Most Recent Comments

Oregon owes a lot of its strengths to rail infrastructure, much of which unfortunately no longer even exists (including the Oregon Electric and Red Electric Interurban Passenger Railways, an elaborate and extensive streetcar grid they interfaced with as well as an integrated bunch of trolley lines.) The turncoat auto industry lobbied to have our taxpayer dollars funded passenger interurban and municipal routes torn out and paved over or else neglected into failure after privatization in acts of premeditated sabotage and treachery; this is before they further betrayed the nation by moving manufacturing out of country decimating the American workforce only to be rewarded for this subversion by being subsidized by our taxes along with being bailed out multiple times only for the executives to pocket the money we were taxed for their personal profits of plunder and pilfering pillage. The further we move away from the logical layout provided by intricate streetcar grids and electric commuter interurban railroads the uglier and less livable the city and its suburbs become. An intelligent coastal city would take advantage of this limited time of people crowding in to install city assets that will benefit us for generations such as a rail route beneath the Willamette meaning the Steel Bridge won’t break the light rail circuit interrupting all MAX lines every time it lifts, and railway going between Vancouver and Portland when the new bridge is finally finished. I-5 should be buried on the inner east side stretch to make the area tolerable and reclaim space for the Black community to rebuild their community they had stolen from them. The WES should expand to extend at least down to Salem reuniting the Portland metropolitan area with our capital. It makes perfect sense to build the full Southwest Corridor (Purple) MAX Line (which will connect with the WES dramatically increasing ridership) with railway stations on Marquam Hill and at Portland Community College Sylvania Campus, for example, and zero sense not to. Electric cars destroy the environment as ICE cars do through resource mining, manufacturing processes and ultimately going to the landfill in mass droves. The pollution they cause is simply unnecessary as is the amount of urban space squandered on parking and other paved over autocentric wastes. MORE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD MEANS MORE AVOIDABLE DEATHS WILL CONTINUE TO CONSTANTLY OCCUR! They also perpetuate redlining, urban sprawl, the food deserts that come from that invariably, along with cities that are not navigable as a pedestrian or bicyclist and are, in fact, hostile to humanity along with being lethally horrendous towards animals. They add to traffic congestion. Commodification of societal needs and normalization of trying to substitute rampant consumerism where we need standardized, regulated and uniform public utilities doesn’t work. Profit motive always hurts the public in such cases. Putting the financial burden of transportation inefficiently and directly on the individual citizen is simply not wise or fair and hasn’t been the norm for even 80 years. We need to invest in commuter rail that’s properly implemented as it typically is overseas. A commuter rail system is an engineering marvel while buses are just buses. The most reliable predictor of a neighborhood being impoverished is if it has no commuter rail connection. The American people are apathetic through decades of disenfranchisement and a lot of that marginalization (eg Robert Moses’s racist urban renewal) is through divestment of public infrastructure, utilities and programs to help the American people. We can’t undo the social inequities inflicted upon and retained by redlining until we transcend the highway robbery carcentric built habitat that physically structurally reinforces them. We’re past the point of car dominated transportation being anything better than a tragic hindrance or an outright travesty. Public works projects materially improving life for the taxpaying citizenry will bolster civic pride.  Transcontinental High Speed Rail should integrate seamlessly with commuter rail networks so it can evenly function as one cohesive system and this will convert flyover country (CONUS flights should be virtually eliminated) back into a thriving heartland by functioning as an artery of commute and commerce which will reduce clustering on the coasts. Similarly, wholly integrated circuits of commuter rail blended with interurban routes, light rail lines, street car grids, subways, and even trolleys along with electric ferries functioning together as a comprehensive, coherent series of interwoven systems would prevent people from having to live on top of each other in city centers in order to have quick access to urban cores and downtown areas so this would stimulate our local economies and prevent gentrification from demolishing  cherished heirlooms of our historicity, destroying our classic neighborhoods, shredding the fabric of our communities and toppling our civic landmarks and architectural heirlooms along with other social capital such as venerable culture generating venues. We lost so many marvelous structures for nothing more than mere surface lots as our city was hollowed out on the heels of white flight to the lily white, poorly planned suburbs. Whole swaths of communities were obliterated in a racist/classist attack on the people of Portland and we lost entire neighborhoods along with cultural centers such as the Jazz District, our Italian and Jewish neighborhoods as well as other minorities who weren’t even assisted with any sort of fair, decent assistance to relocate. Proud people were disdainfully discarded as a diaspora of detritus. The absolute annihilation of our city still adversely hinders us collectively to this hamstrung day, particularly the groups targeted intensely, even if so many folk don’t know enough to connect the dots of cause and effect. Numerous studies show that built environments of homogenously bleak and bland duplitecture dreck that profiteering developers push on us for their privatized gains to our public loss for the riches of themselves and corporate slumlords not only cause homelessness from being financially inaccessible to most Americans, but also cause depression from creating such a devastatingly sterile, cold, unloving urban habitat that’s too congested and overcrowded to work properly as a correctly engineered built environment. Our roadways are overcrowded and no amount of widening them and adding lanes will do anything to help it because it just leads to induced demand that inevitably grinds to a halt at snags and bottlenecks down the road. Shouldn’t American cities be thriving centers of culture and character rather than austere and chintzy morasses of mediocrity?  I believe that we can design the cities of our nation to reflect a future that embraces humanity and that we also must for America to have any sort of a bright future ahead of it. Right now we are mired in the destruction of our cities from the inward attacking neocolonial oppressors who weaponize their clout of wealth against the nation for their own off-shore un-American gains of privileged, parasitic, private profits. This greed fueled anti-social exploitation is present day feudalism driving us into another gilded age. Tons of new petrochemical building  “luxury living” housing units remain empty serving only as financial assets in investment portfolios of hedge fund, “private equity” and permanent capital firm cretins sheltering dubiously acquired wealth instead of as direly needed shelter for humans. We deserve a landscape we can be proud of and country should come first before corporate looting and exploitation. Legacies are important and live on forever.  With space opened up in our cities we could rebuild beloved structures now gone missing from economic and environmental disaster utilizing new technologies such as hempcrete and 3-D printing. We could create vertical agriculture, green pocket areas, etc. on spots currently now just serving as paved over squares and nothing more. 20% of Portland is parking lots and paved over area not even suitable for that inefficient usage. We can extend democracy into offering the taxpayer residents democratic say in what their city consists of, how it looks and how it operates promoting civic engagement and participation.

