Most Recent Comments

While I greatly appreciate the fact that the MAX light rail will finally be connecting to Vancouver (which is very long overdue), I'd really love to see this project take a more future-forward approach. Building MAX stations for the current train sizes is going to cause significant headaches and waste a ton of money in my lifetime. It's almost a certainty that the MAX lines will become a subway under downtown Portland. Once they do, the trains will be double their length, at a minimum. The current stations outside of the tunnel will already need to be reconfigured to accommodate the longer total train length. Let's not add to the expense by building new stations that only accommodate the current total train length. The stations should be built to accommodate 5 train lengths, at least, to future-proof for the next few decades of regional population growth. I'd also love to see the bike and pedestrian paths adjacent to the rail stations to allow for easy on and off for riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, similar to the current I-205 path. Also, the bike path should be at least marginally separated from the pedestrian path to avoid the obvious collisions that putting cyclists and pedestrians on the same path will cause. Finally, let's not kid ourselves. Adding more lanes will only increase private motor vehicle use. In fact, California spent $1 billion to add a lane to 10 miles of the 405 freeway; $100 million per mile. What did they get for their expense? A year later, traffic was WORSE. $1 billion to make traffic worse. That's quite an investment. Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-02-07/we-cant-widen-our-way-out-of-traffic-congestion-so-why-are-we-still-adding-lanes-essential-california

My professional career includes developing billion dollar transportation projects in Oregon, Washington, and California. This one is an epic-mistake. The IBR has been correctly labeled the biggest boondoggle in the USA by knowledgeable professionals. There are many reasons for this criticism all well explained. No need for me to restate them. Please calculate, print, and distribute to media outlets, elected officials, and your mailing list an independent forecast of the expected increase in greenhouse gases resulting from project construction, resulting construction congestion, and induced demand. How does investing billions of dollars in more GHG make sense at this point in history when the biosphere is at perilous risk of collapse?

This project should focus on alleviating traffic congestion through increased use of transit and active-transportation options.

What a waste of money. The money from this boondoggle could cover other transportation needs for years to come. And yet we're stuck building this ridiculous bridge that's not going to be safer, not help with congestion, and only increase CO2 emissions (and please don't use that ridiculous chestnut that more cars will emit less CO2 because they're idling less; no one is dumb enough to believe that crap). Implement real congestion pricing and watch the 20+% that's just Vancouver residents dodging taxes to shop in Oregon shift their travel to a different time of day. The highway is only congested a few hours of the day. And plenty of the day, there's no traffic at all. Rather than spending billions of dollars to accommodate peak times, why not reallocate some of that traffic to off-peak times? It's not rocket science. Then you wouldn't even have to use fake traffic models to justify this boneheaded project. Please, just this once let some common sense prevail.

Hello, The Interstate Bridge replacement should include lanes for light rail and any other current or planned transit system. It should also include pedestrian and bike lanes insulated from traffic. Adding lanes to freeways generally doesn't improve congestion, so unless data can prove an exception in this case, the freeways should remain the same width (which would reduce costs). Thank you, Ben Asher

These times of global warming threat and occurring catastrophes, it is unwise to rebuild the Columbia River Bridge because it would invite more traffic which directly adds to the carbon dioxide already in our atmosphere. Instead of encouraging traffic, we should discourage it and promote other forms of transport such as bicycles.

