Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Interstate Bridge

The Interstate Bridge consists of two parallel vertical-lift truss bridges spanning the Columbia River, connecting Portland in Oregon to Vancouver in Washington and carrying Interstate 5 traffic as the primary highway crossing between the two states. The original northbound span, constructed as a riveted Parker truss with a vertical-lift mechanism, opened to traffic on February 14, 1917, marking the first permanent automobile bridge over the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver area and initially accommodating horse-drawn wagons alongside early motor vehicles. A second southbound span, nearly identical in design, was completed in 1958 to handle increasing vehicular demand, resulting in a four-lane configuration with each bridge dedicated to one direction of travel. These structures now support approximately 138,000 vehicles per day, contributing to chronic congestion during peak hours. Despite their historical significance, the bridges exhibit structural vulnerabilities, particularly to seismic activity from the nearby Cascadia Subduction Zone, prompting the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program—a joint effort by the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation—to develop a modern, seismically resilient, multimodal replacement that enhances safety, freight mobility, and transit options while addressing capacity constraints. The program, reinitiated in 2019 after prior planning efforts, continues to advance through environmental reviews and design phases as of 2025, amid debates over funding, environmental impacts, and regional growth projections.

History

Original Construction and Opening (1917–1918)

The Interstate Bridge, spanning the between , and , was conceived to replace ferry crossings that had long constrained regional connectivity. Jointly funded by ($1,250,000 in bonds) and ($500,000 in bonds), construction addressed the growing demand for reliable vehicular and streetcar access amid early 20th-century economic expansion. Preliminary surveys began on April 28, 1912, under engineer Ralph Modjeski, with the final design contracted to the firm Waddell & Harrington on January 6, 1914. Groundbreaking occurred on March 6, 1915, with the substructure built by Pacific Bridge Company using and timber piles, while Steel Products Company fabricated the superstructure of riveted spans, erected by Porter Brothers. The bridge comprises 14 main spans across —ten at 265 feet and three at 275 feet—plus approach structures, totaling approximately 3,538 feet in , with a vertical-lift span providing 150 feet of vertical clearance when raised. The 38-foot-wide roadway accommodated two vehicle lanes, streetcar tracks, and a five-foot sidewalk, reflecting its role in highway and rail transport. Construction concluded under the $1.75 million budget, finishing with a $56,000 surplus after less than two years of work. Pedestrians first crossed on December 30, 1916, followed by the official vehicular and ceremonial opening on February 14, 1917, drawing crowds estimated at up to 50,000—the largest in Vancouver's history at the time—and featuring addresses by Governor James Withycombe, Governor Lister, and other dignitaries. Electric streetcars began service immediately, operating until 1940, underscoring the bridge's integration into regional transit networks. This engineering feat, leveraging steel trusses with curved top chords for aesthetic and structural efficiency, marked a pivotal infrastructure milestone, enabling seamless interstate commerce and mobility without the delays of prior ferry reliance.

Second Span Addition (1958)

By the mid-1940s, the original 1917 Interstate Bridge was overwhelmed by surging automotive traffic exceeding 30,000 vehicles daily and frequent vertical lift operations to accommodate river vessels, leading to significant delays and capacity constraints. In 1950, Oregon highway engineer R. H. Baldock formally proposed a parallel second span west of the original, with surveying commencing that May and design finalized by 1952 at an estimated cost of $11.2 million. Oregon and Washington legislatures authorized the project in 1953 through bond sales for funding, following resolution of legal challenges. Construction contract was awarded in 1956 to the , with work beginning that summer and completing on June 30, 1958, at a final cost of $14.5 million (equivalent to approximately $140 million in 2020 dollars), including expenses for the new spans and an . The second span featured a design nearly identical to the 1917 structure—a metal vertical lift bridge with an 11-panel rivet-connected Parker through truss and a 278.7-foot lift span—but included refinements such as a 40-foot-wide roadway (2 feet wider than the original), a total length of 3,538 feet across 16 sections (versus 14), riveted Warren truss floorbeams, and a raised "hump" section south of the lift span providing 72 feet of vertical clearance to minimize future liftings for smaller vessels. Two workers died during construction amid these efforts to double the crossing's vehicular capacity to 75,000–80,000 vehicles per day. The second span opened to southbound traffic on July 1, 1958, marked by a ribbon-cutting attended by dignitaries including descendants of early bridge supporters, though drawing a smaller crowd than the 1917 opening. Immediately following, the original span closed for an 18-month renovation costing about $3 million to install a matching hump for improved clearance, reopening on January 8, 1960, as the dedicated northbound structure and establishing a one-way pair configuration. Tolls, absent since 1929, were reinstated on January 10, 1960 (20 cents for cars, up to 60 cents for heavy vehicles), to service bonds and offset costs but discontinued on November 1, 1966, after payoff.

Post-1958 Renovations and Modifications

Following the opening of in , the northbound underwent remodeling to align with the new , including to the adjacent bridge's , with work commencing on , , and awarded for $2,993,995. This modification enabled the spans to operate in while accommodating increased interstate volumes under the newly designated I-5 corridor. In 1979, and addressed from decades of heavy use, replacing surfacing with to improve and ride quality, completed in at a of $946,600. This upgrade targeted deterioration in the roadway surfaces but did not alter the structural or mechanisms. The of -span cables and a sheave in the , costing $385,708 and completed that year, ensured continued reliable of the vertical on the original span, preventing potential failures in the hoisting apparatus amid rising demands. Subsequently, in , comprehensive and repairs were performed across both spans, completed by at $2,432,385, focusing on resurfacing and sealing to mitigate and without substantive seismic or load-capacity enhancements. These interventions represent routine preservation efforts rather than transformative overhauls, with no documented seismic or expansions undertaken, leaving the bridges vulnerable to as noted in subsequent assessments. Ongoing has prioritized operational over redesign, amid escalating exceeding original loads by factors of 5-10 times.

Design and Technical Specifications

Structural Composition and Materials


The Interstate Bridge comprises two parallel vertical-lift bridges, each characterized by a central Pratt through-truss lift span and flanking Parker through-truss approach spans, all fabricated from riveted steel. The original span, completed in 1917, utilized steel superstructure elements produced by the United States Steel Products Company, while the 1958 addition's steelwork was fabricated and erected by the Guy F. Atkinson Company.
Substructure components incorporate , including a 5¼-inch-thick for the roadway on the and T-beam spans for approaches. Piers on the original span are dumbbell-type , founded on timber piles driven into open timber caissons and sealed with . The 1958 span features piers assembled from hollow segments, filled with and supported on timber pilings, eliminating the need for cofferdams used in the initial construction. These materials reflect early 20th-century practices for long-span movable bridges, prioritizing steel's tensile strength for the and concrete's compressive for amid the River's challenging geotechnical conditions.

Vertical Lift System and Operational Mechanics

The Interstate Bridge features two vertical-lift bridges spanning the , each with a 279-foot Pratt lift span designed to rise vertically while remaining to the roadway. The employs a Waddell & Harrington-type , utilizing counterweights, wire ropes, cast sheaves, and operating drums to facilitate the . Reinforced concrete counterweights, positioned at each end of the lift span, balance the approximately 1,800-ton span, connected via cables that run over sheaves mounted on trunnions within the lift towers. Operation begins with bridge tenders in the main control room on Pier 2 signaling vessel passage requests, coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard. Electric motors drive the operating ropes wound around drums, raising the span along guide rails at a controlled speed, achieving up to 176 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water to accommodate marine traffic. The counterweights offset most of the span's dead load, minimizing motor power requirements, while separate uphaul and downhaul rope systems ensure precise control and friction-based force transmission via sheaves. Modern monitoring systems enhance operational safety, with dataloggers, tiltmeters, and laser sensors tracking tilt, , , and position in real-time during lifts. Data is collected at 5-second intervals during operations and transmitted wirelessly to servers for analysis, allowing adjustments to maintain balance and detect misalignments early. The spans open an average of 250 times annually, varying with and levels, up to 480 in peak years. Maintenance includes periodic replacement of worn ropes, drums, and bearings to preserve alignment and functionality.

