At a press conference in Vancouver today, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson announced that the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program will finally live up to its name.
Instead of five miles of freeway expansions and seven new interchanges, the project will be phased to include just the bridge replacements and an extension of MAX light rail across the Columbia River. Also making the cut in this “core set of projects” is the shared-use paths that will give bicycle riders and walkers new connections across the river.
Yes, project officials have finally relented and have decided to right-size the project in the way dozens of environmental and social justice organizations in the Just Crossing Alliance have been encouraging them to do for years now.
Ferguson also revealed a $7.65 billion cost estimate for this smaller project and said he’ll personally ensure construction begins by 2028. That’s still not a guarantee because the project has just $5.5 billion committed to the project so far. According to new cost estimate documentation shared today, that amount is enough for them to begin the major elements of the core set of projects.
“The first thing I want to say is we’re going to build this bridge,” Ferguson said at the outset of today’s press conference. “That’s going to happen. There’s just far too much at stake for any other option” Ferguson, flanked at the podium by project leaders, elected officials, and construction workers in helmets and hi-viz vests sought to tamp down skepticism of the project after a bombshell report by the Oregon Journalism Project back earlier this year that the full project would cost $12 billion to $17 billion.
That cost estimate, which project officials dismissed as being just a draft when that report came out in January, was confirmed by project officials today. The new, official estimate for the full, five-mile corridor is now $14.4 billion.
The full project is still on the table, but Ferguson made it clear that it’s being pushed back for now. “We will continue to work toward the larger corridor down the road, in phases, as funding becomes available,” he said.
TriMet General Manager Sam Desue was also at the press conference. In his comments he touted light rail’s first extension into Washington as opening up, “one seat ride from Evergreen into downtown Vancouver to downtown Portland, the Moda center, shopping, health care and so much more.”
Toward the end of the press conference, someone in the media asked Governor Ferguson why the project had to include light rail at all, especially since many people in Clark County don’t want it. “That train has left the station,” Ferguson replied, without skipping a beat. “I want to be clear,” he continued. “I’m not interested looking backwards. We’re building this damn bridge. That’s happening, okay?!”
Ferguson’s enthusiasm is music to the ears of IBR project backers. But he’s only been on the job for 14 months and he’s also smart enough to understand that this project has been anything but easy since it first began in 2007. “We’re gonna have good days and we’re gonna have bad days ahead,” he cautioned folks at today’s presser (which included Portland Metro Chamber President Andrew Hoan, Oregon Trucking Association President Jana Jarvis, and many others). “That’s the fact. But I just want to be really, really clear that I’m super committed to this.”
Oregon State Senator Khanh Pham, who was a supporter of the “Right Size Right Now” campaign, told BikePortland today she’s encouraged that Governors Kotek and Ferguson have taken the project in a new direction. “I hope today’s decision marks a turning point in the IBR project in which the agencies acknowledge the financial realities of our state budgets and the imperative to curb excessive megaproject spending to preserve funding for core functions of our transportation system,” Pham shared in an email. “It’s imperative that policymakers in both states continue to push back against an oversized, bloated project and demand that ODOT propose and deliver a right-sized bridge with a right-sized budget that doesn’t bankrupt our state.”
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.
this sounds good, but I have so many questions: If we are just rebuilding the bridges, does that means we are keeping the lift/drawbridge? Would that mean the immersed tube is on the table? Are the MAX and bike/ped connections being considered as part of the bridge or as separate structures?
Coincidentally, I read this article this morning: https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-i-5-bridge-replacement-project-does-not-accomplish-the-needs-of-the-project/
The one-sheet Jonathan included in the article explicitly states that the “main span” project will be two new fixed-span bridges.
I can’t understand how that would work- fixed span without new interchanges means the bridge is way too low.
The project height was previously approved at 116 by the CG, and according to today’s IBR PR post this was reinforced by a recent meeting with Ferguson. I think he means business.
116′ is not as high as the bridge when it is opened, but is A LOT higher than the current bridge. I am not sure how you get on to that bridge without rebuilding interchanges. the current bridge is at about 40′ above the river, so the new bridge will be about 76-feet higher. The MAX approach is limited to about 4% which could take around 2000′ (+/- 1/3 mile) to achieve. So maybe no exit at Hayden Island and no ramps to SR-14?
This also includes the Harbor (but not Slough br) all likely because of the new height.
My understanding is that the project team has received the permits it needs from the Coast Guard to build low enough to avoid the Pearson approach. Perhaps that means that river traffic will be more restricted than it is now, but I doubt it, at least in any practical sense.
I’d love to see them keep the current bridge for bikes, Max and pedestrians while moving cars to a tunnel. According to the guy advocating for it, Bob Orbland, he says it would be cheaper. Time to reevaluate?
Until it falls down in an earthquake and blocks the river for months, if not years. It’s too much of a liability.
This strikes me as nothing but good news. I still see the added auxiliary lanes as likely superfluous, but probably a necessary compromise to get the Yellow Line into Washington and largely mitigated by the inclusion of dynamic tolling.
Funny what happens when the high cost of inefficient transportation infrastructure catches up to you.
