Most Recent Comments

I am a bike rider and transit user in Portland and have been looking forward to the new interstate bridge replacement. With this new proposal that has come out, I am very concerned about the lack of multi modal transportation options, as the bike lane will not connect easily with transit. This bridge will cost millions of dollars and is a lifetime investment into both states of WA and OR. I urge those who are considering new bridge designs to understand the importance of connecting our two cities by means of easy bike paths that do not require out of the way bike paths, steep climbs, and disconnected networks of active and transit related travel modes. Please realize the importance of doing this right for the long term health of our two cities.

Hi, i'm writing in support of the project and the vast majority of the decisions that have been made to bring all different requirements and interests together. I appreciate the challenge of synthesizing and integrating so many different constraints and needs into a single vision. I'd also like to share my thoughts on the proposal as a cyclist and Trimet/Public Transit rider: I occasionally ride Trimet without my bike, but generally I (and many other Trimet riders) think of buses and rail as just a part of our way of getting around; we're multi-modal. Stations that work well for this sustainable way of getting around bring bike lanes and public transit together safely (Moda Center/Rose Quarter Transit Center, Tillikum Crossing/South Waterfront, etc). What's proposed in the I-5 crossing unfortunately feels like a missed opportunity to connect mass transit and bike paths and I fear will discourage people from making use of the mass transit at this location - it's not a great pedestrian location, so other modes like bikes, e-bikes, scooters, etc really need to be considered and connected to the transit stop to help promote sustainable transit for next several decades. I applaud the work done so far, and hope that improvements can be made to this part of the design.

See attached.

Hello, I live within one mile of the new bridge. Bicycle is my primary mode of transportation. Currently I cannot access Vancouver using the current I-5 bridge due to inadequate bicycle infrastructure. In order to feel comfortable accessing Vancouver from my home, the following must be incorporated into the I-5 crossing plan: Side-by-side Integration: Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations. Noise and Safety: Positioning transit lanes as buffers between the multi-use path and vehicle lanes can reduce noise, debris, and enhance user safety. Better Connections: Vancouver: The path should extend to Evergreen to prevent the need for using a 100-foot high spiral. Portland: Add connections to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in addition to the planned Kenton/Denver Ave. link. Thank you.

Bicycling is my family's primary mode of transit. It's healthy for our bodies, clean for the environment, and takes up significantly less infrastructure than cars. Please make transit to bike path infrastructure simple, safe, and accessible to enable more residents to use bike paths.

This decade-long, freeway-expansion boondoggle is rotten to the core. ODOT has used deceptive projections based on faulty data. They are caught lying to the public with such frequency that anyone paying attention to this issue must assume bad faith on their part. Their current report is no different. I hope that someday there will be consequences for the decision makers. Oregon deserves better.

Portland needs more mass transit options, not wider freeways for polluting cars. The latter is a dead-end, with decades of research showing the new, expensive lanes are soon clogged again ('induced demand'). Let's put 10 B. dollars into a world-class multi-modal system centered around trains and buses.

Please listen to the JCA’s requests for better integrated public transit. The project should implement Side-by-side Integration. Transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations. Thank you. -Caitlin

I sure would love to see the bike and transit routes on the same side of the bridge. Seems like the current design is pretty clunky. Thanks! Burk

Please, please, please understand that multimodal transportation is so important to the success of this project. The walking, biking, & public transportation routes MUST be aligned & share connections. Having the transit node on the north end not align or easily connect to the biking route is a massive problem. Multimodal transit options will not be successful if a person cannot put their bike on public transit, ride to Vancouver, then roll the bike off the train/bus and immediately access the Vancouver waterfront. Forcing cyclists to ride an extra mile just to use the bike path ramp on the east side of the bridge is absolutely stupid & instantly puts success of the project at risk. All modes of transportation must mix in natural, useable ways. Keep the cars & trucks separated & shift them east while keeping alternative transportation modes together on the west side.

A HUGE NUMBER OF PORTLANDERS INCLUDING MYSELF & MY FAMILY ARE OUTRAGED AT ODOT'S HARMFUL & HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE DECISIONS RE BUILDING MORE FREEWAYS , WIDENING FREEWAYS, & TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY REMOVING TREES FROM THE SIDES OF ROADS—TREES THAT POSE NO THREAT. MORE ROADWAY MEANS MORE TRAFFIC & MORE ACCIDENTS OF ALL TYPES. LISTEN UP, ODOT!!!!!!

Whatever bridge is built needs to provide all the amenities required to make transit, walking, and biking across the bridge a safe and seamless experience. - Transit needs to be on the same side of the bridge as the modes that will be used to access transit: walking and biking. This would allow for elevators to serve all three modes, relieving pedestrians and bicyclists from being required to use a long and steep ramp just to access the bridge. Placing transit facilities between the walking/biking paths and the vehicle lanes would also provide an additional buffer between active transportation users and the noise and emissions coming from the vehicle lanes. - Pedestrian facilities, both on the bridge itself as well as on the access routes, must be well-lit. The 2019 Portland report "PedPDX: PBOT Walking While Black Focus Group Report" states that participants listed poor lighting as the number thing that made walking difficult in Portland. All new pedestrian facilities should take this into account and provide sufficient lighting to make sure pedestrians feel safe and are visible to motorists. - Access to the bridge for pedestrians and cyclists must be as carefully thought out as the facilities on the bridge. All access routes should be safe for users of all ages and abilities, direct, and easy to navigate. I understand the need to replace the aging existing bridge with a new seismically sound bridge. What I don't understand is why we are building a wider bridge with additional lanes, given that widening a freeway has never solved traffic congestion. Right-sizing the bridge and tolling it with congestion pricing would be a far more effective use of our taxpayer dollars, and would allow us to fund maintenance and safety improvements on our existing transportation infrastructure instead.

