Most Recent Comments

No more moving people singularly (by cars) unless required and greatly increase the use of mass transit mostly by rail by increasing the train frequency and duration(throughout the night). Rail stops to be 3-4 miles apart to meet busses for intermediate pickups! Continue using the I5 bridges add train bridge let Vancouver live with the growing traffic jambs and build their own mass transit!

Im concerned that the current design does not meet the needs of people walking, biking or rolling. connectivity, level of stress/comfort, safety, and operations and maintenance. This is especially concerning because the current design does little to reduce auto travel, estimating a 62% increase in study-area miles we drive (aka vehicle miles traveled or VMT) over current amounts (Executive Summary, S-21). Shifting modeshare to active transportation and transit is the most effective method of reducing VMT and meeting specific state/regional carbon reduction goals. There needs to be distinct separation of walk/bike/roll corridors from freight routes reduces conflicts between these two user groups. For example, the current design for the ramp from Vancouver Way to MLK North poses significant conflict with freight, as the proposed route travels down, across, and back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Also the comfort and safety needs of people using active transportation must be properly addressed with lighting, climate and shade issues, and personally safety and security concerns. We want people to Want to use these facilities! Also transit and the multi-use path should be next to each other, for seamless transfers and ease of use. Path users should have convenient access to transit elevators, especially at elevated stations. Finally Equity and tolling in the I-5 Corridor is not a matter of if, but when. For this reason, I strongly suggest that regardless of which state manages the IBR toll program that implementation is in accordance with ODOT Equity and Mobility Advisory Committee’s Low Income Toll Program, and so that the project enhances rather harms access and mobility for low-income and BIPOC communities. Also please don’t use equity concerns as an excuse to NOT toll. You know there’s an equitable way to do it, so do it.

The main concern I wanted to voice as a community member is this - if a new bridge is to be put in, it should prioritize all transportation, not just automobiles - those walking, biking, using strollers or wheelchairs, should have a safe and comfortable path alongside other uses. These paths should be connected to other popularly used paths to help commuters like myself and the many volunteers and community members I work with in Vancouver. The next biggest concern I want to voice is the about the environmental impact of installing new infrastructure. As a part of the Columbia River Watershed Alliance, and as a passionate steward of salmon, I strongly believe this project should put environmental impacts as a forefront of thought throughout the process. We have an opportunity here to show other states and agencies how to improve human lives without damaging non-human lives; I hope community members like myself can have their voice heard in this process.

I am incredibly excited for the light rail addition. I enjoy using public transportation, and the addition of a light rail from Vancouver to Portland would make my commute much easier. The light rail will make it easier for people who cannot afford cars to travel to and from home/work every day, and will be a huge boost to the Vancouver and Hayden Island economy.

More lanes will lead to more traffic. Replace the bridge without adding more lanes, to reduce the environmental impact.

Designs of the new bridge have inconvenient connections at the North and South ends. At the North end, bikers and pedestrians are forced to walk up a half mile long corkscrew that will surely deter people from using it. At the South end, the path becomes convoluted and hard to navigate as you leave the bridge entering into Portland. Both of these issues put bikers and pedestrians at a disadvantage, and makes the commute more challenging and difficult for people like me who ride the bridge multiple times a week. If a large part of the bridge replacement is to decrease traffic and commute times, every possible incentivize to ride bikes, walk, or take public transportation across should be taken. The multi-use path should not be difficult to navigate or access, and I am deeply concerned that the current design makes no real effort to incentivize use. Why is the multi-use pathway so convoluted and made with design aspects that will deter people from using it?

The few plans to review show a complete disregard to all members of the Hayden Island Community. A project like this should be designed and implemented with the least amount of disruptions to the residences and business that are going to be impacted impacted. The expected timeline to completion is 15 years. That appears to be an excesssive time period. My moorage JBMI will be the most heavily impacted financially, visually and a severe loss of use. As I understand the plans you wou use our moorage as a staging area. There are many non residential empty areas on the south bank to stage construction! Why punish the residence even more by utilizing our moorage as your primary staging area?