I have lived on the island since the late70's and still reside here. I am still working and need to meet with customers throughout the day, which involves multiple trips back and forth across the I-5 bridge. I think all of the island residents should receive a special discounted toll pass for unlimited commuting into Vancouver since we basically must leave the island to do anything for business, family, shopping and emergencies which will involve any medical issue also. We also could be seriously impacted for any 911 response during the 10-year estimated construction project for the bridge. I feel all of these issues are critical.

Dig a tunnel! Alone Musk just invented a new boring machine and did a project in Las Vegas and came in at half the time and half the budget! Two men here in Portland did an independent study showed it to the residents of Hayden Island and invited the city council of Portland to prove that this was the best solution! City of Portland had all the numbers incorrect and were proven wrong on there original estimates! STOP WASTING OUR TIME AND MONEY! Leave the bridge and dug a bypass tunnel! Certainly the BEST SOLUTION!

Hello ODOT, Please don’t try to simply appease people with MAX plans that don’t actually work. We need transit access to be multimodal (cycling, walking and bus access). It should honestly be easier to take transit than drive, which is why the bridge needs to be right-sized. I am shocked that, in this day and age, a transportation agency still falsely believes that adding lanes will solve a problem, especially when the data on traffic counts is not actually increasing. Oh wait, that’s why your consultants falsified the data to justify this aim. Stop with this nonsense and focus on making the bridge one that prioritizes transit, walking/biking, and disaster resiliency over cars. And one that allows for future expansions of this transit (like MAX 4-car trains) and other transportation such as heavy rail.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article How America Can Break Its Highway Addiction"" includes discussion of examples of Induced Demand from decades ago.

It is ridiculous that in 2024 there is even consideration of displacing residences or businesses to build highway infrastructure. Have we learned nothing in the past half a century? I am begging you to have any kind of historical analysis or vision for the future. We can not do business as usual, this project must be done without displacement and with public transit, bicyclists and pedestrians in prioritized above automobiles.

