On Friday, Greg Johnson announced he will step down from his role as leader of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project at end of this year. It’s the fourth time in less than a year a high-profile leader with oversight of an I-5 freeway expansion megaproject has walked away.
The exodus comes as the IBR and the I-5 Rose Quarter project — which represent a combined estimated cost of $12 billion in states with massive road funding shortfalls — struggle to gain popular and/or political support in their neverending quest for taxpayer dollars to build larger freeway ramps, widen interstates through neighborhoods, and make driving easier for thousands of people every day.
Late last year, Brendan Finn stepped down from his role as director of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Urban Mobility Office (UMO). Finn was in charge of delivering several freeway megaprojects in the Portland region that ODOT referred to as their “urban mobility strategy.” Finn faced intense pressure I-5 from the community via protests and lawsuits, as well as frustration over funding delays. After five years with Finn as head of the UMO, the I-5 Rose Quarter project came within a few votes of being paused this past summer.
Megan Channell was Rose Quarter project director and worked closely with Finn for five years. The two began working on the project around the same time, and resigned within seven months of each other. Channell resigned her post just as the Oregon Transportation Commission was considering putting the entire project on ice due to its lack of funding and its persistent lack of political and popular support.
Tiffani Penson took over for Finn as UMO director in February of this year. She lasted just eight months in the position before stepping down (her last day was October 21st). ODOT has also shut down the UMO as the agency continues to grapple with serious budget issues and the future of the I-5 project remains uncertain.
In a story about Penson’s departure, The Oregonian wrote:
“Leadership turnover aside, it’s been a rough year for the [I-5 Rose Quarter] freeway project. In May, project leaders acknowledged that they had not been sufficiently communicative with state officials about progress on the project or its growing budget gap. Soon after, the federal government rescinded most of a $450 million grant for the project that had already been approved. The project’s cost is now projected to reach $2 billion, while its leaders have secured less than $500 million.”
The IBR freeway expansion project begins just a few miles up the freeway from the Rose Quarter. Johnson was hired into his role as “program” administrator, which he liked to describe as being, “a shared resource between the Washington and Oregon departments of transportation.” His departure (coming at the end of this year) was announced Friday by the project team.
In a message to members of the project’s Community Advisory Group, Johnson said the decision to leave was “purely personal.” “I have the utmost confidence that getting shovels in the ground is just around the corner,” Johnson wrote. “Now is the time that makes sense for me to transition off and make way for the next evolution of the Program as we continue to shift towards delivery.”
But journalists paint a different picture. Late last month, the Washington State Standard reported,
“The torturously slow pace and increasingly expensive price to replace the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River have some Oregon and Washington lawmakers growing uneasy and frustrated. After years of planning and lining up billions of dollars in state and federal funding, it continues to be an educated guess when construction will start, how much the project will cost and what the new bridge will look like when traffic finally drives over it.”
With all these recent leadership changes adding to the uncertainty, it might be a question of “if” — not “when” — these projects get built.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Tin Kotek’s ODOT is out of control. These highway megaprojects are detrimental to all of the important transportation work that needs to happen in Oregon, as well as a huge burden on the state economy.
That, and the Democratic legislators who keep giving ODOT more money to build the megaprojects, even when there is no roadmap to completion.
But not really though – the original plan to pay for all those projects was tolling, but that got the axe because it’s unpopular. Then it was cobbling together IIJA/IRP funds but Trump and his clowns decided to pull the money because it’s woke. So then it was raising gas taxes and registration fees, which got scaled back because they wanted to play nice with Republicans; then it got further scrapped because members or their own party get their news from TikTok and now we’re right back where we started.
Except that ODOT has started building (with support from the governor and legislature, both of whom have the power to tell ODOT to chill until the finances are figured out), and that will likely force the issue in the future.
Oh, and if the feds don’t have a change of heart, there’s no way we’re getting those stupid lids everyone’s so goo-goo eyed over.
Yeah.
Agree on the lids. Seems to me it would be cheaper to build some nice ped/bike bridges and then buy up and redevelop some of the big parking lots in the Lloyd zone. I get that it’s not that simple; but that feels like it would be orders of magnitude less complexity and cost.
Good points. Kotek led the decision to stop congestion pricing or tolling. Like the last political collapse on transportation funding, Kotek and democrats repeatedly jettison good ideas to chase imaginary popularity.
COTW!
Now would be an amazing time for Kotek to direct ODOT to prepare ta plan to remove I-5.from I-84 to I-405(at the south end)
Each state gets a certain funding allocation from Congress that is largely (but not entirely) based on population. When a state cannot generate the needed “match” for the funding in time (by a certain pre-determined deadline), those funds are then allocated to other states who have an excess of matching funds (and there’s always states that do, who thrive on getting allocated funds from poorer states like Oregon). Keep in mind, these funds are federal – no local funding from Oregon or its cities or counties is going to other states, just part of Oregon’s federal allocation.
