PORTLAND, Ore. — The effort to replace the aging Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River continues to slog through red tape, rising costs, and political disagreements, leaving lawmakers and residents on both sides of the Oregon-Washington border frustrated.
What was once projected to cost about $6 billion may now reach as high as $10 billion, and the construction start date remains uncertain. With the bridge already over a century old in parts and vulnerable to earthquakes, the urgency is undeniable. Yet, years of planning and billions in committed funding have not been enough to get shovels in the ground.
A Bridge at Risk
The I-5 bridge connects Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, serving as a critical artery for freight, commuters, and interstate travel. However, the bridge fails to meet modern earthquake standards. Engineers warn that a major quake could cause catastrophic collapse.
Also Read
Proponents of the replacement project say the new span would not only address seismic risks but also improve traffic safety, reduce crashes, and provide expanded public transit options.
Still, for now, traffic continues to flow across an aging bridge while the replacement remains mired in permitting processes and escalating costs.
Price Tag Keeps Rising
When project planners began their work, they estimated the cost at $5 to $7.5 billion, settling on an expected figure of around $6 billion. Legislators now fear the final bill could be $10 billion, citing steep cost escalations in regional transportation projects, with construction inflation climbing more than 30% in recent years.
Updated cost estimates are expected later this year. Project staff are currently analyzing “100 risk factors,” including inflation, tariffs, and supply chain disruptions.
“This is driving up costs for Oregon and Washington taxpayers,” said Oregon Sen. Khanh Phạm, D-Portland. “When we miss deadlines, it has an impact on our transportation budgets as we try to cover the increased costs.”
Lawmakers Grow Restless
Last week, a bi-state, bipartisan committee overseeing the project met for the first time in 10 months. Several lawmakers voiced their frustration over the delays.
“I’m not thrilled,” said Washington Sen. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds. “This is a big, complicated project. There are going to be complicating factors. It’s the way these things go.”
Others were less forgiving. Washington Rep. John Ley, R-Vancouver, a longtime opponent, argued the project should be scaled back drastically or scrapped altogether. He revealed he has contacted the Trump administration, urging federal officials to reconsider the $2.1 billion in federal grants awarded last year.
“I think this is so far gone that the only way to stop this eight to 10 billion dollar boondoggle is to kill it,” Ley said.
Funding Puzzle
Financing for the bridge currently relies on a mix of state contributions, tolls, and federal funding:
-
$1 billion each from Oregon and Washington
-
$1.2 billion minimum from tolls, set to begin in 2027 and managed by Washington
-
$2.1 billion in federal grants awarded under the Biden administration
-
A potential $1 billion from the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program, earmarked for a light rail extension
Oregon lawmakers are in special session debating a $4.3 billion transportation package for maintenance and operations, but none of that money is set aside for the bridge. Similarly, Washington’s recent $3.2 billion transportation package contains no funding to offset escalating costs.
That leaves many wondering where the extra billions will come from if price estimates continue to climb.
Permitting and Delays
The final environmental review, originally slated to be finished this year, has now been pushed back to 2026. Without the review, federal permits cannot be secured, preventing construction from beginning.
Program administrator Greg Johnson acknowledged the delays but insisted the process cannot be rushed. “There are complex issues we are dealing with. We cannot skip steps,” he told lawmakers.
If permits are finalized in 2026, cars might not cross a new bridge until 2032 or 2033.
Design Decisions Still Loom
Adding to uncertainty is the unresolved question of what the bridge will actually look like. Two designs remain under consideration:
-
Single-level fixed span — 116 feet of vertical clearance, less than the current bridge.
-
Single-level movable span — 178 feet of clearance, the same as today, but with an added cost of about $400 million.
Because the bridge crosses a navigable waterway, the U.S. Coast Guard holds sway over the final design. A lower clearance could limit certain vessels’ ability to pass, raising concerns among maritime businesses.
Supporters Push Forward
Despite frustrations, many remain committed to the project. Khanh Tran, an advocate for Oregon businesses owned by people of color, told lawmakers the new bridge would create jobs, stimulate the regional economy, and support communities that have historically been left out of large infrastructure projects.
“A new bridge strengthens Oregon’s ties with Washington, supports interstate commerce, and ensures we remain a competitive global economy,” Tran said.
Liias also expressed optimism, even as timelines slip. “We are going to get to the finish line,” he said. “Leadership in both states are committed to getting it done.”
Critics Warn of Risks
Skeptics like Joe Cortright, chair of the Oregon Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers, argue it is reckless to proceed without certainty on federal funding.
“It’s reckless to embark on this project before you know whether you’re going to get some or any of the billion dollars you’re counting on from the federal government,” Cortright testified.
He and other critics suggest narrowing the scope by removing light rail or scaling back auxiliary improvements to save money.
The Road Ahead
For now, the bridge replacement remains in what Liias called the “figure-it-out stage.” Nearly 30 separate project components are tied to the plan, from new bus shelters to off-ramp redesigns. Officials may ultimately have to prioritize, delaying secondary features while focusing on the central bridge span.
In the meantime, the current I-5 bridge remains at risk. With one span dating back more than a century and engineers warning of seismic vulnerabilities, the stakes are high.
As Phạm put it: “Every delay, every missed deadline, and every cost increase makes it harder for us to meet our responsibilities to the taxpayers and to the people who depend on this bridge every day.”
