Frequently Asked Questions

The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project is a long-term, comprehensive solution to address safety and congestion problems on I-5 between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. The Oregon and Washington transportation departments will replace the I-5 bridge, extend light rail to Vancouver, improve closely-spaced interchanges and enhance pedestrian and bicycle pathways.

There are significant congestion,safety, and mobility problems in the five-mile project area between SR 500 in Vancouver and Victory Boulevard in Portland. If no changes are made, congestionwill grow from today’s four to six hour daily traffic jam to 15 hours per day by 2030 as the region accommodates a million more people (Source: Metro Regional Government). This section of I-5 also has a collision rate up to doublethat of similar urban highways in the region.

Narrow lanes, short on-ramps and a lack of safety shoulders on the Interstate Bridge contribute to crashes. Bridge lifts occur an average of once a day, stalling all traffic using I-5, adding to unsafe driving conditions and increasing accident potential. Trucks hauling freight and public transit buses get stuck in congestion, too. The project’s problem definition details the specific congestion, safety and mobility problems addressed by the Columbia River Crossing project.

Multiple studies starting in 1999 have concluded the corridor needs improvement for economic health and regional livability. Local and regional transportation plans in both states have prioritized the Columbia River Crossing project. INRIX, an independent firm that collects and studies traffic data, ranked the corridor leading to the Interstate Bridge as the 21st most congested corridor in America. This section of I-5 is one of the most congested corridors in a smaller metro region. The Marine Drive, Victory Boulevard and Hayden Island interchanges in the CRC project area all rank among the top six bottlenecks in INRIX’s summary for the Portland Metropolitan Area.

Safer travel and improved design
• No bridge lifts to stop traffic
• Added safety shoulders and wider lanes
• Improved connections to and from I-5 at closely-spaced interchanges
• Increased earthquake protection
• Up to 70 percent fewer collisions

More commuter choices and community connection
• Light rail extended from Portland to Vancouver to provide 6 million boardings per year by 2030
• Enhanced and wider pedestrian and bike paths
• More reliable travel times

Better freight mobility
• Congestion relief to keep goods moving
• Improved access to ports and highways

Enhanced environmental protection
• Expanded stormwater treatment
• Decreased highway noise in neighborhoods
• Improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions

The project began in early 2005 after the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership recommended in 2002 that congestion and safety problems near the Interstate Bridge be solved. CRC worked with a 39-member bi-state Task Force, the community, tribal governments and partner agencies to define the primary problems in the project area, identify ideas as potential solutions and develop evaluation criteria.

Detailed information on the CRC’s history can be found on the Schedule and Timeline page.

The project currently is refining the design of Locally Preferred Alternative (replacement bridge with light rail) and planning for construction. The earliest construction could begin is 2013. The current project schedule can be found here. 

In 2005, CRC with its partners and the public identified six transportation problems in its Statement of Purpose and Need: congestion, impaired freight movement, limited public transit connectivity and reliability, high crash rates, substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities and seismic vulnerability. To address the identified problems, CRC will use integrated solutions of high capacity transit, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities, tolling, and bridge and highway improvements to address all six problems. Early project analyses show that project goals are best addressed when multiple strategies are used.

I-5 and the Interstate Bridge serves as an important lifeline route during emergencies or natural disasters, such as a major earthquake. The existing bridges do not comply with modern seismic standards and are vulnerable to damage or collapse in an earthquake. A 1994 report for ODOT found several components of the bridge could be overloaded in a seismic event. The piers of both existing bridges are built on top of wooden pilings that do not extend into the underlying solid rock of the Troutdale formation. Shaking associated with an earthquake could stress or damage the bridge structures. The sandy layer of soil that supports the bridge piers could lose strength in an earthquake and may begin acting like a liquid (liquefaction). The soil could then suddenly stop providing support for the bridge. A CRC analysis of the risk occured in 2006.

The replacement bridge must connect interchanges in downtown Vancouver and Hayden Island with grades that meet standards for highways, light rail and the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Due to its close proximity to Pearson Field, the height of the replacement bridge must be low enough to allow safe, navigable air space for aircraft landing and taking off from the airport. The Columbia River Crossing project is working with design options that assume Pearson Field will continue to operate as an active airport in its current location.

