Most Recent Comments

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached podcast transcript with Dr. Susan Handy covers induced demand and disputes the idea that you can reduce emissions by easing traffic congestion.

When you build the I5 replacement bridge over the Columbia River, you MUST include light rail (MAX) and separate bike lanes, with safe and easy access points, emergency call boxes, good lighting and a plan for adequate maintenance, including periodic cleaning of glass and other debris in the bike lanes

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article "The "fundamental rule" of traffic: building new roads just makes people drive more" describes the effects of induced demand.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper "THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF ROAD CONGESTION: EVIDENCE FROM US CITIES" concludes: We investigate the relationship between interstate highways and highway vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) in US cities. We find that VKT increases proportionately to highways and identify three important sources for this extra VKT: an increase in driving by current residents; an increase in transportation intensive production activity; and an inflow of new residents. The provision of public transportation has no impact on VKT. We also estimate the aggregate city level demand for VKT and find it to be very elastic. We conclude that an increased provision of roads or public transit is unlikely to relieve congestion.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached technical advisory discusses how to calculate VMT effects under CEQA, California regulatory scheme and includes an appendix on induced effects.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper "Updating the Induced Travel Calculator" discusses a calculator for these effects.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper, "Environmental Reviews Fail to Accurately Analyze Induced Vehicle Travel from Highway Expansion Projects" discusses how failure to incorporate induced demand affects environmental reviews.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper, authored in part by WSP, the lead IBR consultant, "LATEST EVIDENCE ON INDUCED TRAVEL DEMAND: AN EVIDENCE REVIEW" concludes in part: "Induced demand is likely to be higher for capacity improvements in urban areas or on highly congested routes."

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper "Generated Traffic and Induced Travel Implications for Transport Planning" discusses how this impacts transportation planning.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article ""What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse outlines recent efforts to collect data on this.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper "If you build it, they will drive: Measuring induced demand for vehicle travel in urban areas" concludes that congestion relief benefits vanish within five years.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached white paper "The Congestion Con" explains some of these mechanisms

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached paper "Calculating and Forecasting Induced Vehicle-Miles of Travel Resulting from Highway Projects: Findings and Recommendations from an Expert Panel" provides insight on how to calculate induced demand impacts.

The DSEIS itself includes no discussion of induced demand (topic not found in index). The Transportation Technical report has some discussion of “induced development” (i.e., land use changes) increasing travel demand (based largely on a 14-year-old memo from Metro in Attachment G) but ultimately concludes that land use plans already anticipate completion of the project (p. 6-1). There are multiple mechanisms behind induced demand that are included nowhere in the DSEIS. The attached article "What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future" outlines how an economic finding from 160 years ago helps explain induced demand.

Right size the Interstate Bridge

Increased traffic under any scenario poses serious health risks and exacerbates negative outcomes for priority communities. Current traffic modeling issues mean that health impact assessments (air quality, safety, etc.) are unreliable. A new, more realistic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is needed.

I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured Home park (with 1,000+ others). I agree the bridge needs to be replaced. I understand the need to eliminate the lift. I appreciate the constraints that civil engineers must deal with. Thank you for your work. It’s a tough job. But the current bridge plan hurts economic development on BOTH sides of the river. It’s a 20-year-old plan. Much has changed in 20 years. Autonomy. Tunneling. EVs. Community awareness. Will decision makers be judged harshly when the $7.5 Billion project goes south? Where’s the money in a Trump administration? – Van pools are cheaper and faster. NO parking. NO express trains (1 track). – Eliminate Max to Vancouver. Saves $2 billion upfront (and the 90% subsidy). – Park & Ride in Vancouver? Gimme a break. – IBR REQUIRES building 5 miles of freeway AND steep access ramps — in EXTREMELY earthquake prone sandy soil. The eight-lane Vancouver, BC tunnel planned for under the Fraser River, is comparable. It costs $4.1B total … and NO toll! This doesn’t BEGIN to count the REAL impact for Hayden Islanders. – The closing of 15-20 businesses on Hayden Island. – The elimination of two dozen homes. – A toll that KILLS the Hayden Island Mall. The proposed bridge and freeway is expensive. Obsolete. IBR needs to lower the cost. Enhance livability and access. Save the waterfront. An immersed tunnel is one possible solution. Why BUILD another Alaskan Way Viaduct? PLAN on autonomy. Make it mass transit free during commute times. Half the cost of IBR. Half the congestion. Sam Churchill Hayden Island resident

