Most Recent Comments

I would like to urge the future I-5 construction entities to follow the recommendations of the Just Crossing Alliance, spending the least money necessary to complete a new bridge in a safe and fastidious fashion and doing so in a way that will harm local area people the least and have the least-polluting consequences on the environment in both construction and operations phases. Thank you very much.

Mass transit and far better bicycle access are needed in Vancouver and north Portland.

The freeway industrial complex is deadly and it ruins neighborhoods. Nine billion dollars could transform the Amtrak Cascades train line and make a new railroad bridge with pedestrian and emergency access.

I am a resident of Hayden Island and a board member of HINooN. I find your solicitations for comment on the IBRP with pamphlets such as "we want to hear from you" to be entirely disingenuous. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you only wish to hear from those that agree with you. Tom Gentry, the floating homes community representative, was uninvited after asking too many questions you didn't wish to answer and voicing concerns. Ellen Churchill of HINooN attended 3 meetings and also found you unwilling to address her questions or concerns. Outside engineers have disagreed with your conclusions as to why a tunnel is not a viable option. They feel, to the contrary that it is a better option, much less expensive and seismically more. sound. There have also been concerns over a conflict of interest regarding the engineering firm chosen for the project. Your "locally preferred alternative" is certainly not preferred by Hayden Island residents, among the most directly affected by the project. HINooN strongly favors a tunnel. in addition to the aforementioned, a tunnel would provide an additional escape route for island residents in the event of an earthquake, which would threaten the critical energy hub. Your traffic flow estimates, used to justify the project compared to a no build option, are outdated and overestimate traffic across the I-5 bridge by approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. Despite this, your estimates of a.m. and p.m. peak traffic flow reductions in travel time between the I-405 and I-205 are not believable and have been called significantly inflated by other traffic authorities. The very thought of imposing a toll (which would not be necessary with a tunnel) would be punitive and discriminatory to Hayden Island residents. With no supermarkets, banks, post offices or medical facilities on the island, Vancouver is by far closer and more convenient to island residents than heading to downtown Portland. No one can grocery shop on a bicycle. Light rail is not an option either, as one would still have to be transported from the station to the store, medical facility or other destination. Island residents are dependent upon cars for such activities. We should not have to pay a toll to grocery shop or head to the nearest medical facility in an emergency. In summary, the IBRP is deeply flawed. Opinions to the contrary have been ignored, working groups have accepted only those who agree with a predetermined outcome, and outside authorities have been dismissed rather than being allowed to refute the assumptions and conclusions of the IBRP commission. Instead, we should be looking at: 1. Seismically reinforcing the existing bridge. 2. Building a tunnel as a new, third crossing of the Columbia River. This would be less costly, significantly reduce congestion (which the project as proposed admittedly does not do), and would be seismically safer than the bridge currently planned.

In considering SEIS for The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program I would ask that the project focus on alleviating traffic congestion through increased use of transit and active-transportation options and not add auxiliary lanes. In order to better facilitate all forms of bridge transportation, the bridge’s transit lanes should be situated as a buffer between active transportation users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicle lanes. To encourage public transportation, transit lanes and path should be located next to each other and path connections at each side of the river need to be better integrated. At the heart of the project should be the reduction in single occupant vehicles and a move to promote public transit, not just a highway widening project. Making sure the infrastructure built has this goal in mind for now and in the future will offer all of us a healthier environment.

The choice to run interstate highways through our cities (as opposed to around them) was a mistake, leading to myriad social and environmental harms. At the same time, this particular bridge is vital to moving people and goods within and through the region. Balancing these truths, the project team should put forward a design option that adds resilience without adding lanes. A design that improves conditions for walking, rolling, and riding transit while prioritizing these modes for accessibility, economy, comfort, safety, and speed relative to private vehicle travel. The proposed design options fall short. They are overbuilt, expensive, based on suspect modeling, indulgent to vehicle owners/commuters, and treat transit and active transportation as if they were two separate things. Other commenters will make a better case for exactly what to do. I offer my support to the idea that the proposed options are not there yet. The team and its partners need to think through the types of trips Portland-area residents want to incentivize — for social, health, environmental, and equity reasons — and better build those incentives into the design.

As a carless resident of Portland, efficient bike and transit routes are vital to getting around the city. The IBR offers limited benefits in its current form, with transit options being isolated from walking/biking paths on either side. The multi-use path is at a height that limits accessibility, with the Vancouver access point being steep and out of the way. Elevators can mitigate this, but a priority would need to be placed on ensuring they remain operational as other places in the city suffer from unreliable elevators that hinder accessibility. With transit, one should be able to easily connect to multiuse paths to continue their journey, and that is not the case with the proposed configuration. Additionally, the current plan continues the tradition of not ensuring safe and efficient connections on either side of new projects. With Marine Drive being a freight corridor, a single point interchange encourages the same issues plaguing other bike infrastructure in Portland. A multiuse path that terminates in high traffic corridors and forces sharing the road will discourage use. Ultimately, the multiuse path will only be used if people are provided safe, traffic-calmed approaches, and the ability to easily access both sides of the path. It also needs considerations for shading to minimize heat and weather impacts, protection from road noise and vehicular debris, and adequate lighting and signage for the entire length. It should also address access for emergency response as needed.