These federal allocations are a lot like store USDOT coupons – you get a percent discount on certain merchandise like highway bridges and roundabouts – but there’s an expiration date, and if you know you can’t meet it (and USDOT keeps tabs on your wallet), then other buyers are lining up to use your coupon before the expiration date.
This is not quite correct in a couple of senses. The federal funds often aren’t reallocated because of a lack of matching funds, bur rather because agencies aren’t ready to spend the money by the expiration date. In my experience projects delays are not usually the result of lack of local funding. Local funding is usually identified at the time of grant award.
Federal funding is allocated for a given year and it generally must be obligated in that year. Obligation has a specific meaning, mostly that contracts are signed with relevant agencies. It doesn’t mean the money is actually spent in that year.
Oregon has been a net recipient of reallocation funds for many years (at least 2015-2023, to my knowledge). ODOT actually does a really good job juggling buckets of money to make sure things are used at the right time. When local agencies like TriMet or PBOT get federal grants through various programs, sometimes the projects slip and ODOT will juggle money from one pot to another for them. To make it work better for everyone, ODOT introduced a carrot and stick approach with obligation in the correct year for each MPO back in 2019 or so. I can’t remember the date but the meetings were in person when we started talking about that. Each MPO must obligate in the correct year a percentage of funds and would get a larger share of reallocation funding if they did correctly.
Not all money can be juggled around, unfortunately. ODOT must have projects they can substitute funding for that would qualify for the correct program the money is coming from. They have so much going on and so many types of projects, it’s not usually a huge deal. Specific things like IBR and mega projects would have pretty specific funding sources so those are different than your typical MPO formula funding.
This is all a bit of a simplification, but is basically how it works. Source: I helped staff an MPO as an agency employee for a number of years.
Some political leader needs to acknowledge that the IBR project, as envisioned, simply cannot do all of the things that all of the different constituencies want. The bridge can’t be too tall, thanks to PDX, nor too short, lest it endanger shipping, which the Coast Guard will never approve.
My money is on a simple drawbridge that replaces the current drawbridge span, with three lanes for cars & trucks plus lanes for BRT/MAX, and bikes/peds. I know people keep saying we need to eliminate “the only stop light on I-5 between Mexico and Canada,” but it’s just impossible in this location.
You’ll eliminate the stop light when a very tall bridge can be built in another location (St Helens?).
It’s not thanks to PDX, It’s because of Pearson Field Airport in Vancouver.
They should do a tunnel.
They won’t consider a tunnel because they think it has to be so deep that the approaches won’t work. An immersed tunnel would likely work, but they don’t really want to consider it.
No, a tunnel for Pearson Field. Planes can pop out of a hole in the ground at an angle that safely launches them over any bridge. My brother and I used to do this sort of thing with Hot Wheels tracks and I can confirm it works.
I can second that. Not that it’s our job to stick the landings all the time, but with rotating crash panel technology any damage is only temporary.
Too tall because of Pearson Airfield, not PDX
Hey, we can also eliminate the stop light when the big one comes and we replace the light with a road closed sign.
But… We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
I wish they would go under, not over, the river.
Would going under really solve the problems with the project?
Well, they need to replace the bridge with something. Or let it fail.
But no it doesn’t address the scope creep.
“Most of the bridges along I-5, they’re fine,” Eberhard predicted. “My expectation is that the vast majority of bridges along these major corridors will still be usable after a magnitude 9 earthquake off the coast.”
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/05/some-freeways-may-be-useable-following-the-big-one-per-new-modeling-by-uw/
Considering that recent expert studies have found that a distant and subduction zone earthquake would have less impact on I5 bridges than consultant* reports suggest, I think the risks are exaggerated.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/items/544fd883-a311-45bb-a1e1-3902d665593a
Perhaps instead of spending several billion of the people’s revenue on a dumb and un-needed bridge we could create a NHS-style healthcare system in OR (medicare for all, whatever).
* the kind-of-corrupt revolving door of E-con-northwest, for example
Good to know.
I agree the money should be better spent. I was granting that people wanted I-5 to remain functional after a quake. But if it will, cool! The bridge will need replacement eventually though. But when that happens it shouldn’t be bigger.
As a tugboat captain on the Columbia River the reason why we lift the bridge is not a fault with the interstate bridge but more with the alignment with the Vancouver railroad bridge. There are three different spans of the interstate bridge that we transit; the center which is the highest clearance at 72 feet, then the wide span which is north of the center span is the most used by tugboats at 58 feet high. Most of the tugboats are 50 feet tall so we can’t use the wide span during high water and since the railroad bridge is directly downriver of the interstate lift span we have no choice but to lift the bridge during high water. If the railroad bridge opening was lined up with the center of the river it would eliminate 99% of the lifts.