The elevation of the multi-use path crossing the Columbia River is of high concern. If the multi-use path cannot be lowered, then robust, well-maintained elevators need to be made available as a primary, reliable option for active transportation users. This challenge is especially made clear on the Vancouver access point. Under current design, active transportation users must descend (lose elevation) as they approach the waterfront, then use a ½ mile long, 4.5% grade circular facility to climb up to the bridge before crossing the Columbia River. We are calling this the “Vancouver Dip.” This is a significant barrier and is ableist in design. The program needs to include a multi-use path at the bridge’s grade from Evergreen (the Vancouver library) to the riverfront so that walkers/rollers/riders have direct access to the bridge. This is an extreme example of out of direction travel that is exacerbated by out of elevation travel. There is additional out of direction travel for people making trips that combine transit and walking/rolling/biking. Current design places active transportation and transit facilities on opposite sides of the bridge, meaning users using more than one mode have additional out of direction travel getting from one side to the other. These additional distances are especially challenging for people with mobility challenges. If you are a multimodal commuter (walks, bikes, rolls AND uses transit in the same trip or commute) then the IBR project team really needs to hear how this would affect you. Share your stories of multimodal trips and how locating the multi-use trail and transit on the same side of the bridge is critical. By ensuring accessibility features, we protect the rights and needs of a broad user base, including non-drivers, low-income residents, and individuals with disabilities. Additional benefits of placing active transportation and transit on the same side of the bridge include: Seamless Transition: Users should easily switch between transit and active transportation at any station, with no grade changes or distance barriers. Shared Elevator Access: Allowing active transportation users to share transit station elevators eliminates the need for additional infrastructure, making the design more efficient and accessible. Eyes on the Path: Transit operators and passengers provide a continuous presence, reducing the isolation felt on a multi-use path and enhancing safety and comfort. Emergency Egress: The multi-use path should double as an emergency exit route for the transit way, supporting user safety during unexpected events. Inclusive Design Principles: These principles ensure the accessibility and usability of both transit and active transportation facilities for individuals of all abilities. Walking/Biking/Rolling Connectivity to the Main Bridge Multi-use Path from Oregon Mainland The Interstate Bridge Replacement project must ensure complete and safe connections to the existing walking, biking, and rolling corridors in Oregon. These pathways need to be as physically separated from freight traffic as possible, especially in areas where new ramps and interchanges will be constructed. Maximizing this separation is key to creating safer, more attractive, and therefore more heavily used walking, rolling, and biking routes. Separating Vulnerable Road Users from Freight is Critical - A distinct separation of walk/bike/roll corridors from freight routes reduces conflicts between these two user groups. For example, the current design for the ramp from Vancouver Way to MLK North poses significant conflict with freight, as the proposed route travels down, across, and back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Given the Marine Drive interchange is usually described as the most heavily used freight corridor in Oregon, we believe additional alternatives need to be studied that entirely separate walk/bike/roll travel around rather than through this important freight interchange. Connection to the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) presents a well-designed, safe separation for walk/bike/roll users along the Interstate Avenue/Expo Way corridor. This corridor provides an excellent example of the type of separation that should be extended to all Oregon walk/bike/roll corridors to ensure safety and connectivity. The Marine Drive Single Point Interchange The proposed design for the Marine Drive Single Point Interchange presents a potential conflict between bike lanes and freight traffic. We request that additional alternatives be studied, including options that completely remove bike lanes from this interchange and investment of saved funds into further enhancing other connections. These studies should also explore how the project can meet the requirements of the Oregon Bike Bill without relying on the shoulders of MLK and Marine Drive for bike travel. Our