There should be no increase in car/truck capacity of the Crossing without extension of light rail into Vancouver.

This project is oversized, period. The massive 5 mile freeway expansion is not necessary to replace the aged Interstate Bridge with a 21st century, multimodal, and efficient crossing of the Columbia River. The bridge itself will be unpleasant to bike or walk on because of the 100 foot + grades at either end of the bridge (hiking up a 10 story building), the path being adjacent to the freeway (much like the current configuration or the horrendous I-205 bridge ped crossing), and because there will be little connectivity to the rest of the regions bike/ped destinations. I suggest routing the multiuse path on the same side of the bridge as the transit is on so that users can change transportation styles as needed and so the transit can act as a buffer from the vehicle traffic. The entire project allocates far too much of its budget toward vehicle travel. While it's great that there are transit and multimodal investments being made, it is just the sprinkles on top of an otherwise car-centric milkshake. This project will irreparably harm Hayden Island, the Vancouver Waterfront, and Downtown Vancouver. It will do that by causing more fumes to be emitted in these neighborhoods from passing vehicles, more noise, and a visual blight to loom high overhead. The entire project ignores the reality of Induced Demand, willfully predicting a future with more driving even though similar traffic predictions have been dead wrong in the past. If the numbers are off then the scope of this project is wildly out of proportion for what the region actually needs: more alternatives to driving. Building this project will only allow more sprawl into rural Clark County, permanently destroying valuable farmland and encouraging more people to live in car-dependent areas, necessitating this project and more like it in the future. That is how induced demand works, by the way. If the current freeway configuration were not present, the region would have far less traffic because people would not be able to drive such vast distances. This project willfully ignores all aspects of climate change. Oregon's transportation system accounts for 30% of emissions. Building a freeway that reinforces driving now will only add to emissions in the future. The argument that cars idling on I-5 causes more emissions than more cars flowing by at a higher speed is nonsense. More cars = more emissions. The only viable way to decrease emissions and traffic in the region is to provide viable alternatives to driving. On a whole this project is a massive fraud. It aims to funnel taxpayer money into a solution that will further entrench the public in a deadly, expensive, and isolating transportation system. The ones who will benefit from this project are the freight lobbyists, contractors, and anyone else with financial ties to construction megaprojects. The day-to-day person living in Portland or Vancouver will experience years of construction related headaches, a brief period of traffic-relief, and then will be stuck paying tolls to cross a bridge and use a freeway that is again clogged with vehicles. And, since more vehicles will be in the region, it will likely add more traffic burden to local streets. I ask that you right-size this project. Replace the bridge and add a multiuse path and light rail. But replace it with a similar lift-span bridge. Remove access ramps from Hayden Island to prevent weaving issues. Add a local access road from Marine Dr to Hayden Island so that residents and shoppers on Hayden Island don't have to use I-5 for every trip.

Hi, I’m very concerned that the IBR design as it stands has a major flaw. That is having the bike path and transit on opposite sides of the bridge. They need to be side by side for seamless transfers and making the two much easier to use together. Thank you, Kenny Schmidt

I am writing to urge that the project place the highest priority on public transit and active transport (walking, biking, rolling, etc.). This includes making bike and walking paths accessible by not requiring users to climb 100 feet over a half mile long ramp to access facilities. Further, people using active transport should be able to access the public transit facilities on the bridge quickly and easily. To promote this, the multi-use path should be on the same side of the bridge as the transit facilities. We know that our future will require more transit and active transportation. If we're going to spend this much money on a project, we should make sure it's serving our needs for years and years to come.

Replacing the bridge is simple and can be done regardless of what other goals and priorities are achieved nor not achieved. My biggest priority is that over the longterm the IBRP significantly and dramatically expands the mode share in biking, walking and transit relative to single occupant vehicle mode share to reduce VMT for reduced carbon emission, improved public health, and a more balanced, less-car centric transportation system (less driving alone). If it can't that the project is not worth doing. All the proposals and designs I have seen so far suggest it will do the opposite (will increase SOV mode share) to the determent of carbon emission reductions, public health, and a more balanced, less car centric transportation system.

Please see attached joint comment letter from the Portland Harbor Community Coalition and Just Crossing Alliance on cumulative effects. The SDEIS chapter fails to mention the other projects that are discussed here.