Pearson Field is an important community resource because it is one of the nation’s oldest operating airfields, is part of the Vancouver National Historic Reserve, provides a public service for emergency preparedness and supports roughly 50,000 air operations per year (an operation is the combination of one take off and one landing).

The I-5 bridge, formally known as the Interstate Bridge, is composed of two side-by-side bridges. The northbound bridge was built in 1917 and the southbound bridge in 1958. More information on the bridge’s history can be found on the bridge history page.

There are several compelling reasons to remove the existing bridge structures:

• The bridge is a traffic bottleneck now and will continue to be in the future, even if a supplemental bridge was built.
• The bicycle and pedestrian pathway is narrow and substandard.
• Safety shoulders are not present.
• Bridge lifts stop interstate traffic, contributing to congestion, poor transit reliability, collisions, air pollution and backups to local streets.
• The “hump” in the middle of the bridge contributes to collisions because drivers traveling the speed limit cannot see if vehicles are stopped in front of them.
• A costly upgrade to the bridge would be necessary to provide earthquake protection.
• Barges must make a difficult “s” turn in the river to avoid a bridge lift or wait until designated hours to call for a lift.

For these reasons, retaining the bridges would not solve the safety, congestion, and mobility problems on I-5.

Retrofitting the Interstate Bridge would increase the footprint of the existing piers, narrow the navigation channel, and still leave the potential for bridge lifts. Seismic risk is only one of six problems the CRC project will solve. A retrofit would not address the high crash rate, hours of congestion, freight immobility, poor bicycle and pedestrian facilities or limited transit options.

The CRC project does not currently have a plan for re-use of the existing bridge. As the project is further developed and construction plans refined, the project will consider options for the bridge when it is removed.

No. Half of the bridge lifts do not support barge traffic. Instead, the lifts are required for maintenance and non-commercial marine traffic. To modify the location of the movable span on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad bridge would not eliminate the majority of bridge lifts and would not address unsafe conditions for motorists on the Interstate Bridge and I-5.

Early project studies looked at third river crossings west and east of I-5. These studies found that the third crossings would not adequately address the existing or future transportation problems on I-5 and would do little to reduce congestion on I-5. A list of other crossing alternatives studied by the project can be found in the Components Step A Screening Report. At this time, the CRC project is focused on improving the existing highway by replacing the I-5 bridge, extending light rail from Portland to Vancouver and improving five interchanges and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) and Metro are the agencies responsible for researching and considering other river crossings and additional highways in the region. In their 2008 Transportation Corridor Visioning study, RTC identified possible third crossing locations and new transportation corridors in Clark County and developed a proposed set of routes for further study. This RTC study was the first phase of a multi-year effort to establish a 50-year transportation vision for Clark County.

The project will extend light rail from the Portland Expo station across Hayden Island and the Columbia River to Clark College through downtown Vancouver. This extension of the MAX yellow line would provide riders with transit access to stations throughout the Portland metro area. Existing local bus service and express bus service to downtown Portland will continue.

Yes. Light rail would be complemented with express bus service to provide direct access for Clark County residents to downtown Portland during peak commute hours. 

Light rail being built by the CRC project will end near Clark College. A map of the proposed route shows the terminus.

Even with increased transit ridership, travel demand on I-5 is expected to grow. There are safety issues with the existing bridges and highway that can’t be addressed by increased transit service. Safety improvements will lead to better traffic flow and benefit all types of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Information on future plans for high capacity transit in Clark County can be found in the High Capacity Transit System Study conducted by the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council.

No. The project reduces the total hours of congestion in the CRC project area and greatly improves the northbound afternoon commute from the Rose Quarter. Our traffic analyses show congestion will not worsen at the Rose Quarter as a result of the CRC project. In the vicinity of Going Street, for example, the forecast 4-hour AM peak period traffic volume for both the build and no-build scenarios is just under 23,000 vehicles.

Traffic data show that during the 4-hour AM peak period, for example, 35 percent of the southbound traffic coming from Washington exits I-5 within two miles of the bridge. However, traffic volumes increase as one continues south toward the Rose Quarter as traffic enters I-5 from north Portland. Other factors that help minimize traffic volumes on I-5 in the Rose Quarter from the CRC project area include tolls which will cause some traffic to shift to other destinations or other routes and the provision of light rail transit across the Columbia River.

The southbound traffic congestion that currently exists near the I-5/I-405 split will not be improved by  the CRC project. The Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of Portland are currently working on a project that is reviewing this portion of I-5.

