Most Recent Comments

I’m a big fan of the inclusion of a bike path and light rail, but upon further reading through the documentation, the plan leaves a lot to be desired. Getting across ANY bridge on foot or a bike can be a bit of a challenge - there’s a lot of elevation gain involved, and that can be hot, sweaty work. Providing shade on the active transportation path would help with that - plus, a bit of cover from the rain wouldn’t go amiss either. On the Vancouver side, it would make more sense to have the bike path and the MAX station on the same side - that way, only one connection down to street level is needed, and bike path users can also take advantage of the elevator, rather than need to do a TEN STORY climb/descent. Even with pedal assist on an e-bike, a ten-story ramp is a harrowing concept.

This is an opportunity to enhance public transit between two major commerce areas (Portland/Vancouver) and it's being disregarded to add lanes on either side. This should be reconsidered.

I am writing as someone who bikes for transportation and in 2015 - 2016 commuted from North Portland to Vancouver east of 205. I have ridden the I-5 bridge and the I-205 bridge dozens of times in a variety of weather conditions. Before hearing the design choices made by the IBR team, I was excited at the prospect of better bike facilities both connecting to the bridge and on the bridge itself, particularly because it might provide an alternative to the I-205 bridge, which is unpleasant to ride in (uphill, loud, and exposed to wind). Unfortunately, the bike facilities proposed for IBR are hugely disappointing. To make the bike connection to downtown Vancouver so high (100 ft) with that spiral ramp situation is absolutely ludicrous, and is going to make it impossible / unattractive to use the bridge to connect not only to downtown Vancouver, but also points further east. I am also upset to hear that transit and the multi-use path are on opposite sides of the bridge -- what the heck? One of the best uses of the MAX outside the Rose Quarter and downtown core, where it is too slow, is to provide connections for people biking and walking. I look forward to seeing a revised bridge design with better bike facilities.

I’d love for the biking/walking path to be on the same side as transit (west side) so that you can easily transfer from one mode to another. The current design will dampen all non-car modes.

You need to do a better job of integrating mass transit with cycling and walking options. We should be offering world class options in the plans for this bridge and not feel that they are just an after thought! Promoting mass transit is one of the ways that we can fight the climate crises and offering people other ways to cross the bridge safely besides in a car is surely the way to go? This feels like something Robert Moses would design and I know we can do better!

Pedestrian/bike path needs to be located on same side as max station. Having them separated will discourage use. Think of this as adding 10 minutes to a trip...that sounds like a much bigger impact than "less than a mile".

Please do not make the highway bigger! This will be expensive and it's unnecessary!

If IBR succeeds,on when does the SEIS claim Boones Bridge will need expansion for increased southbound traffic resulting solely IBR? Who assumes IBR must have equal number of southbound/northbound lanes? Why?

I support a bridge replacement project that reduces private and trucking vehicle traffic and all the problems they bring, including climate change, pollution, noise, deaths and injuries from traffic collisions, and locking up land use. It should be built at the right size, within a reasonable cost, reduce seismic risk, and provide dedicated space for public transit, and people walking and rolling. It must not be an expansion. The IBR in its current proposal fails to consider practical, lower cost options, including a tunnel crossing. We must spend our dollars wisely to repair what we have, not worsen conditions and be burdened by debt for two generations. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello, I would like to share my comment as a portland native that the plan to extend the freeway is unnecessary and an irresponsible way to use state funding. I believe there are other alternatives that could be explored before starting the development of this plan. We do not need more freeways in Portland, we are a city that is already drowning in overcrowded freeways plans, we do not need additional construction blocking our traffic ways while the projected plan goes in motion. Please consider alternatives before starting with this plan. There are other ways. Thank you.

I would like to comment on all the above fields. The discussion on how the interstate bridge as planned is something straight out of a Texas city is well developed, and important. It is unneeded. A 6 lane bridge, as it is right now, would best serve the purpose. Any wider of a bridge would cause bottlenecks further down the road and serve as justification for the construction of even wider freeways closer in to the city center, all so that more people can justify moving out of Portland and for more Washington plates to flood the city every day. Investments should be made in transit, hov3+ lanes, and using the current footprint of the interstate as efficiently as possible, and decking it over where appropriate. Where the interstate is currently are some of the poorest neighborhoods in the city, and most historically disadvantaged, rivaled only by the ones off 205. I-5 has depressed land values for decades in this part of the city, and there should be more justice, not demolition notices, being served. While the I5 bridge is a critical component of the us interstate freeway system, it does not serve Oregon or Portland well to have a larger exit ramp for Washington tax refugees and more emissions from tires, degrading asphalt, construction, combustion, and noise. Noise, for example, has been shown to cut years off people’s lives, exacting a subconscious stress response that causes premature mortality. Now, there will be more people that die sooner. Similarly, with the current design, there will be more children with asthma, more salmon killed by runoff, and still, in a few years after the conclusion of construction, traffic will return, even more snarled than it was before. Look at Texas: constructing the 20-something lane Katy freeway, only for travel times to go up from what they were before. We could widen until demand is met, then add parking lots to hold all the cars that come, but then there would be no city left worth driving to. The success of a transportation system should not be measured solely by delay hours to cars or number of vehicles put through, but rather number of people transported, and a lane of freeway is extremely inefficient when it comes to that. Cars in general are extremely inefficient, climate, space, and energy wise. One line of rail, when well used, moves more than entire freeways. Overall, a wider bridge would mean more traffic, more people moving out, more pollution, more wear on existing roads by out of state vehicles. It’s no wonder Washington has been so extremely gung ho about this bridge; a wider one works out in their favor, not ours. It’s not a good deal for Oregon, the environment, our city’s atmosphere, the disadvantaged people that live along the interstate, or transit/cycling/pedestrian causes. I urge our transportation engineers to consider the externalities of their decisions. There is more to life than making more cars go vroom. ❤️