The IBR project is proposing massive freeway expansion in North Portland, and is squandering the potential for a car-lite waterfront neighborhood like the Vancouver waterfront right across the river. Pedestrian and bike access is an afterthought and the steep grades necessary for the bridge (which don’t even meet Coast Guard requirements) are dangerous for vehicles too. Portland deserves a right-sized replacement to the Interstate Bridge.

The IBR project is not considering the impact of induced demand into the project, and despite being named as the “Interstate Bridge Project” included miles of freeway expansion with 1950’s style property demolishing. And expanding the IBR project to this many lanes ignores that the freeway gets narrower once in Portland, it is not only adding more traffic on the bridge and creating new and worse bottlenecks!

This bridge and highway expansion isn't going to solve the traffic issues in the Portland metro. We need to try tolling/congestion pricing and extending the MAX to Vancouver before we commit to widening the bridge.

The current Interstate Bridge Replacement expansion project will increase traffic and congestion due to induced demand and worsen climate change due to increased vehicle emissions and increased sprawl. We need a new I-5 Interstate Bridge, but it needs to prioritize public transit without adding excessive lanes and multiple new highway projects on both sides of the river. The city and state also can't afford the project as currently proposed! It needs to be simplified: A new bridge with more mobility options. That is what the people want. The earthquake could hit tomorrow, but the bridge could've been built a decade ago if there was a more sensible approach that listened to the needs of Oregonians. Oregon has always been a proudly progressive state that fights back against freeway expansions. This is a freeway expansion, make it a bridge project instead.

I've just read the Just Crossing Alliance's recommendations for right-sizing the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and completely support the JCA's suggestions. If the IBR would to implement all of them, IBR would receive my support. If not, I would see the IBR as a failure before it has even been built. We must future-proof the design by not making it all about cars and trucks.

I’ve used this bridge to commute to and from work, to visit loved ones on both sides of the Columbia, to shop at small businesses in downtown Vancouver and to visit friends. I am urging the decision-makers in charge to please improve active transportation infrastructure through clear and safe connections to Evergreen in WA and to Vancouver/Williams and Denver Ave. in OR.

The Interstate Bridge does need to be replaced, however it is critical that the multi billion dollar project is based on verifiable traffic data, with accurate estimates of future trends so that it is both appropriately sized and targeted on critical needs such as seismic improvements, the build out of public transit and alternate transportation modes vs. just increasing lanes to drive induced demand. It is critical that state legislators hold ODOT/WSDOT accountable to plan for tomorrow’s transit needs in the most cost-effective manner. The project design needs to be right-sized and forward looking based on objective, recent traffic data and futuristic needs, incorporating climate crisis, active transportation and economic justice concerns.

This project should not go forward without modern induced traffic demand understanding includes in the traffic models. To move forward with a project of this magnitude without using the most current science is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.

I'm writing to express my belief that the current plans for the Interstate Bridge Replacement lie on faulty assumptions about traffic congestion. There should be more emphasis on building out capacity for various modes of public transit, and not on widening the existing bridge. I feel that the forecasting does not account for the 'induced demand' resulting from the bridge's widening, which could increase vehicle emissions in the future at a time when society needs to be doing everything to decrease emissions.

I would like to suggest that the IBR be scaled back to include the necessary changes (seismic improvements) and beneficial and cost-effective enhancements (light rail and safe access for pedestrians and cyclists...people in cities with pedestrian and bike-friendly bridges really do use them). Beyond that, let's not waste taxpayer money on widening the freeway and adding interchanges to meet imaginary traffic flow demands, only to have congestion reappear five years later with worse air pollution and more traffic fatalities (and affecting more drivers!)

I live two blocks from I-5 in the Boise neighborhood. I grew up right across the freeway in Overlook. I came back to this neighborhood to raise my children near my family, so most of my four decades have been in and around I-5. I understand many people use the freeway each day, but we live it each day. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't consider leaving, because of the air quality, noise and lack of inspiring plans to reduce single use car transit. My son has asthma, would he have had asthma if I didn't move him back here? I don't get to know, but I sure worry about it all the time. I love this neighborhood, its diversity, its vibrancy, its nearness to my people. I can take my son to the same coffee shop that my mom took me, but my fear is that the freeway will push us out. I don't want to risk my families health, my health. I want mass transit, I want equitable tolling, I want transit solutions that are forwarding thinking and climate resilient. I want to be able to stay and not worry for my kid's health everyday. I know this transit artery is important to so many, but whatever you choose we have to live with everyday, our children, our neighbors. In Portland, we do better than the status quo, we're inventive, we're bold, please be brave and stand up for our communities.

The displacement of families, homes and businesses along with the absurd financial impact of this project are grounds enough to halt this project. I also believe that the impacts of induced demand and likelihood of WORSE congestion following as a result of this project have been underestimated, at best, or deceitfully withheld from the analysis, at worst. We need to replace the I-5 bridge but this current iteration is NOT it. This project should reflect our status as regional climate leaders and place active transportation modes at the heart of this project instead of an afterthought.

Funds for this project would be better spent improving other areas of the city such as infrastructure for public transit. The proposed changes to the freeways would not reduce demand for the highway, which would only lead to more traffic over time.