research suggests that the Oregon Bike Bill allows for more flexibility in design than the IBR project has acknowledged. We want to make sure that all allowable uses of the required 1% for bike/ped are studied with a focus on promoting vulnerable road user safety. The Vancouver/Williams Walk/Bike/Roll Corridor is a major north-south bike route in Portland, but its connection to the new main bridge multi-use path (MUP) is indirect and complicated. Northbound users must navigate bike lanes along the shoulders of northbound MLK, while southbound users must travel along a separated bike lane next to Union Court before joining southbound MLK on a shoulder bike lane. Additional alternatives should be explored in the SEIS to improve this connection. One potential solution is to extend the proposed Union Court separated bike lane further, creating a parallel cycle track or entirely separate path alongside MLK. This path could be located at the toe of the MLK embankment, providing a safe, barrier-separated corridor for both northbound and southbound travel. This would eliminate the need for bike lanes on the shoulders of MLK, significantly separating pedestrian, bike, and roller traffic from freight movements. These alternatives were previously proposed to the IBR project and have been studied by the City of Portland. We urge the SEIS to consider them further and to adopt separated facilities, especially in these most dangerous areas of heavy freight movement. The 40-Mile Loop East/West Corridor is the main trail hub for Portland and when fully completed will connect most of the other trails in the region together. Having excellent connections with the 40-Mile Loop is important for ease of use and wayfinding. The IBR is improving an important segment of the 40 Mile Loop and we like that! IBR’s addition to the 40 Mile Loop Trail connects to the west to the already built separated trail along west bound Marine Drive. This connection is well-designed, offering a safe and direct route for cyclists and pedestrians separated from other traffic. We fully support this. However, the proposed eastbound connection to the Bridgeton Trail portion of the 40-Mile Loop is not ideal. The current design requires out-of-direction travel, routing users around a traffic circle to access the multi-use path on the west side of the Harbor Bridge. This is not a convenient or efficient connection. We request that alternative designs be considered to provide a direct connection from the Bridgeton Trail to the east-side sidewalk of the Harbor Bridge. This would encourage more users to cross the bridge as the east sidewalk offers a scenic view of North Portland Harbor and Mt. Hood. Additionally, we request that the sidewalk on the east side of the Harbor Bridge be as wide as possible and built with wide viewing areas to rest and enjoy the view. Priority Concern #2: Safety, Comfort and Equitable Multimodal Access Why it matters: The Interstate Bridge Replacement project must prioritize safety, accessibility, and comfort for all users, particularly those using active transportation modes. Our comments must emphasize the need to integrate active transportation and transit facilities closely, ensuring they serve as a cohesive and accessible network. Missteps in this design could lead to significant safety and accessibility issues, which NEPA requires us to address to protect the interests of all impacted populations. If a single-level bridge is chosen, the multi-use path should be positioned on the outer side, adjacent to the transit lanes. This placement would act as a buffer against noise, vibration, and vehicle debris from motor traffic, enhancing user comfort and safety. Here are some aspects you should consider highlighting in your comments if they affect you and your community: Noise and Debris: With tens of thousands of high speed car and truck vehicles passing over the bridge daily, active transportation users need protection from road noise and vehicle debris. To meet active transportation user goals, we need a design that protects users from these roadway hazards. Without adequate noise and debris shielding, the bridge environment will be too uncomfortable and even hazardous. Such conditions could discourage walking, biking, and other modes, pushing people towards single-occupancy vehicle use, thereby increasing environmental impacts and reducing the project's alignment with climate resilience goals. Temperature and Shading: We know that ambient temperatures on/around the bridge will exceed 100°F in summer months. It is critical that active transportation users have natural and/or human-made shading to mitigate heat and weather impacts on users. Failure to do so could leave the bridge infrastructure unable to serve users effectively and, therefore, miss our active transportation user goals. Unsheltered homelessness, which is pervasive