More lanes do not decrease traffic. No recent peer-reviewed research suggests that more lanes of private vehicle traffic reduces congestion. Use modern science and engineering to make these decisions, not politics.

I want there to be an emphasis on public transit and mixed use roads that serve everyone, not just drivers. I want safe roads - safe for pedestrians and bikers, too. I want roads that aren’t choked with cars and their noise and exhaust.

The "Interstate Bridge" project has become a huge, 5-mile-long freeway widening project. And, traffic projections are being made up, using the excuse that soon, traffic will come roaring back from the Pandemic's Work from Home days. But ODOT has not data to back that up, so is disengenuously using projections from the 2019 figures, assuming the traffic will quickly grow right up and soon be at the 2019 projection, when 4 years later, we have seen no evidence of this. The whole project should be stopped, and actual traffic shrinkage accurately measured, without the wishful thinking projections. We'll see that indeed, a wider freeway isn't called for. Perhaps it should be narrowed, and lanes turned into light rail tracks!

A promise of this project is mobility for groups which have historically been denied it (transit riders and users of active transportation). However, the DSEIS does not offer greatly improved service for anyone but single-occupancy vehicles. Table 4-36 shows that the Modified LPA will provide *no* additional vehicle-hours compared to the no-build scenario; this is ridiculous, as the new footprint for traffic lanes alone on the LPA is over TWICE that of the existing bridge. The shift of 100 VHT from local bus service to Express bus service implies heightened service for AM/PM peak commuters (in other words, those gainfully employed with a suburb-to-office commute), to the detriment of those who do not travel in those directions at those particular times of day. However, since the "Express Buses" will operate on the shoulder of freeway lanes, a non-exclusive right-of-way which is not even useful until stop-and-go traffic, in practice the "Express" label is symbolic and the same number of Vehicle Hours are planned even after the supermassive freeway expansion is built. If mobility and equity are actual priorities for this project, then it has to come with a *transformative* investment in public transit so as to drive actual mode shift along the i5 corridor. It is not enough to replace a 2 mile bus stub with a 2 mile light rail extension; actual bus priority should be considered, such as allowing buses on the existing transitway. Failing that, dedicated lanes on the bridge surface would be a targeted benefit for buses specifically, which have historically been neglected by this corridor. Bus-on-shoulder attempts to co-opt transit improvements as an excuse to widen the bridge cross-section (to the benefit of cars). Lastly, if the additional peak-hour frequencies of MAX to Vancouver really will push the Trimet system above its On-Time Performance reliability threshold (Transportation Report 4.7.6.1), then it is the responsibility of this project to make system improvements that restore overall system reliability. Oregonians suffer a tax burden and environmental externalities imposed on them by this project which Clark County residents do not. Equity is not being taken into account when the benefits of the project are mostly absorbed by Clark County and Externalities are mostly absorbed by North Portland residents; doubly so when project funding is currently split 1:1 between Washington and Oregon.

The project is larger than it needs to be, and thus is reckless with taxpayer funds. If we need a new bridge, we should replace the current bridge with a new one with three lanes in each direction. The majority of this project's expenses are for highway expansion over a several mile area, not the actual bridge itself. Let's right-size this project to something that is simply a replacement bridge (hopefully with transit access). Issues with expanding highway capacity: - Our demand models seem to be off - actual traffic is below predicted areas. This begs the question of whether we're overbuilding (and thus overspending). - Furthermore ODOT has redefined the speed required for "congestion" in a yet-to-be-published paper. If the project doesn't pencil out with the existing definitions of congestion, perhaps it simply doesn't pencil out. - At this point, induced demand is a well-studied phenomenon, and we're yet to find a project of this size that doesn't end up just as congested with a handful of years. Furthermore, this induced demand is an environmental catastrophe, as we increase our local vehicle emissions with those additional trips. - If we are going to control induced demand, that will come from tolling. In fact, much of the traffic improvements could come simply from the tolling - even with a replacement bridge that keeps 3 lanes in each direction. If we need new a bridge for safety reasons, we should replace the existing pair of bridges. We'll end up spending far more money than is needed for the highway expansion pieces of this project, though. The lane expansions are expensive, unneeded, and built on faulty traffic models.