Clearance, Navigation, and Load Capacities

The features a vertical that provides 178 feet (54.3 ) of clearance above Datum (CRD) when raised, enabling of large vessels and on the . When lowered, the clearance under the measures 39 feet (11.9 ) above 0.0 CRD in the primary . The horizontal clearance under the 542-foot (165 ) is 263 feet ( ), accommodating standard widths. Navigation through the bridge is regulated by the U.S. under 33 CFR 117.1041, requiring the lift to open on signal except during weekday hours from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., when openings are limited to vessels needing 140 feet (42.7 ) or greater clearance. Outside these periods, at least four hours' advance notice is required for openings. The system uses counterweights and electric motors to raise the approximately 140 feet in about 4 minutes, minimizing disruptions to highway traffic while prioritizing commercial needs on this federal waterway. Load capacities adhere to Interstate Highway standards, permitting a maximum gross of pounds (36,287 ), with single-axle limits of pounds (9,072 ) and tandem-axle limits of 34,000 pounds (15,422 ), calculated via the Federal Bridge Formula to distribute loads and prevent structural overload. No unique postings or specific to the bridge's or were identified beyond these norms, reflecting periodic inspections and reinforcements maintaining sufficiency for HS-20 loading ratings typical of interstate spans.

Operational Performance

Daily Traffic Volumes and Patterns

The Interstate Bridge accommodates an average weekday volume of approximately 130,000 , with 2023 recording 133,737 per weekday. This represents a recovery from the 2020 pandemic low of 120,361 per weekday, though volumes remain about 5% below the 2019 peak of 138,700 per day. Historical growth has been substantial, rising from 33,537 per day in 1961 to over 130,000 by the 2020s, driven by regional population and economic expansion. Traffic patterns exhibit a strong commuter orientation, with directional imbalances during peak periods: southbound flows dominate mornings from 6 to 9 a.m., corresponding to travel from Vancouver, Washington, suburbs to Portland, Oregon, employment centers, while northbound volumes peak in the afternoon and evening. Weekday volumes exceed weekends by roughly 20-30%, with hourly data showing maximum throughput during rush hours but constrained by the bridge's capacity, leading to recurring bottlenecks. Trucks constitute about 8% of weekday traffic, primarily during off-peak times to avoid congestion. Overall, volumes reflect induced demand from limited crossings, with minimal long-term growth post-2019 despite regional development.

Congestion Metrics and Bottlenecks

The Interstate Bridge experiences recurrent primarily during periods, with southbound queues forming in the morning and northbound in the afternoon and evening. In the 2019 baseline year, southbound on the bridge spans approximately 3 hours from 6 to 9 a., extending about 3 miles, while northbound persists for 8.75 hours from 11:15 a. to 8 p., backing up over 10 miles. These patterns reflect the bridge's limited capacity of roughly 5,000 vehicles per hour in the direction, which is frequently exceeded during high-demand hours. Level of service (LOS) on the bridge deteriorates to E or F—indicating unstable flow and forced operation at reduced speeds—during peaks. Southbound AM peak segments achieve LOS E with volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios of 0.90–1.0 from 6–7 a.m., dropping to LOS F with V/C exceeding 1.1 by 8 a.m. Northbound PM peak conditions reach LOS F with V/C ratios of 1.0–1.1 from 3–5 p.m., following earlier LOS B–C in the morning off-peak. Average travel delays during these periods range from 24–38 minutes southbound in the AM peak (6–9 a.m.) and 31–40 minutes northbound in the PM peak (3–7 p.m.).
Direction and Peak PeriodCongestion DurationApproximate Queue LengthTypical Delay
Southbound AM (6–9 a.m.)3 hours3 miles24–38 minutes
Northbound PM/Evening (11:15 a.m.–8 p.m.)8.75 hours10+ miles31–40 minutes
The primary is itself, constrained by its four-lane (two per ) and vertical operations, which accommodate river an average of 250 times annually and contribute to intermittent . Secondary bottlenecks occur adjacent to , including the I-5/I-405 interchange southbound (congested 6.5 hours from 6:30 a.m.–1 p.m.) and the Rose Quarter area southbound (12.5 hours from 7:15 a.m.–7:45 p.m.), where merging and weaving exacerbate backups. Independent analyses have attributed some upstream congestion to off-bridge factors, such as merges at North Lombard in Portland during southbound AM peaks and Victory Boulevard in the PM, suggesting amplifies rather than solely originates regional queuing in certain scenarios. Post-2019 traffic volumes have declined, with average daily volumes at approximately 127,000 vehicles in recent years, potentially moderating peak severity compared to pre-pandemic levels, though capacity constraints persist.

Accident Statistics and Safety Data

The Interstate Bridge and its immediate approaches register crash rates significantly above averages for comparable interstate facilities, primarily attributable to inducing abrupt braking and rear-end collisions. Between and , the bridge itself (spanning approximately 0.67 miles) experienced an average of 108 crashes ly, based on data from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and (WSDOT). In the broader 5-mile corridor encompassing the bridge and approach segments, crashes averaged around 409 during the same , with rear-end impacts comprising 66% of incidents and sideswipe collisions 14%, patterns exacerbated by bottlenecks and merging traffic. Crash density in the vicinity remains elevated, with approaches to the bridge exhibiting rates over three times higher than statewide norms for similar roadways, particularly during peak hours when volume-to-capacity ratios exceed 1.0. A 2011 analysis of the Columbia River Crossing area reported a collision rate of 1.58 per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT), compared to an urban interstate benchmark of 0.55 per MVMT, underscoring the safety premium from substandard geometry, narrow lanes, and lift-span operations that periodically halt traffic. From 2015 to 2019, the program study area recorded 7 fatal crashes and 33 serious injury crashes, reflecting persistent vulnerabilities tied to high daily volumes exceeding 140,000 vehicles.
MetricValuePeriod/Source
Crashes on bridge structure~108/year2002–2006 (ODOT/WSDOT)
Crashes in 5-mile corridor~409/year2002–2006 (ODOT/WSDOT)
Collision rate (corridor)1.58/MVMTPre-2011 (WSDOT)
Fatal crashes (study area)72015–2019
Serious injury crashes (study area)332015–2019
These figures highlight causal links between undercapacity infrastructure and incident frequency, though direct attribution requires accounting for variables like and driver behavior; replacement proposals project a –17% by 2045 through added and modern design.

Engineering Challenges and Vulnerabilities

Seismic Risks and Earthquake Preparedness

The Interstate Bridge, constructed in 1917 and renovated in the 1950s, predates modern seismic design standards and exhibits significant vulnerabilities to earthquakes characteristic of the . The structure spans the in a region influenced by the (CSZ), capable of generating 9.0 events with prolonged shaking exceeding one minute and peak ground accelerations of 0.1-0.2g, alongside crustal faults like the Portland Hills Fault producing 6.8 quakes with higher accelerations of 0.4-0.7g. Probabilities for a CSZ 9.0 earthquake within the next 50 years range from 7-15% according to state resilience assessments, though some models estimate up to 37% for 8.0 or greater. Engineering evaluations identify as the primary hazard, exacerbated by the bridge's soft soil foundations, leading to potential differential settlements and loss of support. Structural deficiencies include inadequate bearings prone to unseating, overloaded timber and piles, weak columns susceptible to , and overstressed lift span towers. A 2006 expert panel assessment, convened for the Columbia River Crossing project by and transportation departments, concluded that without , the bridges (north and south spans) would likely experience or severe rendering them unusable in a full CSZ subduction or major crustal quake. The panel noted the bridges' survival of the 2001 Nisqually magnitude 6.8 earthquake but emphasized that 's lower intensity and shorter duration do not predict performance against CSZ-scale shaking. Retrofitting to achieve no-collapse in a ,000-year (encompassing CSZ risks) was deemed technically feasible by the 2006 panel, involving measures such as improvements with drilled shafts, jacketing for , bearing replacements, and superstructure bracing, at an estimated of $88-190 million in 2006 dollars. However, no comprehensive seismic retrofits have been implemented on the Interstate Bridge to date, as evidenced by ongoing replacement advocacy citing persistent deficiencies. Oregon-specific highway bridge vulnerability studies severe mobility disruptions across the network, including the Interstate Bridge, post-CSZ due to widespread failures and span drops. Current earthquake preparedness centers on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (2019-present), which prioritizes a new structure designed for seismic resiliency against magnitude 8+ CSZ events, incorporating advanced damping and isolation systems absent in the existing spans. In the interim, regional strategies rely on emergency response planning, such as rapid damage assessment protocols by state departments of transportation, though the bridge's age and unretrofitted state limit proactive mitigation beyond monitoring. Critics, including some local analyses, argue that replacement claims overstate immediate collapse risks given the bridge's endurance of prior seismic events, advocating updated studies over full reconstruction. Nonetheless, engineering consensus from peer-reviewed and governmental assessments underscores the structure's non-compliance with contemporary no-collapse criteria for rare, high-magnitude events.

