Oregon transportation commissioners on Thursday blasted leaders of the Interstate Bridge replacement program for keeping them in the dark for months as projected construction costs soared by billions of dollars.

Poor communication — and the massive cost increase itself — could jeopardize the push to build a new, seismically resilient bridge carrying Interstate 5 over the Columbia River, commissioners said.

“T��� 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,” Commissioner Jeff Baker said.

Thursday’s Oregon Transportation Commission meeting came only days after news broke that cost estimates for the project had more than doubled, to a range of $12.2 billion to $17.7 billion. The previous estimates, from 2022, were $5 billion to $7.5 billion.

The cost estimates were stated in an Aug. 15 document unearthed by City Observatory, a Portland think tank, through a public records request.

Oregon Department of Transportation and Interstate Bridge replacement (IBR) program officials have said the estimates were not shared publicly because they were not finalized, an explanation that seemed to exasperate commissioners who were working with years-old cost assumptions.

“You put all of us in a bad situation by having information that you may not have given to elected officials or to committee members or to others, and tried to contain it and tried to figure out what to do,” Chairwoman Julie Brown said.

Baker expressed frustration that he learned of the new cost estimates from media outlets and not IBR program officials.

“As commissioners, we’re not getting our information from you,” he said.

An official cost estimate will be available in March, IBR program officials said.

“It’s incumbent upon us to get information out, which obviously has been a breach of trust with folks,” said Carley Francis, the IBR program’s newly appointed interim director.

The commission had received assurances in October 2025 that a fresh cost estimate would be available in December 2025, Baker said.

“This is a moving target, and it’s been moving and moving and moving,” he said.

IBR program officials blamed some of the delay on an earlier-than-expected decision by the U.S. Coast Guard to approve a 116-foot navigational clearance, making a fixed span possible. With the approval in hand, more accurate estimates can be produced, officials said.

Yet IBR program officials did not dispute the 11-figure cost estimates that drew headlines, and Francis conceded the estimates and underlying document were “robust.”

The ballooning price tag could make the project infeasible, Commission Vice Chairman Lee Beyer said.

“If those numbers are correct, we can’t build this project,” he said. “T���re’s no way you’re going to get the money to do it at this point.”

The Interstate Bridge replacement project is broken into 29 different packages, including the bridge itself and seven interchanges on a 5-mile corridor spanning Oregon and Washington.

IBR program officials have discussed sequencing those packages, in part of logistical necessity and in part to spread costs. But Baker cautioned that sequencing should not be used to hide the true cost of the project, or its impact on other transportation infrastructure priorities in Oregon.

“I understand it’s a process that has worked in Washington, and we’ve been guilty of it here at times, but the direction of the Legislature and the feeling of this commission is that’s not the appropriate way to do it,” Baker said. “We should scope it. We should come up with a budget. We should put everything out there — because 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 that tank?”

With the Coast Guard’s approval, a supplemental environmental impact statement can be finalized and a record of decision made for the project. Oregon and Washington transportation leaders also face a Sept. 30 deadline to allocate $927 million of a $1.5 billion federal grant.

In the meantime, the project is moving forward. Engineers are testing ways to strengthen the soils around the bridge. They’re using a test site adjacent to the I-5 southbound Hayden Island exit.

“T���re are different techniques that have different results,” said Ray Mabey, assistant program administrator. “Each one of them is fairly expensive, and we want to make sure that we address and pick the right one.”

The IBR team is also looking ahead to bidding for the massive progressive design-build contract for bridge construction.

At least two teams, maybe three, are expected to bid on the contract, Mabey said. Other packages will be broken into parts small enough for local contractors to tackle.

IBR program officials are “making sure that we have packages that are sized appropriately for biddability, but also our local contractors,” Mabey said. “We’re not hearing a desire to have construction packages sized that only draw on the worldwide companies.”

The post Oregon policy group blasts Interstate Bridge cost secrecy appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

U.S. Coast Guard approval of a fixed-span design for a new Interstate Bridge marked a key regulatory step forward last week, but soaring costs have clouded the project’s outlook.

Cost estimates for the Interstate Bridge replacement program have more than doubled, with a high-end estimate for a fixed span rising to $17.7 billion, according to recently unearthed Oregon Department of Transportation documents.

The documents were obtained by City Observatory, a Portland-based think tank, through a public records request. ODOT hadn’t publicly updated its cost estimates since 2022, when it gauged the bridge’s cost at $5 billion to $7.5 billion.