Freight mobility and safety will be improved by reducing congestion for all vehicles and improving connections to and from interchanges. The region’s economy is heavily dependent on trade. About $40 billion worth of freight crosses the Interstate Bridge each year.

The CRC project worked with an advisory committee called the Freight Working Group, which was composed of leaders from various agencies and freight-related businesses. The group provided advice on freight-related design for the highway and interchanges.

Various bridge, transit and highway improvements made by the project will help increase safety, improve travel times, and improve reliability compared to doing nothing by 2030. Key elements of the project and their benefits include: 

Yes. The project will provide considerable benefits for travel time, reliability and duration of congestion for most bridge users, but not for everyone at all times. Bridge lifts will be eliminated, collisions significantly reduced and traffic will flow more smoothly to and from interchanges. Travel time benefits vary based on time of day, location and travel direction.

There are significant travel time savings in the afternoon. During the p.m. peak period, drivers heading north on I-5 from I-84 in Portland to 179th Street in Vancouver are predicted to save 20 minutes compared with the no-build scenario. Drivers using the short segment of I-5 from Columbia Boulevard to SR 500 are predicted to save eight minutes compared with the no-build scenario.  For drivers traveling southbound during the morning peak, the time savings will not be as significant, but the trip will be more reliable and safer. For drivers traveling outside of the peak commute hours, there are significant travel time savings both northbound and southbound because vehicles will experience much less congestion than with the no-build scenario.

Additionally, the duration of congestion on the bridge is substantially reduced, from a predicted 15 hours a day in 2030 under the no-build scenario, to 5.5 hours with the project.

Currently, the CRC project intends to keep the existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on northbound I-5 between the Going St. and Marine Dr. interchanges. Plans for additional HOV lanes would be made on a regional basis in the future.

The region is expected to grow by about one million people in the next 20 years. Growth in population and employment, the primary drivers of traffic growth, occurs in spurts with intermediate plateaus or even declines.

Traffic count data marginally declined between 2006 and 2009 at some locations when compared to historical daily volumes. This was the result of the stagnant economy and slowing regional population growth, as well as increased price of fuel over that time period. It is typical for traffic volumes to decline during a recession and to rise during boom periods. These fluctuations are expected. However, traffic counts during peak commute periods have remained steady or increased. Based on the most recent counts, evidence suggests that traffic volumes are resuming their long-term upward trend on both I-5 and I-205.

There is evidence that increases in gasoline prices have recently had an effect on automobile driving. Over the longer-term, as motorists become aware of the costs of driving, there is a shift to more fuel efficient vehicles and other long-term strategies for coping with the higher prices.

The process to develop, review alternatives and design the Columbia River Crossing project began in 2005, not counting the years of regional planning work. The public, stakeholders and partner agencies identified six project area problems. Seventy different ideas for potential solutions were suggested and discussed by partner agencies, the CRC Task Force and the public.

Out of the 70 ideas, 12 preliminary alternatives were identified. Each alternative included several transportation components: bridge, highway, transit, freight, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and strategies to reduce travel demand. The project team and others evaluated these preliminary alternatives to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each. Following stakeholder and public input, the project team recommended five alternatives for further analysis in the Draft EIS.

In 2008, after three months of public hearings, community comments and meetings, and local partner and agency reviews, the project team identified the project elements that best meet the needs of improving safety and mobility with the least impact on natural resources and local communities. Those elements included replacing the I-5 bridge, extending light rail to Vancouver, improving safety by addressing closely spaced interchanges, and enhancements to the bicycle and pedestrian path. The Task Force, Vancouver and Portland City Councils, C-TRAN and TriMet, and the Regional Transportation Council and Metro all supported this alternative.

In 2011, state and local sponsors again signified their support to complete the planning phase by signing the Final EIS, which identified the locally preferred alternative. These agencies include WSDOT, ODOT, TriMet, C-TRAN, the Regional Transportation Council and Metro.

Technical findings in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) show that a replacement river crossing would provide greater congestion relief, more traffic capacity, safer highway features, greater improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, safer river navigation, have less community effects on Hayden Island, and better accommodate future waterfront development compared to the supplemental crossing.

The six local project sponsors considered these findings along with the Task Force recommendation and about 1,600 public comments when they selected a replacement bridge as part of the project’s Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in July 2008.

