Most Recent Comments

The EIS assumes that reducing car idling will reduce emissions. That's plain wrong, since more cars using the bridge will create more emissions. The EIS must be rewritten to correct this error

I'll keep this one short, but I truly don't understand why this project needs to be so expensive. I understand that construction costs are high, but the current plan would be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in history. But for what? Just to reduce the time it takes to get from Clark County to downtown Portland? The bridge isn't even the real bottleneck, that's the part of I-5 that goes through a heavily residential neighborhood. Once the IBR is built the only way to relive the resulting congestion will be to demolish hundreds of homes and further divide low income communities.

I think that the IBR should consider the impact of tolling in it's traffic modelling. The current modeling doesn't take tolling into account as it predicts a massive and unrealistic increase in car trips over the next few decades, but studies (that I am not allowed to link to) show that using tolling to manage demand is one of the most effective ways to reduce traffic. Since the bridge is going to be tolled anyway as a way to fund construction, I think that the IBR should seriously consider it's impacts in traffic reduction. The current plan is to build the most expensive infrastructure project in Oregon's history by making a unnecessarily wide bridge. I think it's worth a shot to do a pilot tolling program on our current bridge to see how much it improves traffic. I think the results would be promising enough that we can reduce the width of the bridge and save a couple billion dollars

I think the current plan treats active transportation user as an afterthought and needs to be reworked. While car users can go straight from downtown portland to downtown Vancouver, active transportation users have to go up a up a 100ft tall spiral and then navigate confusing and dangerous roads to get to the Vancouver / Williams corridor. I think the IBR should consider how it connects to the primary north south artery that active transportation users use. In addition, I think that the bike path should be next to the light rail path. This will provide a buffer from traffic, allow easy access to the light rail stations on the way, and allow active transportation users to take an elevator if they are unable to navigate the 100ft spiral.

If the interstate bridge replacement is going to be as massive as planned, please ensure the following: 1) that the cycling/pedestrian path is adjacent to the light rail, so that passengers can get on bikes/scooters/etc. directly from the train. 2) that the cycling/pedestrian path remains elevated the way to the last transit station at Evergreen. No Vancouver dip! 3) that the cycling/pedestrian path is shaded it’s entire length so that it’s usable during the summer months. Thx for listening! -Noel B-D

I think that the IBR should take into account the demand modelling in the Marshall report. The projections used in the EIS don't correctly model the actual increase in car traffic. The Marshall report shows that demand does not increase nearly as much as projected and that the IBR as planned is vastly over built compared to what demand is actually warranted

Dear IBR leaders, As somebody who was raised in Vancouver and now lives in Portland, I have a major stake in this project. As it stands now, the severity of traffic on both bridges is such that it's all but impossible to visit family on weeknights after work. With the current limits of public transit capacity including lack of rail or dedicated bus lanes, even those of us like me who want to avoid contributing to traffic by travelling via transit are restricted to the very slow pace of traffic, not to mention the time wasted by unnecessary bus transfers. For this reason, I am very excited about the planned additions of active transportation and transit infrastructure to the proposed new bridge! Because of the documented phenomenon of Induced Demand, adding more freeway lanes and interchanges, as currently proposed, is a non-solution that not only dramatically inflate the cost of the project to taxpayers, but also will impose serious burdens in terms of air quality and bulldozed neighborhood (with associated loss of tax base) on both sides of the river, with likely very minimal if any benefit. This is not even to speak of the inappropriateness of encouraging so much additional driving while the impacts of climate emergency are manifesting all around us. For this reason, I am asking that you rightsize the IBR project, retaining public transit and active transportation infrastructure while scaling back the currently-obscene number of proposed additional lanes and freeway interchanges. Let's focus our resources on building a good bridge that helps people get across the river and prepares us for future transit expansions, including making sure there is capacity for four-car trains, heavy rail, and multiple Bus Rapid Transit lanes. In order to maximize usability of the bridge for pedestrians and transit-riders, I would also ask that the design position transit lanes between single-occupancy vehicle lanes and the multi-use pathway to provide a buffer for safety. Here on the Oregon side, I hope the bridge includes easy connections to the Wiliams-Vancouver bike corridor. Above all, I hope the transit lanes/stations are easily and safely accessible from the multi-use pathway. We have the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a healthier, safer, and more climate-resilient way of crossing the Columbia. Please, be on the right side of history!

Just build a bridge!! We have been delaying on this long enough. Time for pubic comment is over, build the damn bridge.

