State lawmakers from Oregon and Washington left a Monday meeting without the long-awaited cost update for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, raising fresh concerns as the hypothetical final price tag has continued to climb.
The Bi-state Legislative Committee met Monday, Dec. 15, with information presented by the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. Legislators had expected to see an updated cost estimate for the project, a presentation IBR staff said would be ready by December back in September, but none was provided. The most recent estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion is roughly three years old and does not account for inflation or increased labor and material costs, according to IBR staff.
Outgoing IBR Program Administrator Greg Johnson told lawmakers the delay is tied to the federal review process. The project team submitted a required navigational clearance report to the U.S. Coast Guard in October, but the 43-day government shutdown slowed the agency’s ability to review the document, open a public comment period and issue a decision on bridge height, according to IBR staff. If the bridge is ultimately required to be movable, a determination dependent on the Coast Guard’s findings, overall project costs are expected to rise by at least $500 million.
IBR staff affirmed that an updated cost estimate, including a financing plan for the project, would be made once the bridge design is finalized. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration's publication of IBR's final supplemental environmental impact statement, expected to be ready early next year, cannot be completed until IBR produces a final design.
The project's cost analysis and greater financial plan, outlining how the project will be funded, must be submitted to the federal government by the end of September 2026 and is required to secure a $1.5 billion capital investment grant awarded last year. IBR staff aim to seek an extension if the deadline is missed.
After the meeting, Rep. John Ley, R-Vancouver, representing District 18 of Washington state, said lawmakers were frustrated by the lack of concrete information as both states head into difficult budget seasons.
“I was very disappointed we did not receive an updated cost estimate for the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement Program,” he said in a news release last week. “Both states are facing tight transportation budgets and difficult choices in upcoming legislative sessions. We were promised updated costs at our September meeting, but none were provided today.”
Ley said the absence of updated numbers makes it more difficult for legislators to evaluate whether the project can realistically move forward in its current form.
“With costs rising, we need to discuss ways to scale the project to fit available funding,” he said. “The lack of cost data is especially troubling as Oregon has asked agencies to plan for 5 to 10 percent budget cuts, yet legislators still lack the information needed to evaluate this project.”
Ley noted that factors, including whether the bridge will have one or two auxiliary lanes and whether it will include a movable span, are still undetermined. He said continued delays in those decisions only compound the problem.
“Leaving this decision to the Coast Guard in an apparent attempt to justify higher costs is not good governance and fails to address public concerns,” he said.
The Reflector reached out to local city leaders regarding IBR’s delayed cost analysis. Battle Ground Mayor Troy McCoy, who represents the city on the C-TRAN Board of Directors, said the absence of a new cost estimate has not gone unnoticed as local officials wait for more clarity from the IBR program.
“I’m sure it’s going to be higher than the last estimate, so I’d be curious to see where the project goes with the new information,” he said. “We haven’t received a … new cost estimate in some time.”
McCoy said his primary concern is understanding what C-TRAN’s financial obligations will ultimately be, not the bridge design itself.
“What C-TRAN should be focused on, and what I’m focused on on C-TRAN, is what is C-TRAN’s commitment and part of that bridge, construction, costs?” he said. “I know costs are going up for everything, so there’s no way that this cost estimate’s gonna come in lower than the one that we have currently on the books.”
La Center Mayor Tom Strobehn, who has been openly critical of the bridge project, said the lack of updated cost projections reinforces his own long-standing doubts.
“It’s kind of astonishing that they don’t have updated projections on cost,” he said. “It’s not surprising to me because they haven’t got the numbers right from day one. Every time I turn around, it’s a bigger and bigger number, and then nobody truly knows all the way from the cost of the construction to the tools.”
Ridgefield Mayor Matt Cole said credibility in planning matters as much as speed, particularly while federal reviews remain unfinished.
“Large infrastructure projects like IBR are successful when cost estimates and plans are credible, not rushed to meet a moment. With key federal reviews still underway, providing the legislative action committee an updated estimate now would risk being incomplete or even misleading,” he wrote.
“This doesn’t change the reality that our region needs a new bridge now. It’s critical that C-TRAN remain meaningfully engaged as planning continues. The priority right now should be to keep the IBR project moving forward while ensuring it remains fiscally responsible and defensible to taxpayers.”
The issue concerning the bridge’s cost has also intersected with an unresolved dispute over how the C-TRAN Board of Directors is structured. Concerns raised by members representing small cities about the potential inclusion of light rail in the I-5 bridge replacement project had set the stage for the discussion.
The board currently operates under a 3-3-3 composition, with three seats each for the city of Vancouver, Clark County and the smaller cities within the transit district. That structure was reaffirmed earlier this year despite objections from the Washington state Department of Transportation (WSDOT), which has argued the model does not comply with state rules requiring proportional representation by population. A Thurston County judge granted C-Tran a temporary restraining order in late September, allowing the organization to continue receiving WSDOT funds.
In November, C-TRAN’s Board Composition Review Committee voted to recommend a new 4-3-2 model, giving Vancouver four seats, Clark County three seats and two shared seats for the smaller cities, with conditions intended to limit Vancouver’s influence over light rail funding decisions. The full C-TRAN Board has taken no action to adopt or reject that recommendation, leaving the 3-3-3 structure intact and the committee’s directive in stasis as of press time.