Please see the attached Engineering Report and accept as a comment on the SEIS and its deficiencies. It was clearly deficient in evaluating the alternative of an Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT). The process of screening design options and selecting a locally preferred alternative was not managed by the IBR team to an acceptable standard of care. They were clearly negligent because they: 1. Claimed ITT deficiencies that did not exist, and exaggerated others. 2. Provided a single engineering evaluation which contained significant errors and not only confused the public, but IBR leadership as well. 3. Violated state professional licensing laws. 4. Skirted those professional licensing laws to avoid accountability for deceiving the public with false engineering information. Preparation of the SEIS did not meet the professional engineering licensing laws in both Oregon and Washington and the evaluation should be redone.

Hello, I am deeply concerned about the ballooning costs and scope of the IBR plan, as well as it’s potential negative impacts on our climate and environment. Seismic stability is absolutely important and overdue, but expanding the roads and lanes on this project serves only to pollute our air, increase our greenhouse gas emissions, and waste increasing amounts of taxpayer money while not actually reducing congestion. Traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projects for the road usage. We need to future-proof the bridge for greater public transit capacity so this future-facing infrastructure can actually meet the demands of the future the climate crisis demands of us (which involves more public transit and active transportation and way fewer cars). If safety is the concern of the IBR, we should think not only about the safety of our community in the case of a seismic event, but also about their ongoing and future health and safety; we need safe active transportation, reduced car travel, expanded public transportation, and overall reduced greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Thank you for your consideration.

As a physician, I am most concerned about the health issues of the Interstate Bridge Replacement. I worked in north Portland for 35 years, & many of my patients/families still live there: they will be impacted. Because of the unreliability of the current traffic modeling of air quality & safety, we really must get a new & more realistic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Because more traffic, without creating more non-fossil fuel powered public transportation, will worsen so many aspects of human health--from lung disease to heart attacks & strokes, to cancer--yes, even cancers are increased around polluted areas. And, finally, marginalized communities are usually closer to all these pollutants from more cars & bigger bridges--further aggravating health inequities.. thank you, Dr. Virginia Feldman MD, FAAP .

I have lived and worked in Portland for the last 18 years, regularly making the 5 mile trip across the river to Vancouver. I understand the frustrations of folks that are "stuck in traffic", but we need to have the strength and resolve to move humans and goods more efficiently. SOVs may be comfortable and convenient for the user, but they are oversized, heavy, and contribute GHG emissions and dangerous particulates into our air and water. Freight, active transportation, and transit need to see the most prioritization in this project. I believe the vehicle lanes of the bridge should simply be replaced and not expanded with the addition of efficient light rail, BRT, and comfortable walking/cycling facilities. Let's look to California for their highway and bridge tolling practices which prioritize carpool and vanpool and reduce delays for freight.

Hello, having reviewed the SEIS I think it’s important to note that the utility of multimodal and non-automotive transport seems deprioritized. I request that designs minimize the travel time and barriers to bicycle, pedestrian, and similar traffic. For instance, the current plans require significant backtracking to get on and off the bridge for many users. A direct connection to N Vancouver/Williams would be better, and to Evergreen in Vancouver WA. Similarly, access to the bridge is limited by the height of the multimodal path - the long winding decline in Vancouver makes riverfront access inconvenient at best and very difficult for disabled users. Additionally, the multimodal path needs better emergency access and protection from vehicle noise and debris - can the transit lane go between the path and the cars/trucks? Second topic: transit connections. We should build today for anticipated heavier transit use tomorrow. This includes longer (four-car) trains and multi-lane bus rapid transit infrastructure. Finally, the traffic modeling should fully consider induced demand to accurately predict future usage. If you build it they will come- viz, Los Angeles. Thank you.

We own a long term rental property (14 years) at Jantzen Beach Moorage which is shown as being in the construction easement. I would like to better understand how we will be compensated for reduced housing demand on the island because of the bridge noise, and how to get in touch with those handling imminent domain and temporary easement compensation. Most of our tenants stay for a year to year and a half lease so I imagine finding new tenants will be difficult once construction starts. Additionally, the long overdue Hayden Island only bridge is needed ASAP and should be free from any tolls. Thank you.