Aging Infrastructure and Maintenance History

The Interstate Bridge comprises two parallel spans across the : the original northbound span, constructed from 1915 to 1917 and opened to traffic on February 14, 1917, and a southbound span completed in 1958. The original structure, a steel cantilever truss with a vertical lift span, was built on timber piles driven into sandy, liquefiable soil, while the 1958 span uses precast concrete pier segments but shares similar foundational vulnerabilities. By 2025, the primary span exceeds 107 years of service, subjecting its steel components to prolonged exposure to corrosive marine conditions and cyclic loading from increasing traffic volumes, which accelerate fatigue in unreinforced elements. Maintenance efforts have focused on routine inspections, deck preservation, and operational upkeep rather than structural overhauls, with joint bi-state agreements covering day-to-day costs shared between Washington and Oregon. No comprehensive seismic retrofitting has been implemented on either span, despite a 2006 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) assessment deeming upgrades technically feasible, as the projected expense—potentially rivaling replacement costs—has deterred investment in preservation over full reconstruction. This omission leaves the bridge susceptible to Cascadia Subduction Zone events, where soil liquefaction could undermine pile foundations, as highlighted in program evaluations prioritizing resilience. Historical interventions include periodic lift span adjustments and painting to mitigate corrosion, but these have not addressed foundational or truss deficiencies exacerbated by the bridge's age and design limitations from early 20th-century standards. Engineering reports note that without intervention, progressive deterioration from fatigue cracking and environmental degradation risks operational restrictions, underscoring the shift toward the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program as the primary strategy for sustaining functionality.

Freight and Oversize Load Constraints

The Interstate Bridge supports standard freight traffic under Interstate System regulations, allowing single-axle weights up to 20,000 pounds, tandem-axle weights up to 34,000 pounds, and gross weights up to pounds in accordance with the bridge formula. These limits apply without additional posted restrictions specific to the bridge, routine passage of heavy trucks as part of the I-5 corridor, which handles significant freight volumes including intermodal containers and between ports and inland destinations. and permit overweight operations beyond these thresholds via single-trip or permits, provided axle configurations comply with formulas allowing up to 105,500 pounds gross under certain conditions, though such loads require route approvals that include the Interstate Bridge absent structural prohibitions. Oversize loads face geometric constraints due to the bridge's narrow 10-foot lane widths, lack of shoulders, and total deck width of approximately 42 feet across four lanes, necessitating escorts, lane closures, or off-peak timing for widths exceeding 8.5 feet to mitigate collision risks in high-volume conditions. Height limits align with state standards of 13.5 feet for legal loads, but taller oversize vehicles (up to 16 feet with permits) must coordinate with lift span operations, as raising the 232-foot movable span for river navigation halts all road traffic for 3-5 minutes per event, potentially disrupting timed hauls. Length restrictions follow federal maxima of 53 feet for semitrailers, with longer combinations prohibited on the Interstate System, though permits for divisible oversize loads require verification of the bridge's vertical alignment and approach grades to prevent instability. These constraints reflect the bridge's 1917-1958 origins, where and designs met era-specific load standards but now prioritize maintenance over enhanced capacities for modern oversize freight, such as specialized equipment or components common in regional supply chains. While no structural deficiency postings limit routine freight, the configuration elevates vulnerability to overload incidents, with state agencies monitoring via biennial inspections to ensure compliance without routine reductions in permissible loads.

Replacement Initiatives

Columbia River Crossing Project (2005–2013)

The Crossing (CRC) originated from a 2005 bi-state between the (ODOT) and (WSDOT) to modernize the corridor across the , targeting the Interstate Bridge's constraints, seismic deficiencies, and shortcomings. Daily volumes on the bridge routinely surpassed 130,000 by the mid-2000s, contributing to severe and reliability issues for freight and commuter flows. The initiative emphasized replacing the 1917 and 1920 lift-span structures with seismically resilient designs while expanding and integrating options. Core elements of the proposed plan included two new parallel bridge spans for vehicular traffic, each accommodating four general-purpose lanes plus auxiliary shoulders, alongside widened I-5 approaches, upgraded interchanges at Hayden Island and Marine Drive, and an extension of light rail from Portland's Metro system into Vancouver, Washington, via a dedicated guideway. The design aimed to enhance freight mobility for the Pacific Northwest's primary north-south corridor, incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and meet federal standards for navigation clearance under the spans. Preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis began in 2006, with public involvement processes documenting preferences for options balancing highway expansion and transit investments. Development progressed through environmental compliance, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released in 2008 and a Final EIS (FEIS) in August 2011, which evaluated impacts on air quality, water resources, and induced traffic demand while selecting a preferred alternative. The FEIS projected construction starting in 2015, with completion by 2020, but highlighted challenges like greenhouse gas emissions from added capacity and reliance on toll revenues for funding. Oregon approved $450 million in toll-backed bonds in 2013, contingent on matching Washington contributions, reflecting state-level commitment amid regional economic stakes. The project collapsed in mid-2013 due to Washington's failure to enact , as costs escalated beyond estimates—reaching approximately $3.5 billion by final assessments—driven by expansions, prolonged timelines, and disputed projections. Political resistance in Washington centered on the $850 million , viewed by legislators and stakeholders as an unwarranted extension of Oregon's transit model without sufficient intrastate benefits or voter support, alongside broader fiscal skepticism toward overruns. Environmental critics argued the plan would induce additional miles traveled, exacerbating emissions despite measures, while fiscal analyses questioned the return on given alternatives like bridge-only at lower . Governors and formally declared the defunct in 2013, suspending all activities by 2014 after $25 million in sunk expenditures across both states. The underscored interstate coordination hurdles and the causal between ambitious scopes and volatility in recessionary fiscal environments.

Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (2019–Present)

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR), initiated in 2019 by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation, seeks to replace the existing Interstate 5 (I-5) spans over the Columbia River with a modern, seismically resilient, multimodal structure comprising two side-by-side bridges to enhance safety, alleviate congestion, and improve connectivity for vehicles, transit, freight, cyclists, and pedestrians. The program addresses the original 1917 bridge's vulnerabilities, including its lift-span mechanism and inadequate seismic standards, while incorporating broader corridor improvements over a 5-mile stretch in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. Planning efforts have emphasized environmental reviews, with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) underway to evaluate impacts and alternatives following the termination of the prior Columbia River Crossing project in 2013. Design visualizations and workshops have focused on architectural elements, grade reductions (from the current 4.7% maximum), and multimodal accommodations, including light rail extensions and active transportation paths. Partner agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration and local jurisdictions, collaborate on compliance with federal permitting timelines, though the process has encountered delays, pushing the project at least 2.5 years behind initial schedules as of September 2025. The program's projects costs between $5 billion and $7.5 billion, with a likely midpoint of $6 billion, funded through a mix of commitments, , and revenues estimated at $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion. Both states have confirmed contributions of approximately $1.24 billion under base-case scenarios, supplemented by diverse to cover the balance. Recent analyses indicate potential escalation to $10 billion due to permitting delays and added scope, including $1.9 billion in ancillary projects like highway widenings and transit enhancements. As of late 2025, the remains in pre-construction phases, with anticipated to advance into mid-2025 or later, pending SEIS completion and permitting approvals originally targeted for late 2024 but now extended. Bi-state tolling subcommittees have convened through July 2025 to refine models, while a is scheduled for late 2025; sequencing will prioritize the river bridges and approaches once initiated. The effort builds on lessons from prior initiatives by prioritizing resilience against seismic events and freight demands, though fiscal pressures from rising estimates have prompted ongoing scrutiny of scope and efficiencies.

