Most Recent Comments

Please prioritize active transportation and bus and light rail in the bridge design. We do not need additional lane space for cars and trucks. Please prioritize making this a bridge that will help reach climate targets, and acknowledge that adding lanes will not reduce congestion but will induce demand.

While the DEIS finds that the Modified LPA can be designed in a way that it minimizes potential environmental impacts--while achieving the project's overarching goal of improving I-5 corridor mobility--I am concerned that the project's benefits are overstated, due to the faulty data that it draws upon. Investigation by City Observatory and Willamette Week shows that the DEIS overestimates baseline (2019) truck traffic by an estimated 69%, and that it also also assumes truck traffic has risen over time, based on data from Metro, which is contradicted by ODOT data showing a reduction in truck traffic since 2005. These inconsistencies make me question one of the LPA's key benefits cited in the DEIS, of daily traffic reductions of 36% (NB) to 70% (SB). To justify a $7 Billion investment such as the IBR, I think we need more clarity on the true benefits, and whether there are other alternatives--such as retrofitting the existing bridge, and adding an additional bridge for transit/bike/pedestrians if the agencies are legitimately concerned about improving those modes. In the neighborhood that I live in in northeast Portland, many of the streets (including my own) are not even paved properly. I suggest we reassess our prospective transportation investments, and how they are meeting community needs. Thank you for your consideration.

For the new bridge, light rail and active transportation paths should be on the same side of the bridge, eliminating the need for the massive loop-de-loop that's in the current plan.

As a lifetime Oregonian, I have seen certain infrastructure projects degrading the quality of life for myself and more specifically the most vulnerable and marginal communities in my city. I am writing to request that this bridge be built with the highest environmental and social standards, and at a scale that does not encourage further traffic congestion by expanding the project beyond what is essential. We do not need a freeway expansion. We do need public transportation prioritized, witch special accommodations for local low income and vulnerable people such as toll discounts. Finally, PLEASE, do your due diligence to ENSURE that this new bridge will be seismically secure, as this is a rare and vital opportunity to provide safe evacuation routes after the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake eventually returns. Thank you for your consideration.

The Insterate Bridge Replacement is a huge investment in the future of our community and needs to include comfortable and accessible active and public transportation options. Looking forward, we must do all we can to minimize emissions, VMT, and infrastructure that divides and isolates rather than unites communities. In order to reach these goals, it is imperative that the IBR include designated public transit lanes and multi-use paths that allow people to comfortably walk, bike or roll across the bridge and board and deboard transit. For optimal comfort and function, these multi-use paths should be on the outside of the transit lanes, with other automotive lanes on the inside, allowing the transit lanes to form a buffer between the two. Additionally, the bridge design should be capable of supporting larger and new public transit options, including bus rapid transit and heavy rail. We need more travel options in order to decrease congestion, achieve climate goals and ensure transit equity for all!

As a driver, I was torn on whether I should submit public comment on the bridge project. On the one hand, it is clear that the plans put forward are more or less in their final form. On the other hand, what this bridge plan proposes to do feels like a throwback to the 1970s. By widening the freeway without addressing bottlenecks, it will not solve traffic, and the traffic projections used by ODOT makes wild assumptions on traffic projections that have been shown to be faulty. By attaching multiple interchange reworks, the price tag has ballooned and will likely triple the cost of simply replacing the bridge to modern standards. The one saving grace for traffic - transit lanes for busses and the MAX - appears to be intentionally sandbagged, and I say this as someone who likely would never use the MAX or the bus to cross the river. When I drive across the bridge, I come from points too far away to points even further away for transit to be effective unless I use Amtrak - which has an entirely separate bridge. Still, even I am aware that adding lanes does very little to improve driver experience. The fact is that car lanes cannot move that many people at a time, and in an interconnected region such as the Portland-Vancouver metro, the only way to keep people flowing is to better manage a diverse set of travel options in the space that we have. The fact that the highway departments are collectively so obsessed with adding them while they can barely maintain the asphalt they already have is insanity. Even though I drive, I'm aware that every person who takes transit instead of driving is one less car I have to compete with for space. So when I see that MAX stations have been planned to be placed hundreds of feet in the air with the cycling lanes on the wrong side of the highway, I have concerns that the MAX connection will be notably worse at its job of keeping the I-5 bridge from clogging up during rush hour. All I ask is that the highway departments consider the movement of people in aggregate rather than just us drivers. Otherwise, every time I am forced to cross this god-forsaken bridge I'm worried it will just be jammed up again, even if it is a little wider and a lot more expensive than it had to be.

