Hidden Costs, Withheld Documents, And A $17 Billion Question: Why The Interstate Bridge Replacement Demands Immediate Oversight (Photo) - 01/10/26

Hidden Costs, Withheld Documents, and a $17 Billion Question: Why the Interstate Bridge Replacement Demands Immediate Oversight

Recent reporting by Willamette Week and the Oregon Journalism Project has revealed that the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program possessed a significantly higher internal cost estimate for the I-5 bridge replacement project—potentially approaching $17 billion—after recently informing Oregon and Washington lawmakers that updated cost information was not yet available. The existence of these concealed cost estimates raises serious concerns about transparency, governance, and the stewardship of public funds. Economist Joe Cortright obtained the internal cost estimate through a public records request, confirming that the documents were produced as part of the publicly funded Interstate Bridge Replacement program and had not been disclosed to legislators or the public.

This disclosure is not an isolated incident. Independent engineers, advocates, and community organizations—including Neighbors for a Better Crossing—have repeatedly been forced to file public records requests to obtain basic project information, including dimensional data, cost assumptions, and technical studies. Retired civil engineer Bob Ortblad has documented multiple instances in which IBR provided incomplete, misleading, or selectively presented information to advance a predetermined outcome. Such practices have significantly eroded public trust, and IBR’s credibility, caling into question whether decision-makers are receiving accurate and complete information.

Equally troubling is IBR’s continued dismissal of the immersed tube tunnel (ITT) alternative. Independent engineers have demonstrated that an ITT could be constructed at a lower cost, in significantly less time, and with fewer environmental and community impacts than the proposed bridge—while also being expandable to accommodate future traffic demand. By contrast, the current bridge proposal provides the same number of general-purpose vehicle lanes as the existing bridge, offers no expandability for future traffic needs, and locks the region into a fixed, high-cost configuration for generations. The ITT concept has been acknowledged by the U.S. Coast Guard as a viable bridge replacement alternative from a navigation standpoint, yet IBR planners dismissed it using flawed data inputs rather than a rigorous, independent evaluation. This is not the first time IBR’s credibility has been challenged; as Bob Ortblad has publicly stated, repeated misrepresentations have raised serious questions about whether the program’s actions reflect incompetence, institutional bias, or deliberate deception.

Given that the IBR project relies on public taxpayer funds, federal grants, and future toll revenues, there is no legitimate justification for withholding cost estimates, technical analyses, or alternatives evaluations from lawmakers or the public. A project of this magnitude and consequence demands the highest standards of transparency and accountability. 

That expectation was clearly articulated during the December 15 bi-state legislative meeting with IBR, when Oregon Rep. Thuy Tran pressed project leaders for concrete cost information, stating: “I’m hoping you can get us a budget estimate in January, so we have something to go by. I’m not expecting you to have a finite budget plan, but you can’t punt this down the road. … I want a date, and I want a report. Otherwise, I would say your team is not doing its work.”

Despite an explicit legislative request, critical cost information is still being withheld. This is not a scheduling issue—it is a breakdown in transparency and oversight. Requests have failed. Lawmakers must act decisively and immediately suspend further advancement of the project until all transparency failures are fully addressed and withheld information is disclosed.

Neighbors for a Better Crossing therefore calls on Oregon and Washington legislators to immediately require:

• A full independent forensic audit of IBR finances, cost estimates, and consultant expenditures
• A third-party, independent evaluation of the immersed tube tunnel alternative conducted by experts with no financial or institutional ties to IBR
• Immediate disclosure of all internal reports, cost estimates, and technical analyses related to project scope, costs, and alternatives
• A pause on further advancement of the project until these reviews are completed and publicly vetted

The public, affected communities, and elected officials deserve honest information before committing to a project that could burden the region for the next century. Transparency is not optional when billions in public dollars—and the future of regional mobility—are at stake.

