Skip to content

Most Recent Comments

We also have a searchable archive.

First Name
Andrew
Last Name
Schamber
Topic Area
Navigation
Comment
The current state of the interstate bridge is, as a non-vehicular commuter/user, is completely unusable (for multiple different reasons) and I appreciate the efforts to consider users outside of vehicular modes of transport. However, there are some design flaws that, in my opinion, do not make this a viable replacement and should be reconsidered. The spiral path on the Washington side can easily be seen as a deterrent for cyclists as well as folks that require additional mobility assistance (wheelchair, push scooter, walker, etc). The terrain/elevation change coming from the north side of Vancouver to the bridge and then up to cross the bridge is not a sustainable design and should be reconsidered. This project is being completed in order to accommodate both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic and should reflect that in the final design. Additionally, there is an incredibly large missed opportunity with the connection from the IBR to the Vancouver/Williams district on the Oregon side. This area is gaining increasing traction and popularity and the connection, in its current state, to the MLK corridor area will leave active transportation users in no man’s land. Securing a complete, safe and comfortable connection to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor is a priority in order to bring revenue and business to this thriving area of NE Portland.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Benjamin
Last Name
Pedigo
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
Adding lanes will not solve traffic as has been shown many times. Please use these taxpayer dollars to fund projects that will get us closer to our climate goals instead of wasting them on more lanes that will get clogged up with cars as soon as they are completed.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
James
Last Name
Shelstad
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
This bridge is a project that's going to last us far into the future - it needs to be designed and built with realistic concerns for the future in mind, not ideas about expanding highways for private vehicles from last century. This means integrating transit, active transportation, and multimodal infrastructure that's well-done, connected, and realistically invites everyday use - not forcing people to go far out of their way unless they're in a car; not building transit facilities for today's ridership but freeways to meet presumed skyrocketing driving demand. We have the chance to design for the future we want to see, the future that meets city- and state-wide climate and sustainable development goals, and if we don't do that, so much of the money going to this project will be a waste if not an active contribution to failing the future of the region. Just Crossing Alliance provides a valuable selection of specific, actionable constructive criticisms of the current project that fit what we know through research about the impact of transportation policy decision: please incorporate them.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Daniel
Last Name
Reimer
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
The IBR should not be adding extra auxiliary lanes especially without justification and especially without any consideration of induced demand. The bike path should be conveniently accessible to the MAX stop. There needs to be plans for heavy rail or more robust bus transit between Vancouver and Portland.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Stone
Last Name
Doggett
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
As the metro region develops, sustainable low-impact transportation that is accessible financially and physically for people of all means and abilities should be prioritized. The IBR should be limited to its current private automobile capacity. The expansive interchanges required for increased personal vehicle traffic should be eliminated. Transit and bicycle pedestrian capacity should be prioritized. The IBR should increase greater population density in the Portland and Vancouver metro area rather than promoting population sprawl and the waste of land and resources. The current expansive overdeveloped interstate plans harm and inhibit smart affordable growth. The bridge is an eyesore, polluting and repulsive for people experienceing downtown Vancouver. The increased personal vehicle traffic from sprawl will deteriorate the quality of life of metro residents and worsen congestion. All of the harms of this project can be reduced by a bridge that promotes residential travel by transit, and micro mobility. This also would benefit freight and non-residential travel.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
James
Last Name
Sjulin
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