I request the integration of active transportation with adequate access and safety for individuals who will be walk, roll, or cycle across the bridge. Integration with existing active transportation is critical to making the new bridge design effective for people using all types of transportation.

I am commenting to support the Just Crossing Alliance's positon on rejecting a massive highway expansion and creating a right-sized bridge between portland and vancouver. an expanded freeway would be destructive and more road capacity is unnecessary and encourages car use when we should be creating better public transit connections. I also urge that light rail staions in vancouver be large enough for four car trains and that support is directed toward the MAX downtown tunnel project, which would create the capacity needed to make the vancouver light rail extension more frequent and convenient.

Designs of each proposed bridge are not appealing stylistically or aesthetically. Single and double deck renders look like blocky concrete monoliths. Vancouver waterfront and businesses on Hayden Island will to have to stare at this bridge, it should be a point of pride to make it appealing looking as well. Can stylistic elements be applied? Will we get a chance to examine further design choices as they are made? Bridges like St. Johns and Tilikum in Portland, Golden Gate and the Bay Bridge in California have an iconic beauty to them. We can’t go high with design like these bridges due to airspace restrictions, but if we are building a 100 year bridge, it shouldn’t be a giant ugly hunk of concrete. Can further design options be explored?

Re: the proposals for Columbia River crossing— As a Portland resident who travels between Portland and Seattle, I’m concerned about the volume of large semis on the route. Particularly going over the river, it would be nice to have a dedicated truck lane to reduce some of the serious congestion other users face. Also of importance to me are accommodations for travelers other than those in cars or busses. Please consider bicyclists and pedestrians in the bridge design process. And finally, either build another drawbridge or make the new one high enough that most ships using the river can pass underneath! That seems like common sense to me… Thank you—

The SDEIS lacks information about how adding additional auxiliary lanes will create induced demand. Drivers will treat auxiliary lanes as lanes of travel even if that is not what they are intended for. Design plan also shows these two new “auxiliary lanes” as just regular lanes of travel. The SDEIS mentions that traffic and emissions will be less after the new bridge is built but fails to include induced demand. How much induced demand will one lane auxiliary add? Is there a projection for how much induced demand two additional lanes would account for? Greenhouse gases will increase at the addition of any extra lanes.

I am concerned that the current iteration of the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Lacks accessible connections to current paths and networks for active transportation users. There is also a problem with road users not being separated from freight routes - for example the current design for the ramp from Vancouver Wy to MLK North poses significant conflict with freight , as the proposed route travels down, across, & back up a freight-heavy on-ramp. Also, Temperature and shade for active transportation users is needed. The ambient temperatures around & on the bridge will exceed 100 degrees in the summer. It is critical that active transportation users have shade to mitigate heat and weather impacts.

It is crazy to me that despite what we know about fossil fuels, air quality, climate change, and our impacts on the world that we're even considering a bridge option that would allow for MORE traffic rather than actively try to encourage less of it. Enhancing reliable transit, encouraging active transportation, and really putting work and money into making those options reliable, safe, and enjoyable would go a long way to achieving our climate goals--and would do so without necessitating spending $7.5billion. The very, very long SEIS has a lot of words and yet somehow seems to overlook the very basic concept that more vehicles on the road leads to more fossil fuel burning, and that building more lanes of traffic induces driving demand. Can we please scale this back to an efficient design that prioritizes the things that are good for our environment, air quality, and quality of life (i.e. no more lanes; actively encourage transit and active transport by prioritizing safe and easy use of those options)?

Hello - I have significant concerns regarding the bridge replacement. I am worried lane expansion would lead to induced demand for single-occupancy motor vehicles, increasing car transportation in the region's impact on carbon emissions. Likewise, I am supportive of designs that reduce the impact of emissions and particulates onto nearby areas. In regards to design specifics, I want to ensure there is good connectivity between bicycle users and public transit service to make the connection between these transportation types seamless. Additionally, as someone who has used the existing bridge to travel by bicycle, I recommend ensuring ample space for multiple bicyclists and pedestrians to reduce conflicts between these travel types. Also, I would be more likely to use the bridge and visit nearby neighborhoods in Vancouver, Washington if bicycle/pedestrian access to downtown Vancouver was simple.