To: Interstate Bridge Replacement administrators From: Sam Churchill, Hayden Island E-Mail schurchill@gmail.com Address: 1503 N. Hayden Is Dr. #869, Portland 97217 Subject: Draft SEIS public comment Date: Nov. 10, 2024 Dear Administrators: I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured Home park. Properties scheduled for demolition on Hayden Island were NOT clearly identified by the IBR, but by an individual, Jordan Lewis, of Just Crossing Alliance. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program may need to fully or partially acquire a total of 176 parcels, which would displace 43 residential units and 33 businesses across Washington and Oregon. That’s according to the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. The closing of Hayden Island businesses due to the building of the Bridge would include: 1. T-Mobile store 2. Sleep Number Bed 3. Wells Fargo ATM 4. Starbucks 5. Jersey Mike's Subs 6. BJ's Steakhouse 7. Sanford's Restaurant 8. Old Country Kitchen 9. Dede's Deli Triplex 10. Bank of America ATM 11. McDonalds 12. Dotty's 13. Tina's Nail Bar 14. Cardtronics ATM 15. Cafe Dell Toro 16. Anchor Bar 17. Denny's 18. Wild West Emporium 19. 13, JBMI Floating Homes 20. 6, JBMI Floating Homes (in peril) ALSO IMPERILED ON THE WESTSIDE (North): 21. Original Joe's Barbeque 22. Paul's Cigars 23. Boomer's Barbeque 24. Erupted Vapors 25. uBreakiFix -- ON EASTSIDE OF BRIDGE 26. Eighteen, boat/moored homes 27. Jaybees Chicken Palace Where is their compensation coming from? The Trump administration? We could use better assurance. This doesn't BEGIN to count the REAL impact for Hayden Islanders: - Where can you move if you lose your floating home or business? - A toll KILLS the Hayden Island Mall. - It’s harder to get on and off the island with the IBR plan. - You can’t get on I-5 directly going south. - Without a grocery store or hospital, trips to Vancouver are a daily necessity for many. - The elevator won't work. Hasn't worked in 3 years at Union Station. - I can barely bike over the current bridge. Hayden Island residents were left out in the cold. It appears we don’t matter. - Sam Churchill, Hayden Island resident

To: Interstate Bridge Replacement administrators From: Sam Churchill, Hayden Island E-Mail schurchill@gmail.com Address: 1503 N. Hayden Is Dr. #869, Portland 97217 Subject: Draft SEIS public comment Date: Nov. 10, 2024 Dear Administrators: I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured Home park. I'm for a tunnel. Mr. Greg Johnson, the Interstate Bridge Replacement program Director, made a two part video with "Ten reasons why a tunnel wouldn't work at this location". The video is helpful. I appreciate the effort. I'm not convinced: (1) The Vancouver BC tunnel, now planned for under the Fraser River, has similar characteristics to our location, but is more cost/effective then their original bridge proposal. The toll-free, eight-lane tunnel is scheduled for completion in 2030 with a projected cost of $4.15 billion. It's NOT DOUBLE the cost. It's HALF the cost of our proposed Columbia River bridge. www.highway99tunnel.ca/ (2) Cars enter/leave the tunnel on the island (for potential direct island access). (3) It does NOT require raising up an entire 5 mile length of freeway AND building steep access ramps to the raised freeway -- in EXTREMELY earthquake prone sandy soil. That saves $2.5 Billion right there. (4) Johnson needs a shallow grade for the Max train. What if there were NO Max trains. Instead, shuttles move people. Electric van pooling. No Max to Vancouver, WA. That saves another $2 billion. (5) Since the IBR plans a new main river channel, the immersed tube could be close to the surface near the Vancouver shore. It would surface BEFORE the East/West railroad line. NO height restrictions! Mr. Johnson makes a good point on personal safety. I think it can be addressed with free electric shuttle vehicles on the active transportation areas. This tall bridge and raised freeway is ugly. It hurts economic development on both sides of the river. It reminds me of Seattle's Alaskan Way, which has now been permanently torn down, stimulating NEW waterfront attractions. Lower the cost. Enhance livability. Seattle tore down Alaskan Way Viaduct for a tunnel. We'll ALL pay for this 5 mile viaduct. Especially after the first earthquake. - Sam Churchill, Hayden Island resident

To: Interstate Bridge Replacement administrators From: Sam Churchill, Hayden Island E-Mail schurchill@gmail.com Address: 1503 N. Hayden Is Dr. #869, Portland 97217 Subject: Draft SEIS public comment Date: Nov. 10, 2024 Dear Administrators: I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured Home park. Five things the Interstate Bridge Replacement should NOT have ignored: 1. Autonomous Vehicles. RoboTaxis, owned by entrepreneurs, may drive TriMet out of business. No drivers. No gas. Twenty cents a mile operational cost. Total flexibility. Same deal on Tesla's 20 passenger RoboVans. Express service on the freeways. Elon Musk believes RoboTaxis will take over. Ignoring that is risky. 2. Free Transit. Tickets are NOW subsidized over 90%. Fare evasion on MAX trains is 27%. Costs for kiosks, enforcement and maintenance are HIGH. People USE FREE public transit. Cameras count passengers. Many cities (like Corvallis) already have free transit. Construction starting in 2026 and Project completion in 2030. https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/project-overview-frt/ 3. Tunnel. Vancouver BC's 8 lane tunnel under the Fraser River will cost $4.1B. It's HALF our projected cost. Not DOUBLE. No toll. Electric golf carts for pedestrians. News flash: the elevator won't work. Hasn't worked in 3 years at Union Station. I lived there. I know. 4. Terminate Max on Hayden Island. Save $2 billion. Max CAN'T deliver "Express" service for Vancouverites. Only one track. But Max CAN increase property values on the island. When the Mall goes belly up, apartments could be a viable and useful option. Re-purpose the closed Mall and Manheim. That’s hundreds of people laid off. 5. No Toll. Many Hayden Island residents MUST see doctors in Vancouver. Vancouver has the closest grocery stores. A daily necessity and economic imperative for Islanders. No choice. Free Max from Hayden Island. Free RoboVan to Vancouver. Everyone wins. THE cheapest way to reduce congestion. IBR's bridge plan completely lacks vision. Self-driving transportation options was never mentioned in 10,000 pages. We can do better. The IBR plan is embarrassing. We’ll NEVER finish paying for it. - Sam Churchill, Hayden Island resident