across Oregon, can be concentrated in the vicinity of covered projects. A safety and maintenance plan is essential to consider a compassionate, long-term approach that integrates both personal safety measures and supportive services for people experiencing homelessness. This way, the IBR can serve not just as an infrastructure project but also as a supportive space that balances public safety and social responsibility, while keeping our shared multi-use paths clear for use as transportation corridors. Lighting and Isolation: People will only use active transportation and transit if they feel safe. As such, lighting throughout the multi-use path project area is critical. Furthermore, placing active transportation and transit facilities together increases the number of people sharing the space and reduces the feelings of vulnerability and isolation, especially at night or during low-traffic periods. Emergency Access: We have concerns that medical and police vehicles cannot directly access the multi-use path. Additionally, lack of embedded rail ties prevents ambulances and emergency responders from directly getting to those using the transit system. Furthermore, if emergency responders are expected to access multi-use path and transit users by parking on highway shoulder and scaling a divider, we are concerned that this indicates there is not sufficient separation between automobiles traveling at highway speeds and active transportation modes (see “noise and debris” above). Grade and Distance: As mentioned previously, current designs require significant out of direction travel both in terms of distance and grade. It is worth noting that single occupancy vehicle travel experiences little to no out of direction travel while active transportation users in and out of Vancouver experience an additional one mile of out of direction travel each time they navigate the Vancouver Dip. This is an inequitable design. Priority Concern #3: Environmental and Climate Impacts Why it matters: Did you know that transportation is Oregon’s largest source of climate pollution and that how often and far we drive (especially by ourselves, aka by “single occupancy vehicle”) is a contributor? By building excellent active transportation and transit facilities–and tolling appropriately–this infrastructure project must give world-class options to travelers so they choose non-driving modes of transportation. Global impacts: Unfortunately, the proposed design does little to reduce auto travel, estimating a 62% increase in study-area miles we drive (aka vehicle miles traveled or VMT) over current amounts (Executive Summary, S-21). Shifting modeshare to active transportation and transit is the most effective method of reducing VMT and meeting specific state/regional carbon reduction goals Local impacts: If this project fails to reduce VMT, local impacts include: Additional air pollution (greenhouse gas and particulate matter) from internal combustion emissions generated by vehicles Negative impacts to water quality from chemical, oil, tire particulate, and brake particulate runoff Additional noise pollution to surrounding communities Priority Concern #4: Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Benefits - Let’s get the most bang for our buck! Why it matters: Active and Public Transportation infrastructure can provide a very high return on investment if well designed. Economies of Combined Systems: By separating active transportation from light rail, the current project design expends dollars on separate access facilities to both systems. The most significant expenditure is on the spiral ramp connecting active transportation to the Vancouver waterfront and current design does not offer an elevator option to users of the multi-use path. Demand Management: Managing demand first, will help us shape a more efficient, right-sized, and thus cost-effective project for the future generations. Variable tolling is a powerful tool when equitably deployed. Mode Equity: Avoid subsidizing private auto travel at expense of walkers/rollers/cyclists Long term funding plan for operations and maintenance (O&M) of active transportation facilities: Variable Pricing (aka tolling) generates a revenue stream which can be used to fund operations and maintenance for the active transportation facilities, including but not limited to clearing the right of way of debris, glass, trash, snow and ice, and generally keeping the routes/pathways on the bridge and approaches free of barriers. Equity and tolling in the I-5 Corridor is not a matter of if, but when. For this reason, we insist that regardless which state manages the IBR toll program that implementation is in accordance with ODOT Equity and Mobility Advisory Committee’s Low Income Toll Program, and so that the project enhances rather harms access and mobility for low-income and BIPOC communities.