Atmospheric River Events Mean Even Less Clearance For Vessels Crossing Under The Proposed Interstate Bridge Plan (Photo) - 12/22/25

Atmospheric River Events Mean Even Less Clearance for Vessels Crossing Under the Proposed Interstate Bridge Plan

Neighbors for a Better Crossing (NFBC) has submitted formal comments to the U.S. Coast Guard in response to its request for public input on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s preferred alternative—a 116-foot fixed-span bridge over the Columbia River, coupled with mitigation payments to select major river users in exchange for reduced navigational clearance. NFBC urges the Coast Guard to deny approval of this proposal, which would permanently constrain navigation on a federally protected waterway.

Recent atmospheric river events have caused rapid and significant increases in Columbia River water levels, temporarily reducing the effective vertical clearance beneath any fixed-span structure. Under these high-water conditions, a 116-foot fixed span would provide even less navigational clearance than advertised, further constraining the ability of taller commercial and recreational vessels to transit the river.

Unlike the existing movable spans, which can accommodate fluctuating river stages, a fixed bridge cannot adapt to elevated water levels. This makes navigation impacts more severe during flood events that are becoming increasingly frequent. This reality underscores why reduced fixed clearance presents a heightened and foreseeable risk to meeting the reasonable needs of navigation.

The U.S. Coast Guard has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that any proposed structure meets the reasonable needs of navigation on the Columbia River. This includes the authority to reject the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s recent attempt to offer mitigation payments to major river users in exchange for lowering the navigation clearance established in the June 2022 Preliminary Navigation Clearance Determination (PNCD), which requires a minimum of 178 feet of vertical clearance.

On behalf of Neighbors for a Better Crossing—representing residents, small businesses, floating-home communities, river-dependent users, and stakeholders on both sides of the river—we respectfully urge the U.S. Coast Guard to deny the IBR program’s proposed 116-foot low fixed-span bridge.

Based on the Coast Guard’s statutory mandate, the formal PNCD issued in June 2022, and evidence provided by independent engineers, maritime users, and the regional business community, we believe the IBR proposal:

• Constitutes an unreasonable obstruction to navigation
• Fails to meet the Coast Guard’s legal and regulatory standards
• Restricts future commerce on a federally protected waterway
• Creates permanent harm for short-term roadway convenience
• Violates the Coast Guard’s obligation to safeguard future navigational needs

This proposal does not represent a long-term solution. It is a short-sighted workaround that would lock the region into 125 years of restricted river commerce.

1. The Coast Guard Has Already Determined That 116 Feet Is Insufficient

In its 2022 PNCD, the Coast Guard concluded that IBR’s proposed clearance creates an unreasonable obstruction, fails to meet current and future maritime needs, prevents several classes of vessels from safely passing, and reduces clearance relative to the existing bridges, which provide approximately 178 feet of vertical clearance.

IBR has offered no new maritime data, no updated vessel-height analysis, and no industry justification to override this determination.

2. Federal Law Requires Protection of Future Navigation, Not Just Present Users

Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, the General Bridge Act, and long-standing Coast Guard practice, the Coast Guard must consider future vessel types, industry growth, commerce expansion, and emergency needs—not just current traffic. The burden of proof lies entirely on the applicant to demonstrate that a new bridge will not obstruct navigation.

Lowering clearance is only permissible if navigational needs are shown to decline. No data supports such a conclusion for the Columbia River. A low fixed span permanently restricts maritime innovation and industrial flexibility for the next century.

3. The Proposed Bridge Conflicts with the Long-Term Economic Role of the Columbia River

The Columbia River is a critical transportation corridor for renewable energy components, tall industrial equipment, shipbuilding and repair, oversized cargo, dredging and maintenance fleets, emergency response vessels, and commercial and tribal fishing infrastructure.

River commerce has repeatedly evolved over the past century and will continue to do so. A fixed span of 116 feet assumes future industry will never require additional clearance. That assumption is demonstrably false.