Controversies and Policy Debates

Cost Escalations and Fiscal Critiques

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program's initial cost estimate, established in 2023, ranged from $5 billion to $7.5 billion, encompassing bridge replacement, highway improvements, and multimodal enhancements across a four-mile corridor. By early 2024, project managers acknowledged escalating expenses due to inflation, supply chain disruptions, and design refinements, prompting a commitment to release an updated quantitative risk assessment later that year. However, as of September 2025, the revised estimate—delayed for nearly two years—has not been publicly disclosed, with state legislators anticipating a total approaching $10 billion amid a reported 30% average cost increase across regional transportation initiatives. These escalations echo the predecessor Columbia River Crossing project (2005–2013), which ballooned from an initial $3.4 billion projection to potential overruns nearing $10 billion before cancellation, after expending $182 million—including $17 million in questioned administrative and consultant fees. A 2023 quantitative risk assessment for the current program incorporated escalation rates derived from Washington State Department of Transportation data, projecting potential variances of 20-40% based on historical megaproject trends, yet critics argue such models underestimate systemic delays in permitting and stakeholder consultations. Fiscal critiques have intensified, with and lawmakers highlighting funding shortfalls: the program's financial plan relies on $1.24 billion from tolls, supplemented by and state bonds, but recent transportation audits reveal $4.8 billion in statewide overruns unaccounted for in planning. Delays in environmental reviews and tolling implementation—now pushed beyond 2025—exacerbate costs through prolonged inflation exposure and interim maintenance, prompting calls for independent audits and scaled-back scopes to prioritize seismic over expansive capacity additions. observers, including officials, contend that opaque erodes and risks repeating the CRC's fate, where political opposition to tolls and perceived fiscal irresponsibility halted . Proponents counter that unaddressed congestion imposes annual economic losses exceeding $400 million regionally, justifying investment despite variances, though skeptics demand verifiable return-on-investment recalculations incorporating effects.

Capacity Expansion vs. Transit Prioritization Disputes

The Crossing (CRC) , initiated in , proposed replacing the Interstate Bridge with a including six general-purpose , auxiliary , and (LRT) extension from into , but faced significant opposition from Clark County residents and voters who rejected funding measures for LRT due to concerns over costs, property taxes, and perceived imposition of Portland-style urban policies. The was suspended in 2013 after Washington state lawmakers withheld funding, with critics arguing that LRT would serve only a 15-20% of cross-river trips while diverting resources from needed for the 95%+ of users traveling by personal vehicle or freight truck. The subsequent Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program, launched in 2019, aimed to balance these tensions by initially exploring (BRT) as a less controversial to LRT, but in 2022 selected LRT—along with three through lanes per , shoulders, auxiliary lanes, and paths—as the modified locally preferred alternative (LPA), projecting LRT to carry up to 13,000 daily boardings by 2040 while adding highway capacity to handle 150,000+ vehicles per day. Proponents, including and , contend this approach reduces long-term through mode shift, citing traffic models showing LRT diverting 10-15% of trips and aligning with emphases on . However, independent analyses question these projections, noting current transit mode share across the bridge is under 2% and historical data from similar corridors indicate induced demand fills added highway capacity within years, potentially exacerbating bottlenecks without sufficient general-purpose lanes. Capacity expansion advocates, particularly in , argue for prioritizing additional vehicle lanes—potentially 10-12 total—to accommodate freight (20% of peak-hour ) and commuter , as the bridge ranks as the region's worst with exceeding hours per annually, and LRT as inefficient given Clark County's thrice-rejected sales tax measures for extensions in 2006, 2012, and 2016. Cities like Camas and Battle Ground passed resolutions in 2025 opposing LRT inclusion, citing voter sovereignty and fiscal risks, with C-TRAN deferring funding commitments amid board divisions. Transit prioritization supporters counter that highway-only expansions ignore equity and emissions, but skeptics highlight systemic overestimation of rail ridership in U.S. projects—often -70% below forecasts—while underemphasizing that 84% of current bridge width is vehicle-dedicated, shrinking to 46% under the LPA, constraining seismic-resilient for and flows. These tensions persist into 2025, with the IBR's $7-10 billion estimates fueling debates over tolling and , as Republicans block LRT operations funding and demand BRT or lane additions instead.

Environmental Impact Assessments and Induced Demand Arguments

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBRP) initiated a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process in 2023 to evaluate the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which includes replacing the existing bridge with two side-by-side structures, adding auxiliary lanes, and incorporating light rail transit, against a no-build scenario. The draft SEIS, released on September 20, 2024, spans approximately 10,000 pages and assesses impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water resources, and cultural sites under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), incorporating updated traffic modeling and mitigation measures such as emissions reductions from improved transit access. Federal and state agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation, have emphasized compliance with Clean Air Act standards, projecting net decreases in regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita through induced transit demand offsetting some highway usage. The preceding Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project (2005–2013) produced a Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2011, analyzing alternatives with highway expansions up to 12 lanes alongside transit, which forecasted temporary air quality improvements but raised concerns over long-term cumulative emissions from increased capacity. That EIS incorporated baseline data from 2005 showing 280,000 daily vehicle trips across the corridor, with modeling that accounted for regional growth but faced criticism for underestimating post-construction traffic volumes. The CRC's cancellation in 2013, partly due to cost overruns and environmental litigation, highlighted tensions in balancing infrastructure needs with NEPA requirements, influencing the IBRP's more focused LPA design. Induced demand arguments have featured prominently in opposition to both projects, positing that expanded highway capacity lowers travel times, drawing latent trips and increasing overall VMT, thereby elevating emissions and undermining climate goals. Critics, including analysts, contend that the IBRP's traffic models fail to fully capture this elasticity—estimated in broader studies at 0.3 to 1.0 for capacity additions—leading to optimistic projections of congestion relief while ignoring spillover demand from surrounding arterials. For instance, public comments on the draft SEIS reference induced travel effects documented in CRC-era analyses, arguing that without stringent land-use controls, the project could generate additional freight and commuter trips, exacerbating regional CO2 outputs despite efficiency gains. These critiques often draw from environmental advocacy sources, which systematic reviews indicate may amplify the phenomenon's universality to prioritize non-auto modes, though empirical evidence for isolated bottlenecks like the Interstate Bridge shows partial rather than complete demand rebound, with time savings yielding net economic benefits. Proponents counter that is overstated as a barrier to replacement, noting the bridge's seismically vulnerable status necessitates action, and that integrated modeling in the SEIS projects a 20-30% increase yielding reliability improvements without proportional VMT growth, as enhancements capture 10-15% shift from single-occupancy . Benefit-cost analyses for the IBRP incorporate projections adjusted for policy scenarios, estimating avoided emissions from smoother freight flows outweighing any induced trips, a supported by transportation economists who argue the theory conflates correlation with causation in dense corridors where pent-up reflects underlying economic activity rather than creation alone. This debate underscores broader tensions in EIS processes, where modeling assumptions—often critiqued for conservatism in environmentalist literature—must reconcile observed post-expansion outcomes, such as modest VMT increases in similar Pacific Northwest projects, with causal factors like population growth.

Economic and Regional Significance

Freight Corridor Role and Supply Chain Dependencies

The Interstate Bridge constitutes a pivotal chokepoint within Interstate 5 (I-5), designated as the principal north-south freight artery spanning the U.S. West Coast and linking economies from Mexico through California, Oregon, Washington, and into Canada, as well as Pacific Rim trade routes. This corridor underpins regional logistics by channeling truck-borne commodities from inland production centers to coastal export hubs and vice versa, with the bridge serving as the direct I-5 traversal over the Columbia River between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. In 2020, freight value transiting the bridge exceeded $132 million daily, reflecting its in moving high-volume such as electronics, machinery, agricultural products, and forest materials integral to national supply chains. The Ports of and USA, key nodes for handling, , and intermodal transfers, depend on unimpeded I-5 via the bridge to distribute imports southward to markets and northward to Seattle-Tacoma gateways, thereby sustaining just-in-time and inventories across the Pacific Northwest. Supply chain dependencies amplify the bridge's criticality, as its aging infrastructure—prone to seismic failure, frequent lift openings for river navigation (averaging 200-300 annually), and peak-hour congestion—imposes delays that cascade through logistics networks, elevating fuel costs, driver hours, and inventory holding expenses for carriers. Alternative crossings, such as the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge approximately 10 miles east, necessitate detours adding 20-30 minutes and increased emissions, rendering them suboptimal for time-sensitive freight and exacerbating vulnerabilities during maintenance closures or emergencies. These constraints heighten risks to supply chain resilience, particularly for industries reliant on the corridor's 24/7 throughput, where even brief disruptions mirror broader national precedents of infrastructure-induced bottlenecks inflating regional economic losses.