The IBR Project fails to capitalize on benefits for active transportation related to the height of the proposed bridge over the Columbia River. Most people living in Vancouver reside in upland areas over 100 feet in elevation or greater. Safe north-south active transportation facilities that are separated from traffic and connect upland areas of Vancouver to the Columbia River and the Vancouver waterfront do not exist. If they did exist, they would involve significant elevation gain / loss. The IBR Project provides a unique opportunity to capitalize on an active transportation route that begins over 100 feet above the Columbia River. Assuming that elevators are placed at the junction with the Vancouver waterfront, the IBR Project could enable many thousands of people in Vancouver to utilize active transportation facilities alongside I-5 to reach the Vancouver waterfront, to return home, or to reach Portland with little elevation loss or gain. Since the IBR project area extends northward to SR 500 (a major east-west state highway) it would be incredibly wasteful to not consider extending active transportation facilities to SR 500 as part of the IBR project. Perhaps more importantly, ignoring this opportunity places people who rely on active transportation for personal mobility at a significant disadvantage.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
George
Last Name
Pastushok
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
I think the bridge models I’ve seen so far are incredibly overbuilt with crumbs left for other modes of transportation. The Columbia river crossing highway project should be a tunnel of no more than two general lanes per direction with an additional bus only lane per direction. Tunnels should also be made for light rail across the river and accommodate for grade separation at each portal. Pedestrian and cycling traffic could use the existing bridge. A tunnel provides a less intrusive expansion of the highway system into downtown Vancouver where the bridge would overshadow the area. The proposed bridge would bring a lot more traffic congestion than the designers anticipate yet will simultaneously not meet projected traffic levels. The highway will attract more drivers and will pull away from potential transit ridership. The proposed bridge will also be a large source of noise and air pollution that will blight downtown Vancouver for decades.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Wendie
Last Name
Siverts
Topic Area
Induced Demand
Comment
I am concerned about the effect of induced demand. We know adding lanes increases traffic. Studies prove that increasing vehicle capacity ultimately causes worse congestion, more VMT, and more emissions. I have observed this phenomenon myself, as a regular I5 traveler between Portland and Seattle. Every new lane WSDOT builds brings only brief relief, then reverts back to very bad traffic. Failing to model induced demand for this project is irresponsible and misleading. This approach does not represent reality or the best solution. Added freeway capacity will induce more cars and cause more slow and stopped traffic in North Portland at the I5-405 split. That’s where I live. I5 is at street level, and increased emissions from more cars and more slowdowns with negatively me, my family and the many, many other families in our neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods. I do want the Interstate Bridge updated for seismic and light rail — but we can do this without adding lanes! Don’t pave over the Pacific Northwest!
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Matt
Last Name
Villers
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
This project claims to meet environmental goals through investment in active, public, and multimodal transit, but several key decisions show that these modes are not being taken seriously. Three notable issues: - Fixed span should not be considered at all, given the immense height it would force active transit users to climb. Go to the spiral ramp at Concord & Going and climb it 10 times in a row without stopping, then tell me you'd actually use the fixed span version of this bridge. No way. The extreme climb is also bad for drivers in icy conditions, making the proposed bridge *worse* than the current iteration. - Active transit lanes and LRT lanes being on opposite sides of the bridge makes no sense for multimodal travel. Why make people go nearly a mile out of their way to switch modes? - Active transit lanes need to be shaded / covered. There is no good excuse not to do this when you're proposing to spend $7-11 Billion dollars mostly on freeway widening that isn't necessary and will make traffic *worse* not better.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Kevin
Last Name
Chambers
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
