Rep. John Ley told The Center Square he remains a sharp critic of the project design, prioritizing light rail over traffic congestion relief

Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington

New estimates for the cost of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) project over the Columbia River between Washington and Oregon have increased and the timeline has again been pushed out.

The final environmental review and Record of Decision (ROD) have been delayed, such that construction is now unlikely until 2028.

And this week, leaders of the IBR team gave an update on the megaproject to the C-TRAN Board of Directors, detailing increased projections for needed tolling and ballooning costs for light rail across the new span.

John Ley, a Republican state representative from Vancouver who is also a member of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, was at the meeting and afterward told The Center Square he remains a sharp critic of the project design, prioritizing light rail over traffic congestion relief.

“They are going to allocate 54% of the bridge surface to transit, bikes and pedestrians, and only 46% to cars and freight haulers,” said Ley who bemoaned the fact planners have been studying, designing and modifying plans for four years.

The new cost estimate for the entire project, which includes a 5-mile corridor and light rail extending to the Vancouver waterfront is an estimated $14.4 billion.

Ley strongly opposes extending Portland’s TriMet light rail into Clark County, arguing it is a high-cost, low-ridership solution that does not serve local residents or do much for traffic congestion.

“This is a light rail project in search of a bridge,” Ley said. “Portland’s TriMet is going bankrupt. They need a bailout and if they can get billions in federal money, it helps them delay the inevitable.

TriMet is facing a $300 million budget gap. As a result, the agency is planning to make some major cuts, set to take effect in August.

Ley said the current demand for transit does not come close to justifying the need for light rail. He also pushes back on design supporters who have argued the feds won’t provide funding for a project that does not include light rail.

“They claimed we had to have high-capacity transit in order to get federal funding. That’s part of the lie they tell, or half-truth,” Ley said. “Today, as we speak, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Northern Kentucky are building a bridge that was competing for the same money as the IBR is. They’re building a 10-lane bridge, 5 in each direction, over the Ohio River, connecting from northern Kentucky into Cincinnati. It’s the Brent-Spence Bridge.”

Ley said the Ohio-Kentucky bridge project competed for the same federal dollars the Washington-Oregon IBR project is competing for.

They “competed and got about $1.6 billion in federal money. Zero transit component on it,” Ley said. “So, the IBR is telling a misnomer that we have to have it. No. You don’t need it.

Projected cost has risen

Estimates have jumped to between $13.6 billion and $14.4 billion, more than double the earlier $6 billion estimate.

IBR Program staff emailed a response to Ley’s criticisms.

“All 10 local partners agreed to the key elements of IBR Program investments, detailed in the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative. Major changes to the key elements, such as light rail, would require all partners to agree, delay completion of the federal environmental process, delay the start of construction on all IBR Program elements and potentially put half a billion dollars in grant funding from the Bridge Investment Program in danger if upcoming deadlines are missed.”

“In addition, the Program is also eligible for additional federal funding beyond what is already awarded. Without light rail as the high-capacity mode, the program would not be eligible for Capital Investment Grant New Starts funding from the Federal Transit Administration, from which the Program plans to request $1 billion”

The amount of toll funding that the driving public will have to pay in order to help fund the project also keeps climbing to a current level of $1.5 billion. Rates are expected to vary from $1.55 to $4.50 per trip.

The updated plan calls for construction on the replacement bridge to start in 2028, with tolling to start at the same time. Drivers will be tolled on the old bridge to pay for the new bridge.

Ley noted another issue for Oregon and their ability to fund the mega-project is a ballot measure coming up next month.

“On their May 19th primary ballot there’s a referendum to repeal over $4 billion in transportation taxes that the governor crammed through in an emergency session last summer and fall,” Ley said.

He explained Oregon voters hurriedly collected far more than enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot.

“It was supposed to be on the November ballot of 2026, the exact date that the governor’s on the ballot. But now it’s going to be on the May 19th ballot,” Ley said.

“Overwhelmingly, the assumption is it’s going down, which leaves a $4 billion further hole for the state of Oregon. How do they have the money to pay for the existing obligation for the bridge even at the old price?”

Only about $5.5 billion in funding has been secured, leaving a large deficit for both states.

The project is not expected to be complete in all phases until around 2045.

This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.