Most Recent Comments

Thankyou for hearing our concerns. I am excited for what this new bridge can be. As you know Climate change is an existential threat. Every government action should keep this in mind. That being said, The new I-5 bridge can be a shining star and an example of multimodal travel. It needs to have a welcoming and user-friendly bike/walking path. Commuters their own car should not be prioritized over other means of travel. In order for this to happen I am in agreement with the suggestions of Oregon walks and the Street Trust. I agree that the multimodal path should be accessible to the light rail. I think that the current plan to have a 100 foot path down to the ground from the bike path is obscene.Travel by foot/bike or transit should be prioritized not punished with a grueling climb. Additionally I humbly request that along the multimodal lane that there are rest points. It would be so amazing to have multiple bump outs large enough for 5 people to stand out of the way of travel and to rest and take in the views. This bridge can be an asset and attraction. Having areas for benches and informative plaques would be an educational tool and allow for travelers to have a unique view. I encourage you to think about 50 years from now traveling on the bridge and noting what you are so thankful the planners included. The sellwood bridge and tilikum bridge both have these and they could be even better. Thankyou for all your hard work. I am excited to see the best version we can have

The Interstate Bridge Replacement project intends to destroy up to 76 households and over 40 workplaces in north Portland and Vancouver, including a 33-unit apartment building in downtown Vancouver and an entire floating home neighborhood in Hayden Island. The Uniform Act exists for a reason, and displacement of residents is acceptable when it is done in the name of some pro-social or broadly beneficial development. The issue is, this project as designed is neither of those things, on balance. The IBR tries to use 2 miles of light-rail and active transportation to greenwash the larger project, and this seems convincing at first glance. On further inspection, the 4.5 miles of freeway expansion (as many as 4 lanes!) make clear the priorities of the project: car dependence, increased vehicle-miles-traveled (and therefore emissions) and an enriching of the highway construction & trucking lobby at the expense of local communities, our climate, and our children's larger future. In exchange for this bleaker future, we will endure the eviction of dozens of families (during a housing crisis no less), the loss of jobs and services for the disenfranchised residents of Hayden Island, and the enshittification of the Vancouver waterfront as a 10-story freeway towers overhead (when was the last time YOU hung out under the marquam bridge?). The evicted residents may be compensated "fair market value" for their houses under the Uniform Act, but those houses are going to have extraordinarily low values; the residents will likely have to move far from the urban core to afford rent at these rates. The residents who arent totally displaced will face even lower values as freeway right-of-way encroaches on their property, removes mature tree walls which function as road noise walls, and subterranean work causes lasting damage to properties through impacts such as cracked foundations. What will happen to the residents of Luepke Senior Center, who are currently shielded from the Existing i-5 Pollution and Road Noise by a mature tree wall right along the property edge? What will happen to Clark County residents who regularly go to the Regal City Center Cinemas, which will be destroyed by the project (of which I am one)? Why should those seeking treatment at the Vancouver VA Medical center on 4th plain blvd endure the externalities of more lanes, when we know that we can move more people, faster, with different modes than single occupancy vehicles? My demand from this project is that residential displacements are truly minimized, especially the 33-unit Normandy Apartments on C street. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the 20th century here. If we absolutely MUST displace these people, it should at least come with significant multimodal options along the ENTIRE corridor, such as bike/ped facilities that connect to the Vancouver/Williams Corridor, and MAX system improvements that allow the train to be a time-competitive & reliable alternative to single-occupancy vehicles. Pedestrian facilities and transit facilities should be adjacent so as to be easily transferred between, and the spiral ramp on the waterfront (a frictional barrier to active transportation) NEEDS replaced with a pleasantly graded connection direct to downtown Vancouver. Finally, we need the footprint reduced, both through no new "auxiliary" lanes along the entire project area, and the phasing of project elements so that non-relevant interchange rebuilds (unpopular) are not bundled into the replacement of the bridge (broadly popular).

The replacement of the Interstate Bridge should NOT be an excuse to expand the freeway. Please focus on increasing and improving options for human powered transportation and mass transit. More lanes for private automobiles only increases the amount of cars on the road and takes us even faster toward climate catastrophe.

We're eager to see the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program be built. But pleas include those of us who walk, bike, and ride the Light Rail. Many of us can't afford a car,. Many of us are concerned about climate change and want to encourage car-fee transportation to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It's so much healthier for us to travel without cars - healthier for our bodies and for our planet.

I'm a resident of North Portland and use the Interstate Bridge frequently. I'm alarmed at the idea of creating more lanes for passenger vehicle traffic at the expense of more active transportation accommodation. We cannot continue to build for more traffic, but we should instead create more accessibility for walkable and rollable transport, along with mass transit. Oregon and Washington deserves an alternative to more air and water pollution.

