The bombshell report about vast cost overruns for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program that came out earlier this month continues to reverberate. Project staffers faced sharp questioning from members of the Oregon Transportation Commission on Thursday at their first meeting since the news dropped.
Commissioners received an update on the IBR from Interim Project Administrator Carley Francis and Assistant Program Administrator Ray Mabey. Earlier this month, reporting from the Willamette Week revealed that the cost estimate to widen five miles of I-5 and replace the bridge between Vancouver and Portland could balloon from $6 billion to $12 to $17 billion. To make matters worse, project officials have been accused of intentionally holding back the higher cost estimate for political and strategic reasons. Suffice it to say, none of this sat well with OTC members.
“At $13.6 billion, what do you think that’s going to do to our ability to handle projects around the state if that bridge is draining the tank? I’d really like to know what the plan is,” Commissioner Jeff Baker asked Francis. “Because the narrative now is so negative that you guys could put the bridge in jeopardy simply because you’re not willing to have these conversations until the numbers are perfect.”
And Commissioner Lee Beyer, a strong supporter of the project who was a key member of the legislature during planning of the IBR’s previous iteration, the Columbia River Crossing, said, “It’s a tough one. I just don’t see a $12 to $16 billion dollar project being possible.”
“I’m concerned about the numbers jumping that far, that fast,” Beyer continued. “If those numbers are correct, we can’t build this project. There’s no way you’re going to get the money to do it at this point.”
Even OTC Chair Julie Brown had a pointed statement to get off her chest: “You put us all in a bad situation by having information that you may not have given to elected officials or committee members, and tried to contain it and try to figure out what to do.” Brown then said the officials hid the estimate because they were, “trying to come out with a narrative.”
For their part, Francis and Mabey tried to keep the focus on moving forward with the project. There was no clear apology, but Francis said at one point, “It’s incumbent upon us to get information out, which obviously has been a breach of trust with folks. So I’m recognizing that.”
Francis and Mabey painted a picture that the new cost estimate was so preliminary that it didn’t need to be shared yet. But at least one commissioner did not buy that line.
Baker, who had clearly done his homework and has studied the once-hidden cost estimate documents in detail, pointed out that project staff were part of twice-weekly meetings about the numbers. “So this is information that should have been discussed and known.” Baker seemed to resent being in the dark about the numbers during previous conversations with project staff. Referencing a presentation about economic calculations for the project, Baker said staff knew at the time the project cost was going to double, but they presented the information based solely on the old estimate, “without even an asterisk” that it might soon rise precipitously.
In one exchange with Mabey, Baker asked him point-blank: Why was the new cost estimate, which he’d promised would come out in December, moved out to March?
Mabey said they couldn’t provide a new cost estimate until the Coast Guard revealed their decision on bridge type. “It made sense to make sure we’re aligning an estimate with that key knowledge in hand,” he said.
“I’m going to hold your feet to the fire,” Baker replied. “Because there were two documents — one for each bridge type option… So it’s not like we were waiting on that decision to create the information. It was on there.”
Instead of even ponder what a pause or reset for the project would mean, Francis was clearly focused on moving forward. She wants to “start the dialog” about “sequencing” the project — that is, starting with a small piece of it and then moving onto larger pieces as new funding is identified. That tact seemed to irk Commissioner Baker.
“A budget is a promise,” Baker said, during an exchange about construction phasing. “The plan would be that we spend the amount of money that we’ve got allocated right now, and then we come back for more? And we spend until we run out of money, and then we come back and ask for more? And I understand that’s a process that has worked in the state of Washington [where Francis has worked]. And we have been guilty of it here from time-to-time. But, the direction of the legislature and certainly the feeling of this commission, is that that’s not the appropriate way to do it.”
As for the forthcoming, official cost estimate the project team expects to release in March, Francis didn’t say too much about what number we should expect. “The costs are definitely going to go up,” she said.
“I think [the rising cost is] why it’s so incumbent on us about mapping out what are some first steps, and how do they fit, how do they relate to the funds that we have?,” Francis said.
And as Francis talked about moving forward with the project by breaking it up into smaller pieces, Baker didn’t seem comfortable with that idea. “About that comment you made about, ‘How do we get started [on the project]?’ I don’t want you to get started until we get some answers. This is where we get into trouble. And are we starting on $6 billion project? Or are we starting on a 14 billion project?”
No one knows the answer to that question yet; but it’s clear some amount of value-engineering could be on the table. “How much can we downsize that and break it into a number of different projects?” asked Commissioner Beyer.
Beyer, who for some reason only now appears to have noticed the project isn’t just about one bridge, then described the full project scope as a “nice to have.” He asked where cuts could be made.
“I think there are like, six buses that they wanted to buy in there? And there’s some questions about that,” Beyer said. “Do we need that? There’s some questions about the light rail. Do we need both those kinds of things?”
Francis said however the project is phased it must “start at the river,” — which I heard as doing the bridge and its approaches first, and thinking about everything else later.
But it remains to be seen if there will be a later. And if there is, given the loss of trust and severe budget crunches, what amount of funding will lawmakers even be willing to commit to?
