Most Recent Comments

Stop wasting money on freeway expansion when we can't even afford to maintain the current infrastructure!

I moved to Portland 17 years ago because I believed that this region was willing to fight climate change and work towards a more equitable future for both today's AND tomorrow's citizens. The metro area was at the time a leader in transit and cycling, and the ambitious plans for the region spoke to reducing carbon output particularly by making investments in the future of active transportation. Today, we find climate change far better understood by not just scientists but the public and worse, we find that our projections of the destruction and the changes needed to stop it were both insufficient. In light of the millions of people who will have to live with the results of our lack of action, it is inequitable, unjust, and frankly, antagonistic to the future of humanity both in our region and planet-wide to continue to induce further demand by creating even wider freeways rather than continuing to focus on a future with breathable air and livable climate. Please do continue to work to replace the seismically unsound bridge; I am not trying to debate that some work is necessary. However, for the sake of our future and our childern's future, please don't make the freeway any bigger, prioritizing inequitable pollution and creating an unnecessary tax or tolling burden to fund the unnecessary expansion - and please do prioritize transit, biking, and walking, since they are the way out of the mess we have created. Those investments in active transportaion are the future of our planet - not "slightly faster commutes" based on doctored numbers (see https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/highway-robbery/ for proof and details of that assertion). Thank you for your consideration from a resident who lives 1/2 mile from Interstate 5 at the Rosa Parks exit, and a resident who is invested in his community's health, which is antagonized by more and more pollution and unnecessary motorized vehicle trips.

I very much question Oregon using so much of the state's funds for this one project. In my view this project is about making the commute for people who chose to live in Vancouver/Washington in order to avoid taxes in Oregon, easier. I believe more people will leave Oregon/Portland, and take this approach if they believe the commute is easier. The result being even more traffic, and continued congestion. A less costly approach to making the bridge safe, and creating quality public transit over the bridge, make far more sense. If people chose to commute from out of state to Oregon, they need to adapt to the use of public transit. Oregon/Portland tax dollars should go toward improving conditions in Oregon! Personally I'd like to see more dollars toward paving streets in Portland, improving conditions for local drivers, bikers, and walkers; those of us paying the high taxes!

Oregon (and Washington state) need a "right-sized" bridge replacement. The proponents of what amounts to a $7 billion, oversized boondoggle refuse to acknowledge the concept of induced demand. The project as proposed will wreck the Oregon budget, its economy, and, because of expanding fossil fuel emissions when the reverse needs to be the highest priority, it will significantly add to the ongoing global climate crisis. We cannot and must not accept the proposed project as is.

It makes no sense that the only options for a new bridge involve adding car lanes. Project representatives insist that "added capacity" is a benefit, but it's only a benefit if you pretend that all those extra cars magically disappear the moment they leave the bridge. They don't. All those extra cars are going to flow right onto our neighborhood streets, increasing noise, pollution, and congestion in numerous locations downstream from the bridge. You're going to spend nearly $10 Billion in public money, destroy dozens of homes and businesses, inflict significant environmental damage, and far from solving problems you'll instead be creating new ones. Building this bridge, as currently proposed, is going to drive induced demand and put MORE cars on the road, not less. That is not what we need, nor is it a good use of public resources. A responsible choice would be not to add additional lanes. This is doubly true considering the recent revelation that the data used to justify this additional capacity was largely made up out of thin air and not even based on the computer models supposedly used to generate it. We have no plan to handle the additional car traffic this project will bring to our neighborhoods, and the result will be a disaster. I urge you not to proceed with any plan that includes additional lanes. Better yet, build a tunnel instead.

Please do not proceed with IBR. It is expensive, it will negatively affect public transit by delaying express buses and constraining light rail capacity (according to the projects own draft), it will increase congestion at other points (and so actually worsen climate outcomes) and it will displace people for yet another project that has been 20 years ago and is woefully outdated. WE SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING MONEY ON THIS!

This comment is regarding the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) proposal that includes adding lanes to the freeway. I do not want more lanes added because they will not reduce greenhouse gases, but will cause more traffic and more emissions because of induced demand. Additionally, backups at the South-bound I-5/I-405 split every morning during peoples' commutes will be made worse by more traffic crossing the bridge. Not only is this plan of adding lanes bad for our communities and environment, it doesn't even improve traffic. We don't need more lanes, we need investments in the infrastructure we already have, more funding for public transportation, and improvements in bike and pedestrian safety. Please replace the Interstate Bridge with one that is seismically sound and THE SAME SIZE. Sincerely, Jessi Presley-Grusin

Please right-size the IBR to avoid contributing to climate change through increased emissions. I attended a public presentation from IBR consultants, and the presented design showed a significantly wider freeway on the new bridge than in the current crossing. Freeway widening projects from California to Texas to Virginia have proven that widening doesn't reduce congestion, so we know that widening I-5 over the Columbia will add more cars in similar congestion rather than getting cars moving through without slowing. That will increase carbon emissions attributable to the bridge. Calling the added pavement area "auxiliary lanes" instead of a "wider freeway" doesn't change that fact that the current proposal will increase our regions contributions to climate change disasters.