We know from experience across the country that freeway expansion induces additional demand, increases VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The current models being used to model traffic on the current design do not account for that induced demand. Hence, those models are not providing realistic estimates for future travel on the I-5 corridor. This must change. We must have realistic modelling that account for induced demand to ensure that we understand the consequences of building a large freeway expansion around the needed seismically stable replacement bridge.

The IBR proposal needs to be streamlined. Yes, we should replace the bridge, but must do so without freeway expansion. Induced demand is real. We need homes, not expanded freeways. We've got to prioritize safety for cyclists and pedestrians to get to Vision Zero. We need to lead by reducing air pollution, not increasing air and water pollution. We also must protect peregrine falcons and other wildlife.

The decisions we make now will affect the future use of this bridge. Put people and bikes on the top priority to get through this chaos safely and with minimal “moving parts.” Like an elevator. Thanks, let’s start over and work together.

I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways and the Just Crossing Alliance for the Interstate Bridge Replacement.

The multi-use path needs to be shaded to protect users. The DSEIS acknowledges that we expect temperatures on the bridge to regularly exceed 100F in the future. For users to avoid heat exhaustion or heatstroke, some sort of cover is necessary. Preferably, the cover should extend for the duration of the path. Planting saplings to achieve this would also help with air quality impacts on the bridge.

I live in Portland and commute via bicycle to Vancouver for work. I have serious concerns about active transportation options outlined on the current bridge design. 1. Having to travel an extra mile just to get over a bridge is ridiculous. One mile might not seem like that much if you're driving it, but this increases my own personal commute, which is already rather long, by nearly 10%, or increases that of my colleague by almost 25%. We need to be making active transport seem like a feasible option, and unnecessarily adding length (which, remember, takes physical effort to achieve when you're not just pushing a gas pedal in your car) is poor design. 2. I'm concerned that this design makes an already not great active transportation route worse, with the potential interactions between active transport and freight traffic to get onto the bridge on the Oregon side, and no great access to the Vancouver waterfront as it currently exists on the Washington side. 3. Relying on elevators to get folks up and down to the bridge feels like a poor decision, especially given that in my experience elevators like on the Bob Stacy overpass are frequently out of service. 4. It seems to me that putting transit options close to active transport options makes a lot more sense than separating them, since people frequently combine transit with biking or walking, especially for longer commutes like I imagine many are to cross the river. Adding another barrier to access transit from walking or biking is an oversight. Overall, it strikes me that this was designed not by folks who actually walk or roll or take transit over this bridge and I'm a little disappointed that it feels like transit and active transportation options were sort of added on "as possible" to a large project that actually had no desire to make walking, biking, or taking transit more appealing.

I support the positions outlined by No More Freeways and the Just Crossing Alliance. I believe that freeway expansion is an atrocious way to spend public resources in the 21st century. Let's work together to get people OFF the roads wherever we can. Thank you.

I want to make sure that increased safety and allowance for lots of bicycles are taken into account.

As it stands, biking and walking across the bridge is a terrifying experience. While the new models account for non-vehicle transportation, I want to differentiate beween "accomodating" and "encouraging" multi use. You can stick a path that gets you to point A and B but it might still be a terrifying experience if its obnoxiously loud and dirty from car debris, not properly protected, or not wide enough or lit up. Imagine getting a flat tire or injured on this path. I want to imagine pullouts so someone can capture a sunrise or sunset without being in the way of bikes using the bridge for rapid transit. I want to imagine 1000 bikers or attendees of a half marathon streaming through the path as part of an organized event and having a greenspace at the entry of the bridge on both side to gather. Track the usage of this path from day 1 and design it in a way that non motorized users feel safe and valued as community members!

Please right-size & make this project more health-conscious. We all know that 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 (DSEIS) is needed. Please do this for the benefit of all. Prioritizing a streamlined project focused on bridge replacement, transit enhancements, and active transportation—without extensive freeway expansion—would be more beneficial and cost-effective. The DSEIS does not provide sufficient justification for a second auxiliary lane. Thank you for your consideration. Josh