make navigating the island much more difficult, and the noise and disruption from 15 years of construction will severely impact their quality of life. Property values will drop, businesses will struggle, and our community will be left to deal with the fallout. Lack of Proper Public Input: The comment period was scheduled during the general election, which feels like a deliberate move to limit public input. We need more time—a much longer period—to properly review and discuss the implications of this project. Additionally, an independent evaluation of alternatives, such as an immersed tunnel, should be conducted. From what I have gathered, a tunnel could be a more practical, less disruptive, and environmentally friendly option. The current plan feels rushed and doesn’t take into account the real needs of the people who live here. We need a solution that not only addresses traffic issues but also protects the well-being of our community—especially our elderly residents who are among the most vulnerable. Thank you for considering these concerns. I hope the committee will take the time to explore more thoughtful and community-focused alternatives. Sincerely, Jason Boursier Resident and Local Business Employee, Hayden Island

The proposed bridge as designed is an overbuilt abomination. We don't need more traffic lanes; we need a bridge that will meet the varied needs of our communities--including ample bike/ped infrastructure and light rail.

As a business owner on Hayden Island, I am deeply concerned about the proposed I-5 bridge design and the significant impact it will have on our community. After attending the public meeting on October 24th, I have serious reservations about the current plan. The proposed bridge, estimated to cost between $7-12 billion and take 15 years to complete, will include tolls ranging from $3-$15 each way. Despite its massive scale, the project appears to offer minimal improvements to the traffic issues currently affecting I-5. Here are the key concerns I would like to raise: Excessive Costs with Limited Benefits: The proposed budget of $7-12 billion is an enormous expenditure, especially considering the limited impact it will have on reducing congestion on I-5. It is difficult to justify such a significant cost for minimal traffic relief. Economic Burden on the Community: The planned tolls, ranging from $3-$15 each way, will place a considerable financial burden on local residents and businesses. These costs will have a direct impact on daily commuters, employees, and customers, ultimately affecting the economic health of our community. Environmental and Safety Concerns: The proposed bridge height of 116 feet is 62 feet lower than the current drawbridge, which will restrict access for larger commercial vessels and negatively impact upstream communities. Additionally, the current design lacks sufficient resilience to withstand a major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, which poses a serious safety risk. Impact on Quality of Life and Business Operations: The proposed 18-lane interchange for Hayden Island will result in a wide, unattractive expanse of pavement that will disrupt prime retail areas, making the island less accessible and appealing for both residents and visitors. The construction period, estimated at 15 years, will significantly disrupt daily life, reduce property values, and negatively impact local businesses. Insufficient Public Engagement: The limited public comment period, scheduled during the general election, does not provide adequate time for proper community input. I strongly urge an extension of at least 120 days to allow for thorough review and discussion. Furthermore, I recommend exploring alternative options, such as an immersed tunnel, which could be more cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and has been successfully implemented in similar projects. I urge the committee to reconsider the current proposal and explore more practical and community-friendly alternatives. The current plan seems rushed and does not adequately address the needs or concerns of the residents and businesses on Hayden Island. We need a solution that balances infrastructure improvement with community well-being and economic stability. Thank you for your attention to these important concerns. Sincerely, Stephen Frankland: Owner/Operator Island Sailing School and Club

About the I-5 bridge project… I live and work in the area and use the bridge every day. I see how the bulk of the problem is how it’s too hard to smoothly merge on! The two entrances at 307 and 308 are what backs the whole city up! All that’s needed is smart merging lanes. I don’t think it needs to be this monstrous! Coming south there’s the same issue with first merge on out of Washington. There’s not enough space and there’s too my h breaking and NOT zipping.

I’d like to make a public comment about the interstate bridge project. In general, I would encourage the plan to be further *centered* around the experience of alternative transportation options (biking, walking, public transit riding). Some specifics… the 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. Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. 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. Thank you!