This sounds like a 1990s plan for a 2024 and beyond problem. More lanes for personal vehicles is not a practical solution long term.

I do not support a bridge freeway expansion in Portland. Studies have shown that within five years after construction, every single highway expansion project has already exceeded its anticipated capacity and has actually created MORE traffic, not less. Whether five lanes or eight, adding more highway transportation is not the solution. Please invest this money in sustainable travel options such as metro, electrified rail, buses, or trams/trolleys. The last thing we need for sustainable cities and a liveable future is more cars on the road.

Hi, I want to take this opportunity to echo Portland DSA’s opposition to building this exorbitant waste of tax dollars. For one thing, it is unnecessary as the amount of traffic has not changed much over the years, certainly not enough to warrant a project of this scale. I’m deeply concerned by the possibility that this will go through, not only because of the vast amount of people who will be displaced in order to make room but also the massive carbon footprint this will leave on the environment. Please consider these concerns as well as everyone else’s as this affects all of us. Regards, Thom

Our organization is against the current bridge design, and want the IBRP to stop using the term "Locally Preferred Plan," as LPP infers widespread local community approval, when there hasn't been any plan favorably accepted yet by local residents & businesses. We are also upset at the lack of transparency on the part of the IBRP, in failing to reveal full details about their bridge designs. Why is IBRP withholding complete information & details regarding their designs, and where are the physical models of each bridge design, commonly provided with such a large project? Why would the IBRP schedule their short comment period during the extremely busy General Election, if not to limit public scrutiny? As a result, we therefore demand a halt to the IBR project, followed by a new 90-day evaluation & comment period to begin only when the IBRP provides full details about the bridge designs, and provides physical models of each of the three bridge designs for public viewing. It's then and only then that local communities can adequately evaluate and respond to IBRP's request for comments.

I'm glad to see plans to include transit and bike lanes, but since this is a project that will solidify our choices for decades, I think it would be smarter to reduce the number of car lanes.

Hello, I'm very concerned about us overbuilding private automobile infrastructure and inducing more demand. As a society we are better off moving towards shared and active modes of travel for climate and health benefits. How can this bridge project help us achieve a mobility future that gives us freedom from the car? I recommend prioritizing lanes for light rail/busses, cyclists, walkers, some freight, and very limited for private automobiles. Thanks, Michael

My concern is that the second auxiliary lane is not justified by the observed traffic data. Taking into account the national and local trends, including among others, the rise in telework after the pandemic, decreasing drivership among Gen Z, the relatively stagnant population growth of the Portland metro area, the housing crisis of the Portland metro area, and the long term decline of truck traffic on I-5. It seems that the project's long shelf life, going back to the Columbia River crossing, has caused an inability to face facts about traffic growth. Why was a 1% traffic growth rate assumed when it cannot be supported by the data? I have followed the many blog posts of City Observatory on this particular issue and feel that engineering judgement has been clouded by those too close to the project for too long, with im sure many relevant political pressures beyond my knowledge making things more diffficult. Portland was at some point ten years ago considered among the vanguard of urban transportation reform, and the IBR project backslides on this, conceding the usual highway capacity expansion, in clear conflict with the Regional Transportation Plan which commits to lowering VMT by 12% over the next 25 years. How does modeled traffic growth in excess of 12% in the same period concord? Why is a less accurate and less sophisticated traffic model being used? Why is the FHWA on board with this project when they don't see themselves as supporting highway expansion before capacity improvements? How much will the light rail and bike lanes reduce traffic demand in the bridge? I understand the urbanist Blboogeyman of "induced demand" only captures part of the reality and engenders a certain ideology and point of view; but I wager that the transportation planners and engineers involved in the IBR project are no less victims of the professions, and state DOTs ideology; one in which capacity improvements need to be given a "factor of safety" to account the status of traffic modelling as an imperfect art. An article published in Dissent magazine last month has identified this pattern nationally, and the IBR is falling into the same trap; a project with an exaggerated scope that will never see the traffic it is projected to service. But there is no factor of safety in capacity analysis or economic analysis; the Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analysis conducted just two years ago gave a range of 4.5-7 billion. Now we are beyond that range, (what were the odds of a project cost falling outside of the distribution as developed?) and every tax payer following the project assumes we'll be to 9 billion in another two years. Right-size the project like the year is 2024, and Portland is set to retake its lead in America transportation