While I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the aging I5 bridges, I disagree with expanding the scope of the project to include interchanges and other highway segments that do not immediately abutt the bridge.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Devin
Last Name
Ellin
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
The DSEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Joseph
Last Name
Van Kleeck
Topic Area
Induced Demand
Comment
Build with an emphasis on public transit and pedestrian access, not "One More Lane". We will never meet ODOT's goal of reducing emissions and vehicle-miles wasting billions of dollars on a lane expansion, dismantling housing and businesses in the process and ultimately doing NOTHING to quell the flow of traffic. If this gets built it will be in vain in a decade, as induced demand has shown time and time again these roads will clog up and bottleneck. Stop the waste. Stop the insanity. Invest in PEOPLE, NOT CARS.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Anders
Last Name
Wennstig
Topic Area
Land Use and Economy
Comment
The new IBR must be right sized and not be over expansive to induce more demand and create further suburban sprawl. An overbuilt IBR will ruin the character and value of the Vancouver waterfront while facilitating greenfield development, increasing health problems, and accelerating climate change. Do the right thing for the next generation by not doubling down on automobile infrastructure and suburban sprawl. Thank you.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Misty
Last Name
Earisman
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
This freeway expansion is a terrible idea! Please don’t waste our money to build more lanes, we know it won’t reduce congestion!! I’m fine with the seismic replacement, light rail extension and bike and pedestrian improvements.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Jordan
Last Name
Lewis
Topic Area
Induced Demand
Comment
I have submitted three comments on the DSEIS, but this is the most important one: Induced Demand. The entire Environmental Impact Statement hinges on the assumption that IBR's traffic modeling projections were accurate for the past, present and future; however, they clearly have been inflated in order to justify priors and rubber stamp a project which is stuck in a 20th century mindset. The Columbia River Crossing predicted traffic would grow from 130k trips/weekday to 180k in 2025, which clearly did not happen; in fact, traffic growth stayed flat entirely! And now IBR wants us to believe that growth will resume and hit 180k by 2045, despite the total lack of growth even since that prediction was made. Table 2 in the Executive summary suggests that 3% LESS vehicle trips will occur over a bridge two times the width of the existing bridge in 2045. This runs counter to the commonly known principle of induced demand, which states that wider roadways incentivize drivers to take new trips that they would not have previously. And yet, the second additional auxiliary lane adds no additional trips? The analysis is so lazy as to be insulting to our collective intelligence. Induced demand has literally been observed after freeway widening in the past; whether the project calls them auxiliary lanes or not is irrelevant. The inaccuracy of traffic modeling is not a particular or petty gripe with the project; it is a foundational error on which the entire study is built. It is not possible to accurately predict outcomes on these fundamentally bad assumptions, much less for the public to comment on them. The near-refusal to even mention the concept of induced demand in the DSEIS shows what I call the "Shock-and-Awe" strategy of public outreach, in which planners propose something so flagrantly off-base as to stun the public and make constructive criticism significantly more difficult. I want to second every comment made by the Just Crossing Alliance; there is not enough evidence to justify a larger road footprint beyond safety shoulders. There is no evidence whatsoever for a second auxiliary lane. The project as-proposed will not alleviate traffic in the corridor, it will only enlarge and shift an existing traffic jam south to the Lombard St exit. The many interchange rebuilds north and south of the river are largely a non-sequitur and should be phased separately from the earthquake-resilient bridge, rather than it being cynically held hostage in exchange for them. Better throughput could be achieved with better metered on-ramps and smart congestion pricing (with exemptions/wealth transfers back to vulnerable groups!) Active transportation and transit should be time-competitive and pleasant alternatives to driving, which the LPA does not currently promise. The DSEIS is illegitimate until accurate scientific traffic analysis of the No-Build and LPA is done. Do the right thing and listen to the community; if you need to lie to get this project built your way, then you must not have the community's best interest at heart.