The Draft EIS contained analyses of the effects of five alternatives studied. In 2008, based on the Draft EIS and comments by agencies, advisory groups and the public, project sponsors selected one alternative – a replacement bridge with light rail. 

Since the preferred alternative was adopted, the project has worked with the community to:

• Select the number of structures for the replacement bridge
• Select a location for light rail and the bicycle and pedestrian pathway on the replacement bridge
• Select an alignment for the Marine Drive interchange
• Select a light rail alignment and station and park and ride locations in Vancouver
• Update the traffic analysis using the 2009 regional travel demand model
• Update the design for the SR-14 interchange to minimize impacts to the Vancouver Historic Reserve
• Refine the design for the Hayden Island interchange, which now includes a local traffic bridge between Hayden Island and Marine Drive
• Select a deck truss bridge type for the main river crossing

The Final EIS includes a description of these refinements and the results of the analyses of the community and environmental effects. 

The alternatives studied were:
• No build
• Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit
• Replacement bridge with light rail
• Supplemental bridge with bus rapid transit
• Supplemental bridge with light rail
The results of the analyses are described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which was published on May 2, 2008.

Many congestion relief ideas have been proposed and analyzed as part of the CRC project. Several were rejected because they did not address the project’s goals as identified in the Purpose and Need. Others were dropped when a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was selected. Some of the bridge options considered but not advanced include:

• Third highway river crossing
• Tunnel
• Arterial bridge
• Upstream bridge
• Supplemental bridge
• Improvements to I-205

More information on bridge options considered and why they did not advance can be found here.

Many transit ideas have been proposed and analyzed as part of the CRC project. Some of the transit modes considered before selecting light rail include:
• Commuter rail
• Ferry
• Street car
• Bus rapid transit

Information on other transit modes considered prior to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be found on the Alternatives Considered page.

A no build alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and serves as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Under this scenario, the existing Interstate Bridge and public transit systems would remain. Only improvements likely to receive funding and be constructed in the Metro and southwest Washington regional transportation plans were considered.

Building a tunnel was one of the several river crossing options considered by the project. It is possible to build a tunnel, but it would be difficult to match a tunnel with the existing grades of the roadways on either side of the river. This would cause the tunnel to bypass at least two interchanges in the project area that provide access to: Vancouver City Center, SR 14 and Hayden Island. A tunnel would also require the creation of an intricate system of arterials east and west of the tunnel for vehicles to access the portals in and out of the structure. This arterial system would require more acquisition of right of way and result in more environmental and archeological effects than other alternatives considered.

No. The project team evaluated a local bridge to replace the Hayden Island interchange. The result was even longer delays and longer queues at the ramps associated with the Marine Drive interchange. That interchange currently operates very poorly. In addition, a local bridge would not accommodate the traffic generated by development on Hayden Island specified in the City of Portland’s Hayden Island Plan. A local bridge does not provide enough relief to I-5 to eliminate the need to replace the interchange.

Retrofitting the Interstate Bridge would increase the footprint of the existing piers, narrow the navigation channel, and still leave the potential for bridge lifts. Seismic risk is only one of six problems the CRC project will solve. A retrofit would not address the high crash rate, hours of congestion, freight immobility, poor bicycle and pedestrian facilities or limited transit options.

Yes. The project considered four “build” alternatives and a “no build” alternative when selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Two of the alternatives would have retained the existing structures and were estimated to have a slightly lower construction cost. However, these alternatives didn’t address many of the safety problems with the existing bridge, provided less relief from congestion and would have cost more to maintain over the long term.

The five alternatives are analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Information on other options considered can be found on the Alternatives Considered page.

Current cost estimates are for construction and do not include operations and maintenance costs. The financial scenarios outlined in the Financial Analysis chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement describe possible funding sources for expected capital costs.

The August 2011 cost estimate range is $3.1 to $3.5 billion (year of expenditure dollars) to fund all three elements of the project: bridge, transit and highway improvements. Construction is assumed to begin in 2013 and last seven to nine years including demolition of the existing bridge. There are still many design decisions to be made that will inform the cost estimate and provide more certainty as the project development process continues.