I OPPOSE the proposed IBR, a 1950s response to a 21st Century problem. On June 7, 2006, a Memorandum from CRC Engineering Team stated "In the process of developing the River Crossing (RC) components and packaging them with the Roadway components, it has become apparent that those RC components that include a low-level moveable span should be removed from further consideration and not be included in alternative packaging … Movable spans are more costly in both initial and maintenance and operations when compared to a fixed span.” This bad decision resulted in ODOT pursuing a costly, seemingly endless, almost comical (and impossible) effort to design a bridge high enough to comply with federal waterway navigation law, and an amazing series of gymnastic attempts to avoid conflict with aircraft approaching and departing the Pearson airfield. That effort failed. The proposed IBR does NOT comply. When I and others met with District 13 US Coast Guard in Seattle more than a decade ago, it was clear that a fixed bridge design could NOT comply with federal waterway navigation law. Once the June 7, 2006 decision was made, ODOT pushed forward – striving to “protect” the costly investments made in their original plans for a high bridge. Like the “gymnastics” designed to avoid conflict with aircraft, it was almost comical how ODOT attempted to sell their ill-designed project to the public by claiming that “seismic vulnerability” necessitated approval - as they elevated not only the bridge, but also costly rebuilds of I-5 and freeway interchanges to seismically vulnerable heights. Lowering the bridge, interchanges and I-5 substantially lowers costs, expedites construction, and reduces adverse environmental impacts and seismic vulnerability. The low bridge option, rejected in 2006, would cost a fraction of the current ODOT proposal. Furthermore, ODOT has never provided truthful analysis of an immersed tunnel option, but distorted and inflated the costs thereof. We need to request outside consultants who are not beholden to ODOT to give honest consideration to (1) a low bridge option with a moveable span, (2) an immersed tunnel option, and (3) improvements to the existing BNSF railway bridge. Such evaluation needs to consider the how meaningful public transit alternatives and tolling would impact post pandemic, 21st century traffic. Dan McFarling, 20585 SW Cheshire Ct, Aloha, OR 97078, 503.504.3205

I have seen compelling evidence in the Marshall Report that IBRP staff and engineers have and continue to overestimate traffic and discount the impacts of induced demand, that you are basically proposing a bridge that will increase SOV trips and create increased congestion over time and space, including new bottlenecks immediately south of the project area. This is simply unacceptable and a colossal waste of limited public resources we need to address the climate crisis and build a more balanced, human scale, transportation system with significant modal share increases for active transportation and transit.

Seems silly that this doesn't have anything for energy creation. Kinetic plates- that many cars driving over... Use that energy. Oh look all this wind creates by the traffic as they drive by... Let's follow some of the design principles of China and Japan and put the little wind turbines in between the things. Harness it and feed it to the Portland grid(not companies homes) Oh look there's all this water that flows underneath the bridge.... Maybe just anchor small turbines into the support columns. Or the rain water falling from bridge... And all the road gunk goes straight into river... Why not just catch it off sides like big gutter and later small hydro electric fans and then filters and work your way down so water falling from sky on project makes a bit of energy and gets filtered. Oh look wlits windy at the top of the bridge... Maybe put some small and effective turbines on top and It's unacceptable that in building a bridge this size there aren't any mentions of it generating energy for city. Like how many of those gods awful-way to intense and bright lights are gonna be needed for this project... How are those getting energy? Like this project is too old school, too much like every other city. Portland has an opportunity to raise the bar with this project. We can have the world look to us as an example of integrated innovation..... Or we can dump a bunch of money into the illthought out project only to have to do it again . And again and again.

This project needs to consider the exurban environmental impacts in Clark County as it will absolutely increase development pressures on farm and forest lands since people will, at least temporarily, be able to commute from farther away. It is not enough to dismiss this concern by saying all land-use plans already factor in a new bridge. This bridge will increase development pressures and result in to lower density sprawl.

As a nursing student, I've learned how air pollution from cars poses serious risks to our health. Emissions and particulate matter from tires contribute to asthma, heart disease, and even certain cancers. Expanding car infrastructure might seem like a solution to traffic, but in reality, it only encourages more cars on the road, worsening air quality and increasing these health risks, especially for communities living nearby. Instead of expanding highways, investing in cleaner public transportation and infrastructure that promotes walking, cycling, and accessibility for people with disabilities could help reduce pollution and improve community health. Help us nurses help our communities by building a bridge for better health outcomes. Adding car lanes will only cause harm to us and future generations. We can improve the health of communities by making active transportation more accessible for everyone, so let's ditch the idea of extra car lanes and build a better future.

