Most Recent Comments

The traffic analysis has failed to consider the demand that will be induced by building this facility. Adding capacity has never decreased congestion in an urban corridor, and there is no evidence to suggest that this expansion will be the first.

Multi-use path is on the opposite from the proposed light rail. Many users of one are users of the other. Will there be connection points from the multi-use path to the light rail system so bikers, walkers, and other mobility device users can easily transition modes of transportation?

The multi-use path on the Vancouver side requires users to climb up a steep ½ mile corkscrew to reach the path on the bridge. This 4.5% grade is likely to deter users. Not only is this a near impossibility for wheelchair users, but creates an obstacle for walkers and bikers. This current path forces users to descend to street level and then climb back out in either direction. A connection that bypasses this loop is absolutely needed. The path needs to be as accessible as possible if it is going to entice new and potential users to take it for transportation instead of a car. How would making a connection near the proposed Evergreen Station affect the increase in usage of the path?

I am sending a strong plea against freeway expansion in Portland. It’s not what Portland or the planet needs. It’s a bandaid that will hurt affected communities and provide no real solution to the need for better public transit.

In its current state, the shared use path on each side of the bridge is dangerous and unappealing to pedestrians, bikers, and alternate mobility users. To create a new multi-use path that appeals to current and potential new users, the design needs to be enticing enough to prompt people crossing to consider using alternate transportation methods instead of cars. This is the only way to alleviate traffic, as it has been proven in many different cities (Houston's Katy expressway being a very clear example that adding more lanes does not reduce traffic or travel times).

Please be thoughtful in making the IBR convenient for non-automotive users, such as biking and walking. It makes no sense to put the Max stations and paths on opposite sides of the bridge. Keep them together. Please think about elevators for pedestrians on the Vancouver waterfront. There are also major gaps in the bike network at the boundary edges of the project such as at NE MLK & Marine drive that need to be addressed. Please recognize and utilize suggestions from the JCA Active Transportation group.

As a science-literate citizen who cares about the climate emergency we are in, I’m deeply concerned that IBR creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: it projects a future of ever-increasing car dependence, then builds massive infrastructure to accommodate it. The region has made legally binding commitments—codified in its federally required Regional Transportation Plan—to reduce driving to achieve climate goals. The National Environmental Policy Act and federal transportation planning regulations require that projects like the IBR be consistent with this adopted policy framework, not against a hypothetical future where we abandon our climate commitments. Prioritizing accommodating more traffic is unwise and unfair to our children and grandchildren who will inhabit a climate that we are influencing by our current choices.

+1 on everything no more freeways are saying!

I am writing to oppose the proposed expansion of the I-5 bridge and to urge a reconsideration of more sustainable, financially responsible alternatives. Expanding freeway lanes is not the solution; it will bankrupt our state and worsen carbon emissions, counteracting climate goals and negatively impacting communities. Instead, I encourage a focus on increased public transit and multi-modal transit options that would reduce congestion without increasing reliance on car travel. Freeway expansion has been shown time and time again to induce more traffic rather than reduce it, and expanding capacity only creates short-term relief while setting us up for long-term congestion and pollution. For a truly effective and future-proofed solution, please consider: 1. Building transit infrastructure that supports future growth, including accommodations for four-car trains and flexible spaces that can evolve to meet transit needs beyond 2045. 2. Integrating transit lanes as buffers to protect multi-use path users from noise, debris, and safety concerns, while also ensuring seamless access to transit connections for active transportation users. 3. Implementing a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to accurately assess health impacts, including air quality and safety for priority communities. Investing in sustainable, multi-modal infrastructure will create a resilient, equitable transit network and foster healthier communities on both sides of the bridge. Expanding freeway lanes does the opposite. Thank you for considering a path forward that aligns with Oregon and Washington’s climate goals, public health priorities, and long-term financial sustainability. Sincerely, Kristina

+1 to what No More Freeways and Just Crossing Alliance said regarding the IBR project!

+1 to what No More Freeways and Just Crossing Alliance said.