First Name
James
Last Name
Maertin
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
This bridge project is a thinly veiled massive freeway expansion. Public transit, walking and biking are afterthoughts that are being worked in, with no regard for the inconvenience and difficulties these users will have to endure. This is indicative of the tremendous momentum that the car transportation system still has, despite overwhelming evidence of the huge damage it causes. I suspect, as a CPA, that a serious system of public transit and active transportation, on a bridge half the size of that being proposed, could be built for far less money.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Maris
Last Name
Zivarts
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
We should not be spending money expanding highway access for cars, but instead should be building transit capacity in a connected network that will give people real options to travel outside of a car.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Sharon
Last Name
Thompson
Topic Area
Hayden Island Issues
Comment
So many things about this project just don't add up. 1st A new report by Chris Smith shows that traffic numbers are over what actually is and will be carried by the new bridge. Truck traffic has gone DOWN in the last 20 yrs 2nd there are no numbers that support Hayden Island has had 19 visits by Bridge Reps. 3rd. Breaking Federal Navigation Laws by lowering bridge clearance and then paying businesses upstream for being unable to transport manufactured goods. Last time OREGON was going to pay a WASHINGTON businesses 48 million for being unable to ship an oil rig to Alaska. Never mind they hadn't built one in a period of years and still haven't. OREGON TAX PAYERS WAKE UP !!! 4th. There needs to be a more in depth investigation of the feasibility of a tunnel by an independent source. 5th. If the really "Big One" Quake is rated 2500 why will this bridge only support a 500 shake? What do these numbers mean and equate to? 6th. By their own admission this bridge will only last 100 years. What then will be done with all that concrete ??? We will be leaving our decendents a huge ecological and no doubt financial mess/burden.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Laura
Last Name
Mertens
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
Why are we spending this much money on roads. We need less cars in Portland, not more. We need to make Portland a better, safer place to live by lowering emissions and spending money to make roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Nancy
Last Name
Harrison
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
I am writing to express my deep concern about the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the $7.5 Billion Interstate Bridge Replacement. project. instead of proposing a cost-effective direct replacement of the existing bridge, ODOT and WSDOT are proposing a massive, $7+ billion, five mile highway expansion. It appears, after carefully evaluating the DEIS, that ODOT and WSDOT are using wildly inaccurate numbers for their traffic projections. The area deserves a straightforward, cost-effective seismically reinforced bridge, not an overpriced, expanded one that will result in higher pollution. Please push back on this DEIS and insist on more reliable numbers from ODOT and WSDOT. Thank you, Nancy Harrison Portland OR
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Brian
Last Name
Larrow
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
This is a once in a century opportunity to do things right. Bike lane and Pedestrian walkway should be on West side with ample clearance from roaring car traffic. Buffered by light rail is best. The Vancouver waterfront should also have an easy bike/ped access so that it becomes a tourist destination not unlike the Golden Gate Bridge. With a reasonable grade/ramps and connection to points south, this could induce commercial activity (rather than just SOV trips).
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
David
Last Name
Ginsberg
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
Build it with a transit lane and the multi use path. Build for the future. Make us proud.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Peter
Last Name
Laciano
Topic Area
Climate Change
Comment
I am writing in opposition to the freeway expansion and interchange construction aspects of the IBR Project. The concept of induced demand is one of the fundamental laws of traffic congestion, and it is undisputed fact that increasing roadway capacity increases cumulative VMT. There is not a single example in history where a roadway has been widened and VMT has decreased, except in conjunction with road pricing. Increasing VMT in the context of the climate crisis, and Metro's stated commitments to reduce transportation emissions to address it, is sheer hypocrisy and a form of climate denial. The IBR Project needs to rightsize the bridge design (no "auxiliary" lanes, a euphemism for highway expansion), remove the interchange construction components, AND build light rail and bike infrastructure to decrease transportation emissions and meet our commitments to addressing climate change.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Michael
Last Name
Andersen
Topic Area
Transportation
Comment
The Interstate Bridge Replacement project should be exactly that: a bridge replacement project. It should focus on improving the crossing, including with public and active transit, and not pour billions of dollars into widening freeways north and south of the river. Any expansion of auto capacity will activate latent demand, increasing demand for driving; modeling should account for this effect.
Attachment (maximum one)
First Name
Ben
Last Name
Neiman
Topic Area
Induced Demand
Comment
This project is a ridiculous waste of money and resources that cuts against every purported climate goal Washington has. Widening the highways will induce new traffic demand creating more emissions from vehicles and poisoning the surrounding communities with particulates. This has been studied ad nauseam but the IBR team intentionally overlooks it to push through an unnecessary highway expansion. These dollars would be better invested right-sizing the new bridge and expanding transit and biking pedestrian options in a way that isn't just token inclusion to say this project is "multimodal." This project will leave a shameful legacy on Washington and Oregon and while these notes will fall on deaf ears I sincerely hope you read these and understand the damage you are going to our state.
Attachment (maximum one)