Quantified Congestion Costs and Productivity Losses

The Interstate Bridge corridor on experiences chronic congestion, resulting in measurable economic costs through traveler delay, elevated vehicle operating expenses, and freight inefficiencies. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program's Benefit-Cost Analysis () quantifies the value of projected time savings from addressing these issues at $2.51 billion in (2021 dollars) over a 30-year (2033–2062), primarily driven by reduced person-hours of delay for autos ($2.09 billion), trucks ($283 million), and users ($136 million). These figures derive from regional modeling and microsimulation, applying U.S. value-of-time estimates of $18.80 per person-hour for and $32.40 per truck-hour, encompassing both and non-business trips. Additional congestion-related costs include $240 million in present-value vehicle operating savings (e.g., fuel and maintenance at $0.46 per vehicle-mile for light-duty vehicles) and $80 million in external highway use costs (e.g., and non-crash externalities at $0.13–$0.32 per vehicle-mile). Freight productivity losses amplify these impacts, as handles trucks transporting approximately $133 million in daily ( ), with and approximately 146 lifts imposing of 5–110 minutes per incident. Without , no-build scenarios escalating truck vehicle-miles traveled by 155,751 annually by 2045, alongside load restrictions by 2050 and potential full by 2060 due to seismic risks, further eroding reliability in a corridor vital to Pacific Northwest . An economic development analysis cited in program reports estimates unaddressed could yield up to $844 million in regional losses, reflecting broader threats to profitability and from unreliable times. In 2019, peak-period delays reached up to 10 hours daily in both directions, compared to 4–6 hours in 2005, underscoring worsening bottlenecks ranked as Oregon's worst and 33rd nationally. However, independent critiques, such as those from urban analyst Cortright at , contend that official models inflate congestion benefits by overlooking traffic diversion to the parallel I-205 bridge (affecting 220,000 daily users), applying overstated vehicle occupancy (1.67 vs. federal 1.48, boosting figures by 13%), and excluding induced demand or external costs beyond the study area, potentially reducing net benefits to half and yielding a benefit-cost ratio below 1.0. These analyses draw on observed declining traffic volumes—lower than two decades prior—raising questions about the persistence of claimed delays amid remote work trends and underutilized capacity. Official projections from state transportation agencies, while grounded in federal guidelines, may incorporate optimistic growth assumptions to support expansion, whereas critics prioritize empirical traffic data over modeled forecasts.

Projected Benefits and Return-on-Investment Analyses

The Crossing () featured economic analyses emphasizing benefits from , including reduced landside and efficiencies. A TREDIS software-based quantified these through comparisons of the locally preferred alternative against a no-build , incorporating improved regional and impacts on jobs and , though specific benefit-cost ratios were not publicly detailed in financial documents. costs for the ranged from $3.4 billion to $3.76 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, with anticipated revenues blending federal grants, state contributions, and tolls, but the absence of robust monetized benefit projections contributed to fiscal leading to the 's termination in 2013. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBRP) produced a formal benefit-cost analysis in August 2023, monetizing benefits over a 2033–2062 horizon discounted at a 7% real rate to 2021 dollars. Total present-value benefits were estimated at $4.13 billion, dominated by $2.70 billion in mobility and economic competitiveness gains from congestion relief, $0.90 billion in climate resiliency and environmental improvements (primarily seismic upgrades), $0.14 billion in quality-of-life enhancements, $0.13 billion in state-of-good-repair savings, and $0.05 billion in safety reductions. Capital and operations/maintenance costs totaled $2.74 billion in present value, yielding a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.51 under U.S. Department of Transportation guidance, predicated on regional travel demand modeling that assumes no-build deterioration of existing spans and build-case delivery of seismically resilient infrastructure with light rail integration. Construction-phase economic impacts for the IBRP, based on $5.94 billion in total expenditures through 2034, project gross effects of 43,300 person-year , $3.30 billion in labor income, and $11.6 billion in GDP output, with net regional additions (after leakages) of at least 13,460 , $1.02 billion in income, and $3.6 billion in GDP; these derive from 75% local assumptions for and . Ongoing operational benefits are tied to reliability gains, though unmonetized elements like —where added capacity attracts more vehicles, potentially eroding time savings—were not fully incorporated, a methodological gap noted in transportation economics . Critiques of the IBRP analysis, including from urban economist Joe Cortright, argue that benefits are overstated by inflating vehicle occupancy rates (1.67 versus USDOT's 1.48 standard), relying on unverified models, and assuming improbable seismic events without probabilistic , while omitting diversion costs to I-205 (projected 33,000 daily vehicles) and full lifecycle expenses exceeding $7.5 billion. Adjusted calculations incorporating these factors yield a BCR below 0.4, failing federal thresholds for viability and highlighting potential overreliance on optimistic demand forecasts from agency models that undervalue alternatives like . Government-led projections thus warrant scrutiny for incentives, as historical precedents like the underscore how initial BCRs can falter amid cost escalations and unmodeled externalities.