Is tolling part of the equation?! (it seems like it’s got to be, right, with that budget hole?)
From the “Core sets of projects” doc.
It is, at least as debt repayment instruments. I am under the impression that there would be some legal hoops to jump through before OR can implement a permanent toll a bridge, but I could be wrong (the bridges in the Gorge have tolls and are ancient).
Does this mean the Columbia Slough bridge will be replaced? It currently seems like a good bridge even though it has pedestrian access only on the eastside. I don’t think it needs replacement.
That’s a good question rick. I don’t think so, but I’m not sure anyone knows for sure yet. I think the Slough Bridge and Harbor Bridge are both in fairly good shape AFAIK (neither are listed as structurally deficient). Just for reference all of these would be replaced and much much more in the original design. Here’s a video for your mind to be melted into ecstasy if you’re a traditional traffic engineer.
This has been coming for so many years now… You can’t just spend forever on inefficient infrastructure.
I hope Metro, ODOT, or PBOT will figure out a way to build a local access bridge from Marine Dr to Hayden Island. That would help traffic and connectivity in this area tremendously.
It’s about damn time. Unnecessary freeway expansions aside the cost was always ridiculously prohibitive. ODOT has really failed the state once again by dragging this process out trying to shoe-horn in a massive expansion. How much money could we have saved if they just built the bridge like we asked them to? See also the Rose Quarter expansion and their decade of lies about its cost and utility.
The light rail portion in the initial phase only extends to the Vancouver Waterfront station. I am curious how this will connect with C-Tran’s bus and BRT system, and what the expected ridership from that station will be.
I’m guessing that it’s still possible for light rail to expand from the north end of the bridge, but that’s beyond the scope of this particular project.
I love the fact that, in response to the question about light rail, Ferguson basically told the naysayers to shut the f*** up already. Light rail to Vancouver is happening. Get over it.
This announcement is a big deal in that – finally- they’re acknowledging it’s not about increasing auto capacity, it’s about building a bridge that will accommodate the projected future of transportation across the Columbia.
Sure, and the constructions companies won’t profit off of building an outdated and inflexible mode of transportation that Clark County doesn’t want. Yeah, that’s how to make friends of your neighbors by cramming garbage down their throats. TriMet can’t even afford to maintain its current failed MAX system, and we have to add even more?
Just remember, Oregon has no laws limiting the profit a company can make off of a taxpayer funded project. So having already rich companies making 10, 15, or even 20% profit is ok with you as that’s exactly what they’ll be taking home? Let’s pretend they make 15% off that $14.4 Billion project . . . that’s $2.2 Billion in profit. Obviously, you’re ok with that kind of waste.
It really is unfathomable the idiocy in Salem and Portland and how our politicians are bought and paid for by the rich.
Finally, some good news!!
Maus reckons they “relented to advocates.”
Yeah nah — they relented to the spreadsheet, mate.
Funny how it’s all kumbaya until the price tag jumps from $7.65B to $12–17B… then suddenly it’s “core project,” “phasing,” and a bit of creative trimming. Love that for them.
Not a values shift — just a budget reality check with better PR.
Hang on just a minute: Is it possible that Ferguson is pulling an ODOT?
“Pulling an ODOT” is starting a project knowing it’s underfunded but counting on the fact that “emergency” funding will have to be granted halfway through, just to finish the darned thing. The key to “pulling an ODOT” is low-balling the initial project cost to make it palatable to decisionmakers.
I say this cuz the higher bridge design will necessitate all new connections. So while Ferguson may say, “We’ll build just the bridge,” building the taller bridge means an entire rebuild either side of the bridge.
Yes. They are not “right-sizing” the project, they are merely “phasing” it. They are not changing the Supplemental EIS to be a smaller project, and they say they are committed to the full bloat, once more money is available. This is a concession to the fiscal reality, not a change of values or a change in direction. Legislators need to send a message that no more general fund money will be pledged to pay for cost over-runs on highway projects, and the money stolen from ODOT’s non-highway budget needs to be repaid, not stolen again.
That’s exactly what this move is. Jonathan should reach out to Joe Cortright at City Observatory, because the entire premise of the fixed-span segment is that you will need to rebuild all 7 interchanges due to the much, much higher span.
ODOT continues to try to low-ball and then pull the rug out from under us.
Hey RJ,
Yeah I saw Joe mention that today. I’ll look into it.
It sounds to me that the IRB project has become “Too Big To Fail” and that WaDOT and ODOT between them have found a federal mass transit bridge fund to draw funds from to fill the gap in funding – no transit and the bridge simply becomes unaffordable in any configuration – and to complete the bridge at minimum cost requires the plainest and most boring of designs.
14.4 Billion for a dumb and unnecessary freeway bridge or Medicare for All.
14.4 Billion for a dumb and unnecessary freeway bridge or billions for transit.
14.4 Billion for a dumb and unnecessary freeway bridge or billions for high-speed rail.
14.4 Billion for a dumb and unnecessary freeway bridge or hundreds of miles of protected bike lane.
When I look at libs/progressive who support spending 14.4 billion on a dumb freeway bridge and car-brained republicans who want to build a bigger dumb freeway bridge I struggle to see much of a difference.