A econd of eight previously submitted concerns of Hayden Island , recently REMEDIATED titled, "Concerns Regarding the Current I-5 Bridge Replacement Project (IBRP) Remediated 2024-07-04 7. CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE (CEI-Hub) – CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE (CSZ) EARTHQUAKE (MAGNITUDE 8-9) AND THE I-5 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (IBRP) – THE THREAT OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION We are very concerned that the critical issue of the CEI Hub does not appear in the IBR program Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (High Priority Hazardous Materials Sites), nor is it mentioned in the current IBR program Bridge Influence Area (BIA). Because of the passage of SB 1567, Oregon has the authority to require seismic upgrading of the CEI Hub to withstand a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake of magnitude 8-9. However, because both the CEI Hub and the IBR program Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) are in the same large liquefaction zone, the IBR program can and should identify the CEI Hub as being nearby or adjacent to the modified LPA. The liquefaction zone mapped in the DOGAMI Soil Liquefaction Assessment* covers the area from the CEI Hub on the west side of the Willamette River, to Hayden Island, and extends to Gresham in the east. Please note: The BNSF rail network transports tanker cars filled with highly flammable fuels to the CEI Hub. These trains regularly travel across the Columbia River from Vancouver, passing across Hayden Island. This hazardous fuel transportation has many attendant risks to both Portland and Vancouver, including to the I-5 bridge and its surrounding areas. Reference #6 at the end of this paper has a link to a paper by the PSU Institute for Sustainable Solutions – “Risk of Earthquake-Induced Hazardous Materials Releases in Multnomah County, Oregon: Two Scenarios Examined”. This paper maps the location for soil liquefaction and chemical release plumes in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, magnitude 8-9. Should the expected Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake erupt, our Island residents and visitors might survive the CSZ, Mag 8-9, but would wouold be subject to poisonous gases and toxic fumes. Note: An Immersed Tube Tunnel option, being one of the two options strongly recommended by the USCG, appears to be a good option for a river crossing between Portland and Vancouver, and would also be more likely to withstand a major earthquake. FN. Institute For Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, 118 pages, October 2023 https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/FOUO Report for Multnomah County from ISS, Risk of Earthquake-Induced Hazardous Materials Releases 10-11-2023.pdf

For health and life of people and planet we need to rethink expanding the I5 bridge for cars. This outdated approach to transportation is killing us. We need more investments in public transit. Any car-centered approach should at a minimum include a toll.

If we mean to cut back on GHG emissions, we need to plan for decreased reliance on personal vehicles and increased public transportation. Attempts to alleviate congestion by expanding roadways often — if not always — quickly results in an increase in traffic and the restoration of congestion. Current plans for IBR favor what has become an obsolete model for moving people and goods. Something as expensive and long-term as a new bridge over the Columbia should be informed by a new transportation paradigm. We have to stop treating bus lanes, rail lines, bike paths and pedestrian walkways as token add-ones to the main business of subsidizing personal vehicle use. Public transportation should be primary. Designing and building to this standard might even prove to be less expensive.

The bridge replacement should be limited to only replacing the bridge. The current project has ballooned in scope and is an unmitigated climate disaster that will induce more VMT, causing more GHG emissions. It is imperitive that we go bad to basics, fix the bridge, add support rail and non-car uses and leave it at that

I feel strongly that any expansion of our highway system needs to strongly consider the long-term climate impacts. The modeling in the environmental impact report seems to willfully ignore the reality of induced traffic demand which will almost certainly increase vehicle miles traveled and thus result in even more pollution and emissions. I think the bridge should be kept a reasonable size, with the saved money from not expanding it used in more productive ways to fund better mass transit and ped/bike connectivity.