Concerns Regarding the Current I-5 Bridge Replacement Project [IBRP] REMEDIATED 2024-07-04. A replacement I-5 bridge would uniquely affect Hayden Island. Situated in the middle of the Columbia River, Hayden Islanders have few access choices, making us entirely dependent on the I-5 Bridge. In addition, the I-5 Bridge goes through the inhabited half of the Island, cutting it in two. The island population has now over 3,000 full-time residents, and the number is increasing due to new apartment building construction (1). Here are some of the main concerns of many residents: 1. LIMITED ACCESS TO VANCOUVER AND PORTLAND: Limited jobs and services exist on the Island. Islanders regularly travel north via I-5 to Vancouver, WA, for groceries and essential services, which (depending on the time of day) is often less congested for islanders than the I-5 south route to Portland. The IBRP suggests they could add an alternative route across North Harbor for islanders to travel south into Portland. Nevertheless, because this small back road would be the main roadway for large trucks, including supply chain freight, along with residents traveling for services and jobs in Portland, we expect it would have heavy congestion and safety issues. However, such additional access would provide Hayden Islanders with a long-needed alternative route in the event of an emergency evacuation of the Island. A report prepared by the Oregon Seismic Lifelines Route identification project for ODOT (3) says that a key factor in the resilience of the transportation network is the seismic performance of bridges. Bridges are essential to the post-earthquake mobility of nearly all transportation modes, as they are relied upon to carry goods and people into and out of urban centers after natural disasters. I-5 is a major seismic or other major disaster lifeline route (4) in Oregon. Hayden Island is completely dependent on I-5 as its lifeline. This is why it is so important to Hayden Island residents, the businesses and visitors, that the design of the I-5 Columbia River crossing, whether bridge or tunnel, is done right! 2. ADDITIONAL EXPENSES CAUSED BY TOLLING: Since I-5 is the main roadway for islanders, the planned tolls on I-5 would be detrimental to Islanders daily. The interstate highway has been the only way on and off the Island since the 1970s. It is our neighborhood road. The Island has a large, manufactured homes park, and many lower-income residents would face economic hardship and stress from the added expenses. There is also a concern that tolls would have strong negative impacts on the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center and numerous businesses would leave the Island. The loss of local jobs for numerous islanders, plus the loss of local stores, would have dire consequences for the whole Island community. 3. HIGH BRIDGE SAFETY ISSUES: The U.S. Coast Guard (which is an arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) has a Congressional mandate to protect river commerce. An essential aspect is vetting all bridge construction to ensure that existing water traffic can continue to pass underneath, as well as making allowances for industry and the historical trend towards larger vessel sizes. The most critical parameter is the VNC (vertical navigation clearance), which is 180 feet for the distance from the mouth of the Columbia River to the Burlington North Railroad (BNRR) Bridge at Vancouver. The current I-5 Bridge lift span has a VNC of 178 feet, which the U.S. Coast Guard states must be maintained to sustain river commerce. This height considers the shipbuilding industries east of the I-5 Bridge, emergency river access to PDX airport, and the trend towards larger ships. However, because of the problems of building a bridge with a minimum VNC of 178 feet, the Coast Guard strongly recommended to the IBRP that they should build either a low bridge with a Bascule lift span or an immersed tunnel (2). HINooN strongly supports the U.S. Coast Guard and its mandate to protect Columbia River commerce! Moreover, HINooN is troubled by the IBRP’s apparent promulgation of misinformation about the viability of these alternatives for improving traffic flow across the Columbia River. Unfortunately, IBRP's multi-modal fixed-span high bridge design would subject I-5 traffic traveling over the Columbia River to excessive dangers from the over-steep grades to the top and down again, together with limited lines of sight caused by the bridge hump, especially during inclement weather. With a multi-modal fixed-span high bridge, the dangers experienced from fog and rain, frost, snow, sleet, hail, and ice, including the potentially grave dangers of black ice, would be much worse than on our existing I-5 bridge! Passageway and roadway grades need to be safe and not too challenging for cyclists and pedestrians. In addition, pedestrian access needs to cater for baby strollers and people using mobility aids such as wheelchairs and walkers. Moreover, year-round, vehicular bridge access must be safe at all times of the day for heavily loaded trucks, buses, cars, and commuter light rail (which has strict grade requirements). Catering for all these modes of transportation would require extending a fixed-span high bridge to the north and south to an unacceptable degree, potentially making it several miles long and potentially destroying a valuable natural wetlands area just south of North Harbor. Finally, the height and length of the approaches of a high bridge would reduce the feasibility of on/off ramps for Hayden Island due to cost. Another big concern that a high bridge would cause is the creation of a vast wasteland of concrete pillars and earthen ramps. Not only would this consume a sizable portion of Hayden Island’s precious and limited real estate, but it would also be detrimental to people working and living under the umbrella of its enormous shadow. 4. EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY: We are concerned that the IBRP’s current bridge plans specify a bridge that is no more seismically safe than the existing I-5 bridge. Moreover, we are worried about the dangers of the lack of a solid foundation for a high I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. The CRC project documents that the proposed path crosses over sand and alluvium, many hundreds of feet deep, material that expert opinion states is subject to seismic liquefaction. Furthermore, to make a high bridge seismically acceptable would require excessive billions of dollars added to the cost compared to other approaches. We have seen expert testimony that a high bridge has a much lower chance than expected of surviving in a severe earthquake in our region. Liquefaction of the deep alluvial river bottom soils would tend to cause a high bridge to buckle sideways. A low bridge with a Bascule lift span, or an immersed tunnel, could avoid this troubling outcome. We are worried that any kind of high bridge design would be most detrimental to many people in our region in so many ways. 5. INADEQUATE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS: While the IBRP bridge proposal includes biking and walking paths, it is unreasonable to expect people to carry their bikes to a height of 60 or 70 feet to get to a new I-5 freeway over the Island or walk uphill to get to the pathway on a spiral staircase. Please note: The I-205 Bridge has a bike path down the freeway center, which can present extreme dangers to cyclists from other road users, and it directly subjects cyclists to increased air pollution effects. We worry that the same scenario is happening with the IBRP proposal. 6. QUALITY OF LIFE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND HOW THIS WOULD BE MITIGATED: If construction starts as presented by the IBRP proposal, we believe the construction equipment would overburden Island residents. We would experience adverse living conditions, including but not limited to countless traffic disruptions to everyday life, while on the Island and both when trying to leave or to return to the Island. There would also be increased air pollution, loud noise, and strong vibrations. These problems would seriously impact residents, businesses, and visitors for years. How would these issues be mitigated? Note: There are no medical facilities located on the Island. The Fire Station 17 (Hayden Island) EMTs and Paramedics serve people here and have saved many lives. We have a big question: How will the bridge’s construction affect this vital emergency service both on and off the island? 7. CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE (CEI-Hub) – CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE (CSZ) EARTHQUAKE (MAGNITUDE 8-9) AND THE I-5 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (IBRP) – THE THREAT OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION We are very concerned that the critical issue of the CEI Hub does not appear in the IBR program Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (High Priority Hazardous Materials Sites), nor is it mentioned in the current IBR program Bridge Influence Area (BIA). Because of the passage of SB 1567, Oregon has the authority to require seismic upgrading of the CEI Hub to withstand a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake of magnitude 8-9. However, because both the CEI Hub and the IBR program Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) are in the same large liquefaction zone, the IBR program can and should identify the CEI Hub as being nearby or adjacent to the modified LPA. The liquefaction zone mapped in the DOGAMI Soil Liquefaction Assessment* covers the area from the CEI Hub on the west side of the Willamette River, to Hayden Island, and extends to Gresham in the east. Please note: The BNSF rail network transports tanker cars filled with highly flammable fuels to the CEI Hub. These trains regularly travel across the Columbia River from Vancouver, passing across Hayden Island. This hazardous fuel transportation has many attendant risks to both Portland and Vancouver, including to the I-5 bridge and its surrounding areas. Reference #6 at the end of this paper has a link to a paper by the Institute for Sustainable Solutions – “Risk of Earthquake-Induced Hazardous Materials Releases in Multnomah County, Oregon: Two Scenarios Examined”. This paper maps the location for soil liquefaction and chemical release plumes in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, magnitude 8-9. Note: An Immersed Tube Tunnel option, being one of the two options strongly recommended by the USCG, appears to be a good option for a river crossing between Portland and Vancouver, and would also be more likely to withstand a major earthquake. 