References

  1. [1]
    Bridges - Northwest Power and Conservation Council
    actually two steel-truss and concrete bridges — carries Interstate 5 between Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. One ...
  2. [2]
    Columbia River Interstate Bridge - HistoryLink.org
    Jan 14, 2020 · Each has three lanes and carries traffic in one direction, with the 1917 bridge reserved for northbound traffic and the 1958 bridge carrying ...
  3. [3]
    Columbia River Interstate Bridge opens on February 14, 1917.
    Jan 14, 2020 · Ground was broken in a well-attended ceremony on Hayden Island on March 6, 1915. The completion date set for October 31, 1916, wasn't met, but ...
  4. [4]
    Understanding the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    When the northbound section of the Interstate Bridge opened in 1917, it was the first automobile bridge that crossed the river between Washington and Oregon.
  5. [5]
    [PDF] VANCOUVER-PORTLAND INTERSTATE BRIDGE HAER No. WA ...
    In order to meet the completion deadline of 31 October 1916, the work of the various contractors was staggered so that each of the operations would proceed ...
  6. [6]
    Interstate (I-5) Bridge - Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
    The I-5 bridge opened in 1917, initially for horse-drawn wagons, later for cars. A second span was added in 1958. Today, 138,000 vehicles cross daily.
  7. [7]
    Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    The IBR program plans a modern, earthquake-resilient bridge to improve safety, reduce crashes, and enhance mobility for freight, transit, and drivers.Bridge Stories · River Crossing Visualizations · Understanding the IBR Program
  8. [8]
    I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement Program - Oregon.gov
    Sep 2, 2025 · Replacing the aging Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River with a modern, seismically resilient, multimodal structure that provides improved mobility.
  9. [9]
    I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement (Supplemental EIS)
    The CRC Project was reinitiated in 2019 and is now being advanced as the IBR Program. Recognizing that transportation needs identified in the previous CRC ...
  10. [10]
    The Interstate Bridge - The Pacific Highway
    The viaduct was built by bridge builder A. S. Miller & Son of Portland, and was 3,300 feet in length making it the longest bridge in Oregon at the time. The ...
  11. [11]
    Interstate Bridge: History of conflict, compromise - Special Projects
    Aug 21, 2022 · March 6, 1915. Construction begins. The Columbian called it “the greatest event in the history of the two cities.” Loading ...
  12. [12]
    Second Columbia River Interstate Bridge opens on July 1, 1958.
    Jan 14, 2020 · The new bridge was completed on time, and an opening day ceremony was set for 10 a.m. on July 1, 1958. The weather cooperated, with sunny skies ...
  13. [13]
    Interstate Bridge: Second span revives tolls - Special Projects
    Feb 19, 2023 · Tolls were revived to pay for the second bridge span, as the original bridge was at capacity and the new span was partially funded by tolling.
  14. [14]
    Interstate Bridge - HistoricBridges.org
    The original bridge which today carries northbound traffic was completed in 1917, as a riveted Parker truss vertical lift bridge, with Parker truss approach ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Cumulative Effects Technical Report
    Without seismic upgrades to the Interstate Bridge, a major earthquake could collapse or seriously damage one or both bridges, temporarily restricting or ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] 2024 Bridge Condition Report & Tunnel Data - Oregon.gov
    Compilation by Michael McDonald. Interstate Era Highway Bridges by Bert Hartman, P.E.. Major Bridge Maintenance Program article by Orren Jennings, P.E..
  17. [17]
    Here's what it takes to maintain the decades-old Interstate Bridge
    The Interstate Bridge first opened on the ... A second span of the bridge opened in 1958 to divide northbound and southbound traffic.Missing: construction | Show results with:construction
  18. [18]
    I-5 Lift Bridges Rehabilitation - Modjeski and Masters
    It requires proper balance, precision, and alignment of all moving parts. Such equipment is currently used to raise and lower the twin lift spans of Oregon's I- ...
  19. [19]
    Oregon: Bridge Lift Span Performance - Campbell Scientific
    At each end of the southbound lift span, a counterweight is positioned to help raise the span for ships passing underneath. When the lift span is raised, the ...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
  20. [20]
    Vertical Lift Bridges – Raising the Roof on Bridge Design
    Aug 9, 2021 · There is both an uphaul and downhaul rope system to operate the span. The haul system is separate from the counterweight ropes which only act to ...
  21. [21]
    Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    The Interstate Bridge has spanned over a century of change—now is the time to build a multimodal, earthquake-resilient bridge across the Columbia River.River Crossing Visualizations · Bridge Stories · Understanding the IBR Program
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Bridge Clearance Assessment Report Movable Span Options
    Vertical lift span bridges have been constructed with navigation channel (horizontal) clearances in the range of up to 500 feet and vertical clearance of ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Navigation Impact Report
    The primary channel lies under the bridges' lift spans and has a horizontal clearance of 263 feet and a vertical clearance of 39 feet above 0 CRD in the closed ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Columbia River Bridge Vertical Clearance NEPA Re-evaluation
    Dec 28, 2012 · Columbia River.(a) The draws of the Interstate 5 Bridges, mile 106.5, between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA, shall open on signal except ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Executive Summary: Movable Span Option Comparison
    1) A vertical lift span (178 feet of vertical clearance) is similar to the type of movable span that exists on the crossing today, in which the span would rise ...
  26. [26]
    Bridge Formula Weights- FHWA Freight Management and Operations
    Mar 23, 2020 · The Federal tandem-axle weight limit on the Interstate System is 34,000 pounds. Interstate System weight limits in some States may be higher ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Bridge Formula Weights - FHWA Operations
    The Federal single-axle weight limit on the Interstate System is 20,000 pounds. Tandem-Axle Weight-The total weight on two or more con- secutive axles whose ...
  28. [28]
  29. [29]
    Traffic over the Columbia River remains below 2019 levels and is ...
    Jun 9, 2024 · Vehicle traffic over the I-5 bridge was down 3.6% last year compared to 2019. Traffic over the Glenn Jackson Bridge (I-205) was down 6.2% from 2019.
  30. [30]
    Columbia River Crossings - RTC
    It is a twin structure with four lanes in each direction and a 9-ft wide bicycle and pedestrian path in between, which opened for traffic in December 1982.Missing: facts | Show results with:facts<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Level 2 Traffic and Revenue Study
    ... hours, while the afternoon peak direction of traffic is northbound. This pattern reflects the commuter-oriented traffic using the I-5 Interstate Bridge to.
  32. [32]
    Columbia River Crossings: Average Hourly Traffic - RTC
    Average hourly traffic data for the Glenn Jackson Bridge (I-205) are also available. Hourly traffic counts were provided by the Oregon Department of ...
  33. [33]
  34. [34]
    Denial and declining traffic on the I-5 bridges - City Observatory
    Sep 11, 2025 · Its latest data is for calendar year 2024. The average weekday traffic on the I-5 bridge (measured at milepost 307.97) was 127,000 vehicles per ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] IBR Draft SEIS Chapter 3.1 – Transportation
    ODOT and WSDOT maintain permanent traffic counters throughout their freeway and highway systems that collect hourly traffic counts 365 days a year, 24 hours a ...
  36. [36]
    They're digging in the wrong place - City Observatory
    Oct 23, 2024 · IBR will make traffic problems worse, especially in the morning peak hour, by funneling more traffic into these bottlenecks. The limited 3 ...Missing: volume | Show results with:volume
  37. [37]
    Frequently Asked Questions | Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    The lift span currently opens an average of 250 times per year depending on river levels, with some years as high as 480 times a year. This causes delays and ...
  38. [38]
    Expert Says Traffic Modeling for Interstate Bridge Replacement Is ...
    Nov 11, 2024 · “The congestion is caused by bottlenecks to the south—at North Lombard in the southbound a.m. peak and at Victory Boulevard in the p.m. ...
  39. [39]
    Oregonians struggle to comment on Interstate Bridge project due to ...
    Oct 31, 2024 · Some advocates say they can't properly assess the project because its leaders are using bad data to analyze the design proposal.
  40. [40]
    Are there 400 crashes on the Interstate Bridge each year? - PolitiFact
    Sep 20, 2013 · "More than 400 car crashes occur each year on the current, congested Columbia River Bridge," he wrote. "This exorbitant number of collisions ...Missing: fatality | Show results with:fatality
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Improving Transportation Safety Fact Sheet
    Interstate Bridge. These problems are a common cause of crashes; 66 percent of collisions in the project area are rear-end crashes and 14 percent are side- ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Benefit-Cost Analysis Narrative
    ... I-5 bridges over the Columbia River and the North Portland Harbor Bridge with resilient, seismically sound bridges. ➢. That there are only two bridges (I-5 ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences - WSdot.com
    ... crash rate of. 1.58 collisions per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). ... rate for similar urban, interstate facilities is approximately 0.55 collisions per ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] IBR Draft SEIS - Summary - Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    Oct 17, 2024 · Do not conduct paving, chip sealing, or stripe painting activities during periods of rain or wet weather. • In the SPCC plan and PCP ...
  45. [45]
    New Interstate 5 bridge expected to reduce crashes, traffic congestion
    Sep 30, 2024 · The proposed new Interstate 5 bridge could lead to a 13% to 17% reduction in crashes by 2045, according to projections.Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  46. [46]
    Earthquake probabilities and hazards in the U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Sep 19, 2025 · The timing of past earthquakes indicates that there is an 85-percent chance of a magnitude 6.5 or greater deep earthquake in the Puget Sound ...
  47. [47]
    Cascadia Subduction Zone - Earthquake - Washington County, OR