To: Interstate Bridge Replacement administrators From: Sam Churchill, Hayden Island E-Mail schurchill@gmail.com Address: 1503 N. Hayden Is Dr. #869, Portland 97217 Subject: Draft SEIS public comment Date: Nov. 10, 2024 Dear Administrators: I am a 76-year-old, low-income person with no car. I live in the Hayden Island RV/Manufactured Home park. I'm for honesty. We're not getting it from the IBR. IBR says the I-5 bridge had 143,000 average daily crossings. That was a projection from the CRC in 2005, NOT actual traffic. Covid hit. The 143,000 average daily crossings of I-5 never got close. Instead, the numbers went down dramatically. Everybody knows it. The ACTUAL average daily crossings of I-5 in 2021 was 130,000, not 143,000. Traffic peaked at 138,000 in 2019. Then it went down to 120,000 in 2020. The 2023 number is now back up to 133,000. The 2024 figures aren't in yet. The IBR USED the 143,000 figure in all sorts of (current) presentations. It's a lie and IBR knows it. I eventually gave up trying to correct the IBR. Washington State has the ACTUAL MEASURED bridge crossings numbers. They're right here (below) for all to see and use. (I-5 is the middle column, I-405 is the right column). That's the truth. To their credit, they did NOT fabricate figures in 3.1 of the draft SEIS. Just on all their public PowerPoints. When IBR says they WON'T sell your personal identity or home address to marketers (and thieves), I just don’t believe them. Why should anyone? Their track record reflects badly on WS-DOT and O-DOT. - Sam Churchill Hayden Island resident

The document should be frightened to evaluate the effects of climate change and cumulative impacts. As we electrify our transportation system and change individual modes of transportation the constructed facilities need to be able to accommodate changes and at the least cost and inconvenience possible. Train both local and regional will become more important and very small cars will likely be used in great numbers. Please incorporate more far-sited ideas for cumulative impacts into the document.

A significant problem in the DSEIS design is the basic information's inaccuracy. The material inaccuracy of basic information affects the project's basic design. The problem with statistical analysis design is that incorrect information causes incorrect conclusions. (Garbage in, garbage out.) For example, a report by Norman Marshall, president of Smart Mobility found that: • The Interstate bridge is not the I-5 bottleneck in either direction. • The traffic congestion to the south controls the traffic on the bridge during peak periods, and traffic cannot grow without road expansion to the south. • Metro's regional Kate model relied on in the DSEIS significantly overestimates peak period traffic today and forecasts impossible traffic growth in the future. • This impossible traffic growth forecast is the basis for the DSEIS traffic metrics. • Higher speed and higher throughput are possible without expansion through better ramp metering, and/or system-wide tolling Evaluation and approval of the bridge design and modification can't be done without more accurate traffic information. For example, inaccurate information causes an auxiliary lane to be needed: it may not be needed. The DSEIS should be denied. Inaccurate information causes the basic design of the bridge to be faulty.

I am a local Portland, Oregon resident and public health professional that works in traffic safety and injury prevention. My comments are regarding the DSEIS for the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement. For pedestrian safety and public transit purposes, I would like to see the design include the capacity for 4 light rail cars and be able to scale up to heavy rail in the future. Public transit rails and active transportation/pedestrian lanes should be on the same side of the bridge with the active transportation/pedestrian lanes on the outside and the rail lanes serving as a buffer from the motor vehicle traffic. The number of lanes dedicated for motor vehicles does not need to be more than what the highways feeding them already have. Three in each direction should be the limit. Having lived in Los Angeles, CA in the 1980s and 1990s, we were told building more, wider highways would reduce traffic and congestion. Instead, both grew. The active transportation/pedestrian lanes should be shaded for protecting users from the heat as summer temperatures regularly hit 100F. Lastly, the active transportation lanes on the north end of the bridge should extend from Evergreen to the riverfront so that walkers/rollers/riders have direct access to the bridge.

Congestion pricing is imperative - put some effort into (re)creating the political will for it. The Pricing Options for Equitable Mobility task force (POEM) worked for years and the Portland Bureau of Transportation published POEM's proposals that were going to reconfigure the costs of getting around Portland. Then this Spring the governor halted all planned tolling in the state, and that plan went nowhere. Congestion pricing is not the same as flat rate tolling, and it is even more effective at dissipating peak hour commute traffic volumes. Try strategies that don't require multi-billion builds first, and then look at the need.