Having lived thru a small bridge repair (Camas RR Bridge mid 2000s) I am here to say the noise from the pile driver was really unbearable AND this was a SMALL project . We have been promised noise, dust AND vibration mitigation. NOT told exactly what this would be and how it would work. I would hazard to guess no one really knows. The design is faulty the price and funding not all over the place. This project needs to be referred on SO many levels. Before it becomes forever known.as GREG JOHNSON'S BOONDOGGLE BRIDGE

I'm definitely against the bridge designs put forward by the IRBP! The IBRP 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, must less a monster bridge the IBRP is proposing.

Please bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation are the most important elements of the project. The mega project you are proposing is bloated and a smaller streamlined project focused on the above priorities (and not adding auxiliary lanes and freeway expansion) will be more economical and serve the regions goals better.

I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways and the Just Crossing Alliance.

There is a need to do something about the I-5 draw bridge to better manage traffic in the Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA area. But the proposed IBR plan is NOT going to help, or provide little improvement. The on/off ramps will be very dangerous during our foggy, black ice winter days. I see what happens when there are accidents on the bridge... the future will likely push those accidents onto the many exit/entrance ramps as they are proposed. We really need an entirely new bridge; that's what makes sense.

I'm against the IBRP bridge designs! The 175 ft bridge height will be an eyesore that will detract from the current scenic beauty of the crossing, and IBRP'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. Stop this B.S. Now!!

The multi-use path needs to extend the full length of this project and connect to current and planned major bike routes and arterials along the way. Cyclists need convenient, efficient connections and should be a main priority of the project.

I am for a bridge replacement, but not the costly and outdated IBRP designs. This committee WAY UNDERESTIMATED the growth (population, traffic, businesses, etc.) in the Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA communities. The current design will not begin to lighten our traffic patterns and perhaps make them worse. The design is not economical, extremely costly and environmentally unsound. An underground/water tunnel would be considerably less expensive, accommodate future growth more easily, and be a better choice when considering environmental impact. I live on Hayden Island. The 18-lane interchange planned for Hayden Island will create a very wide ugly swath of multiple pavement lanes across prime retail property, and a navigational nightmare for the visiting public and islanders. As far as I have been informed (the committee does seem to prefer to withhold important information), there doesn't appear to be any impact study from the IBR committee on the bridge replacement as to how much damage it will do to the island (environmentally or otherwise), the businesses on the island (total destruction and/or projected sales reduction), or the individual residences (a likely loss in property values). The projected tolls alone to come and go off the island will be an enormous burden to any and all persons involved on the island. 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. This is unacceptable. I don't think the project can withstand a total island buyout.

I and our Hayden Island Community Safety Initiative organization are opposed to the monstrous IBRP bridge designs, and we will fight to stop it. The $7-$12 billion cost and 15 years to build will be a huge economic hardship on all of us. On top of that, you're imposing tolls each way, which is a huge issue for all of us on Hayden Island. We want a far less costly bridge that takes far less time to construct! about 40% of those of us that live on the island are retired living on fixed incomes. You have to stop and think about them!!!

The non-automobile and truck transportation modes need to be more fully considered. Please make the trains and multi-use path adjacent to each other so that users can easily switch between modes. I'm concerned that such a simple comment is needed. Who is designing this thing?

While I want a bridge replacement, I do not want the monster the IBRP is proposing. Economic conditions are tight, and the IBRP is proposing a $7-12 billion dollar giant?? Where's the logic in that? The $7-12 billion cost and the 15 years to build is outrageous, while doing little to solve I-5 traffic congestion at the I-5 bridge. and it will create an economic hardship on all adjacent communities.

Portland is an amazing city, and one of the reasons it is is due to all the alternate ways to get around the city. Portland is one of the few cities in the US that is close to being a 15 minute walkable city. Constantly people are choosing to bike or take public transportation instead of driving. In an era of extreme weather events because of climate change, we should be investing in more green infrastructure. Building out the highway does not fix traffic and often just adds to the problem. Let's take the chance to allocate the funds to continue expanding public transportation and adding more bike lanes. Let's keep our air clean and noise pollution down.

This bridge will be around for a long time and should reflect how we view the future. If that view is "business as usual" or "hey, it's still the 1970's" or even "we have transportation data but we don't want to acknowledge it" then sure, build a structure oriented towards motorized vehicles and build a lot of traffic lanes, saddling generations hence with a boondoggle. If we care about the future and the environment, then we should be building a bridge that reflects those priorities - not only mass transit and cycling but implemented in a way that respects the people who choose to travel that way. A hundred foot elevation change to get off of the bridge? Bikes and transit on opposite sides of the bridge? Why not just slap us in the face - it's a lot cheaper.