8. DISPLACED HOMES Jantzen Beach Moorage (JBMI) is a unique river community with over 150 floating homes, but three rows of homes are in the direct path of IBRP’s planned bridge. These homes would be permanently lost, which would have a huge impact on the individual residents as well as the whole community structure itself. It is unknown where these homes could even be relocated to. How will all these floating homes owners and the community be compensated? RECOMMENDATIONS: HINooN and Hayden Island residents strongly feel that the IBRP must consider the other river crossing options strongly recommended by the Coast Guard. HINooN is apprehensive that the IBRP is not really listening to the Coast Guard or Island residents. HINooN believes that the IBRP will continue to push for a 116-foot bridge height, although there is no statutory basis for IBRP to do this. The IBRP’s push for a VNC of 116 feet, although sixty-two feet below the Coast Guard’s requirement of 178 feet, still qualifies as a high bridge and has many of the same problems as a 178-foot VNC. Any new bridge across the Columbia River must consider the combined issues of legal height requirements, grade requirements, the climate, and the safety and comfort of travelers and nearby residents. As strongly suggested by the Coast Guard, the DOTs should look at more straightforward and lower-cost approaches such as: i) Low bridge with a Bascule lift span or ii) Immersed tunnel, both options which do not have the too low VNC issue. If neither of these designs are embraced by IBRP, we hope that the Oregon and Washington Legislatures consider redirecting their efforts towards a third Columbia River crossing using either the low bridge with Bascule lift span or the immersed tunnel option - or consider invoking the no-build option. CONCLUSIONS: The IBRP assumes they have a community consensus on the bridge design when the IBRP apparently do not yet know what that design is. Island residents are at ground zero, are directly impacted, and therefore need to know the exact details of the design! For example, what are the site details for the proposed light rail terminal? Where are the detailed plans for the exit ramps? Judging by the IBRP’s troubled performance at the Joint Oregon-Washington I-5 Bridge Committee (5), the IBRP does appear to be misleading the public. Hayden Island Neighborhood Network [HINooN] asks for a regional plan to improve traffic flow across the Columbia River while protecting river commerce. Our concerns about climate change and the environment led us to advocate retaining the existing I-5 Columbia River Bridge (seismically retrofitted) for local traffic and redirecting the bulk of river-crossing transportation resources into a third river crossing with a Bascule span or submersed tunnel. Whatever is built, we believe it is vital that the project carefully considers the effects of climate change in our Pacific NW weather environment. Hayden Island does not need continued congestion on a higher, wider, and overly expensive bridge that not only blocks a significant amount of river commerce and marine emergency river traffic for the next hundred years, does not fix the complex traffic congestion problems, but destroys Hayden Island. This letter describes the main concerns of many Island residents. These concerns reflect the information available to HINooN as of the date of this submission. They will be updated as additional relevant material becomes available. Thank you for your time and attention. Respectfully, Board of Directors, Hayden Island Neighborhood Network [HINooN] References: (1) Hayden Island Civic Life https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/hayden-island_civiclife_0.pdf (2) Coast Guard Preliminary Navigation Clearance Determination https://www.interstatebridge.org/media/fi2b3xei/ibr_next_steps_bridge_permitting_june2022_remediated.pdf (3) Oregon Seismic Lifelines Identification Project Report prepared for ODOT https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/NH/Documents/Apx_9.1.16_SeismicLifelines_PREFL_OPT.pdf Local highways selected for this list includes I-5 and Pacific Highway No. 1 (the California state line south of Ashland to the Washington state line in Portland); I-84, Columbia River Highway No. 2 (I-5 in Portland to US 97 at Biggs Junction); I-205, East Portland Freeway, Highway No. 64 (I-5 in Tualatin to the Washington state line); Oregon Route (OR) 217, Beaverton-Tigard Highway No. 144 (OR 26 in Beaverton to I-5 in Tigard); I-405, Stadium Freeway Highway No. 61 (I-5 at the south end of the Marquam Bridge to I-5 at the east end of the Fremont Bridge in Portland). (4) Seismic Lifeline Routes in Oregon ODOT Life Lines https://www.co.clatsop.or.us/media/11331 (5) May 7, 2022, City Commentary. “Oregon and Washington DOTs plan too low a bridge–again”, by Joe Cortright. https://cityobservatory.org/oregon-and-washington-dots-plan-too-low-a-bridge-again/ (6) Institute for Sustainable Solutions – Risk of Earthquake-Induced Hazardous Materials Releases in Multnomah County, Oregon: Two Scenarios Examined: See pages 38, 79, 80, 85,86, and 87 for Plume maps. Risk of Earthquake-induced Hazardous Materials Releases in Multnomah County, Oregon Multnomah County has 1,100 industrial facilities that store chemicals, known as Tier II facilities. Many of the top seventy high-risk facilities are in areas where the soil will liquefy during a major earthquake. Portland State University Institute for Sustainable Solutions / Portland State University Institute for Sustainable Solutions” https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/FOUO%20Report%20for%20Multnomah%20County%20from%20ISS%2C%20Risk%20of%20Earthquake-Induced%20Hazardous%20Materials%20Releases%2010-11-2023v1.pdf Introduced by: Martin Slapikas, HINooN Board Member Ellen Churchill, HINooN Board Member, Secretary Janet Roxburgh, HINooN Board Member Alastair Roxburgh, HINooN Resident