A long overdue project that is desperately needed. We believe fully in environmental impact studies and doing the most to mitigate the impacts of this project. We support prioritization of the most efficient movement of the masses of people that use this transportation pathway, but also the movement of economic goods. A strong supporter of the pay to play idea, tolling should be such that it supports the maintenance of the project so it is self sustaining. This project is an investment in the people and the economy that should reap rewards for communities along the way for decades to come. With that being said, build it bigger than is necessary for right now. We know that population and use is not going down. Our region has seen exponential growth over the last 10 years and it is not forecasted to stop growing. Let's prepare and be efficient with our resources so that we are not in the same situation again anytime soon. I want to emphasize preparedness for this project from a lens of disaster-mitigation. We know that the greatest disaster threatening us is earthquakes, and this bridge needs to be able to stay operational through the worst of them. If a devastating event were to occur, it would make the bridge one of the largest assets for movement of supplies and emergency personal. While it is important to include the needs of public transportation and bike/on-foot commuting, the focus of this project should be in moving the most cars, the most trucks, the most people, and the most resources.

Build a different bridge west of the current bridge that connects with 217 in Beaverton. Put light rail on the new bridge also.

I grew up in Houston, Texas, and I lived in Los Angeles, CA in 1991. Both cities are full of freeways, and both cities are intensely polluted and afflicted with almost constant gridlock. Everyone knows that freeways do not, in the long run, reduce gridlock--why don't you???Freeways exacerbate gridlock and pollution because freeways make other types of transportation difficult--where can you put light rail with freeways crossing everywhere? Who would dare ride a bike in such an environment? You would be taking your life in your hands, not to mention ruining your health with exhaust fumes. It's unpleasant and stressful to ride next to busy, loud, polluted roads. I have also lived in Amsterdam, where my family did not drive--even once--for a year. Our health and stress levels improved dramatically. We regularly rode our bikes not only around the city, but between Amsterdam and nearby cities (farther than Portland to Vancouver) because it was pleasant and fun. There were dedicated bike paths separated from the road next to a light rail line. The road, by the way, was *not a freeway* but was instead a lightly traveled two way ribbon that connected one of Europe's most densely populated (and visited) cities to neighboring cities. It didn't need to be a freeway because next to the road was a light rail line and a bike path. Most people opted for the latter two options. Riding those paths was so beautiful and joyful. I wasn't even much of a biker, but when you are completely separated from the road on a path lined with wildflowers, you can take all the time you need. Once, when my husband's bike broke down, we walked a quarter mile to a transit stop and rode the train back with our bikes. Have you thought about tourism?? What if Portland were crisscrossed with bike paths and transit--someday transit and bike paths to Dundee and up Mt Hood--so that tourists could have the Amsterdam experience in beautiful Portland? Have you thought of that?? I don't think you have, and you should. People say to me: we couldn't do that here, Amsterdam is special. NO! Amsterdam was crisscrossed with traffic crammed roads. Bikers got killed on the regular. And then the city announced a big road building project and the people pushed back. (https://dutchreview.com/culture/how-the-netherlands-became-a-cycling-country/) The city was rocked with protests and the end result, after years of transition is what you (pay lots of money) to see today. PORTLAND COULD DO THAT TOO.

Hello, I would like to comment in favor of a replacement bridge that has both a public transit lane for a MAX extension or BRT as well as a separate, physically buffered pedestrian and bike lane. I own a car and do drive, but I prefer to take public transit or bike when possible, and currently the existing crossing to downtown Vancouver is somewhere between terrifying and impossible, depending on the conditions. Additionally, I have turned down job opportunities in Vancouver because a car commute is miserable, and as someone who grew up on the westside and watched 26 fill up to capacity every time it was expanded, I know that simply adding more car lanes to what already exists will only cause more traffic and pollution.

I am writing to urge ODOT and WDOT to right-size the IBR project. Rather than simply replacing the bridge, these agencies are undertaking a massive highway widening and freeway exchange building project. The project uses a nearly two-decade old Purpose and Need Statement based on Metro's faulty Kate traffic model that does not even match current traffic volumes and predicts implausible future growth. NEPA requires a project's Purpose and Need to evolve to reflect current conditions whereas the IBR's has remained unchanged since 2005, which is in direct violation of NEPA. Furthermore, the model ignores the impact of induced demand caused by increasing road capacity. Finally, the primary I-5 traffic bottleneck is not the Interstate Bridge but the I-5/405 split further south -- meaning increased bridge capacity will not correct and could actually worsen congestion. I urge ODOT and WDOT to replace the bridge at the current capacity rather than spending billions to widen the bridge based on faulty modeling and failed logic.

Hello, I am interested in replacing the OR/WA I-5 bridge. This being a BIG TICKET item has huge potential to reduce traffic delays, pollution due to idle traffic and improve experiences of those crossing between OR and WA. This is an excellent opportunity to encourage non-polluting means of travel for People Walking, Biking, Rolling AND/OR multimodal travel. I am not 100% convinced the bridge needs to be replaced to accomplish this... But perhaps it is more expensive to retrofit than replace. Regardless, this is the perfect opportunity to accomplish top priority goals. In enabling the non-car driving transportation options, traffic and pollution goals can be met with less bridge investment and much better solutions for the long run. This goal includes meeting equity and inclusion goals by reducing the need for expensive cars for everyone.

