Most Recent Comments

The Interstate Bridge Crossing is oversized and unjustifiable by its own supporting documents. The proposed crossing slows southbound transit buses (and presumably commuter auto traffic) due to the I-5/I-405 split choke point. This occurs because a larger bridge delivers more traffic faster than the existing roads can handle it, and therefore there is no improvement in traffic congestion. The models used to justify the road expansion are questionable. These models predicted much more congestion than actually developed during the past 20 years when bridge expansion was first proposed. The model also ignores the fact of induced demand. This is clear to me from the I-205 experience, where maximum road capacity was reached decades before the traffic models had predicted it. There is growing evidence that these models are manipulated by the organizations that employ them in order to justify their plans, even in Oregon. The role of tolls to reduce demand is underestimated, and the potential for congestion pricing to eliminate the need for lane expansion is hardly considered. Claims of greenhouse gas reductions in an expanded lane scenario are laughable. This has never occurred anywhere. This project strikes me as serving a small segment of government agencies, traffic planners, and construction companies. Traffic flow, transit, and commuters benefit little, or not at all. The huge sums of money wasted on excessive bridge infrastructure could be better spent improving road systems elsewhere, with greater improvement in traffic flow for far less money. Please be fiscally responsible and eliminate the auxiliary lanes. We need an earthquake safe bridge, not a boondoggle that will ultimately worsen traffic congestion.

NO 7 BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE. YOUR PLAN FOR ANY HIGHWAY EXPANSION MUST BE COST-EFFECTIVE.

There has been this perpetuated myth that one more lane will fix traffic. Honestly all it does is make traffic worse, just look at L.A. and their 10 lane freeways and they still have the worst traffic in the US. The problem is cars take up a lot of space but don't carry that many people. Public transit is a more efficient way of transportation both in space and emissions. One more lane just means more cars, more pollution and more chances of flooding. Having more concrete just leads to water run off or just pools of it. We need more wild, or green spaces to help absorb water. We're in the midst of a climate catastrophe, we need to make smart decisions now for the future of our children. Allocate that money to build up our green infrastructure. Thank you!

It’s folly to think that more lanes will produce less congestion. The same arguments were used when we lived in Maryland, and there is now more traffic than ever. It’s more like “Fiend of Dreams”. If you build it they will come. Stop the road building madness.

I am strongly encouraging you to make sure that the interstate Bridge Replacement is what the name suggests: a replacement to ensure there is a seismically safe crossing over the Columbia River, rather than a massive highway expansion that will result in displacement of houses, businesses and floating homes. We know that a second auxiliary lane will NOT reduce greenhouse gases by reducing congestion, history teaches us it will induce more traffic and result in MORE emissions; on this point the EIS fails to consider any serious consideration of induced demand and instead trumpets the demonstrably false myth that more lanes will reduce greenhouse gases by 'reducing congestion.' Furthermore, the EIS overstates how much traffic will (can) increase in the no-build scenario, when decades of research shows that already high congestion increases minimally in no-build scenarios because people simply choose to drive less. Additionally, the EIS notes that Southbound morning commutes will still have serious backups at the I-5/I-405 split, made worse by more traffic crossing the bridge (indeed, traffic at the split will backup onto and past the bridge), slowing down express buses. Transit stations and walking/biking/scooter connections will be 50-100 feet in the air on Hayden Island and at the Vancouver waterfront, further incentivizing car travel, which in turn increases greenhouse gas emissions and increases congestions. I urge you to do your part to help build a sustainable transportation future for Oregon and South Washington, not to double down on the failed policies of the past.

A second auxiliary lane will NOT reduce greenhouse gases by reducing congestion, history teaches us it will induce more traffic and result in MORE emissions. There's been a lack of any serious consideration of induced demand. People are working from a problem statement (“purpose and need”) now almost 20 years old. We need to contain climate change to less than 2°C, near impossible if freeways are expanded!

It's too expensive. The scope of this Cadillac project is too large, including highway interchanges north and south of the bridge. What we need is a bridge replacement, not a complete highway rebuild. We should use tolling to manage the highway capacity, not try to chase demand. We have many other transportation needs in Oregon and Washington. Our existing road network needs more funds for maintenance. Our "orphan highways" in Oregon need to be brought up to current standards. Our transit systems and active transportation networks could use more funds. Putting $7B into highway expansion means that $7B is not available for these other needs. We should refocus this project's scope to focus on the bridge.

I'm strongly opposed to expanding the highway. Highway expansions cause climate change, and fail to alleviate traffic. The idea that this project will reduce emissions is absurd. That has never happened.

We are in a climate crisis that demands rethinking the unquestioned dominance of vehicles carrying one or two people at a time. We must switch to better transit options. Yet the proposed design worsens transit options. It amounts to a multi-billion dollar gift to drivers, and does little to address the climate crisis.

Proof of debacle is in the pudding look at i205. If you build it they will fill it. You’re gonna have a mess if you do this kind of thing and you’re gonna mess up everything else.

We are killing our children with highways and oil addiction. Please stop enabling it.

Please do not expand the freeway! I live in NE Portland. We have to live with the consequences of this, unlike the people just zooming past in their cars. We do not want “just one more lane”. More freeway lanes will not solve congestion. Maybe freeway drivers will appreciate it for a few years - but it ultimately will make climate change worse, traffic worse (induced demand, increased load on nearby areas, increased car dependency), and bankrupt us in maintenance. It will also displace people and businesses and make the area less walkable and noisier. Please be on the right side of history. Please protect North Portland.