    According to the Oregon Resilience Plan , there is a 7-15% chance of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake within the next 50 years. Watch this great video on the ...
  48. [48]
    Exploring the Probabilities - Surviving Cascadia
    There is a 37% chance of a magnitude 8.0+ Cascadia earthquake in the next 50 years, but the risk has not decreased over time, and other probabilities exist.
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Panel Assessment of Interstate Bridges Seismic Vulnerabilities
    Dec 18, 2006 · The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project convened a panel of bridge and geotechnical engineers (the Panel) with relevant seismic design and ...
  50. [50]
    Opinion: The Truth behind the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake
    Aug 9, 2025 · John Ley challenges claims about the I-5 Bridge's earthquake risk, citing low odds for a major Cascadia quake in 50 years and urging ...Missing: preparedness | Show results with:preparedness
  51. [51]
    The Case for IBR - Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    With one span now 108 years old, it is at risk for collapse in the event of a major earthquake and no longer satisfies the needs of commerce and travel.Missing: seismic preparedness
  52. [52]
    Video - Facebook
    Oct 17, 2024 · The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program is bringing awareness to how the bridge will be affected in a seismic event and why replacing it is ...
  53. [53]
    The shaky argument for the Columbia River Crossing
    Nov 26, 2019 · Despite claims from Oregon DOT officials, the only published seismic studies suggest the I-5 bridges will survive a Cascadia earthquake.
  54. [54]
    Opinion: Neighbors for a Better Crossing calls for a current seismic ...
    Jul 10, 2025 · Neighbors for a Better Crossing is urging a new seismic study before construction proceeds on the $7.5 billion IBR project, ...
  55. [55]
    Washington & Oregon: Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program
    Apr 8, 2024 · A massive project that will replace the aging Interstate Bridge over the Columbia River with a modern, seismically resilient, multimodal structure.Missing: composition | Show results with:composition<|separator|>
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Report
    As directed by the Washington Legislature in SSB 5806, Section 5, this report provides an inventory of all planning, environmental, permitting and engineering ...Missing: renovations | Show results with:renovations
  57. [57]
    $$5.1 billion to repair/replace all seismically vulnerable bridges in ...
    Aug 24, 2021 · A 2006 WSDOT report indicates a seismic upgrade to the Interstate Bridge structures was technically feasible. “The Panel discussed and ...Missing: maintenance | Show results with:maintenance<|separator|>
  58. [58]
    Cantwell Announces $1.499B for I-5 Bridge Replacement Project
    Jul 12, 2024 · One span is more than a century old and the other is more than 65 years old. Neither span has had a seismic retrofit, which is a significant ...Missing: Vancouver | Show results with:Vancouver
  59. [59]
    [PDF] ODOT Bridge Condition Report - Oregon.gov
    Jan 25, 2022 · Oregon's bridge conditions have declined for the tenth year. Most bridges are nearing end of service life, with 57% rated as Fair-6 and 18% as ...
  60. [60]
    Guide to the Bridge Restrictions and Over-dimensional Truck ...
    Axle weights of these loads are limited to 21,500 lbs per single axle and 43,000 lbs per tandem axle. An over-dimensional permit is required for these loads to ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Permit Weight Table 1 - Oregon.gov
    have a loaded weight of more than 65,500 pounds and up to 70,000 pounds if: Minimum Axle Spacing Required. Interstate Highways. Non-Interstate Highways. 35 ...
  62. [62]
    Over-Dimension Operations in Oregon
    Allows up to 98,000 pounds gross weight, Weight Table 3 axle and group axle weights. Leaky Load. Allows limited fluid leakage out of a truck or trailer. This ...
  63. [63]
    Compilation of Existing State Truck Size and Weight Limit Laws
    Annual permits can authorize overweight vehicles up to 150,000 lbs. GVW with up to 22,000 lbs. on a single axle. Vehicles over 100,000 lbs. require advance ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] Columbia River Crossing Project Failure Provides Valuable Lessons ...
    The Columbia River Crossing, otherwise known as the CRC, was a bi-state megaproject to build a bridge between the cities of Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, ...Missing: renovations modifications
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Columbia River Crossing Project Overview Fact Sheet
    Sep 30, 2011 · A new river crossing will replace the existing Interstate Bridge ... timeline, sustainable construction methods, compliance with greenhouse ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Columbia River Crossing - Oregon State Legislature
    The project proposes to replace the existing two highway spans on Interstate 5 (I-5) across the. Columbia River with two new spans, along with new interchanges ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Columbia River Crossing FEIS Summary Chapter
    WSDOT and ODOT are leading the preliminary highway design and project management. TriMet and C-TRAN are leading the preliminary transit design and would operate ...
  68. [68]
  69. [69]
    Columbia River Span Plan Falls Apart | 2013-07-10 | ENR
    Jay Inslee (D) both declared the project cancelled. The CRC's future ... Interstate 5 Columbia River Bridge Project Secures $1.5B Federal Grant · See ...Missing: 2005-2013 | Show results with:2005-2013
  70. [70]
    Columbia River Crossing project finally officially shut down
    Mar 12, 2014 · Any last hope of reviving the ill-fated Columbia River Crossing bridge project was finally snuffed by the inaction of the Oregon Legislature ...
  71. [71]
    Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Project Development Profile
    Sep 8, 2023 · Portions of the Department of Transportation are currently in shutdown/furlough status due to a lapse in appropriations. Please continue to ...
  72. [72]
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    Expected congestion reduction at the Columbia River Bridges in 2045. Number of hours in a weekday that congestion (speeds under 45 mph) is expected to occur ...Missing: fatigue | Show results with:fatigue
  73. [73]
    River Crossing Visualizations | Interstate Bridge Replacement ...
    The IBR Program recently held a series of architectural elements workshops with advisory group members to gather feedback on a program-wide vision for ...
  74. [74]
    [PDF] Program Project Details - September 2025
    Major construction is anticipated to begin with the Columbia River bridge and approaches and be sequenced throughout the program area.Missing: progress | Show results with:progress
  75. [75]
    Program Leadership - Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    The Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation are jointly leading the IBR program work in collaboration with eight partner agencies from Oregon and ...
  76. [76]
    IBR: Falling further behind schedule - City Observatory
    Sep 15, 2025 · What this means is the Interstate Bridge Project is now certain to be at least two and a half years behind its original schedule: the Record of ...
  77. [77]
    Cost, Funding & Economic Benefits | Interstate Bridge Replacement ...
    The Financial Plan identifies committed, anticipated, and prospective funding sources to achieve the anticipated cost estimate range of $5 to $7.5 billion.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  78. [78]
    [PDF] Cost Estimate & Financial Plan Fact Sheet - January 2024
    The estimated cost for the program is $5 to $7.5 billion, with a likely estimated cost of $6 billion. Revenue from a diverse range of sources is required, ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  79. [79]
    [PDF] Fact Sheet: Cost Estimate & Financial Plan
    The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program will address the transportation needs associated with the aging Interstate Bridge and ensure a modern, earthquake- ...Missing: progress | Show results with:progress
  80. [80]
    [PDF] Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Updates September 15, 2025
    Sep 15, 2025 · to address the $5-$7.5 billion cost estimate. − The financial plan identifies that $1.24 billion is the amount required from tolling funds to ...
  81. [81]
    I-5 bridge replacement slogs through permitting as costs rise
    Sep 22, 2025 · If the new span is a drawbridge, the vertical clearance will be 178 feet, as it is today. But the other potential design of a fixed span would ...
  82. [82]
    $$1.9B in projects added to Interstate Bridge replacement plan
    Jul 30, 2025 · According to the 2023 IBR Financial Plan, the total estimated project cost is from $5 billion to $7.5 billion. Full project completion is ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  83. [83]
    [PDF] Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    WSDOT believes that the project would improve mobility along the I-5 corridor by addressing present and future travel demand, which is expected to increase. The ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Fact Sheet - Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    ▷ Anticipated toll funding between $1.1 and $1.6 billion. The Program will update its cost estimate in late 2025. Next Steps. The IBR Program will publish ...Missing: progress | Show results with:progress<|control11|><|separator|>
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Fact Sheet: Why Now? (May 2024)
    more, sign up for our e-newsletter, or submit a comment. ▶The current cost estimate is between $5 and $7.5 billion, with the likely cost being $6 billion.
  86. [86]
    IBR costs headed to $10 billion, but don't tell anyone
    Sep 3, 2025 · In January, 2024, the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project acknowledged that costs were rising, and that a new estimate would be done in ...
  87. [87]
    Escalating Costs and Delays Put I-5 Bridge Replacement Under ...
    Sep 23, 2025 · The effort to replace the aging Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River has entered a period of mounting costs and uncertainty, ...
  88. [88]
    In Our View: I-5 Bridge delays drive up cost of vital project
    Sep 24, 2025 · The arguments that led to the rejection of the Columbia River Crossing remain in place. Many residents oppose the extension of the Portland ...Missing: cancellation | Show results with:cancellation
  89. [89]
    Audit requested by WPC on Columbia River Crossing project ...
    The Washington State Department of Transportation spent $182 million on the project, including $17 million in questionable and excessive spending, according to ...
  90. [90]
    [PDF] Quantitative Risk Assessment - March 2023
    • Cost escalation rates are based on WSDOT Capital Program ... The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program cost estimating process supports all phases of ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  91. [91]