I wish to comment that the IBR EIS does not seriously consider induced demand in its traffic projections for the proposed alternatives. The document denies that reduced congestion prompts more people to use a road, and states that induced demand only occurs if land use changes occur. The addition of auxiliary lanes and the proposed collector-distributor ramps and lanes on the Vancouver side will increase capacity and therefore will induce more traffic and increase vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The VMT projections in the EIS show no meaningful difference between on vs. two auxiliary lanes which does not make sense.

This environmental impact statement is bad modeling and it encourages bad policy. Y'all claim that adding more lanes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I've lived in New York, Washington DC, Florida, and Texas, and everywhere I lived had giant wide roads with lots of lanes. I encourage you to go look at the Katy freeway in Houston Texas, which was widened to 20 lanes and one year later congestion was worse than ever. I know how this goes. First we widen this bridge, then we have to widen the exchanges to it, then we have to widen those highways, then we have to widen all the arterials that connect to these highways, and then we have to widen the bridge again. All of this road widening keeps increasing our need for gasoline. Gas demand is still increasing every year, despite the ever-increasing urgency of climate change, because we enable it through our transportation system design. We need to be crafting policy that decreases car traffic, but instead we get this environmental statement that encourages more cars. This is bad analysis, and it generates bad policy. I understand that many people drive across the river for work. Our environmental policies should be encouraging these people to get out of their cars and into some other form of transportation. The new bridge encourages people to drive across the river for work, and that is bad climate policy. Have we considered using this money to build more transit? I understand how federal grants work, and that we cannot simply reallocate the money, but at the end of the day it is our federal government and our tax money that we are spending. Why should we waste it on bad policy that we know will increase greenhouse emissions? Why are we not encouraging the federal government to help us craft good policy, such as regional and intercity rail? Why are you, our elected leaders and civil servants, not complaining to high hell about the climate crisis? When did you give up and accept that we're going to literally drive ourselves into oblivion? --- Good policy would significantly decrease carbon emissions. The best option here is "no build".

I've never heard anything so stupid as the argument that more lanes equals lower emissions. The people who stand to make money on this bloated project are beyond desperate. We need TRANSIT, not highway lanes, that will only increase traffic. Anyone who has lived in or visited Highway Lane Cities, like L.A. or Houston, know that more lanes equals more pollution and more traffic. MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES MONEY LIES Please build a replacement bridge that will not gut and pollute a Black neighborhood. Please build a replacement bridge that is right sized, and includes transit and transit incentives. Here in Sellwood, we rejected more lanes on our replacement bridge and traffic is actually LESS than it was before (I've lived here 20 years) in spite of a dramatic increase in population, because more people are using the bike and pedestrian lanes, and also using the new Orange Line and other transit, and working and shopping locally. Guess what? People don't like sitting in traffic and they find other options to get to and from work, school, etc.. Building more lanes enables the driving addiction.

The IBR project plan is way out of control and doesn't make sense. We residents don't want this. Oregon should be putting resources into moving AWAY from cars not adding more and more ways to pollute. Also, we live right here and my kids dont deserve to breathe all the garbage that more and more autos will produce. Stop the madness please. We need to follow the science and the examples of other places like Netherlands. More safe bike paths and public transport infrastructure. LESS freeways and car support.

The current scope and size of the IBR is not in alignment with our region's climate and transportation goals. The project as currently proposed and designed is built on old, faulty data and all indications are that a massive, wide bridge with added lanes will induce traffic and crank up our carbon emissions. It's time to pause this project and realign it with our regions values. We need to take a hard look at our options, including a possible tunnel or retrofit of the old bridge for transit while a new, properly-sized bridge is built alongside it. Thank you.

I have serious concerns about any plans for the bridge replacement that include adding lanes to the highway. Induced demand would end up increasing the greenhouse gas emissions from car traffic, and would not actually lead to a reduction in traffic jams and slowdowns. This bridge is funded by the public, and therefore should be designed in a way that will actually best serve the public - by including safe pedestrian and bike crossing (lanes completely separated from any car traffic), prioritizing mass transit options, and keeping costs as low as possible. Combating climate change is supposed to be a priority of our local and state governments, but I don't see how expanding highways supports that goal. Continuing the same behaviors of the past is the opposite of taking meaningful action against climate change. The government is supposed to serve the public and should be using our tax dollars to actually improve our lives. More lanes on a highway won't fix anything, and will only cause more harm through worse air quality, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and more traffic jams due to a forced reliance on car transportation. Every dollar spent adding lanes to the highway is a dollar that could have been spent improving our public transportation, better protecting our cyclists, or making our existing roads safer.

The I-5 bridge replacement should be just that—a safer bridge, not a highway enlargement. Increased highway capacity is not the direction our transportation should be going.