This project should prioritize modes of transportation that are not personal cars. It should include high quality, pleasant bike & walking facilities so people actually want to bike & walk across the bridge. It should include light rail so people use that to commute across the bridge.

I urge planners to prioritize future-proofing our transit infrastructure to meet long-term capacity needs. Stations should be designed to accommodate four-car trains now, aligning with potential future upgrades to the downtown transit tunnel. Additionally, we must plan for higher-capacity transit systems, such as multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or even heavy rail, to ensure flexibility and scalability well beyond the 2045 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) horizon. Finally, I encourage incorporating induced demand considerations into traffic modeling. Accurately accounting for how new infrastructure influences travel behavior is essential for realistic projections of transit and road use. Thank you for considering these critical points as we shape a resilient and adaptable transit future.

I am a 76-year-old Portland resident, and I use my bicycle for most of my transportation, along with transit. I have a number of concerns about the proposed design for the I-5 bridge replacement. The fact that the design puts transit and pedestrian/bicycle traffic on opposite sides makes multimodal use far more difficult. The lack of connection to the Williams/Vancouver corridor in Portland makes it difficult to access from the dominant North/South bicycling route. And the lack of shade will make bicycling and walking across the bridge in summer far less inviting.

Hello, At present, the plans are put to the bridge nearly over the top of my family home. My parents are seniors and this is going to complicate theirs, and all others in the area, access to clean and healthy air. More lanes equals more cars and this is dangerous. I know there's some plan to put a bicycle lane in, but making it ridiculous hard to use is not going to encourage people to take their bicycles over cars. Sure, the Max is going over, but that's not in a convenient place to get to either. This plan, as is, is very, very dangerous and is socially and environmentally unjust. You're putting my family's health in danger. Please scale back this irresponsible plan. Thank you, Mary Locke

I run a manufacturing business in Portland and think the current IBR project will be a climate disaster that leads to more VMT through induced demand, encourage additional suburban sprawl in Clark County, make the new Vancouver Waterfront much less appealing, and will be a huge waste of money. Please focus on instituting congestion pricing tolling first, so that people and businesses can pay for the ability to move themselves and good quickly, when needed. Our business will be impacted by the years of construction and will see only negative results.