“I was shocked,” said Joe Cortright, a Portland economist who runs City Observatory.

Cortright added that he expected the project’s cost to rise to $9 billion to $10 billion, far below the actual estimates, which range from $12.2 billion to $17.7 billion. The rise in estimated costs far outpaces overall inflation and construction cost indexes, he noted.

ODOT pushed back, saying the cost figures do not represent a complete cost estimate, which involves an in-depth examination of the costs of labor and equipment materials as well as the schedule.

“T��� IBR program has been clear with its partners and the public that the cost of the IBR program is going to increase, but since the cost estimating process remains under way, we do not have a final number to share at this time,” IBR program administrator Carley Francis stated in an email on Wednesday.

An official cost estimate is expected in March, according to ODOT.

Infrastructure projects across the nation “are currently experiencing significant price increases,” Francis stated. “We do not expect the IBR program to be immune to the cost increases we are seeing around the country.”

It’s unclear where leaders in Oregon and Washington will get all the funding needed to construct the bridge. In all, the program has more than $5 billion in identified funding, Francis stated.

The states have pledged $1 billion each, in addition to $217 million in existing state funding. Federal grants and toll revenues are also expected to help foot the bill.

“Ultimately, it’ll continue to be a mix of contributions from different levels of government,” said Mike Salsgiver, executive director of Associated General Contractors’ Oregon-Columbia chapter.

Ongoing state and federal sources will need to be tapped for the project, he said.

“With a project of this length, it will be an annual revisiting of federal appropriations and each legislature,” he said.

Salsgiver and other transportation advocates will visit Oregon’s congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., in April to push for continued funding.

“T��� region will have to continue to make sure those funding streams are open and able to get this project complete,” Salsgiver said.

Cortright cast doubt on federal willingness to pay for the project.

“Right now, the congressional Republicans and the Trump administration — they’re not really favorably inclined toward transit projects generally, and particularly not those in blue states and cities,” he said.

Project backers were buoyed by the Coast Guard’s determination that a fixed span with 116 feet of vertical clearance will provide adequate room for boats to pass underneath. A movable span would have been even more expensive, according to estimates.

“T���y’re portraying it as a big step forward,” Cortright said. “T���y dodged a bullet.”

ODOT recently told transportation commissioners that the project is marching ahead.

The IBR program team “will continue working to ensure a successful transition from environmental and planning to delivery and construction,” ODOT interim Director Lisa Sumption wrote in a Jan. 15 letter to the Oregon Transportation Commission ahead of a meeting on Jan. 22. “This includes coordinating with partners to update the construction sequencing and funding strategy to advance the first set of investments towards delivering the full program.”

Tools to address costs could include value engineering, seeking additional federal, state and local funding, and construction phasing. That would mean “building portions of the investments that have adequate funding and working to secure funding for remaining investments in the future,” Sumption wrote.

Cortright has been critical of ODOT for what he describes as a pattern of beginning work on projects that have not been fully funded.

“T���y basically turn the sunk-cost fallacy into a management strategy,” Cortright said. “T���y want to create the sense that hey, we’ve started this and we need to finish it.”

2026 is likely to prove a decisive year for the project. Looming ahead is a Sept. 30 deadline to obligate a significant portion of grant funds from the Federal Highway Administration bridge investment program.

Project officials also expect to complete a final supplemental environmental impact statement this year. That will be followed by an amended record of decision that will include an updated cost estimate and financial plan.

IBR program officials are conducting a tolling study for those documents. The study will examine how much tolls will cost, and how much revenue they will raise.

Both project supporters and opponents point to tolling as a potential political vulnerability. Opposition to tolling has been intense, causing Gov. Tina Kotek and legislators to backtrack from a portion of the 2017 transportation funding bill that called for tolling on interstates 5 and 205.

Drivers are unlikely to look kindly on paying tolls for a new Interstate Bridge, either.

“Tolling is a broader challenge,” Salsgiver said.

ODOT’s toll scenarios range from $1.55 per crossing before the bridge is completed to $4.70 post completion, with some offsets for lower-income drivers.

The bridge has been tolled before. Salsgiver recalled as a child that he would throw a quarter into a toll box to cross the existing Interstate Bridge; its second span was completed in 1958.

Today’s drivers have become unaccustomed to paying tolls, Salsgiver said.

“It’s unfortunate,” he said. Removing tolls “taught a generation of Oregonians — and more — that we don’t do tolling here.”

The post Interstate Bridge project cost estimates soar up to $17.7B appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.