4. “Mitigation Payments” Highlight a Structural Flaw in the Design

IBR’s proposal included offering cash payments to at least three major river users—Greenberry Industrial, JT Marine, and Western Machine Works—in an apparent effort to settle objections rather than address the underlying navigational deficiency.

While such payments may be legal, they essentially prove the point that the design obstructs navigation and would not otherwise meet river-wide requirements. The Coast Guard cannot permit a bridge that satisfies navigation standards only if companies are paid not to object.

5. The Proposal Locks the Region into a Single, Non-Scalable Design

A low fixed-span bridge cannot be raised, cannot be modified without full replacement, cannot adapt to new industries, and becomes a permanent bottleneck for regional commerce. This directly conflicts with long-term planning principles embedded in the Coast Guard’s bridge-permitting responsibilities.

6. A Low Fixed Bridge Is a Temporary Workaround, not a Long-Term Solution

As noted by Joe Cortright of City Observatory, “You can’t bribe your way to a navigational clearance,” and “The proposed design constrains the waterway for a century.”

NFBC agrees:

This proposal is not future-proof, compliant, adaptable, aligned with the Coast Guard’s legal obligations, or protective of long-term commerce. It is an expedient solution that sacrifices the Columbia River’s integrity and economic potential.

REQUEST

Given the facts outlined above, we respectfully request that the U.S. Coast Guard:

1. Reject the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s 116-foot fixed-span proposal
2. Require IBR to submit a design that meets or exceeds existing navigational clearance
3. Reopen evaluation of alternatives, including an Immersed Tube Tunnel

The Columbia River is a federally protected resource and one of the most important waterways in the Pacific Northwest. Decisions made today will shape its use for the next century.

We urge the Coast Guard to uphold its mandate to protect navigation—now and in the future.

Public comments will be received for the record January 11, 2026
Email: d13-smb-d13-bridges@uscg.mil 

IBR Promotes “Giving Away” Historic Interstate Bridges While Withholding Cost Estimate For Replacement Expected By Lawmakers December 15 (Photo) - 12/21/25

IBR Promotes “Giving Away” Historic Interstate Bridges While Withholding Cost Estimate for Replacement Expected by Lawmakers December 15

PORTLAND, OR  The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s (IBR) November newsletter lead article—framed as a light-hearted opportunity to “adopt” the historic Interstate 5 bridges—may make for catchy marketing copy, but it glosses over several serious issues that deserve an honest public conversation.

The timing is particularly troubling. While IBR has been promoting the idea of “giving away” the historic bridges, lawmakers were expecting an updated cost estimate for the replacement bridge on December 15. That estimate was not provided, once again.

“There’s a real irony in talking about giving away two historic bridges when there’s no final plan, no cost estimate, no Coast Guard approval, and many funding sources are still pending,” said Kimberly Haslett, Hayden Island resident and volunteer for Neighbors for a Better Crossing (NFBC). “You don’t start dismantling history before you’ve even proven what comes next.”

Historic Bridges Are Not Disposable

The Interstate Bridge opened to traffic in 1917, and according to the National Bridge Inventory as of 2025, there are 262 older roadway bridges currently in service across Oregon and Washington. Oregon alone has 85 bridges built before 1917, and Washington has 177 bridges of similar age—all still in daily use, all with remaining service life.

Against that backdrop, destroying a historic bridge before its time—especially when alternatives exist—would be a tragedy.

These two Interstate Bridges are not simply “fixer-uppers with vintage charm,” as IBR’s newsletter suggests. They are significant pieces of American infrastructure listed on the National Register of Historic Places, constructed using high-quality riveted structural steel manufactured by U.S. Steel, and engineered in a way that has allowed them to remain durable and serviceable for more than a century.

Their longevity is not unusual. Many early 20th-century steel truss bridges across the United States continue to perform well today, which is why so many are successfully retrofitted and converted into pedestrian, bicycle, and community-use structures rather than demolished.

