Most Recent Comments

Having multi modal design is very important for the new bridge. Combining access points for active users and transit users makes good sense for safety of all non motor vehicle users.

This plan will create more pollution in Portland and make those who live in the impact zone haver shorter, sicker lives. Please right this project to be a bridge replacement only with no additional highway lanes.

Thank you for this opportunity to add my voice to those who are concerned about the proposed Interstate Bridge Replacement. I am concerned that the proposed design does not provide safe and efficient routes for non-motorized traffic – and I urge you to rectify these shortcomings in the final design. We know – from years of experience not only in the greater Portland region, but worldwide – that people will not routinely use non-motorized forms of transportation unless they are safe and convenient. Yet for decades we have designed and built our transportation system to make vehicle travel safe and convenient, usually at the expense of providing safe and convenient travel options for those who choose not to – or cannot afford to – drive. This project gives us the perfect opportunity to change that approach, and in so doing, encourage people to leave their cars behind. We know how to make bicycling (for example) safer and more convenient; years of investment in our region’s bicycle network has not only seen greater bicycle use, but has enabled us to increase travel across the Hawthorne Bridge without destroying valuable downtown real estate by rebuilding the bridge to accommodate more vehicle lanes of travel. In cities across the world, designing and redesigning streets to encourage more non-motorized travel has enhanced urban and suburban neighborhoods, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and helped reduce deadly carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. The replacement of the Interstate Bridge is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate a better way to make sure we are moving our transportation system, our region, and our climate in the right direction. Let’s make the most of it. Sincerely, Elisabeth (Meeky) Blizzard Beaverton OR

No freeway expansion: that is the PAST! ODOT and WDOT need to support the bridge repair that include future forms of transportaton. Fossil fuel going away, as will single occupany transport. ODOT needs to repair the bridge--seismicc replacement, lgiht raill extension and bike and pedestrian immprovements. Freeway expansion would be a nightmare for people living and moving through this region.

I am worried this project doesn’t have sufficient or good enough public transit. The plans around MAX seem to be an afterthought without planning for future increases in demand for use. Getting into Portland from Vancouver should be done as much as possible via transit since it is so much more efficient. But the plans seem to expect MAX to be slow and always small (3 cars) and for there to be no need for bus only lanes. I can’t see how this is a project that helps reduce vehicle miles travelled without those features. I support the move to right size the project in light of the recent information about how the current proposal uses poor traffic modeling and would likely just shift congestion elsewhere. I also worry about the effect of the bridge on downtown Vancouver and its waterfront. Will this pollute and damage a new and thriving part of the community?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IBR Project. Honestly, I would be hard-pressed to improve on the comments of the Just Crossing Alliance. In particular, I remain perplexed at the proposed excessive width of the bridge. We need a right-sized bridge, and we need it now. Succinctly Yours, Steph Routh

If you are impoverished, or even just in a bad state temporarily financially, you cannot afford a car. Taxis to go from work, school, doctors appointments, and grocery stores are incredibly expensive. I own a car, and use it. Beyond economically, the elderly, disabled and neurodivergent cannot *all* be expected to use a car. If we want Portland to actually be a thriving city for all and not just an amusement park for the upper middleclass, we need to expand transit for everyone.

The I5 bridgee replacementreduce the freeway component of the project but supports parts of it, including the seismic replacement, light rail extension and bike and pedestrian improvements.

I strongly support side-by-side integration of light rail transit and the multi-use path. This design offers several significant advantages: * Seamless Transfers: By placing the transit and multi-use path side-by-side, we can create a seamless and intuitive transfer experience for commuters and recreational users. This will encourage more people to choose sustainable transportation options. * Enhanced Safety: Humans and vehicles don’t mix. Exhaust and sound pollution from large trucks and fast-moving vehicles on the freeway make an unpleasant and degrading experience for pedestrians and cyclists. A unified design will improve safety and accessibility for all users, especially vulnerable populations. It will also reduce the risk of conflicts between different modes of transportation. * Increased Ridership: The convenience and efficiency of this design will attract more riders to public transit, reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. * Stronger Community Connection: A shared space for transit and active transportation will foster a stronger sense of community and encourage social interaction. I urge the project team to prioritize side-by-side interaction of transit and the multi-use path, and work diligently to ensure its successful implementation.

