How the I-5 Bridge Replacement Became a Cash Machine for Consultants
The Interstate Bridge Replacement I-5 Is a Boondoggle the 3rd District Can’t Afford
The idea behind replacing the aging Interstate 5 bridge that links Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon sounds simple: fix an old piece of infrastructure. But what has emerged over more than a decade of planning is not a straightforward bridge project but a sprawling mega-project that threatens to drain billions from taxpayers with negligible value for the people of Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.
A Project That Keeps Getting Bigger and More Expensive
When the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) was revived in 2019 after the failure of the Columbia River Crossing a decade earlier, it was pitched as a bridge replacement with a price tag of roughly $3 billion to $4 billion. Within years, that estimate nearly doubled to $6 billion to $7.5 billion. More recent reports obtained through public records suggest the true cost estimate has ballooned to well over $12 billion and could approach $17 billion. These figures include the cost of rebuilding 2.5 miles of I-5 north and south of the river in addition to replacing the bridge itself.
This constant escalation hasn’t happened because the bridge suddenly became more difficult to build. It has happened because the scope of the project keeps expanding. What started as a single river crossing has morphed into a five-mile reconstruction of interstate interchanges, ramps and surface streets, all of which have little to do with simply replacing an aging structure.
At a time when federal and state governments face significant budget pressures and core infrastructure like basic highway maintenance is underfunded, this project’s runaway costs are a sign of misplaced priorities.
Billions for Planning With Nothing Built
Perhaps the starkest evidence that the IBR has been more about feeding consultants than delivering value is the sheer amount spent on design and planning before a single shovel has gone into the ground. Over $400 million has been spent on consultant contracts alone — an enormous sum considering there is still no final design, no competitive bids and no guarantee this project will ever be built.
This pattern repeats the mistakes of its predecessor, the Columbia River Crossing, which cost nearly $200 million in planning before being scrapped. Together, the two efforts represent almost half a billion dollars spent without producing a buildable project. Many of the same consulting firms that profited during the CRC era are now collecting large contracts for the IBR, creating a cycle where consultants profit from studying problems rather than solving them.
The project has even used delivery models like progressive design-build and pre-selected contracts, which limit open competition and reduce the market pressure that normally keeps costs down. At this point, hundreds of millions have already been spent while cost estimates remain highly speculative and actual costs are still unknown.
Inflated Benefits and Questionable Value
Cost isn’t the only issue. Independent analysts have reviewed the official benefit-cost analysis for the Interstate Bridge project and found it fundamentally flawed. The project’s own analysis overstates benefits like travel-time savings and safety improvements while understating the full cost of construction, tolling, and traffic impacts on nearby corridors. A corrected evaluation shows that the project could destroy more value than it creates, with costs outweighing benefits by a wide margin.
The economic case for this massive investment is weak. Tolling drivers to pay for this project will shift traffic to alternative routes like the I-205 bridge, creating congestion and travel delays that official analyses conveniently ignore. The result is a rosy picture that looks good on paper but doesn’t stand up to real-world scrutiny.
A Project Too Complex to Deliver
Part of what has made the Interstate Bridge Replacement so unwieldy is its attempt to solve multiple regional goals at once. Instead of focusing on a safe, modern crossing, planners bundled in light rail, freeway widening, interchange reconstruction, and surface street redesigns — all under one massive project. This broad scope has driven complexity, delay, and cost escalation without delivering clear value for everyday drivers.
Even supporters acknowledge that the inclusion of light rail has weakened the project’s chances of receiving federal funding, thanks to weaker ridership projections and soaring costs. Critics argue that separating transit from the bridge replacement would reduce cost and complexity — a commonsense change that has consistently been ignored.
There Are Better Options
Rather than sinking tens of billions into a single sprawling mega-project that benefits planners and consultants more than residents, the region should prioritize practical alternatives:
Build a new bridge that addresses seismic risk and safety without massive freeway reconstruction.
Consider multiple smaller investments across the regional network that deliver real, visible improvements.
Use competitive bidding and incremental delivery to keep costs down and accountability high.
Consider options like additional crossings or different bridge types that could offer better value for money.
What the Interstate Bridge Replacement has shown us so far is not leadership or bold vision. It has shown us a process driven by planners and consultants who benefit from complexity and delay — leaving taxpayers, commuters, and local businesses to foot the bill.
If Washington’s 3rd District is serious about good governance and responsible infrastructure investment, it is time to step back from this boondoggle, reassess, and chart a path that puts residents’ needs, not consultants’ profits, first.