Because of the unique nature of this project — with light rail, highway, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements — federal funds could make up as much as one-third of the project costs. Tolling could provide another third, and Oregon and Washington would each be responsible for one-sixth (or $450 million each) of the total cost of the project. Oregon and Washington’s investments each leverage about $3 billion in other funds. The improvements in the Columbia River Crossing project will benefit all people and the economy at the regional and national level, while increasing safety and travel reliability and predictability.

A toll rate or policy has not been determined yet. The project is working closely with its partners on the next phase of project development, including funding options and tolling. The toll amount will depend upon the cost of the project, the amount of revenues raised by other sources and the type of operational activities funded by the tolls. Traffic effects will also be considered. A tolling study completed in 2010 analyzed a variety of scenarios. The toll rate for the I-5 bridge will be set by the two states’ transportation commissions and legislatures.

A toll on the I-5 bridge is assumed to be for all vehicles on the highway traveling in both directions. No toll is expected for individuals crossing the Columbia River on transit, bicycle or by foot.

There will be no toll booths on I-5. There are new electronic tolling technologies that allow drivers to pay a toll without slowing down or stopping. The project will study all the latest technology for automated tolling before selecting the option that best meets the needs of the region.

At this time, it is unknown if any reduced cost tolls will be made available. Preliminary discussions with the community about a variety of tolling scenarios will occur in the future. Reduced tolls for some people is a suggestion that has been made to CRC. Policy decisions will be made in the future by the Oregon and Washington Transportation Commissions.

Tolling of interstate facilities is governed by Section 129 of the United States Code. A tolling agreement would have to be approved by FHWA. Tolling of existing interstate facilities is not permissible unless it is for the purpose of “reconstruction or replacement.” Tolling of the existing I-5 bridge simply for the purpose of reducing traffic or generating money for other facilities would not be permitted under Section 129.

The CRC project includes a range of safety and design improvement projects. Some of those improvements include:
• New bridge structures high enough for marine traffic, eliminating the need for a lift span
• Addition of safety shoulders for stalled vehicles and incident responders
• Better sight lines so drivers can see over the crest of the bridge, reducing the potential for rear-end collisions during congested periods
• Add/drop lanes to allow drivers to safely merge into traffic, and improve connections between interchanges
• A wider and safer path for pedestrians and bicyclists

Between 2002 and 2006, an average of more than 400 collisions per year was reported on the I-5 mainline and ramps in the five-mile CRC project area. The highest crash location on I-5 in Oregon is within this area at the northbound on ramp from Hayden Island. The standard method of reporting collision rates is measured in collisions-per-million-vehicle-miles-traveled (MVMT). The collision rate experienced on I-5 within the Oregon segment of the project area was 1.08 collisions per MVMT. This rate is nearly twice that of Oregon’s comparable statewide average of 0.55 collisions per MVMT. The following reasons contributed to the high crash rate:

• Collisions increase during congestion
• Bridge lifts increase possibility of collision three to four times for drivers traveling toward the bridge
• Merge areas between closely-spaced interchanges are inadequate
• The Interstate Bridge has no safety shoulders and has other substandard features
• Trucks are two times as likely to be involved in crashes compared to autos, based on a review of crash data

Collisions lead to societal costs that significantly exceed the costs of congestion. Safety costs include property damage, lost earnings, lost household production, medical costs, emergency services, travel delay, vocational rehabilitation, workplace costs, administrative and legal fees, and pain and lost quality of life. In the Portland-Vancouver region the annual cost of traffic crashes is nearly three times the cost of congestion — $1.762 billion for traffic crashes, and $625 million for congestion.

The project includes extensive improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. A key feature is a separated path up to 20 feet wide constructed on the lower deck of the new northbound bridge across the Columbia River. Other features include grade separated connections from local roads and pathways in the area of the Marine Drive interchange, connections of the main path across the river with local streets on Hayden Island, sidewalks and bicycle lanes on the local access bridge connecting Hayden Island with N Expo Road in north Portland, and connections with both local streets and the pathways along the river in Vancouver. The new facilities are being designed to meet or exceed all applicable standards including the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

The project is designed to accommodate planned growth in the region as specified in the adopted land use plans in Oregon and Washington. The adopted land use plans, including those adopted by Metro, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, Portland, and Vancouver, are designed to accommodate nearly one million additional residents in the Portland-Vancouver region in the next twenty or so years. This growth will produce additional travel demands in the region, though overall traffic is expected to grow somewhat more slowly than either residents or employment. This is due to an expectation for greater use of public transit and alternative modes of travel as well as other land use changes designed to shorten travel distances for some trips.