Hi! As a lifetime Washington resident, I’m pleading for the replacement bridge to be the same size or more efficiently sized than the current bridge. Cars a a major driver of pollution (noise, air, particulate) and worsen the climate crisis. I would like to leave a more liveable world for future generations, and that requires a focus on sustainable transit options like trains, busses, bicycles and pedestrians. Highway and freeway expansion drive increased trips, and we need to do everything that we can to make alternatives modes of transportation more accessible, efficient and nice. The bridge replacement should ensure high quality options for trains, streetcars, busses, pedestrians and bicyclists. Car traffic should be kept to the absolute minimum. Also, the design should do everything possible to limit negative effects on surrounding communities; the smallest possible footprint, the least noise and particulate pollution, and replacing car infrastructure with community space (parks! Housing! Arts spaces!) wherever possible. Let’s not spend billions of dollars to put more cars on the roads and demolish existing communities. Please do the right thing for current and future generations, and limit the size of this boondoggle as much as possible. Thank you. Alex

I live in Portland and commute everyday over the Interstate Bridge to go to work as a science teacher at Hudsons Bay High School, which is a short distance from the bridge. I would LOVE to be able to use either public transport or active transport (in normal speech: ride my bike) to get to work but the current options are inadequate. If you want people to get out of their car and use alternative transportation, you need to give them good options. But I am very concerned that the new bridge will actually INCREASE the TIME and EFFORT to cross over the bridge compared to the current antiquated model. How is this possible? Not only will cyclists need to climb much HIGHER to get over the new bridge, they will need to bike FURTHER due to complicated design of the bikeway off ramp from the bridge. Message to decisions-makers: are you really going to get behind a multi-trillion bridge that makes it harder for cyclists to cross than the current model? Please take a bike ride over the bridge yourself and then tell me if you think the new bridge should be harder to cross than the old one or not. Thank you.

The main thing we need is a functional Columbia River crossing, which is a relatively small fraction of the overall project costs. This project should focus on that instead of all the additional interchange expansion. We have better things to spend our resources on. It is also a bit of a tragedy that the developing Vancouver waterfront is going to be run over by a much larger, 10-story high freeway and mitigation of the associated noise, pollution, and visual impact should be implemented. Walking and biking paths should be focused on usability, immediately adjacent to transit, and separated from cars to the maximum extent.

There is no justification for including TriMet's Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the IBR. This is a "Critical Transportation Issue" as it is foreseeable that no-one is going to use it, (Light Rail Transit cannot get 90% of the commuting public to where they need to go in an effective and timely manner to justify it use) in adequate numbers to justify the cost implication with including TriMet's LRT infrastructure on the IBR. The TriMet Performance Reports reflect dramatic reductions in the use of Light Rail. The businesses that previously had their employees using TriMet's LRT do not exist or no-longer have the business operations needing TriMet's LRT capabilities. Foreseeable ridership cannot achieve volume levels to create sustainable funding to cover TriMet's operational cost. Federal Department of Transportation previously committed only $1.5 Billion of TriMet's LRT investments costs, and that will fall far short of covering all of the cost of including TriMet's LRT withy the IBR Project. This can add $1.5 Billion to unfunded costs to what would therefore get added too what would be funded by Toll Backed Bonds. The effect will have a high probability of doubling the Toll Rate Amount to be paid for by Tolling. The US Coast Guard has a minimum required height that is needed for river freight movement, and their requirement cannot be achieved with the lower height needed for Light Rail. The height of the Light Rail Stations at Hayden Island and Vancouver Waterfront will be approximately 75 Ft. above the street level and this difference is costly in its implications for access and the infrastructure that it takes to attempt to mitigate those implications. The restricted vehicle capacity of the I-5 Corridor between Hayden Island and the Freemont Bridge limits by creating what is in effect a "Bottleneck" that is too expensive alter or fix. This means that the proposed 3 through lanes and alternative turn lanes best match up with what does not create more congestion. Transportation Demand Estimates, reflect greater numbers of vehicle traffic, than what the I-5 Corridor is capable of handling. Alternative Mode of Travel, like Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit have proven to not work as they do not address the needs of those who could consider their use. A westside vehicle By-Pass Corridor coupled with the replacement of the obsolete and restricted capacity 1907 BNSF Swing Railroad Bridge that uses the BNSF RR corridor and Right-of-Way (ROW) with a focus of routing the great majority of Truck Freight on to what would become a double deck bridge. This needed vehicle By-Pass Corridor would be like what was achieved when we brought I-84 Corridor into Sullivan's Gulch with the Union Pacific railroad and now TriMet's MAX LRT lines. Teh same potential exists next to the BNSF Railroad tracts that cut under Lombard in St. John's. We cannot displace more people trying to widen the I-5 Corridor through north Portland. We cannot afford to widen the east bank 2 lane in each direction bottleneck of the I-5 Corridor that would require redoing the whole I-84 and I-5 interchange. The absolute best choice is to create a westside By-Pass and sometime in the future a tunnel under the west hills to Hwy 26 and Hwy 217.

