Washington legislators offer an assessment of the current status of the I-5 Bridge replacement project
Rep. John Ley, Rep. Ed Orcutt, and Sen. Jeff Wilson
The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program is facing a crisis of its own making: a staggering $10 billion funding hole that WILL sink the project.
Recent public records disclosures reveal the project’s estimated cost has increased to between $12.2 billion and $17.7 billion, a significant jump from the original $3.2 billion to $4.8 billion. This represents a 380% escalation, driven by a 20-year construction timeline and unnecessary add-ons.
Oregon Transportation Commissioner Lee Beyer delivered a blunt assessment: “If those numbers are correct, we can’t build this project. There’s no way you’re going to get the money to do it at this point.” His words echo growing bipartisan frustration that the project has morphed from a necessary seismic retrofit and congestion reliever into an unaffordable project.
Rep. Ed Orcutt put it plainly: “The problem is the bridge has just gotten too darned expensive.” He pointed directly to light rail as the prime candidate for trimming. Why invest in transit when the core bridge itself is unaffordable?
MAX originating ridership remains 43% below peak 2012 levels. TriMet should be in bankruptcy, with $850 million in operating losses last year and operations burning through $6 billion in negative cash flow over the last decade.
Washington state grapples with an $8 billion unfunded liability for deferred highway and bridge maintenance. The 2022 Move Ahead Washington plan proposed to spend nearly $17 billion for statewide transportation projects – yet IBR proponents want a greater sum for a single project.
Meanwhile, urgent transportation needs go unmet. The Camas Slough Bridge in Clark County, the Carbon River Bridge on SR-165, and the US 2 Bridge in northern Washington all require replacement or major repairs. Prioritizing one high-cost project over statewide necessities risks neglecting the basics that keep everyday drivers safe and moving.
Comparisons with other Columbia River crossings highlight the IBR’s mismanaged and overpriced operations. The Hood River–White Salmon bridge replacement, roughly 4,400 feet long, carries a price tag of $1.12 billion — far less than the IBR’s projected costs for a bridge that’s only about 3,500 feet. That’s more than 15 times the cost for 20% less length, raising serious questions about value.
Going back further, in 2014, Figg Engineering proposed an $860 million fixed-price bridge east of I-205. That price tag included no risk of cost overruns for a bridge 10,995 feet long. Even assuming a doubling of modern costs and inflation, that would come to approximately $1.72 billion—about one-tenth of the IBR plan.
The current proposal is bloated with extras that inflate the tab without clear justification. $2 billion for light rail (with $970 million in related construction contracts slated for 2026, before federal transit funding applications even begin in 2027). Why $190 million for 1,270 park-and-ride spaces and 15,000 square feet of retail space? Why $320 million for TriMet’s Gresham facility?
Giving 54% of the bridge surface to transit, bikes, and pedestrians ignores freight haulers and daily commuters. The IBR projects morning commute times from North Vancouver to the Fremont Bridge will double to 60 minutes by 2045.
Citizens across Washington state are vocal about affordability—housing, groceries, utilities, and taxes that are squeezing families. They demand prioritization, not perpetual tax and toll hikes for Portland’s light rail. We need a reasonably priced, functional bridge that reliably reduces congestion and saves time—not a West Coast version of Boston’s Big Dig or California’s high-speed rail fiasco, where costs spiral, and benefits evaporate. It’s time for lawmakers to demand transparency, eliminate excesses, and refocus on a simpler, more affordable crossing that reduces traffic congestion. Anything less risks wasting billions while more pressing infrastructure crumbles elsewhere. The I-5 corridor and taxpayers deserve better than this runaway train.
Rep. John Ley, R-Vancouver, represents Washington’s 18th Legislative District.
Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, represents Washington’s 20th Legislative District.
Sen. Jeff Wilson, R-Longview, represents Washington’s 19th Legislative District.
Also read:
- POLL: After hearing state leaders describe the I-5 Bridge as vulnerable in an earthquake, what is your reaction?
State and local leaders describe the I-5 Bridge as structurally at risk but recommend drivers continue crossing it while complex replacement plans unfold. - WA and OR scale back I-5 Bridge ambitions as cost balloons
A $14.4 billion price tag prompts Washington and Oregon leaders to delay portions of the I-5 bridge project and prioritize just the main spans. - Letter: ‘Now we have Engineer Bob telling us the I-5 Bridge needs replacing because it is built on shifting sand with wooden structures’
Amboy resident Thomas Schenk critiques Democrat leadership, tax policies, and the addition of light rail to the I-5 Bridge, while urging Republican voters to participate more in midterm elections. - The I-5 Bridge is vulnerable to collapse, but apparently not that vulnerable
State leaders and Vancouver’s mayor warn about bridge safety, but insist it’s safe enough for daily use as they focus on moving forward with a costly replacement including light rail—despite decades of public resistance. - Opinion: ‘This is not the best and most efficient use of the taxpayers’ funds’
Ken Vance critiques the announced $14.4 billion I-5 Bridge replacement, questioning funding gaps, the insistence on light rail, unaddressed congestion, and transparency from state officials.
wpDiscuz