The elevation of the multi-use path crossing the Columbia River does not promote accessibility to those who cross the bridge via active transport at the Vancouver access point. The steep spiral design is a significant barrier and is ableist in design. If the multi-use path cannot be lowered, then robust, well-maintained elevators need to be made available as a primary, reliable option for active transportation users. This elevator could be shared with transit users, which would eliminate the need for additional infrastructure, making the design more efficient and accessible to users of multiple transportation modes. Additionally, I would like to see the active transportation route extended north so that users would not have to descend to the waterfront and then climb back up to reach the city center. Ideally, the active transportation route should extend to the "community connector" at Evergreen station, or even further north to allow transit users a fair share of the project.

The bridge needs upgrades for earthquake resilience, but The SDEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge reinforcement, mass transit, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective. Let's use limited resources for safety and the most efficient transportation options (ie. mass transit), not private vehicles.

Why I disagree with thr Interstate bridge!

studies short expanding a freeway does not reduce traffic congestion, it makes it worse.

We want the current I5 drawbridge to be left alone to STAND AS IS in favor of building the THIRD BRIDGE NOW proposal adjacent to the railroad bridge to the west of I5! The proposed new bridge is not the answer to any of our current desires, concerns, or problems, furthermore it will not be able to address any of them in the future. It will however bring an OCEAN WAVE of CRIME and DRUGS to Hayden Island and Vancouver. Please contact me for elaboration. (November 15, 2024)

Inclusion of the light rail extension to Vancouver and designing for a high speed rail crossing from Portland to Seattle is crucial to prepare for the transportation needs of the future.

The IBR project in its current form is an expensive mistake that will saddle Oregonians with an entire generation of debt. The resultant loss in productive properties to be acquired will also permanently impact Portland’s and Vancouver’s budget and require service cuts. Please right size this project and focus only on the minimum bridge replacement needed.

No highway widening! It’s been shown not to achieve stated goals and ultimately attracts more traffic.

I know that a stronger, more earthquake-resistant bridge is necessary. I believe it should be built with strong public transportation options--research shows clearly that people will use transit when it is a good option. During many rush-hours... a lightrail or dedicated bus rapid transit line would be the better option for many commuters. Build it! To make space for it, you must factor in induced demand. Adding more lanes is not a solution--it just creates other bottlenecks. I hope that committee will prioritize actions that move towards repairing the harm that was done when I-5 was cut through the Albina neighborhood of North Portland. Using tolling, for instance, that charges Amazon and UPS more than residents is easy to do--and would be an effective way to increase air quality in North Portland.

Hello, My name is Julian Nychay, I’ve been a resident of Portland and Seattle, ie: Oregon and Washington, my entire life. I’ve used the interstate crossing many times in my life, being a key way of connection between our two beautiful states. For many years the issues of the interstate highway connection bridge has been a topic of much debate and soreness for many. It is an icon. For both states. Being around since before many of us were born, it is a key signifier on both sides of the state lines. That represents our crossing and a pivotal landmark for both Washington and Oregon, alike. However, the bridge has seen better days. And with population growth on both sides ramping up these past decades, change is a must. The lanes are not big enough for the heavy and fast moving commercial and industrial traffic that moves through everyday. The sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers has been a sore point of entry for both sides and a change must happen. I feel as an architectural student here at Portland State University and a lover of infrastructure and architecture. Both states deserve to have their voices heard and work together to build a safer and more efficient way of travel between them. My view is that a multilane interstate connection node is much needed. With wide pedestrian and bike crossings and most importantly a safe way for freight and passenger transportation to move through. A great suggestion is having a flat bridge that connects both sides of the Columbia, however it will loose the charm and landmark appeal of the old bridge. So possibly a way of honoring the past is by having one section still be a levered bridge that goes up for heavy and tall maritime crossings. This can be done on one side of the bridge allowing the rest to be multi car lanes for both semi trucks and automobiles to pass safely. Relieving drivers and passengers of high traffic congestion. All of these points have been said and discussed but as a citizen being able to see that change would be very rewarding. Thank you.

