Now at a critical stage, the road to I-5 bridge replacement gets bumpy

Anne McEnerny-Ogle has honed her storytelling skills with an unconventional topic. She colorfully describes the tectonic reshaping of her city necessary to build a new Interstate 5 bridge.

Perched on a freeway overpass in April, the Vancouver mayor stood and pointed out how the massive project will upheave the city’s downtown. A railroad berm under which drivers currently pass? The new bridge will vault it. That empty grass lot near the city’s library? A future transit mall for buses and light rail.

The former math teacher frequently leads tours for federal officials and state lawmakers who are now deciding whether to spend between $5 billion and $7.5 billion to replace the bridge.

“It’s a lot of geography, it’s a lot of finance,” McEnerny-Ogle said of the tours. “Whether it’s D.C., or Salem, or even Olympia, they know they need to make a decision. And it’s kind of like cramming for the test.”

The project would demolish and rebuild 11 miles of road that lace Oregon and Washington together, including the 106-year-old bridge and seven surface road interchanges.

Before any shovels can sink into dirt, the bridge’s planners must weave through statehouses and federal bureaucracies to secure vital tax dollars.

It’s at these decision points that the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project is facing its first public bumps. Planners and supporters want to charge forward, and the project has scored legislative wins recently, but it still awaits a $1 billion commitment from Oregon.

The project’s costs — which could rise in the future — are fueling critics who want to be judicious with tax dollars. The bridge’s designs aren’t final, and some want planners to change the blueprints.

McEnerny-Ogle is as well versed on the project as anyone without an engineering degree can be. She and other advocates don’t see an issue with the design; they only see an issue with waiting. Costs only rise, she said, but right now an unprecedented pot of federal funds will help.

“It’s like eggs and butter right now at Fred Meyer. I waited, I missed the sale, and now [costs] are going up,” she said. “Each time we wait, the cost goes up. Let’s get going on it.”

Critics urge ‘right-sizing’

In early April, a group of nearly 50 people in safety vests flocked to a courtyard on Oregon’s Capitol Mall. In chants of “Right-size! Right now!,” they advocated for trimming off pieces of the bridge designs.

Current plans call for building a 116-foot-tall bridge with three lanes in either direction, dedicated mass transit lanes for buses and light rail, new transit stations, and four interchanges in Washington and three in Oregon.

Brett Morgan, a policy adviser for the land-use watchdog nonprofit 1,000 Friends of Oregon, said taxpayers need more options to consider.

“We’re worried that if this goes forward, it will eat up transportation dollars for other projects,” Morgan said. “We’re asking for choice and backups.”

The demonstration lasted roughly half an hour and included two state lawmakers who will have a voice on the project’s future. Organizers also said they spent much of the morning in the Capitol halls bending the ears of other lawmakers.

The demonstration coincided with a pivotal moment, as planners have said they need commitments from both Oregon and Washington before they can try to net billions in federal dollars. Washington already pledged $1 billion. Oregon lawmakers are still deciding.

The safety vest-clad group is a coalition of people and groups that want to see the bridge project tweaked for various reasons. Among them is Morgan, who also helps lead the climate-focused group Just Crossing Alliance. Also involved are Portland economist Joe Cortright as well as people who live on Hayden Island, whose homes will be front row to the construction.

But their principal concern, Morgan said, is how much the replacement project will cost. They fear the bridge could be costlier than current estimates.

“We just really need to make sure that we’re not overcommitting to one project,” Morgan said.

A proposal released this spring would have Oregon borrow $1 billion against its general fund, a pot of money that helps pay for schools, state agencies and myriad state programs.

To Morgan, the $1 billion commitment is simply a lot of money to put on the state’s credit card.

“You’re limiting the ability of future legislatures not only to make transportation investments, but also taking away other future potential programs in education or housing,” he said.

At least one powerful Oregon politician expressed similar concerns. Gov. Tina Kotek recently said she was uncomfortable borrowing so much when she already plans to borrow hundreds of millions for affordable housing.

A Kotek spokesperson said this week that the governor supports borrowing against the general fund this year but wants the Oregon Legislature to find other ways in the future to make the payment.

“Oregon also needs to invest in other vital infrastructure, especially affordable housing,” the spokesperson said.

Some critics fear the bridge’s costs will run over estimates. And some view it as simply too grand and too centered on vehicle traffic at a time when climate change is noticeably impacting the globe.