Some of the key characteristics of the adopted land use plans are more intense development in areas near the project, including downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island, at the Port of Vancouver, at the Port of Portland, and in the nearby industrial areas. Adopted land use plans anticipate higher levels of employment growth in Clark County that will lead to a lower portion of Clark County residents commuting to Oregon for work.

One key concern related to the project was whether it would cause sprawl or other unintended, negative land use consequences. This concern was addressed with a study of induced growth conducted by Metro during summer 2010 using its Metroscope model.  This quantitative study also concluded “that the proposal would have negligible impact on population and employment growth in Clark County” when compared to projected growth that would occur with no change to the existing bridge.

The project supports transit oriented development, reinforcing areas where people want to live, work and shop, without having to rely on a car. Research suggests that light rail is likely to attract more investment around transit stations, which would better allow the cities of Vancouver and Portland to attain locally and regionally adopted land use goals for compact, transit oriented development. CRC promotes walkable, dense land uses by placing transit in the existing urban core of Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver.

The CRC analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement found that all alternatives (including no build) would result in a decline of toxic air emissions in 2030:

• Carbon monoxide – 25-26 percent reduction
• Nitrogen oxides – 74 percent reduction
• Volatile organic compounds – 55-56 percent reduction
• Particulate matter – 92 percent reduction

These air quality improvements are primarily due to cleaner fuels, cleaner engines and more fuel efficient vehicles.

The CRC project will incorporate many features which are likely to further reduce emissions, including congestion reduction, highway safety improvements, tolling, more transit options and pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.

The CRC project is expected to result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to taking no action. The primary way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by the transportation system is to reduce use of carbon-based fuel. This can be achieved by:

• Creating more efficient driving conditions
• Reducing the amount of driving
• Developing more fuel-efficient vehicles
• Reducing the carbon content of fuel

Eliminating bridge lifts, charging bridge tolls, adding transit, improving existing infrastructure and enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities is expected to help the region reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An independent panel agreed with CRC’s conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced with the project. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement includes an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project. The Locally Preferred Alternative is expected to reduce regional emissions by approximately 0.5 percent. For the 12.2-mile length of I-5 surrounding the CRC project area, the LPA is expected to reduce emissions by roughly 5.4 percent during the AM and PM peak periods. See Chapter 3.19 of the FEIS, Cumulative Effects, for a summary discussion of climate change.

Public comments on the project have been used to help shape the project development process. Comments received are regularly presented to project partners to inform local decision makers about public opinion and ensure that community, natural and cultural resources and effects are fully identified and evaluated.

Community input has shaped project development and design. More than 12,000 public comments have been received so far on a range of topics. Public comments have significantly contributed project designs, including the following topics:

• Project Purpose and Need Statement
• Draft EIS alternatives
• Locally Preferred Alternative
• Bridge type and architecture
• Marine Drive alignment
• Bicycle and pedestrian pathway design and location
• Hayden Island transit station and interchange
• Vancouver transit alignment and station design

Comments can be submitted at any CRC-sponsored event or at any time in person, via e-mail, mail, telephone or fax. Click here for an online comment form.

• Submit comments on the project
• Contact the project office to meet or talk one-on-one with a staff member
• Attend an advisory group meeting
• Invite CRC staff to an event or meeting to discuss the project

Ongoing public involvement is necessary for successful project development. As various project elements and design are refined, the project intends to keep the public well informed and will use input and comments received to ensure the project addresses transportation problems and meets community needs. Project staff welcomes your interest.

Yes, the current I-5 bridge will remain open during construction. Some short ramp or lane closures will be necessary and will likely occur outside of peak travel times. More detailed construction plans will be developed after receipt of the federal Record of Decision and before construction begins.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies the potential impacts to homes and businesses in the project area as well as effects to community, natural and cultural resources. The project is working to stay within the existing right of way, but some temporary and permanent land acquisitions and easements will be unavoidable. Approximately 59 residential displacements and 69 commercial displacements are expected. CRC will work with the cities and residents to provide notice of unavoidable inconveniences and to work within city construction guidelines.

The project currently is refining the design of Locally Preferred Alternative (replacement bridge with light rail) and planning for construction. The earliest construction could begin is 2013. The current project schedule can be found here.