Why are we continuing to shovel millions and millions of dollars into a civil project that is not only bleeding funds, but relies on outdated data and intends to destroy homes and businesses, with only a duct tape solution to the issue of traffic that won't fix the issue permanently? The population of Portland and surrounding areas has increased, and yet, ridership across the i5 bridge has DECREASED over time. And yet, we are continuing to bend-over-backwards for the motor and trucking lobbys, putting alternative transit solutions onto the back burner. An over the shoulder buslane isn't going to fix the congestion, and can, and most likely will be, converted into another car lane. Please. The addition of lanes will never fix the issue. We *NEED* transit alternatives to private automobiles. We need expansions to bikes, busses and rail.

Double Deck with light rail is the only acceptable option. If you look at the Portland bridges, you always notice that 405 has so many fewer incidents and congestion than 205, and we’ve been putting off this MAX extension for long enough.

An excerpts out of eight from a previously submitted, recently remediated, HINooN Paper entitled, "Concerns Regarding the Current I-5 Bridge Replacement Projecrt (IBRP) Remediated 2024-7-04. 4. EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY: My Hayden Island Neighborhood Association has the concern that the IBRP’s current bridge plans specify a bridge that is no more seismically safe than the existing I-5 bridge. Moreover, we are worried about the dangers of the lack of a solid foundation for a high I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. The CRC project documents that the proposed path crosses over sand and alluvium, many hundreds of feet deep, material that expert opinion states is subject to seismic liquefaction. Furthermore, to make a high bridge seismically acceptable would require excessive billions of dollars added to the cost compared to other approaches. We have seen expert testimony that a high bridge has a much lower chance than expected of surviving in a severe earthquake in our region. Liquefaction of the deep alluvial river bottom soils would tend to cause a high bridge to buckle sideways. A low bridge with a Bascule lift span, or an immersed tunnel, could avoid this troubling outcome. We are worried that any kind of high bridge design would be most detrimental to many people in our region in so many ways.

Two issues with the current Interstate 5 bridge. First, the excessive tolls are unbearable for local employees to live in Vancouver, Waand work in urban Portland, Or. Second, an 18-lane interchange planned for Hayden Island will create another pich point traffic where I5 thru downtown Portland cannot support that level of traffic with its current constrained lane size. And, where is the research that eliminates a "remodel" to the existing I5 but another bridge East about the Troutdale, Camas location...where the large growth area exists, and available real-estate to relieve capacity constraints on I5 AND I205 respectively.

Unfortunately, the IBR committee has not treated Hayden Island as a "going concern". The current proposal will totally destroy island commerce as well as the suitability for current residents to remain on the island. I don't believe the current proposal fully considers the impact to Hayden Island community. A proposed causeway into Portland (from the south side of the island) is helpful but all the rest of the proposal will diminish reasonable living conditions as well as have a huge impact on the businesses on the island. Is there a budget to at least provide an option to do a buyout for any residential owner and/or business owner to leave the island? There are sooooooo many problems with the proposed bridge -- height, public transport stations, less commercial boats going up river due to lower bridge height (impacting communities further up the river) and bicyclist/ wheel chair access just to mention a few. And it seems the planning committee is hard pressed to not fully divulge full information regarding their proposal. There are so many people who are misinformed and just assuming a "new bridge" will solve the problem -- the committee is counting on those people who are wearing blinders.

In a time when climate change is increasing and the will to combat is shrinking (and likely to plummet), it is unthinkable that a new transportation project such as the one under consideration shouldn't do everything possible to support active transportation; it appears that the current vision for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project doesn't do this. At a minimum, should this project be built, the following should be addressed: Eliminate the 10-story climb on the Washington side (extend the approach to Evergreen) Align the transit and multi-use/active transportation path side-by-side to facilitate ease of use/connection Use transit lanes as buffers between vehicular traffic and bike-ped traffic to reduce noise and increase safety Thank you

Our organization is against the IBRP bridge designs. The residents on Hayden Island want a simple bridge replacement, not a monster bridge that will pave over a wide swath of our island to make way for a massive interchange requiring 16-18 lanes to get off & on the island and to access I-5. At 30ft above ground, the Hayden Island transit station will also be a huge stair climb for our retirees during elevator outages. Think of the effect your monster bridge will have on our elderly. We demand a smaller, lower cost bridge design without tolls to pay!