The states of Oregon and Washington purport that the Locally Preferred Option for expansion of I-5 as it crosses the Columbia River will alleviate congestion and thereby reduce tailpipe emissions of Greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Their analysis fails miserably when examined with the history of similar highway expansion projects intended to speed traffic flow. Credible analysis must take into account the near certain induced demand that the LPO will generate. Motor vehicle highway travel in the Portland-Vancouver is dynamic and profoundly responsive to price, measured in both money and time. The entire $7 billion+ project is designed to expand capacity during morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Very few of the trips on the I-5 over the Columbia during peak commute times are inelastic about where and when they occur. For most trips, financial incentives can easily change their timing or location. Time-of-day tolling could by itself spread out the demand for highway capacity by incentivizing just 10-15% of vehicle drivers to make the trip 2-4 hours earlier or later to the point that traffic could maintain 50-55 mph through a (longer) peak commute time. Instead, the LPO proposes to add highway lanes on a new bridge itself and on about 2 miles of highway north and south of the river. Experiences in other locations where highways have been widened to reduce congestion show instead that within 2-5 years the congestion returns or is worse. I call on US DOT to reject the EIS and require Oregon and Washington to start over with a seismically sturdy design and operations plan (ie tolling, light rail service, local bus service expansion, carpool lanes, collaboration with employers and colleges to flex their start/finish times, others) that meet the traffic demand by spreading it out over more hours.

I'm concerned that the interstate bridge replacement project is not adequately considering the affects of adding more lanes to an interstate, particularly at a bottleneck point like a bridge. I'm sure many experts have already commented that adding more lanes to interstates is proven to worsen traffic problems and environmental impacts, so instead I will comment as a public citizen of the Portland metro area. We have a significant opportunity here to create infrastructure that will last for generations, why are we not considering building a bridge with more public transit options? This will help reduce commuter traffic between WA and OR, thus bringing down our city's emissions significantly. Portlanders know that getting across the bridge during rush hour means sitting in traffic for ages; why not give them another option (Max line or high occupancy bus line) to skip traffic and help reduce number of cars on the bridge? Oregon transportation law is already interested in reducing vehicle miles traveled, why is our government not taking responsibility for it's decision to reduce options for traveling across this bridge to just cars? I don't understand this at all. I really urge Oregon decision makers to consider building a bridge that will actually help reduce emissions and create better living standards for everyone in the Portland metro area. It really frustrates me that we aren't prioritizing public transit. Lets take a step in the right direction. Please consider building this bridge with public transit as a priority.

The bridge will be with us for a long time. Please give some priority to style, public transportation, bike and ped walkways.

It is really important to include public transportation in the plan for the new bridge such as extending the Max line in Portland to Vancouver. This will make it a lot easier and quicker to get to Vancouver from Portland.

I am writing to voice my support for an Interstate Bridge Replacement plan that places greatest emphasis on expanding and enhancing public transit capacity and use ( bus, train ) with safe multi-use paths ( bicycle, pedestrian ) that are integrated with public transit options in ways that prioritize safety, convenience, and the environmental good health of travelers and communities. Freeway and lane expansion for local, non-essential, commuter automobile traffic should be of lowest priority or not a priority at all so as not to create a bridge replacement that will induce increases of non-essential interstate vehicular traffic - and with it, increased vehicular congestion on the streets of Portland and Vancouver. Accurately assessing the health and environmental impact of the project must be carried out with a mind for addressing urban quality of life issues well into the future and in ways that will alter transportation behavior for the benefit of all the region's communities.

We need to mitigate noise, debris, and safety impacts for people traveling on the multi-use path. To help with this, the bridge’s transit lanes should be situated as a buffer between active transportation users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicle lanes. The transit lanes and path should be located next to each other to ease transfer to the path for transit users. Path connections should be better integrated on both sides of the river. There is significant room for improvement in planning for a more robust future transit system across the Interstate Bridge. Infrastructure built today will be here for generations to come. It should be future proofed to support higher-capacity transit systems. Tolling is still planned to partially pay for this project, so equity needs to be part of the toll program from day one. Freeways – and expansions of them – are inherently inequitable in who benefits from using them and who experiences the negative effects of them with regard to noise, air pollution, and climate impacts. Due to the nature of induced demand, we know that more lanes will invite more traffic over time. With any increase in traffic, health risks will increase, especially for already-impacted communities. The number of auxiliary lanes for this project is yet to be determined, making this comment period an opportunity to encourage the project team to not pursue the second auxiliary lane. This project should focus on alleviating traffic congestion through increased use of transit and active-transportation options.