After years in medical quality improvement, I learned that the system is most responsible for human error, and it’s the system which must be regulated. The IBR has done a poor job of assessing the highway system and adapting the project to the current and future limitations of the Portland area transportation system. The current plans will force us into a chase to cure bottlenecks, especially at the I5/405 split southbound. The assumption is that our road system will be infinitely expandable. Houston has a 26 lane segment of expressway, without relief of congestion. This cannot be our future. Congestion on our roads can’t be solved by expanding. There is a concept of “tolerable level of congestion,” meaning drivers accept slowing to a point, and then they change behavior. My point is that we need to replace the bridge without additional lanes to increase throughput. Maintain a level of congestion that will encourage drivers to time shift a commute or transfer to transit or active transportation. A systematic approach to the highway system should involve regulating its use. This means tolling system wide, not primarily for revenue but to manage traffic flow. The draft document fails to consider tolling adequately, and fails to address better ramp metering. I’m asking for a system wide approach, using congestion, tolling, and metering to increase traffic flow at far less cost than an expanded bridge and 5 miles of freeway widening. Make the bridge an earthquake secure replacement, not a boondoggle.

The IBR Project fails to consider benefits associated with placing active transportation facilities in the form of a multiple-use path (MUP) adjacent to and west of Light Rail Transit (LRT) facilities. Benefit: Provides much improved buffering from auto traffic which reduces noise, particulate pollution, exhaust pollution, debris, and stress for active transportation users. Benefit: Provides better (more direct) connection to the Marine Drive Trail in Portland, OR. Benefit: Provides reasonable grades for active transportation users without the Vancouver Dip (see my other comment). Benefit: Allows active transportation users to use the same emergency access routes as LRT users. Benefit: Allows active transportation users to use the same elevators, stairways, and ramps provided for LRT users. Benefit: Allows equal or better "eyes on the trail" from LRT operators, transit security, and LRT passengers compared to auto drivers & passengers. Benefit: Allows the extension of the MUP further north into Vancouver, WA, both with the IBR Project and later. Benefit: Accommodates the elimination of the corkscrew ramp in Vancouver which is about 1/2 mile out-of-direction and requires a 100 feet elevation gain to access the bridge over the Columbia River from the Vancouver waterfront area.

The IBR Project fails to consider the cost versus benefits of removing two structures and acquiring land in Vancouver, WA. Cost: Roughly $10 to $20 million to acquire and remove an seismically unfit apartment building located at 316 East 7th Street, Vancouver, WA 98660 (the Normandy Apartments) and the Regal City Center movie theater, 801 C Street, Vancouver, WA 98660. Benefit: Up to $100 million structural cost savings achieved by not requiring Light Rail Transit (LRT) to be decked above the southbound lanes of I-5. Benefit: Allows room for an active transportation route in the form of multiple use or multi-modal pathway (MUP) alongside LRT all the way to the downtown Vancouver Library. Benefit: Allows MUP users and LRT users to be aligned together which allows sharing of access facilities such as stairways, ramps, and elevators. Benefit: Eliminates 1/2 mile of out-of-direction travel for active transportation users in Vancouver in the form of the proposed corkscrew ramp. Benefit: Eliminates up to 100 feet of elevation loss and gain for active transportation users in Vancouver, a.k.a., the Vancouver Dip. Benefit: Eliminates the cost of a 1/2 mile long X 100 feet tall multi-million dollar corkscrew ramp for active transportation users elsewhere in the project. Benefit: Allows less out-of-direction active transportation connections to the Marine Drive Trail in Portland, OR. Benefit: Allows active transportation connection to existing on-street bicycle lanes on East Evergreen Blvd. in Vancouver, WA. Benefit: Allows the future extension of a MUP from the downtown Vancouver Library to SR 500 where another MUP already exists.