I am against the IBR Bridge Designs. Please stop the funding and proposal now. The $7-12 billion cost is outrageous, while doing little to solve I-5 traffic congestion at the I-5 bridge. The massive bridge will inevitably experience massive cost overruns, causing a redirection of funding meant for social programs. Bridge tolls will impose a heavy and daily financial burden on all adjacent communities, especially residents on Hayden Island

There is no need to expand the freeway portion of the I-5 Bridge. Let's provide pedestrian access as does the Golden Gate Bridge in the San Franciso Bay. Adding light rail would help with the goal of getting people out of their cars. We don't need a $7B megalith or more lanes of freeway. Keep it simple and utilitarian. Thank you.

This project poorly serves the transportation needs of our communities, and particularly those of Portland. By its own modelling, the project will increase congestion between Marine Drive and the I405/I5 interchange. This seems to be drive in large part by freeway expansions far from the bridge itself, at E Mill Plain, 4th Plain, and SR-500 in Washington. The project should be re-scoped to remove freeway projects beyond the bridgehead at SR-14 in Washington, and the bridge should not be built with the expectation that those projects will be completed. Moreover, no freeway ingress or egress should be allowed on Hayden Island. The local bridge from the Island to Oregon should be maintained.

I am a lifelong Portland resident who uses transit, bicycles, and private vehicles to get around. I use the I-5 bridge to travel out of town and to access goods and services in Vancouver. I am a transportation consultant with a master's degree in civil engineering and transportation planning. While I am excited to see that active transportation access will be enhanced with the locally preferred alternative, I have a number of concerns. 1. Active transportation users should be located away from vehicle traffic. Highways are noisy, dangerous, and polluting. Siting a shared use path near lanes of travel ensures that using the facility will be unpleasant and unhealthy for people walking and biking. 2. Active transportation users should have easy access to transit. Site the multi-use path near the transit corridor, allowing for easy access to and from transit stops, and easy use of the elevators at these stops. 3. Size elevators to accommodate cargo bikes. This form of transportation is being adopted in droves in Portland and Vancouver; accommodating longer bicycles on the elevator is essential to making them accessible to all users. 4. Current designs require significant out of direction travel both in terms of distance and grade. The MUP should be lowered. If not, elevators should be made available at multiple ground-level access points on both sides of the bridge. 5. Single occupancy vehicle drivers experience 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 inequitable.

I am a lifelong Portland resident who uses transit, bicycles, and private vehicles to get around. I use the I-5 bridge to travel out of town and to access goods and services in Vancouver. I am a transportation consultant with a master's degree in civil engineering and transportation planning. We need a new bridge. We need transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity over the river. We do not need (and, in fact, do not want) freeway capacity expansion. The IBR project is an essential lifeline for the west coast. We need a seismically resilient replacement to prepare for the Cascadia subduction earthquake. The addition of safe and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian access and extended transit service north of the river will be very welcome changes. Adding auxiliary lanes and performing other capacity enhancements beyond the extent of the bridge is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. Please do not sink future generations in my state further into debt to cater to the needs of exurban automobile commuters. Adding vehicle capacity is not consistent with any climate planning efforts. Modern vehicles are not meaningfully less efficient at slow speeds; reducing stop and go traffic does not really help GHG. VMT is the primary contributor to transportation sector emissions, and should be reduced as a central effort in all our transportation projects. Streamline the project to focus on just the core needs: seismic resilience, transit service extension, and bike/ped access. DO NOT add vehicle throughput capacity at the bridge. DO NOT perform highway work beyond the bridge.

Priority should be given to bikers, pedestrians, and public transit. Cars are dangerous, selfish, and unsustainable. Investing in car infrastructure over sustainable modes of transit is irresponsible, and leads to more traffic, pollution, noise, urban sprawl, and loneliness.

I am a lifelong Portland resident who uses transit, bicycles, and private vehicles to get around. I use the I-5 bridge to travel out of town and to access goods and services in Vancouver. I am a transportation consultant with a master's degree in civil engineering and transportation planning. I am concerned about the effect of induced demand from capacity enhancement. We know from countless examples that adding vehicle capacity induces land use changes that bring more traffic, ultimately resulting is worse congestion, more VMT, and more emissions. Not incorporating this dynamic in the modeling for this project is irresponsible and misleading. This approach does not represent reality or the best interests of the communities the project serves; it only seeks to line the pockets of the consultants and agencies involved on the project team. Added freeway capacity will induce more development north of the river for commuters driving into Portland. These drivers will adversely affect my way of life by adding more vehicle miles traveled to the system in Portland. More cars on the roads mean worse safety, livability, and environmental outcomes for my community. The growth in background traffic at the bridge also represents a failure to recognize that the current bridge project is constrained. This is an overly simplistic approach, which is wildly irresponsible for a project of this size and importance.