This new bridge design is UGLY and inefficient. The same amount of space could be utilized in a more elegant and ecologically conscious ways. Why are you trying to make Portland, a haven city for artists and weirdos look like a bland block. What happened to the flow and grace of architecture. Like whoever has been voting on these designs.... Maybe stop because it's bland, and predictable. I could go to any big city and see something just as bland and poorly excited. Maybe it's time to let Portland stand out in being able to pair elegance and function. It just looks like.... Every other drab city scape. Do better

Updating the bridge and corridor is important, and the design focuses to much on the cars and not enough on pedestrians and public transit systems. The design looks like it's just going to make navigating in the city a NIGHTMARE while they build it and then even worse when they open it creating giant bottlenecks on either side. Gross. We don't need an expansion like this. Don't be like Dallas or Boston. Both of those places suck to drive through because of the dumb highway designs. You would do better to look at designs from any of the college kids that actually live here. Seems like this is a really poor design choice for the longevity of the city and the ease of gransportation

Prioritizing expanding car infrastructure instead of multi-modal active transportation for this project will do more harm to the communities it aims to serve. I5 already has a racist history of displacing families and businesses in the Albina neighborhood in the 1950s. This area deserves relief from the damage that car infrastructure has inflicted, not more traffic and pollution through the neighborhood. The only way to remedy this is by prioritizing an equitable transportation system for all users. Not everyone has the physical or financial means to own and operate a motor vehicle, but everyone has the right to safely utilize the infrastructure we will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on. Please do not perpetuate the damage already done by constructing this freeway by expanding the car lanes while not prioritizing all other means of transportation. Design is for people, not cars!

My name is Tegan Valo and I'm writing on behalf of B-Line Urban Delivery. We are a local cycle logistics company that specializes in reducing VMT by replacing truck trips with our fleet of electric trikes and bikes. In 2023 alone, we eliminated 334,614 miles of travel that would have otherwise been done on trucks and vans without our services. We believe that there are far better ways to reduce congestion than expanding vehicle capacity, which will only result in lanes filling up due to induced demand. The improvements to active transportation and the extension of light rail are appreciated, but we believe the resources going into expansion of lane capacity would be better spent elsewhere. Making the active transportation and public transportation facilities truly world class should be our top priority to reflect the progressive goals of our region. We know from decades of research that investing in those alternatives is the only way to lastingly alleviate congestion, and we can do so while keeping the budget far more manageable than with the project's current bloated scope. Any temporary improvements to mobility through the project area will only run into a congestion bottleneck further south anyways. In particular, all new light rail facilities should be future-proofed for capacity by being compatible with four-car trains and future higher-order transit like heavy rail should be considered in the planning. Active transportation paths should be minimize out-of-direction travel and overly strenuous climbs, and feature easy and convenient connections to popular corridors such as N Williams/Vancouver. B-Line knows from first-hand experience that with a little creativity and bravery, there are better ways to reduce VMT and create a more livable and pleasant community than adding more lanes. Thank you for your consideration.

The IBR's use to both transit riders and cyclists - and ESPECIALLY to those who, like I do, use a bike to make up for long distances between transit stops and destinations - will be severely degraded if the multi-use pathway and MAX tracks are on opposite sides of the bridge, and far more if the MAX stations and bike path are as high up in the air as they are currently planned to be. Access to Vancouver will be improved hugely by the changes recommended by the Just Crossing Alliance, and I implore Metro, ODOT, the cities of Portland and Vancouver, and all other stakeholders to be as forward-thinking as those who ensured the 205 would include a bike path and busway decades ago.

The bridge needs to be replaced, but it's disheartening to invest in something that increases car traffic and chokes out neighborhoods adjacent to the highway. We should have something that expands our rail and transit lines. I live between I5 and the 43 and my neighborhood is dangerous because of highway traffic! I would love to see this traffic reduced and the highways reduced or removed.

I am vehemently opposed to the IBR project as proposed in the DSEIS. This project has shown to be a highway widening project masquerading as a seismic upgrade/bridge replacement. I agree with all of the points and critiques raised by the Just Crossing Alliance in their response to this material.

This project would lock us into the past. Without tolling and a reliance on declining revenue from gas the cost will be unequally distributed. I see no incentive to addressing climate change--either in altering modes of transportation or addressing congestion. The volume of traffic on NE Broadway has decreased greatly. Remote work will continue to be an option; I don't see the downtown returning to its former ration of offices. Thank you

No more lanes on I-5! Right size the IBR, and optimize existing traffic lanes. Freeway expansions do not move us toward the future we need. Invest instead in public transit - rail, bus lanes, etc. Also, work to mitigate the effects of I-5 on surrounding neighborhoods, correcting longstanding equity issues.

DO NOT expand the interstate bridge. The IBR's plan will raise carbon emissions and take funds away from much needed aid and community programs. As a Portland resident, I demand that ODOT and WSDOT research alternatives to expanding interstate freeways.

Please prioritize the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project. We need more transit in southwest Portland and the surrounding suburbs. Thank you.

The CRC needs to include light rail and easy bike access. The last bridge has lasted 100 years. It makes no sense to build a replacement that ignores these essential features.