Hello, Incorporating easy and seamless access to the bridge for pedestrians, cyclists, and other forms of human-powered travel outside of cars/trucks is paramount. It must be easy to access, safe, and be done in a way that negates the traffic noise. The I205 pedestrian/bike bridge is very safe but is a terrible experience from a noise standpoint. It is so offensive that I have opted not to ride my bike across on many occasions because of the noise. It would be like turning up the radio inside a car to just static at 90 decibels and having to endure that for 5 minutes straight. Who would do that? No one! This bridge needs to be a bridge for all forms of travel, not just cars and trucks. Best regards, Chris

As a transportation cyclist, people have often shared with me that they would like to use their bicycles, but it doesn't feel safe or it's too hard to access bike paths. The access points for the proposed I-5 bridge sounds like a nightmare. It would be difficult to use a combination of transportation types and the elevation gain to access the bridge sounds formidable. At my age, I would probably need an E bike, another barrier.

Summary: The Oregon Trails Coalition is primarily concerned with bridge design impacts on the safety, connectivity, accessibility, and user experience of people walking, biking, using mobility devices, and accessing transit. We are especially concerned about the bridge’s impact on folks accessing existing and planned segments of the Marine Drive Path, Delta Park, Columbia Slough Path, and North Portland Greenway on the south side of the bridge and the Vancouver Waterfront Trail and the Burnt Bridge Creek Trail on the north side. Full formatted comments attached as PDF.

Active Transportation: 1. Consider placing the pedestrian/bike lanes on the west side of the bridge deck outbound of the LRT so that the proposed public elevator can be used. The big corkscrew ramp on the Vancouver shore is not an acceptable solution for public access. 2. Consider the safety benefits of placing pedestrians and cyclists next to the LRT. More eyes will observe the activities on the bridge due to the frequency of trains and its occupants. Perhaps this would be more of a deterrent to harmful encounters. 3. Consider more expedient links of destinations on Hayden Island and Vancouver for pedestrians and cyclists on the west side of the I-5 corridor rather than the east sides. There would be still be requirements for I-5 under crossings, but perhaps fewer people would need to use them.

1. Freeway widening is, without a doubt, one of the worst offenders in terms of urban livability and visual/physical/noise impacts to our neighborhoods, retail districts, historic properties and downtowns. Consider the harm that this project, as proposed, will inflict on our urbanized areas in both WA and OR. 2. Develop and publish visual impact studies as viewed from the Hayden Island, Vancouver Waterfront and downtown. Images shown do not capture these critical views, especially of the river and Mt. Hood as viewed from parks and river greenways. Images from downtown Vancouver retain existing trees in the foreground that avoid portraying the reality of the impacts from the bridge and interchange proposals. These images are selectively deceiving to the public. Show the reality of heights, materials and structure impacts. 3. Any double-decker bridge option will create unacceptable visual impacts due to the density, thickness and weight of truss structures. Single deck bridge options will appear thinner and lighter, especially if metal railings are used rather than solid, noise-reflecting concrete barriers. 4. An extradosed bridge option may be more visually acceptable, due to lightness of deck, structure and cable arrays. Several bays of extradosed structure featured in the middle of the river might be considered in combination with girder spans closer to both shores. 5. Keep the overall height of the structure as low as possible.

I urge you to prioritize the access and experience for people walking, rolling (micro-mobility, etc.) and biking on the new I-5 span: Enable direct access to the span at river grade from the WA and Oregon sides to support active transportation users noted above. Provide separation from more vulnerable active transportation users and freight traffic. Doing so will support and foster active transportation. To this point, I support the well-designed Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) which offers a safe separation for active transportation users along the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way corridor Ensure a seamless, conflict free connection from the Vancouver/Williams corridor, a major active transportation route in Portland, to support and foster cross-state commuting. Design a seamless active transportation access to the span from Marine Drive, another popular active transportation route. Doing so would facilitate greater east/west access, but it needs to prevent freight and active transportation conflicts. Active transportation usage will increase if users are safe.

Tolling is going to be hardship for most of the folks that have been on the island. We have lived here for over 40 years and do most of shopping, doctors, dentists in Vancouver and even family live in Washington. Recently our family has needed ambulances and all kinds of emergency assistance and have for many years. Their ability to get in and off the island will be limited. The freeway is going to go down the middle of the island. It is going to be huge. It will affect our home's resale value and also affect people from Vancouver shopping on the island. This will have a big effect on our shopping center.