I feel that increasing the number of lanes on the I5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, WA is the best solution for the future of climate change. Not only will families and businesses be displaced which is detrimental to a child who is being ripped from their home, but also the families that have lived there for generations.traffic congestion will still be an issue after an expansion with one change, more cars to be congested which means more pollution in the air. A better use of the land would be a train that can carry more people on less land and can be electrified to help reduce emissions. Let’s be smart about this and think about the future of our community and children’s community.

I oppose the expansion of the highway bridge during its remodel for several key reasons. First, the expansion would lead to the displacement of homes, businesses, and floating homes, impacting the lives of those in the surrounding communities. Additionally, the project overlooks the issue of induced demand—the fact that increasing road capacity often leads to more traffic, not less. The argument that adding lanes will reduce greenhouse gases by alleviating congestion is misguided, as this overlooks the long-term effects of increased car use. The planning process itself is flawed. Projections about traffic growth in the no-build scenario seem exaggerated, and the “purpose and need” statement guiding this project is outdated, having been created almost two decades ago. This is especially concerning given the pessimistic view that climate change can be contained within a 2°C increase, a threshold we must strive to meet. Moreover, even with the expansion, the southbound morning commute will continue to face significant backups, particularly at the I-5/I-405 split, which will worsen as more vehicles cross the bridge. This congestion will also slow down express buses. Finally, the proposed light rail options are insufficient, with capacity limited by the Steel Bridge bottleneck, and the transit stations on Hayden Island and the Vancouver waterfront would be unreasonably elevated, making access difficult for commuters.

We must prioritize people over cars to reach our climate goals. Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient way to move people across the Columbia River. Private car ownership has lead to decades of terrible land use policies and construction of public infrastructure that does not support itself with the fees and taxes in place. Public transit and micro-mobility offer more efficiency at a lower cost. The built environment should reflect that. Fewer car lanes, more walk, roll, bike and public transit infrastructure. We need bold action NOW!

Hi. I have a 13 month old daughter named Marley. She is inquisitive, brilliant, and hilarious. She is also inheriting an earth that is literally on fire. She needs to be able to have access to clean air, water, and green spaces. Freeway expansion fast tracks the effects of climate change. For the love of god STOP EXPANDING FREEWAYS. -A mom

The new bridge must support multiple means of safe, reliable transportation including walking, rolling, biking, bus, light rail, train, and car. The goal must be vibrant connected successful communities in both Vancouver and Portland. Many of the Tenant Members of the Community Alliance of Tenants do not have cars and rely on public transportation to get to work, school, and essential services. Often this means that renters in Portland commute to Vancouver and tenants in Vancouver commute to Portland. Public transportation should support the movement of people between Oregon and Washington, especially for those without cars. The off-ramps should give the same access to people using modalities other than cars. I am concerned that Light Rail capacity from Vancouver will be limited by capacity at the Steel Bridge more needs to be done to mitigate this. And I am concerned that transit stations (and active transportation connections) will be 50-100 feet in the air on Hayden Island and at the Vancouver waterfront. Public transportation stops must be designed to be safe, this includes, lighting, elevators, cleaning, steps that support moving bikes, multiple exits, emergency phones, and other safety features. With this opportunity we must plan for the movement of people without inducing the movement of more cars. Thank you for your consideration of my comments on behalf of tenants in Oregon and Washington.

For the Multi-use path over the Columbia river, has there been consideration to have just the Multi-use path portion be movable? In doing reduce the spiral ramps to a more reasonable elevation. This may save considerable amount of money and be more user friendly for people of all ages and abilities. Then the funds could go towards making the path wide enough to have pedestrians and cyclists not conflict. Perhaps there is a sweet spot in how often it needs to open and its height and time it takes to open. I would say cyclist and pedestrian should not be delayed more than 3-5 times a day and no more than 3 minutes at each lifting. Which seems reasonable, please check with pedestrian and cycling groups on the trade off point. The steel bridge has the capacity or design ingenuity to do just that and its 100+ years old. I would also advocate in doing so also opens up the possibility that the raising of the bridge be aesthetically appealing and unique moment. So if one has to wait at least they can take a unique enough experience to take selfie rather than it be like an annoying railroad crossing. If the multi-use path is directly underneath the bridge could be a very cool experience as well be protected from the elements a little. The bottom of the main deck should be also equally elegant in structural design. A more approachable multi-use bridge would encourage all users and has the opportunity to be an landmark experience.

The attached article from Dissent magazine highlights a number of problems with the current state of traffic forecasting, including a marked tendency to overforecast future traffic in no build scenarios. IBR appears to have the same problem, as cited in the article. The CRC project forecast 180,000 daily crossings in the late 2020's. We are clearly nowhere near that, yet the project now forecasts 180,000 crossings by 2045 on the same constrained facility. We are not learning from our past mistakes.

People need more than one option to travel.

The IBR active transportation video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acoJPOZCyNY) is quite helpful, but doesn't show what I suspect is a common use case. Given current facilities I'm used to accessing Hayden Island (and Vancouver) by bike from the Expo Center LRT station area. It would be great if a video could show how active transportation users would make that connection.

In table 3.1-17 in Chapter 3.1 some of the VMT and VHT columns do not total correctly. Corrected totals are indicated in red in the attached image.

The attached Planetizen article highlights that nationally VMT continues to grow, something we know is not sustainable in light of climate change. It describes the dangers of planning facilities based on past trends, something I believe IBR's traffic modeling does in spades ("predict and provide"). The article argues instead for a "decide and provide" approach. In IBR's case I would argue this would result in much expanded transit and active transportation connections, including addressing transit bottlenecks elsewhere between Vancouver and Portland, and a reduction in the focus on freeway facilities.