I've ridden my bike a twice times to Hayden Island. It's a loud, largely not enjoyable process. I would travel there more often if it was more pleasant. I fear the current plan to have the transit line separate from the multi-use path will result in another unpleasant leg of the journey. Putting the transit right of way between the active use path and the highway could provide some sound improvements while also improving ease of multi-modal transportation. Looking at the sound section of the LPA I didn't see a sound section of the document related to users of the multi-use path. Highways are extremely loud and can exceed dangerous levels. Are users of the path going to need hearing protection if they are going to use the path? Who is going to use such infrastructure if merely standing on it is painfully loud. Only the most hard core users are going to be interested in such a path. Significant sound barriers at minimum should be put in place to protect users and ensure a pleasant experience on the bridge. Further distancing the path from the highway would improve experience and increase use of the path. Ensuring users have access to transit would also improve user experience.

Yes, the budget needs to be replaced. No, we don’t need a massive freeway expansion to go with it. We need transit and space for pedestrians and cyclists. I prefer light rail, personally. As the the expansion, climate leaders don’t widen freeways.

I'm thrilled with the yellow line extension included in this project. I make frequent visits to Vancouver to visit family and I look forward to having an alternative to driving. I'll save money and avoid traffic.

It appears you don't have all your ducks in a row. There are more questions than answers available. There is no rush, since this has obviously been in the works for many, many years! Here are a few things to consider. 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 at $3-$15 each way, 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 estimated 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 don't need more highway expansions. The only thing that decreases congestion in the long run is quality alternatives to driving. At best you will decrease congestion for a little while until folks who are traveling at off hours starts to travel during peak times. At worst you will encourage construction further away from city centers, creating inelastic demand for larger and larger highways. This system of construction is not sustainable in the long term. I don't want me and my children to be faced with a multi billion dollar bill every thirty years. Focusing on safe, effective, pleasant alternatives to driving is a more efficient use of money and energy. We know induced demand quickly negates the value of highway expansion. We know this model of development is economically unstable. If we're taking climate change seriously we need to accept that highway expansions are not the solution.

Feedback for IBR scope. The SDEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. Replacement should be a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation. Huge budget going to extensive freeway expansion could be better spent on other transportation infrastructure.

IBR should 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. Such that today’s infrastructure can adapt to tomorrow’s needs.

If the crossing bridge is built, please ensure that it includes mass transit and respectful accommodation for walkers and bikers.

As we all know, including the DOTs, highway building creates and fuels the automobile culture in the US. But the whole system isn't working. It's broken. We have acres of concrete for cars, and public transport is weak. Everyone loses, even - or especially - the car users. We are wildly out of balance. The excess cost of the IRB (by excess, I mean all the ramps and widening) could go a long way towards strengthening public transport, walking and bikes. But I also need to say, Study having frequent ferries from Hayden Island to Vancouver. They would take some of the stress off the I5 bridges at relatively low cost, would be a plus for the community, and might well work after the earthquake whenever that happens.

I am opposed to the current proposals for the new I 5 bridge. The most important factor is the fact that it apparently will not be seismically sound. Further, as a bicycle commuter who has used that bridge to get to Vancouver, I am very skeptical of the steep incline that will be required to cross that span, on a bike or as a pedestrian. The proposed bridge is as ugly as sin, and of shrinks the clearance for ships going further upstream which should be a nonstarter right there. Finally, creating a huge destructive swathe of concrete right through the middle of Hayden Island, is both deleterious to the community and so unnecessary. Why aren't you seriously considering a tunnel? Other cities have tunnels under rivers, and we should be doing the same here. It mitigates so many factors such as community destruction, shipping, and I understand that tunnels can be made seismically safe. It feels like the Just Crossing Alliance is trying to ram this particular bridge down the public's throat, come hell or high water. I suggest expanding the commentary period by 3 or 4 months to get renewed input into this project. Let's do it right, not slapdash.