IBR-Proposed Design What a great opportunity for citizens and tourists of Oregon/Washington to finally have a beautiful, safe and efficient way to bike or walk between our two states. As a walker and biker I marvel at the world class experience of alighting over the mighty Columbia River. Done properly this Pathway will be recognized internationally. Commuters, recreational users and folks seeking connections to larger bike/pedestrian pathways, like the 40 mile Loop in Oregon will finally have this gateway, which till recently was only a far-off dream. In Current Proposed Design I feel there is a conflict between Bike and Freight movement.* We need a clearer seperation of Bike Path and Freight. * The MLK under crossing is confusing for bikers and difficult for pedestrians to navigate.

TOLLING I would like to bring to Mr Johnson's attention that many of the people who live on Hayden Island do the majority of their grocery shopping, banking (you can still find an open branch) and other appointments, business and etc in Vancouver. A large number of these folks live in the Manufactured Home Community on fixed incomes. While it may seem plausible to someone who will receive a Government funded Pension to say "you use it you pay for it" those whose only income TODAY NOVEMBER 18 2024is a Social Security check (that already doesn't cover expenses) it smacks os arrogance and a disconnect to reality on Hayden Island. WE DO NEED TOLL EXEMPTION. When you budget one tank of gas per month you need to do business at the shortest distance. For Hayden Island Residents that is Clark County..

Please right size the bridge and consider induced demand and the impact on sprawling land use, actual congestion, and green house gas emissions and embodied carbon of over building unnecessary lanes. Prioritize transit and active transportation as they are both much less envirnomental and financially impactful than subsidizing car traffic to govt and taxpayers. Also please consider tolling the bridge as construction for an autocentric bridge should not further burden our state budget with debt and other funding priorities like schools. Better connections of transit and active use need to be prioritized. The current design on the Washington side doesn't make any sense and is not a multi-modal solution. Perhaps transit and active use portion bridge built first, the bridge could also be available for emergency vehicles if needed.

Interstate Bridge Replacement is a misnomer. I wish it was just a bridge replacement. It's a five-mile long freeway expansion with a new bridge in the middle of it. Using the aging bridge as an excuse, the engineers at ODOT have done exactly what they always seem to do: responded to traffic congestion with many more lanes that will only encourage more driving until the highway is more congested than before. The vast scope and vaster cost of this project is not justified by the need for a seismic upgrade. My grandchildren's children will be paying for this long after I'm gone. And they'll be saddled with poor roads and transit because of all the funds going to debt service. It need not be this way. We could build a more modest bridge with transit lanes and walking/biking paths without the extensive freeway expansion. Or we could do what the late Jim Howell suggested years ago. Do a seismic upgrade to the existing bridges and build a new connection between Portland and Vancouver for local traffic, MAX, bikes and pedestrians. This would get the Washington sales tax avoiders off the freeway as well as local commuters, and ease the freeway congestion. It would solve the problem rather than creating new ones. Keep it simple and serve the future.

An immersed tunnel option, which has far less negative noise and Sightline impacts to Hayden Island and Downtown Vancouver was ruled out based on a false evaluation. This evaluation massively overestimated the amount of dredging that would be required, and has been shown to be flawed by licensed civil engineers. Our peer region, Vancouver British Columbia, has just recently constructed another immersed tube tunnel under the Fraser River, and it is what we should pursue for this project.

WA and OR both claim to have commitments towards sustainability and decreasing greenhouse gases and other pollution. However, our states are collaborating to transform a bridge replacement into a major highway expansion. This is inconsistent with any pledge to reduce our transportation system's impact on the climate and the health of nearby communities. The project needs to focus on bridge reconstruction and a major improvement for people traveling by transit, walking, and biking between our states.

The proposed plan is not good for active transportation. Under the plan, light rail access is separated from the pedestrian/bike path access, making it harder to use both. The 100 foot tower is not feasible for many users.