I mean: at this point: can IBR get put on the shelf (again)? I’m just shocked how incompetent ODOT leadership has been through these ‘urban mobility’ projects and how much alternatives or downsizing/phasing have been left to the side. I mean look at all of the god-awful Washington-side interchanges? Maybe with the remaining funds we fund commuter rail analysis? Construct a bike/ped/transit only drawbridge without all the elevation gain? We did the same thing in the 80s and rejected freeways to start light rail: we can do it again!
I can analyze the commuter rail situation for free, no expensive study needed.
Due to recent shifts in employment locations in the metro area, there is less employment based in Portland as compared to Clark County which is a more business friendly polity.
Clark County is itself low density suburban sprawl even lower than typical American suburban density, and there is little public support for big increases in density.
As of 2023 there were around 800 riders per day on the C-Tran busses across the I-5 and I-205.
The low ridership of Commuter Rail in Tigard and the continuing ridership issues with Max further cloud the demand picture of commuter rail.
Thus the case for commuter rail is less than convincing.
C tran’s service is simply horrible–that”‘s why more people don’t use it. It is a lame facsimile of a transit system that exists merely so that the powers that be on this side of the river can say we have one.
They should decommission I-5 between the Interstate Bridge and the Tualatin I-5/I-205 interchange. Re-designate I-205 as I-5 and establish congestion tolls.
Only allowed if there can be a solid commuter rail service running the length of the current stretch of I-5 through the metro area.
YES Adam! In sections starting with the East Bank, but yes. Here’s an idea:
Phase 1: Remove the East Bank and rename I-405 to I-5. Develop the 43! acres of land with non luxury housing please for the love of what is holy.
Phase 2: Reroute/rename (to 99?) a scaled down I-5 along the St John’s RR Cut and new bridge for travel along 30 to Portland. Cut and cover work would free up 40+! acres of developable land. Non-luxury housing please.
Phase 3: Turn I-5 in N. Po. into a local, multi-modal boulevard, and remove raised sections from Overlook south to I-84.
Phase 4: Build a tunnel/hwy including car/rail under Forest Park to Cedar hills. Designate 217 as the new I-5. Remove 405.
Phase 5: Redesign highways leading to Portland (e.g., I-84) as low-speed multi-modal boulevards.
Love this!
As BikePortland readers know, opponents of both the Rose Quarter and IBR projects have been increasingly alleging fraud. Of the many special interest groups who have been keeping our antiquated transportation system afloat, none are more powerful than the DOT bureaucracies. They are the “experts” elected officials rely upon. They use sophisticated mega-consultants to back them up and to sell their projects. Greg Johnson was formerly a Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) employee. PB along with their partner Bechtel Corp, settled for $500 million on a fraud lawsuit by the State of Massachusetts associated with Boston’s Big Dig Project. IBR’s lead consultant, the 50,000 person Canadian firm WSP, purchased PB including their 12,000 employees only 14 years ago (meaning their transportation group is none other than the former PB. I doubt that Greg was involved in the Big Dig project, but he is not the person you want leading a project if there is any suggestion of fraud.
The winner in all this is engineering consultant and design lead David Evans and Associates.They continue to rack up the bill and continue to design a bridge that doesn’t meet environmental requirements.For the bridge height, working with the Coast Guard from the start is pretty basic – but they didn’t. Pearson can adjust its flight path, we’ve known this for years. This boondogel has been going on for nearly 20 years and we, the public, has been paying the bill.
Portlanders love nothing more than a good boondoggle with a staggering bill to match. Heck, we just approved building the most expensive public schools in the country, and we don’t even have the students to fill them!
David Evans who led the CRC is not associated with the IBR. They were replaced by Canadian mega-consultant WSP. We went from a local Portland firm making profit off of a poorly conceived project to a Canadian firm making profit. ODOT changed the lead consultant because WSP was deemed better at selling than was David Evans. When you have a bad product, you get the best salesman you can find.
Yeah, David Evans was the only one to bid on the CRC then got a no-bid cost explosion.
Evans mismanaged the Columbia River Crossing, allowing a “$50 million maximum” contract to balloon to almost $200 million.
Forensic accountant Tiffany Couch analyzed CRC spending, finding millions unaccounted for in David Evans’ bookkeeping.
They paid Patricia McCaig over $400,000 to lobby for the project. They were a mess that ODOT never held accountable, because ODOT cannot hold its contractors accountable. Now they’re working on the Rose Quarter (or rather the company that bought them is).
AtkisRéalis — another Canadian company ¯\_(ツ)_/¯