Oregon Rep. Khanh Pham, a Portland Democrat on the Joint Transportation Committee that helps steer the bridge project, said she supported the $1 billion pledge but wanted to see guard rails against rising costs. As an example, she said planners could consider keeping the current interchanges while still building a new bridge.

“Half of the costs are these really expensive, polluting freeway expansions and interchanges,” she said. “I’m just looking at conditions we can put on it to make sure that we have some accountability with disbursement, we don’t just write a blank check.”

In their proposal, Oregon lawmakers are considering hard-capping the project’s total cost at $6.3 billion.

Some critics have also questioned how much money the states will make from tolling. Drivers could begin paying to cross the bridge in 2026, which planners estimate could generate about $1.2 billion to help cover the cost of the replacement.

Oregon Rep. Mark Gamba, a Milwaukie Democrat, feared that forecast is too optimistic.

“If they do fall short,” Gamba said, “they’re going to have to pull from Oregon and Washington’s general funds or highway trust funds, or some other place to pay for the part that tolling doesn’t pay.”

It’s understandable for lawmakers to fret, experts said. Joseph Schofer, a Northwestern University professor emeritus in civil engineering, said cost overruns on these kinds of projects are “super common.” And he agreed that transit projects tend to over-estimate how many drivers will use the project, which could over-estimate toll revenues.

But that’s not always the case, he added, and efforts to scale down a project run the risk of underbuilding. That could become an expensive headache later. He said flexibility is important.

“One thing you don’t know much about is the future,” he said. “When the real demand manifests itself, it would be wise to have built-in the kind of adaptability so you can respond to that future.”

‘Schedule is king’

Critics are urgently making their case about the bridge plan because the project is approaching several important mileposts.

Planners expect to compete this year for beaucoup federal funds. Largely due to the $1.2 trillion Inflation Reduction Act, billions are on the table for transportation projects, including $40 billion for bridges. A bistate bridge connecting Kentucky and Ohio landed a $1.6 billion grant in December.

Project planners in the Northwest hope to put forward a convincing application by showing momentum locally. Besides urging Oregon to promise its share of the spending, planners asked Washington lawmakers to authorize tolling on the I-5 bridge, which they did in April.

The grant process gets underway soon. The first application goes out in May.

In total, planners are currently aiming to get $2.5 billion in federal funds. Greg Johnson, the replacement project’s lead, said the first applications need Oregon’s commitment.

“We are serious to get this thing done,” Johnson said. “That message will be sent loud and clear back to D.C. that we’re ready to go.”

To Johnson, the project’s timeline leaves little room to waste. In an interview with OPB, he acknowledged critics’ concerns about cost overruns, but argued that the costliest culprit would be any delays.

The project can’t officially win any grant funding until after its final design is approved.

That timeline already got bumped back slightly when, in February, the U.S. Coast Guard told Johnson to incorporate a bridge lift into the proposals. Johnson’s primary concern, he said, was staying on schedule. He said he negotiated with the federal agency to keep deadlines closer to schedule.

“There’s always time pressures on a job like this, but we’re being very tight-fisted with our time,” he said. “Schedule is king.”

The current designs are also important to meet the criteria of the federal grants. Changing the design would weaken the applications, he said.

“This is an opportunity to leverage local dollars and bring home federal dollars,” he said. “Those aren’t dollars that are going to go to local streets. Those dollars will go to other states.”

Johnson said he’s heard criticism about the bridge being too big or too focused on vehicle traffic. He counters that the new bridge, with mass transit and greater access for bikes and walkers, will better coerce people out of their cars.

“Folks are right: This is going to be a large bridge. But a lot of that space is now dedicated to other modes of getting people across this river,” he said.

The project is already twice as expensive as the Columbia River Crossing, the name of last decade’s failed attempt to rebuild the I-5 bridge, Johnson said.

Back then, it was Washington lawmakers who killed the project by refusing to spend money. Now, those officials are the ones hoping their neighbors step up.

Vancouver Mayor McEnerny-Ogle said she understands the concerns voiced by Pham and others. But she countered that there will be more time this year to discuss the bridge’s design.

“We need to have the confidence that Oregon is going to put their billion. As soon as that happens, all sorts of dominoes start to fall,” the mayor said. “And then we can start dreaming.”