I do agree with replacing or repairing the bridge due to future seismic concerns. Given the goals Oregon has, the current bridge project seems oversized, especially including the freeway interchanges that are required, the lost tax revenue from demolition of current taxpaying lots, and long term maintenance liabilites of the larger bridge. I do not think Oregon can afford this project in the long term, and most of the increase in cost is so there is extra space for cars and to make driving more convenient, which will harm our climate goals. Please do this project in a way that will keep long term costs similar to the current bridge and won't reduce tax revenue for the land around it.

Availability of public transit along with protected bike and walking lanes should be prioritized. Adding more vehicle capacity will only create induced demand leading to more vehicular traffic, increased GHG emissions and other related health concerns.

As a small business owner and climate policy expert, I am submitting these comments in regard to various aspects of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. I fully support the five main themes of the Just Crossing Alliance (JCA). • The need for more credible traffic modeling • Maximizing the potential of active transportation and transit • A need for stronger pricing policy and tolling equity • Health impacts • Right Sizing the project

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong support for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project and to urge you to prioritize the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, and public transit users in the final design. As a member of The Street Trust, I believe a new bridge presents a critical opportunity to improve connectivity, reliability, and safety for all modes of transportation, not just private vehicles. However, I am concerned that the current plans may not adequately address the long-standing issues of limited public transportation options, safety hazards, and substandard active transportation facilities in the project area. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following in your design: Seamless Public Transit Integration: Provide dedicated bus lanes with signal priority to ensure fast and reliable transit service across the bridge. Designate convenient and accessible transit centers on both sides of the bridge with clear connections to local and regional bus and rail networks. Explore options for incorporating light rail into the bridge design to further enhance public transit capacity and connectivity. Safe and Accessible Active Transportation Infrastructure: Create physically separated, protected bike lanes and pedestrian paths that are wide, comfortable, and accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Ensure safe and convenient crossings at all intersections and freeway ramps. Incorporate design elements that prioritize the comfort and safety of vulnerable users, such as ample lighting, weather protection, and clear wayfinding signage. Enhanced Safety for All Users: Reduce vehicle speeds and implement traffic calming measures to minimize the risk of crashes. Improve sightlines and visibility for all users. Prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety at intersections and crossings. This project has the potential to transform the way people move across the Columbia River. By prioritizing active and public transportation, we can create a bridge that is safe, accessible, and sustainable for generations to come. I urge you to listen to the voices of the community and incorporate our feedback into the final design. Sincerely, Ernesto Dominguez

I work in the Lucky Lager Warehouse in downtown Vancouver. Specifically, the business I own - Wallis Engineering - rents space in this building. We are in fact, the anchor tenant. All of my clients who visit my space comment on how wonderful it is, and some of them schedule meetings at my office just because they enjoy the space so much. It's historic and very valued by everyone who works there. I urge the people planning this project not to replace this historic asset with a park and ride. It's my understanding that there is actually vacant space currently used for parking that could be used for a park and ride. I'd really like to keep working in the Lucky Lager Warehouse, and don't want to see it destroyed for a faceless concrete parking garage. There's not a surplus of nice office space downtown, and I should know, I've looked.

I must say I've had it with ODOT and Metro's persistent, dishonest and disingenuous grappling to widen the I-5 Columbia River bridge and freeway through my neighborhood. I don't want more noise, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions from the concrete production and pouring and other construction processes of these roads, let alone the increased traffic that ODOT and Metro are hoping to induce through the widening. More roads and wider roads is not the same as better transportation. Better transportation means reducing the need and demand for daily miles journeyed, and it means improving other modes of transportation, thus making it easier and more pleasant to walk, bike and take public transit instead of funneling people more and more into cars and freeways predominantly throughout their lives. Stop with the insanity already, and pull the plug on this I-5 widening boondoggle!