Bob Ortblad offers further analysis of I-5 Bridge replacement costs
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Washington Representative John Ley’s recent article, “Can $10 tolls be coming to the Interstate Bridge?” significantly underestimates potential toll costs, which could be closer to $20.
The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s (IBR) “2023 Financial Plan” appears overly optimistic, starting with a $1 billion shortfall: $6.5 billion in funds minus an estimated $7.5 billion in costs equals a $1.0 billion deficit. Furthermore, a $1 billion grant from the Federal Transit Administration faces a low chance of success due to low ridership numbers, impractical elevated stations, and park-and-ride garages situated near the freeway, which promote additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to urban sprawl. To compensate for the expected shortfall from the loss of a Federal Transit Administration grant, the Washington Legislature is proposing $2.5 billion in toll bonds, which is a $1.3 billion increase over the IBR’s original plan.
The IBR’s last cost estimate was issued in 2022, with a new estimate slated for release in July 2025, after the sessions of both Washington and Oregon legislatures conclude. Recent tariffs and cost escalations are likely to raise the total by a conservative 25%, pushing the estimated cost to around $9.4 billion. Both Washington and Oregon are facing transportation budget crises, with little hope for additional federal funding. Thus, the only remaining source of funds appears to be $5 billion in tolls, potentially driving tolls up to an exorbitant $20 per crossing.
The IBR needs a more cost-effective design. It should cancel plans to widen five miles of freeway and reconstruct five interchanges, two massive bridge approaches, and an oversized bridge. A more viable solution would involve preserving the current bridges, which have six lanes, and constructing an immersed tunnel with four or six additional lanes. This alternative would be more cost-effective and offer many environmental and safety benefits.
Bob Ortblad MSCE, MBA
Seattle
Also read:
- Opinion: IBR’s evasive, misleading and dishonest excuses for higher cost
Joe Cortright argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has withheld detailed cost estimates while offering contradictory explanations for rising costs tied to the I-5 Bridge project. - Rep. David Stuebe sponsors bill to strengthen enforcement of auto insurance laws and protect Washington drivers
Rep. David Stuebe has introduced HB 2308, a bill aimed at strengthening enforcement of Washington’s auto insurance laws and increasing accountability for repeat uninsured drivers. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement’s Park & Ride insanity
Bob Ortblad criticizes the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s proposed Park & Ride garages, arguing the costs are excessive and unlikely to receive federal funding. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement $13.6 billion estimate is too low!
Bob Ortblad argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $13.6 billion cost estimate understates the true expense, citing comparable projects, construction challenges, and engineering assumptions. - Opinion: ‘The drama and the waste of taxpayer money continues’
Rep. John Ley outlines his objections to the approved fixed-span I-5 Bridge design, citing cost concerns, engineering standards, funding uncertainty, and opposition to light rail and tolls.