I am a small busines owner operating a bicycle parking facility, repair shop, loaner program, and pedicab in Portland for the past 14 years. We have over 10 employees and have been able to succeed in Portland because of the many small infrastructure improvements our region has made that have increase the safety and convenience of bicycle travel. I am very concerned that the proposed expanded freeway will dedicate too many of our state funds towards one mega project. With a right sized project we can better use our limited transportation resources to make improvements that will have a wider impact. Repaving our roads, building protected bike lanes, expanding sidewalks, creating dedicated transit lanes, these are the things that will help my business grow and create a better 21st century transportation system. Tolling is a bad idea, but congestion pricing is a much better tool at reducing travel times on our freeway network. I ask ODOT to put forth a viable congestion pricing plan whose goal is not to raise money, but reduce congestion. Combine that with a plan to fund our orphan highways and transit and instead of Portlanders protesting every event you hold you will have Portlanders lining up to praise your leadership. There is so much untapped economic opportunity in building better places. The proposals up until now have failed to show how these investments will create a better place (or even reduce freeway congestion by all that much). I hope that a future proposal will have a right sized bridge and policies that encourage other ways to get around than single occupancy cars.

Increasing lanes does not reduce congestion or benefit the air, the people or the planet! Eliminate the extra lanes. Make the bridge as small as possible. Do not displace people and tear down buildings to make more space for cars. Thank you.

How much are we willing to pay to relocate a bottleneck? The idea that emissions will be reduced by keeping cars moving is completely inaccurate. The truth is that a second auxiliary lane will NOT reduce greenhouse gases by reducing congestion. History teaches us it will induce more traffic and result in MORE emissions - look at any other roadway project in any other city in America. The proposed solution is only going to shift the location of the backup to other bottleneck locations. Peak-time commuter tolling will much more directly manage congestion and will be a tiny fraction of the cost to implement.

Widening the freeways won't lower traffic in the long term. It will only lead to more people traveling by car: worsening traffic bottlenecks at exits near the bridge, increasing carbon emissions, pollutant leakage, and noise pollution, along with wasting our beautiful state's budget. The communities within Portland and Vancouver would be better serviced with expansions to the lightrail system. Such lightrail expansions would sustainably promote Oregon-Washington economic activity if built to be accessible to workers.

Hello, I am deeply concerned about the displacement of houses, businesses, and floating homes that this plan will cause. While infrastructure improvements are often framed as beneficial for reducing congestion, this proposal for a second auxiliary lane does not address the reality of induced demand. History has shown us that adding more lanes does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as promised, but rather increases traffic and ultimately worsens emissions. The plan clearly lacks any serious consideration of the long-term impacts of induced demand on both traffic and the environment. It is misguided to believe that more lanes will ease congestion and lower emissions. The current analysis overestimates how much traffic will grow under a no-build scenario while relying on an outdated “purpose and need” statement that is almost 20 years old. The assumptions guiding this project reflect a very pessimistic view that we cannot contain climate change to less than 2°C, which should be a top priority in transportation planning. Additionally, the admission that southbound morning commutes will still face significant backups at the I-5/I-405 split is alarming. More traffic on the bridge will only make these bottlenecks worse, and this congestion will directly impact express buses, slowing down transit and harming the efficiency of public transportation. The issues extend beyond road traffic. Light Rail capacity from Vancouver will be limited by constraints at the Steel Bridge, and transit stations on Hayden Island and the Vancouver waterfront will be elevated 50-100 feet in the air, creating accessibility challenges for those relying on active transportation. Instead of creating a sustainable, forward-thinking plan, this project reinforces outdated, car-centric models that fail to meet the demands of a changing climate and growing population. It is crucial that we reassess this proposal with a focus on reducing emissions, improving transit accessibility, and planning for a future where we prioritize environmental and public health. In conclusion, do not widen the freeway, and make MAX more easily accessible. Also, include accessible bike infrastructure. We need to move on from the hegemony of the car. Thank you, Jonathan Greenwood

It's absolutely inconceivable to me that in this era of global climate change we are actually considering widening a freeway. A second auxiliary lane will NOT reduce greenhouse gases by reducing congestion, history says it will induce more traffic and result in more emissions. The notion that more lanes will reduce greenhouse gases by reducing congestion has been repeatedly disproven.

This Interstate Bridge proposal will lock Oregon and Washington drivers into the same community destroying ways that have hastened climate catastrophe in the past. The only way to slow climate catastrophe is to advance walking, biking and public transit. Thank you for your attention.

We need to right size the bridge as it doesn’t take into account induced demand

We do not need more freeways. We need more walkable communities. We do not need to negatively impact mass transit, as this ridiculous highway expansion proposes. The truth is politicians are attempting to line their pockets with taxpayer money over solutions to a problem that exists only to make them money. These traffic projections are a pseudoscience. They have ruined communities from the East Coast to the West Coast and from the North to the South. No more freeways!!!!!!!! No more politicians self-serving to enrich themselves with taxpayer money. Keep mass transit working in the best possible way and make more communities a completely walkable experience.

This is to urge ODOT to right-size the I-5 Columbia River bridge project. The proposed massive freeway expansion is horrible for meeting state and local climate goals. Scarce transportation money is much better spent on transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and safety.