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.

I am a lifelong Oregonian. I’ve lived here since I was born in 1983, except when I lived in Washington during college. I’ve traveled the interstate bridge numerous times. I used to work on swan island, and I’m familiar with the rush hour situation along I5 through north Portland. I’ve also been here long enough to have watched the wrong-headed interstate bridge replacement project waste millions of dollars ever since the old CRC project almost 20 years ago. In that time, the traffic projections just haven’t come true. Things aren’t as bad as the proponents of this idea have always conveyed. And conversely, areas with more freeway lanes are worse than ever. Driving to Hillsboro down highway 26 is a nightmare, and has been for as long as I can remember. And that highway seems to be constantly expanding. Looking to other cities, we see the same thing. Do we want Portland to follow in the footsteps of Los Angeles or Dallas? Or even Seattle? It’s well proven that adding traffic lanes results in more traffic. Let’s not do this to Portland

Multi-use path size is too small for modern day use. With the addition of e-bikes, e-scooters, and cargo bikes, a 14-foot path is very narrow to share with multiple speeds of transportation. Walkers will need their own area to stop and enjoy the view, while not having to dodge bikes and other electric assisted devices. Have larger mobility lanes been studied for a viable way to increase pedestrian and mobility traffic?

The auxiliary lanes are not going to solve traffic. It is a band aid solution that will lead to more cars on the road. Induced demand will bring more single occupancy vehicles across the i5 bridge, bringing more traffic to other heavily congested areas. Real solutions to traffic need to start now. Fund public transit. Make the system work for as many people as possible

The "auxiliary" lanes proposed are just lane expansions with fancy language. We also know through the EIS that these lane expansions will not solve traffic, they will simply flow heavier traffic to the next choke point, likely the rose quarter. We can not continue to expand our freeways across the city in this manner. Areas close to existing freeways already suffer from poor air quality. The historically black communities that were torn apart by the freeway system now have to deal with exhaust and debris from worn tires day in and day out affecting their health. These decisions were bad 60 years ago and they're a bad idea now. We cannot afford to harm our citizens with continued car dependency. Remove the auxiliary lanes and provide alternatives via increased public transit to reduce congestion on our roads throughout the city

I don't want to see the highway widened or the on/off ramp additions which will only further entrench car dependency in Portland. Retrofit the existing bridge for earthquake safety and be done with it. If you do ANYTHING to expand capacity for the bridge it should be for light rail, cycling, or pedestrians first and foremost.

The current plans for the IBR are doing the bare minimum to support existing public transit services. Public transit will be necessary in supporting our community when single occupancy vehicles congest traffic even further. Alternatives must exist and be plentiful in order to be competitive with the perceived ease of driving. Furthermore, public transit can service more people at a time, which is better on the environment, especially for public transit that is electrified such as the max. Supporting the max as is just isn't enough in the long term. We must build to support better public transit. This can include supporting more than 2 max trains with the hopes of expanding existing max train capacity with a downtown tunnel and various improvements to existing stops. We can also be forward thinking and find ways to potentially support high speed rail. The only way to fight congestion long term is to provide transit solutions which take up less space per person and that those transit solutions are available on a frequent and reliable schedule

For nearly a century, data has proven that widening roads increases the amount of cars that will travel on them, and does not help to decrease traffic congestion. Wider freeways have proven over and over again to not help to lower traffic, but keep traffic on pace and increase the volume of vehicles. It is absolutely critical with the climate change effects already bearing down on us as citizens of Oregon and Washington that we do everything we can to lower the volume of personal occupancy vehicles used. The IBR Program must not be used to increase the capacity for cars, but to create excellent infrastructure for public transit, biking, and walking. Please be sure to avoid false promises of lowered traffic with more lanes of traffic, which will doom us for decades to come. We need to invest minimal money on cars, and save as much as possible for current and future public transit and traffic calming projects like decreased lanes, slower city street designs, and an emphasis on walking and biking not driving. For the IBR Project to successfully meet these goals, the bridge needs to have easy connections for walking and biking on both the Vancouver and Portland side. Transit should be placed next to the pedestrian path for ease of access, and to help buffer the noise of the car lanes. The public transit should also be future proofed for increased capacity. These considerations will help to avoid and lower the health issues that highways create for low-income and marginalized communities. It will cost less and avoid a debt that will cost taxpayers in lost funds for important future projects, prevent health problems, and avoid additional climate damage. There has been no justification for additional auxiliary lanes and traffic data has been faulty, we must have a right-sized bridge project before continuing.

Hi there, right size the bridge please. Thanks