The Center Square Washington interviews Rep. John Ley about recent developments concerning the I-5 Bridge replacement project
Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington
A bipartisan group of lawmakers whose charge is to provide updates on the plans and cost to replace the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River between Washington and Oregon has run into a bit of a roadblock.
Planners seem to be unable to provide cost estimates.
The aging bridge is a traffic bottleneck, slowing freight and commuters. Supporters of the replacement also cite seismic risks in the event of a powerful earthquake.
Those who support finishing the original plan from years ago for another corridor, similar to SR205, argue the current bridge has many useful years remaining and contend neither state can afford the ballooning costs of a bridge replacement that includes light rail.
At a Dec 15 meeting of the Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee, lawmakers from Oregon and Washington anticipated getting updated figures as years of delays and design changes have dramatically escalated costs.
“It’s a light rail project in search of a bridge,” said Vancouver Republican Rep. John Ley in an interview with The Center Square. “They decided we need to destroy the current bridge in order to create a pathway for the light rail.”
Ley is a member of the two-state committee.
During the Dec 15 meeting, planners said they are waiting on information from the U.S. Coast Guard.
“We do not have a numbers update for you this month,” said incoming program administrator Carley Francis.
She explained they are waiting on height requirements for the bridge and whether or not it will be a fixed span, as state lawmakers prefer, or a moveable structure, before final cost estimates can be provided.
A moveable span, like the current structure, would be far more expensive.
Lawmakers in both states are wrestling with major budget challenges as the 2026 legislative sessions approach.
Ley said one of the main obstacles for him is the design for light rail on the new bridge. He contends ridership doesn’t demand the rail line, and Washington taxpayers would be on the hook for subsidizing Portland’s rail system.
“I introduced a bill that went nowhere last year. And I introduced an amendment that said Washington will pay zero capital costs for a transit organization in another state. And of course, the Democrats killed it and wouldn’t hear it. It’s insanity on many levels,” Ley said. “But that is all part of the game, all in an effort to try and bail out Portland’s transit system that’s going broke.”
Oregon lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also raised pointed questions about the lack of specifics.
“Even with the Oregon budget right now, we’re asking all of our agencies to estimate a 5%, 10% cut in their future calculation of their budget,” said Oregon Rep. Thủy Trần, D-Portland. “Is your group doing the same?
“I’m sure Washington doesn’t have all the money it wants to have either and so we want to know how your committee or your team is adjusting to the change? You can’t punt it down the road without giving us something,” she said. “So I want a date and I want a report or else I would say that your teammates are not doing [the] work to be blunt ma’am.”
Oregon Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, also pushed back on planners not providing new cost estimates.
“We can’t even tell Oregonians and Washingtonians the cost to what we’re looking at and part of the reason is we’re pacifying all of these stakeholders, and we can’t even say two auxiliary lanes,” Davis said. “This is craziness.”
She was referring to the current design including light rail, bike and pedestrian lanes, thereby limiting auxiliary lanes that provide extra space for drivers to safely speed up to match traffic flow as they merge.
Rep. Ley told The Center Square it’s inexcusable that planners can’t provide new cost estimates even with a final design not agreed upon.
“In a world of AI, in supercomputing….we could get daily updated cost estimates on what the bridge would be,” Ley said. “Bottom line is, they have numbers. But they know if they told them it was going to be $10 billion or $12 billion, both the Oregon and Washington legislature would say, “are you out of your flipping mind? There’s no way we can afford that.”
Some have speculated the entire project as designed will be scrapped. The federal government scrutinizes projects all over the country, with a focus on examining transit projects, including light rail that had been automatically green-lighted by the Biden administration.
It’s unlikely Oregon and Washington could afford moving forward without federal funding.
This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.
Also read:
- Board authorizes C-TRAN to sign off on Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s SEIS
The C-TRAN Board approved the Final SEIS for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, with Camas and Washougal opposing the vote over light rail cost concerns. - C-TRAN ridership grows for fourth consecutive year
C-TRAN ridership topped 5 million trips in 2025, marking the fourth straight year of growth. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
There is cost number that is more important to EVERY bridge user — THE AMOUNT OF THE TOLL. That is the number that can crush our household budgets.
Why don’t our elected officials also demand this number?
Jim — The short answer is “the IBR hasn’t set up toll rate determination” in a way that gives authority for them to determine the toll rates.
The IBR (probably via previous legislation) that the actual RATES will be set by the Washington and Oregon State Transportation Commissions.
The two state’s Transportation Commissions agreed to set up a “committee” of two Commission members from each state. That committee has met multiple times for the past year. They are studying low income toll subsidies and multiple other facets of tolling for the project.
Now add into the mix the fact that the WA legislature increased the amount WSDOT can borrow, paid back by tolls, to $2.5 billion. This is double the original “plan” that called for borrowing $1.2 billion.
You are correct to focus on the amount of tolls. The higher the toll, the more vehicles will divert to I-205, or simply not cross the river.
Supposedly in 2026, there will be a “Level 3” toll rate study for Wall Street, to see how much they would loan, and the “risk” to them on repayment; the duration of the loan, etc.
Bottom line — this is a very important issue with lots of moving parts. The important answers “should” be forthcoming in 2026. BUT — with the costs of the project NOT KNOWN, we truly don’t know if the IBR price tag is unaffordable and therefore the project must be cut back, or if what the two states can “afford”. There is also the huge question regarding FEDERAL funding . . . .
The foreseeable very high “Toll Rates” that few can justify and/or afford will result in very high diversion and re-routing to the I-205 corridor. This will just screw up all Greater Portland traffic patterns and make I-205 and I-84 a mess with congestion. The problem is that they know this and that they will stick their collective heads in the sand. It is just so scary to have decision-making leadership doing this.