I do not believe a bridge replacement (or seismic upgrade) should include widening lanes, adding interchanges, etc. We have given up too much land to driving cars. Vancouver has done a wonderful job with their waterfront and work should be done to continue making spaces work for people and community not single occupancy vehicular trips. The project should look to remove or mitigate highway traffic as much as possible. Build a tunnel, right size the bridge with active and public transportation, or replace with a same size bridge. Connect transit platforms and service to river paths, etc.. Induced demand is a thing, make it easier to walk, bike, take a train or bus than sit in traffic. If this thing "has" to be built at least make it amazing for transit and bike/walking. No 100 foot high station and 1 mile out of the way routes.

No no no! One of the best things that has ever happened in Portland’s history was the move to stop the Mt Hood highway. One of the worst was the fracturing of Albina. Larger freeways are anathema to vibrant cities. Keep your car-centric greed away from the Rose City!

Please consider a much smaller version for the replacement I5 Bridge, that does NOT include increased capacity. Increasing capacity has been shown to induce demand, and a large new bridge will fill up in a few short years. This has been scientifically proven - indeed, look at the empirical evidence as it has happened many times across the country. Benefit to the public should be paramount in these decisions. It is fair to state that the amount of money spent on this one bridge with many new interchanges could* be used for many, many local on-street safety improvements. I'm fully aware that the bulk of funding is federal, and can only be used for a specific project; but the state money could be redirected by our legislature. I am against this project in the context of climate change - seriously, you got kids?

I'm excited about the potential for an improved bike & transit option across the Columbia, connecting Portland and Vancouver. However, the current design places the bike path on the complete opposite side of the bridge as transit and requires a hefty ramp to get cyclists up to the path. I strongly encourage a redesign that would move the bike path to the same side as transit, to facilitate true multi-modal transportation options. As a new mom with a kiddo I will soon be excited to bring around on a bike trailer, I would 100% use the bridge crossing by bike if I can easily hop off of MAX with my bike and trailer and hop on the path across the bridge. Navigating a long loop-de-loop that separate transit from the bike path via a convoluted down-and-back-up lengthy path is going to deter many riders -- especially those of us lugging kid-heavy loads! -- and defeats the true purpose of a multi-modal design.

I am strongly concerned about this project. While it seems like a colossal waste of money, it also seems like it will bring a torrent of cars into North and Northeast Portland. These cars will actively discourage people who are trying to use transit and active transportation to move about our part of the city. This project as proposed is not worth building. Please go back to the drawing board for a smaller project with a true return on investment.

This bridge needs several bike and pedestrian lanes and ramps. This bridge needs several public transportation forms to cross as well.

Any increase of car traffic will worsen health outcomes in the nearby communities (PM2.5, VOCs, NO2 emissions and noise pollution).

I'm a physician who sees day to day the issues imposed by car centric design and air pollution in my patient population. Proper infrastructure and prioritizing non-car alternatives to transport will go a long way in improving lives with this project. Keep transit and multi use paths next to each other, to protect pedestrians from noise and allow easy transit access. It is extremely uncomfortable to walk/jog/bike next to speeding traffic (try crossing the Ross Island Bridge on foot). Connect the multiuse path to destinations, otherwise they're not useful (Evergeen, Vancouver/Williams, Kenton). Build the stations planning ahead for future transit upgrades (four car train capacity, BRT lines). Otherwise will be more expensive later. Be realistic in the modelling to account for induced demand, which is an inescapable phenomenon of highway expansion.

Having spent decades of my career bike commuting to work, I know well the ridiculously challenging aspects of doing so. I was always struck by how many pedestrians and car commuters would tell me that I was brave for using this form of transportation. I always thought that EVENTUALLY when new infrastructure got built that the transportation planners would make it easier to employ this healthy, non-polluting, land use smart way of getting from Point A to Point B. But here we are, in this progressive region, seriously talking about spending multiple billions of dollars and the design being discussed is so dismissive of active transportation principles that it shouldn't have made it past conceptual stage. PLEASE do the right thing and re-apportion the priorities of this project to make it safe, convenient, and direct to those brave souls out there on their bikes (or feet!)

The IBR needs to have the multimodal path coupled with the light rail route for these reasons: -Protection from the motor vehicle lanes -Easier gradients for pedalers -Provide easier, alternative means of crossing the span for walkers or cyclers -Better connections to facilities at bridge ends Please stop designing the path as an afterthought and include it as a main feature for a world class experience for future generations!

I believe that prioritizing transit enhancements, and active transportation over extensive freeway expansion would be the most beneficial and cost-effective method of bridge replacement for our city. The multi-use path and transit lines should be side-by-side with the transit acting as a buffer for ease of use, transfers, and safety. The transit stations should be prepared to accommodate future more extensive transit such as four car trains. Also traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand. I hope this bridge replacement can be infrastructure future generations are thankful to have, and not something that only would have been good if it was built 20 years ago.

Please listen to Oregon Walks and street trust about making sure this huge investment actually helps people walk, bike and take transit - which are key to combatting climate change and making better thriving communities. I do not approve of this expensive car infrastructure in our climate change era, but if this giant new bridge is going to happen we should make it world class for biking, walking, transit and multimodal connectivity.