    Oregon economist examines the future of ODOT - OPB
    Apr 3, 2025 · There's no mention of the $4.8 billion in cost overruns. In fact, the six panel members that they had come do the management review, the ...
  92. [92]
    Tolling delay on I-5 bridge could mean higher rates for Washington ...
    May 16, 2025 · Tolling on the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River will start later than planned. Washington drivers may pay more as a result.Missing: budget | Show results with:budget
  93. [93]
    Big projects, bigger problems: Oregon bridge, highway efforts ... - OPB
    Aug 6, 2025 · ... traffic ticks up to pre-pandemic levels in some parts of the Portland metro area, leaving commuters and freight in gridlock. As Oregon's ...
  94. [94]
    Opinion: 'Remain calm. All is well!' - ClarkCountyToday.com
    Sep 25, 2025 · Ken Vance critiques the Interstate Bridge replacement project, citing rising costs, years of delays, and unanswered questions while comparing ...Missing: fiscal | Show results with:fiscal
  95. [95]
    Fiscal Concerns Emerge Over Interstate Bridge Replacement ...
    Aug 12, 2025 · Critics highlighted that the project's cost estimates, dating back to 2022, are outdated and likely to exceed $10 billion, significantly higher ...
  96. [96]
    Fights over lanes, light rail and cost loom as Interstate 5 bridge talks ...
    6 may 2022 · Staff working on the replacement bridge are recommending eight lanes of traffic, light rail instead of bus rapid transit and minimal exits on Hayden Island.Falta(n): controversies | Realizar una búsqueda con lo siguiente:controversies
  97. [97]
    New bridge replacement effort strives to avoid light rail controversy
    May 9, 2021 · Light rail and bus rapid transit were the only two high-capacity transit options that “passed muster” during the CRC study, according to ...
  98. [98]
    Opposition to IBR, light rail, and tolling follows two meetings of ...
    Apr 23, 2022 · The IBR team recommended light rail over using bus rapid transit (BRT) for the transit portion of the project, with a terminus at Evergreen Blvd ...Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Here are my concerns about the proposed IBR project: • Light Rail ...
    Light rail is far too expensive for the few commuters it would serve. Under the old CRC project, light rail was expected to comprise about 20% of the.
  100. [100]
    [PDF] Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation DRAFT - May 5, 2022
    May 5, 2022 · The IBR Program recommends the following language for the Modified LPA: 1. A replacement of the current I-5 bridge with a seismically sound ...
  101. [101]
    [PDF] overview of program recommendation for modified locally preferred ...
    May 5, 2022 · The IBR program recommendation for the Modified LPA includes key components representing foundational transportation improvements: transit ...
  102. [102]
    [PDF] I-5/Interstate Bridge replacement modified locally.preferred alternative
    Jul 10, 2023 · New Light Rail Transit (LRT) service as the preferred mode for the dedicated High-Capacity. Transit improvement within the BIA. iv. An ...
  103. [103]
    Public Backlash Killed the Last I-5 Bridge Replacement Plan. In the ...
    Jan 18, 2024 · “At this time, we do not know if the program will exceed its current estimated cost range of $5 to $7.5 billion, with $6 billion as the most ...
  104. [104]
    John Ley Speaks Out Against I-5 Bridge Replacement Funding in ...
    Nov 18, 2024 · The IBR program is proposing to spend between $5 billion and $7.5 billion (current price) replacing the two steel Interstate Bridge structures ...Missing: retrofit | Show results with:retrofit
  105. [105]
    Over half Interstate Bridge proposal allocated to transit, pedestrians ...
    Jun 11, 2024 · Vehicle space to decline from 84 percent to just 46 percent on Interstate Bridge replacement design option.
  106. [106]
    Tensions mount as bi-state I-5 freeway expansion project moves ...
    19 mar 2021 · It was almost entirely suburban Clark county opposition to light rail and opposition to future tolls that blocked the bridge project. I live up ...
  107. [107]
    Clark County cities debate on how to best oppose I-5 bridge light rail
    Mar 11, 2025 · Battle Ground City Council approved a resolution stating they opposed any extension of light rail into Clark County that is part of the IBR project.
  108. [108]
    Clark County transit punts on decision about Interstate Bridge light ...
    Mar 12, 2025 · C-TRAN board members pushed pause at the last minute on a Tuesday vote about funding for future light rail expansion across the Interstate Bridge from Portland ...
  109. [109]
    Bridge management defends TriMet's excessive demands for project
    Oct 14, 2024 · The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) defends TriMet's demands for 19 new light rail vehicles as part of the $2 billion, 1.9-mile MAX ...
  110. [110]
    Op-Ed: Clark County Rallies Against Republican Plan to Block Light ...
    Apr 12, 2025 · The new plan sought to keep the MAX on the bridge and sidestep the political quagmires and overcome Republican opposition.
  111. [111]
    John Ley Urges C-TRAN Board to Reject MAX Light Rail Funding
    Jul 25, 2024 · Ley urged the board to reject the IBR proposal, emphasizing the voters' consistent rejection of light rail and tolls. He advocated for bus rapid ...Missing: Program | Show results with:Program
  112. [112]
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate ...
    Apr 5, 2023 · The IBR Program SEIS will provide updated information on the affected environment, environmental consequences, and mitigation measures for a modified LPA.
  113. [113]
    “Moment of joy”: I-5 Bridge Replacement Program releases ...
    Sep 20, 2024 · ... Interstate Bridge Replacement Program's 10,000-page draft supplemental environmental impact statement released Friday. The document studies ...
  114. [114]
    Environmental Compliance | Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    The IBR program is committed to meeting federal, state and local laws and regulations for protecting the natural, developed and cultural environment.
  115. [115]
    Here's how I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement engineer says project ...
    Dec 7, 2023 · Is the argument from the engineer essentially that new transit options will induce increased demand for transit that will more than offset ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] Final Environmental Impact Statement
    The Columbia River Crossing Final. Environmental Impact Statement contains analyses of environmental and community effects of the project. It also describes how ...
  117. [117]
    Just say no: How to deal with highway widening zealots
    May 12, 2022 · ... induced demand, the primary factor at issue. It's like saying ... They've started by rebranding it as the “Interstate Bridge Replacement ...<|separator|>
  118. [118]
    Pacific Northwest's Largest Highway Project Ever Is in Deep Denial
    Oct 22, 2024 · Proponents of a $7.5 billion project to widen I-5 and replace the Columbia River bridge are ignoring induced demand, creating faulty traffic
  119. [119]
    Catching up on the Interstate Bridge freeway project ... - BikePortland
    Oct 10, 2024 · The project to expand five miles of Interstate 5 between Portland and Vancouver and replace the Interstate Bridge reached a big milestone ...
  120. [120]
    Examining the induced demand arguments used to discourage ...
    Dec 22, 2021 · The induced demand argument, which says that widening roadways will lead to new and additional traffic, is not new nor without theoretical and ...Missing: replacement | Show results with:replacement
  121. [121]
    [PDF] Submissions_0000-1000.pdf - Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    Sep 20, 2024 · ... demand decades out into the future. Although numerous policy reforms ... Induced travel demand and induced road investment: A ...
  122. [122]
    The "problem" of Induced Demand - Econlib
    Nov 11, 2024 · “Induced demand” can only came from already existing reasons to cross the bridge that a) provide less utility than the opportunity cost of the ...Missing: Interstate | Show results with:Interstate
  123. [123]
    Where Are My Cars: Columbia River Crossing - Sightline Institute
    May 17, 2011 · Reaching max peak hour capacity is one of them; so adding capacity might induce new traffic by releasing pent up demand for peak-hour travel ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  124. [124]
    Supply chain logistics and the importance of I-5 and I-84 trucking ...
    Oct 7, 2025 · Interstate Trade: Serves as the primary north–south freight corridor for the entire U.S. West Coast, connecting Mexico to Canada. Industrial ...
  125. [125]
    [PDF] Portland/Vancouver I-5 Trade Corridor Freight Feasibility and Needs ...
    Jan 27, 2000 · It links inter- national, national, and regional economies in Mexico,. California, Oregon, Washington, Canada, and the Pacific. Rim countries. ( ...Missing: chain | Show results with:chain
  126. [126]
    Gluesenkamp Perez, Murray, Cantwell Announce Whopping $1.499 ...
    Jul 12, 2024 · One span is more than a century old and the other is more than 65 years old. Neither span has had a seismic retrofit, which is a significant ...
  127. [127]
    [PDF] Economics Technical Report | Interstate Bridge Replacement Program
    on I-5 and facilitating the movement of traffic, particularly freight truck traffic between the Marine. Drive corridor and I-5. The bulk of potential ...
  128. [128]
    [PDF] Clark County Freight Mobility Study: Executive Summary
    May 14, 2025 · Congestion on I-5 and I-205, particularly at the I-5 Interstate Bridge, affects freight reliability. Congestion on these facilities is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  129. [129]
    [PDF] 1. PURPOSE AND NEED - Just Crossing Alliance
    In. 2019, the I-5 corridor experienced heavy congestion and delay in both directions lasting up to 10 hours daily. (compared with 4 to 6 hours daily in. 2005).
  130. [130]
    Exaggerated Benefits, Omitted Costs: The Interstate Bridge ...
    Dec 14, 2023 · ODOT and WSDOT claim that the present value of benefits from the IBR project amount to more than $4 billion; nearly all of these benefits are ...Missing: productivity | Show results with:productivity
  131. [131]
    Columbia River Crossing - Economic Benefits - TREDIS
    The TREDIS analysis examined project-related economic benefits in terms of landside traveler savings, marine navigation savings, and the economic effects of ...Missing: benefit | Show results with:benefit
  132. [132]
    [PDF] Columbia River Crossing FEIS Chapter 4 Financial Analysis
    This chapter describes project costs, revenue options, and finance plan scenarios for the locally preferred alternative. (LPA) and LPA with highway phasing ...
  133. [133]
    [PDF] Economic Impact of Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Capital ...
    This report analyzes the economic impact of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including figures on EIA impacts, employment, and total economic ...Missing: congestion losses