Hello - I'm very much concerned about the size and cost of the IBR - It seems that the cost has gone up significantly with inflation and size of the build while the scope of the project has not been reduced. It appears to me that a correction in the scope should be strongly considered as the submitted SDEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lanes. I believe in a right-sized project that focuses on bridge replacement, rail and supports cycling/walking and other active transport must be considered to make sure this is a fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible project we can all be proud of. I appreciate the effort WDOT, ODOT and IBR orgs have put in and hope they can reconsider appropriate and new modeling in their decision. May we make the best decisions for all those affected by this monumental project - but considering the impacts - good and bad - that this infrastructure will create for generations to come. Regards, Jeffrey Placencia

• As a resident of North Portland adjacent to the Interstate, this proposal that includes the addition of multiple traffic lanes, the health impacts are a serious concern. Our neighborhood has historically been suffered from a lack of equity in the placement of infrastructure projects. If this proposal is built, we will be disproportionately suffering from noise, air quality and the climate impacts. Has the Health Analysis been published?

Please make true multimodal transportation happen on this bridge. The bike/walking path MUST BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE BRIDGE AS THE MAX! This allows walkers/cyclists to easily move from train to bike or bike to train without extra burden. This also keeps pedestrians and cyclists farther from traffic which is a great added bonus. with the new Better Red access to Gateway Green the journey is much more calm with extra distance from the freeway. The Vancouver waterfront max stop NEEDS AN ELEVATOR! Please keep the elevated bike/ped path on the transit side all the way to Evergreen BLVD on the washington side and to the delta park stop on the oregon side for easy ped/cycling access and safety.

Hello IBR Committee, I am writing as a resident of the Kenton Neighborhood and a person with a long involvement in transportation issues. My experience includes working on the planning teams for Interstate Max and the FX2-Division high-capacity bus service. There are multiple concerns about the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program proposal, but they can be summarized by stating that this project would be much more appropriate if it were simply a bridge replacement with transit and active transportation connections, rather than a five mile freeway expansion. • The modeling used by the IBR does not meet national quality standards. An independent analysis of IBR traffic modeling by Norman Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, a nationally recognized consultant in the field finds significant discrepancies in the predicted traffic flow, the analysis of the bottle neck sites and tolling as a traffic management tool. Our community would benefit it the following recommendations were included: 1. The Light Rail configuration is sufficient for opening day of the bridge, but should be designed to accommodate the volume and frequency of service that will be required for the future 2. The multi-use path must be positioned adjacent to the transit way to allow seamless transfers between modes and to make the transit elevators available to pedestrian and bike path users. 3. Active transportation connections must be extended deeper into the community on both sides of the river, at least as far as Evergreen in downtown Vancouver and connecting to the popular Vancouver/Williams corridor in Portland. In conclusion this project would be much more appropriate if it were simply a bridge replacement with transit and active transportation connections, rather than a five mile freeway expansion.

In looking at the project I wonder if we have potentially looked at vacating certain areas rather than building infrastructure to access them? Those areas could potentially become mitigation zones and reduce the overall construction costs. We seem to building ramps to ramps for access to areas that might not survive the construction due to lost business traffic and are already struggling.

Regarding the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, sustainability and the environment need to be top priority. Tolling can help offset both of these things. As can the proper planning of public transportation and pedestrian use. We need to think of the future and plan for higher capacity transit systems, such as multi-lane Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or heavy rail, beyond the 2045 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) horizon. We must ensure today’s infrastructure can adapt to tomorrow’s needs. And traffic modeling must realistically account for induced demand to ensure accurate projections for transit and road use. ACCURATE projections.

I've tried to cross this bridge by bike multiple times and it's been a terrifying experience every time. I've wanted to cross this bridge by transit and found the bus options insufficient. Please use the opportunity to make good multi modal connections between Portland and Vancouver. Spending billions of dollars to build new interchanges and increase the width of the roadway will not support me or my community. Please right size the project by reducing the roadway width as much as possible, it should not be any wider than it is currently, focusing enhancements on seismic improvements and multimodal improvements, and use the final cost savings for other road projects that are desperately needed.