The currently proposed I-5 bridge replacement is severely outdated as it has been "in the works" for so long and it has missed any projected growth for this area. DO NOT approve this proposal without considering the consequences.... • The bridge's 15-year construction period will create a huge loss of quality of life, income, & property values for Hayden Island and adjacent communities. • Bridge tolls will impose a heavy and daily financial burden on all adjacent communities. • IBR's fixed-spans offer only 116 feet of vertical clearance above water, a full 62 ft less than today's drawbridge which will significantly restrict larger commercial vessels from using the Columbia River to support upstream communities. • The 175 ft bridge height will be an eyesore that will detract from the current scenic beauty of the crossing. • Per the committee, IBR bridge plans will not be engineered to withstand a major Cascade Seduction Zone earthquake! Scientists are currently predicting there is about a 37% chance that a mega-thrust earthquake in this fault zone will occur in the next 50 years. • The IBR is an area where ground liquefaction is "expected" during a major earthquake. Liquefaction is a major threat to any bridge. At a minimum: Insist on an additional 120 days for public review & comment, given IBR's refusal to release full bridge information; an "Independent Engineering Commission" should investigate & evaluate the option of more suitable, far less costly, and considerably more environmentally friendly "Immersed Tunnel!" If it was selected for a similar project in Vancouver BC, then why not here?

As a Portland resident who frequently uses I5 to get to Washington for both recreational and professional purposes, I am very concerned that this project focus on connecting our communities using mass transit and human powered transportation as much as possible and AVOID expanding the freeway in any way. I am fully supportive of the analysis of The Street Trust and hope that you will listen to and heed their priorities and strategies.

Expanding the I5 in any way will not end our traffic problems. The outcome will be to add more toxic pollution and add to our CO2 load as well which will exacerbate our climate disasters. Our emphasis must be on efficient, affordable and emission free public transportation

1. Mass transit both sides of the bridge, with access to either parking or other transit on the Vancouver side. When folks come over and go back for work our neighborhood is impacted; we need to get rid of some of the single occupancy cars, so for me that is crucial. 2. Any design that does not impact river traffic or port use. Pretty would be nice but that's less important. 3. If there is to be a toll, it has to have an ending point, and it needs to not be extended. Figure it out.

It appears that the IBR is operating from a severe sunk cost fallacy. Regardless of how much money has already been spent on the IBR, building a wrong sized/personal vehicle focused bridge would be much more expensive than going back to the drawing board. Using outdated data gathered from years ago, and especially before the pandemic, means that the bridge replacement project is not addressing the current needs of the greater Portland/Vancouver area. We need to embrace the ethos that Oregon built its environmental reputation on, and say no to building oversized freeway connections without adding viable alternatives for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists. We need a bridge for tomorrow (and fifty years from now), not one that was dreamed up in 2005.

Unbelievable! This committee is so biased toward presenting a bridge as the only solution. This is not so! There are any number of cities with rivers and bays that have underground tunnels to ferry between land masses. And it appears that tunneling is an overall sound solution that would be at a much lower cost, a better design from an environmental impact view, and provide the best solution with intentions of managing future growth. The current proposal is "so old and outdated", it is no longer a solution (if it ever was a creditable solution). I don't think there are/or were any tunnel engineers as part of the committee throughout the planning. And a former committee member that is a bridge engineer does not approve of the proposed bridge replacement as it stands. I trust his analysis of the proposed plan, and that it is a failure on all counts. Can't trust this committee for a number of reasons, especially since they don't quite answer your questions and aren't willing to provide all the information that they could provide so that the communities being hit hardest with this bridge replacement can make well-informed decisions regarding approval of the plan.

See attached.

This project seems out of scope for what is useful. As a frequent driver on the bridge, it's not the choke point. It seems financially irresponsible to focus on adding massive numbers of lanes and interchanges, at a high cost. Right Size the project and leave the resources to other needed projects and programs.

I support the positions of the Just Crossing Alliance and No More Freeways. Roads are very long driveways and the more road capacity we build the more space and money we will need to waste on parking and the more space and money we waste on parking, the more roads we need to build. This is a vicious cycle that consumes our land and budgets. It leads to alienation and poverty. The I5 bridge must be replaced, with a right sized alternative that doesn’t contain massive freeway widening. It needs to include support for other modes and transit that people can take without the need of expensive park and ride garages.