The Interstate Bridge’s 1917 northbound span, now more than 100 years old, remains structurally intact according to historic and engineering documentation, and its survival reflects the long, proven lifespan of well-maintained steel bridges of its era.

Seismic Facts: The Case for Retrofit, Not Demolition

IBR frequently claims that the existing bridges are “seismically unsafe” or “certain to collapse in an earthquake,” IBR’s Seismic Lie. Yet IBR has not produced any recent seismic study or geotechnical analysis to support that conclusion. This is especially concerning given that the last publicly available seismic analysis was conducted in 2006—and that analysis directly contradicts the narrative being pushed today.

The 2006 WSDOT Seismic Vulnerability Study

The 2006 WSDOT/CRC “Panel Assessment of Interstate Bridges Seismic Vulnerabilities,” conducted by structural, geotechnical, and seismic experts, found the following:

• Retrofit is technically feasible.
  The expert panel concluded the historic bridges can be retrofitted to meet modern seismic standards.
• Vulnerable elements were identified but repairable.
  The panel outlined specific retrofit strategies for foundations, piers, bearings, lift-span components, and truss elements—all considered upgradeable.
• Historic character can be preserved.
  The study explicitly notes that retrofit would have minimal visual impact and could maintain the bridges’ historic identity.

The Public Still Has NO Updated Data

Despite spending millions of dollars so far, the IBR program has not released any new seismic modeling, soil liquefaction studies, or engineering reports to support its claim that the bridges must be demolished. NFBC Calls for Current Seismic Study

Until these studies are made public, the claim that the bridges “will collapse in a major earthquake” remains unverified.

Historic Bridges Across the Country are Regularly Retrofitted

Across the United States, historic steel truss bridges have been successfully retrofitted and repurposed for:

• Pedestrian crossings
• Bike networks
• Cultural or scenic overlooks
• Local community connectors

There is no technical reason our region cannot do the same—except for IBR’s political preference for a pre-determined “locally preferred alternative.”

Demolition Is NOT Environmentally Responsible

Destroying two massive steel structures over the Columbia River—rather than retrofitting them—poses major environmental risks, including:

• Turbidity and sediment disruption
• Heavy-metal runoff
• Habitat impacts to salmon, sturgeon, and other river species
• Years of in-water construction disturbance

Claiming that demolition is “green” because the steel is recycled is misleading at best. Continued use is the most sustainable option.

“Giving Away the Bridges” Is a Distraction

Federal rules do require WSDOT and ODOT to offer a historic bridge for reuse before demolition. But the notion that a private citizen or organization could realistically relocate or repurpose two half-mile-long, 100-year-old, fixed-in-place steel truss bridges is pure PR theater—a diversion from the real issues this project refuses to confront.

What We Do Know

• These bridges were built to last
• Seismic retrofit is possible
• Relocating them is not realistic
• The public has never been shown modern seismic data proving demolition is necessary

Which raises the real question:

Why is IBR pushing demolition before showing the public the science?

The Responsible Path Forward

• Preserve the historic bridges in place
• Retrofit them for seismic resilience using strategies already outlined in the 2006 engineering panel
• Repurpose them as bike, pedestrian, and recreation corridors
• Protect the Columbia River from demolition debris and contamination
• Require IBR to release updated seismic testing before any irreversible decisions are made

.

The historic Interstate Bridges are not disposable novelties or marketing props. They are irreplaceable pieces of American history that belong to the public—not assets to be casually offered up as souvenirs. While IBR asks, “How many people get to say they own a century-old bridge?” and suggests that “your new (very old) bridge might just be a call away,” the reality is this: before anyone talks about ownership, relocation, or giveaways, IBR must first present a real plan, real seismic data, real permits, real funding, and real approvals for a replacement crossing. History should not be dismantled on the promise of “stay tuned.”