Opinion: Stop rewarding fiscal mismanagement on the IBR; enough is enough

The IBR estimate shows 4 funded components of the project and 20 unfunded components. Funded components include construction of two new Columbia River bridges, program management, pre-completion tolling, and transit design totaling $5.68 billion. Graphic courtesy IBR Rep. John Ley says let's build a simple bridge that improves traffic congestion and doesn't bankrupt the taxpayers Rep. John Ley for Clark County Today Rep. John Ley In Sept 2020, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) signed a $44 million contract with WSP Global to deliver a federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) by Dec. 2025. Three months earlier, WSDOT had hired former WSP Senior Vice President Greg Johnson to act as program administrator for the project. The federal Department of Transportation under Secretary Sean Duffy issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on July 1. The IBR had spent $321.7 million as of June 30 to achieve that milestone. The ROD came roughly two and one half years later than originally promised with a seven-fold increase in cost. The lucrative contract appears to have been amended at least seven times. After six and a half years, the proposal is only 30 percent designed and about 30 percent funded. Add the roughly $200 million taxpayers spent on the failed Columbia River Crossing, which Johnson described as 'essentially the same' project, and taxpayers have spent more than half a billion dollars resurrecting and redesigning a bridge project that still isn't ready to build. And now we're told the project will take at least 20 years to complete. There isn't nearly enough money to build it, so it will be constructed in two phases. Except Phase 1 is $2.2 billion short of the necessary funding. This isn't merely expensive. It is a case study in government project management gone wrong, not unlike Boston's 'Big Dig' or the California High Speed Rail debacle. And it is a case study in consultants getting rich. The IBR estimate shows 4 funded components of the project and 20 unfunded components. Funded components include construction of two new Columbia River bridges, program management, pre-completion tolling, and transit design totaling $5.68 billion. Graphic courtesy IBR The numbers tell the story. When WSP signed its contract with the WSDOT, the agreement called for the delivery of the ROD for $44 million. The two states have spent seven times that amount. The contract also provided WSP with a 32% fixed fee — a guaranteed profit on every dollar they billed. The most recent finance plan appears to give them a billion dollars over the life of the projected 20-year project. Meanwhile, the project itself went from a projected cost of $3.2–$4.8 billion in Nov. 2020 to today's projected price tag of $15.2 billion. That's more than triple the original price for a project years behind schedule. Portland economist Joe Cortright got a $17.7 billion cost estimate via public records requests. Remember when we were told that every day of delay would cost taxpayers another $1 million? Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny Ogle and Administrator Johnson repeatedly made that argument. Yet the project's own management process contributed to years of delay. By that math, the project's roughly two-and-a-half-year delay represents nearly $1 billion in additional cost. And while taxpayers absorb the consequences, WSP continues to collect its lucrative fee. Only in government can a project be years behind schedule, triple its original cost and still reward the primary consultant with a guaranteed profit. The governor of Maryland and DOT's Duffy fired the general contractor rebuilding the Key Bridge in Baltimore citing 'high costs and delays'. It's time to consider removing WSP from the IBR. They have not served us well. We don't even have enough money to build Phase 1 The latest financial plan released in June makes matters worse. The IBR doesn't have enough money to build the entire $15.2 billion project. So officials have divided it into two phases, with the full project expected to take at least 20 years, 'pending full funding.' But there's a problem with Phase 1: The money isn't there either. According to the IBR, the program is approximately $2.2 billion short of the funding needed for the first phase. Think about the absurdity of that. We're preparing to launch construction on a $15 billion project while acknowledging that we're billions of dollars short of paying for the first part. The total funding gap is at least $10 billion that neither state can afford. That's not responsible infrastructure planning. That's hoping someone else will eventually pick up the tab. It's also planning for future cost explosions at taxpayer expense. This is planning for financial failure. Oregon voters just rejected a $4.3 billion transportation package by 83 percent. Even if politicians came up with a package acceptable to voters, why would they want all of it wasted on the IBR? The I-5 Rose Quarter project needs $3 billion, another unfunded project being built in phases. Last year ODOT said they needed $1.8 billion annually for deferred maintenance. Ditto in Washington. The state needs $8 billion over the coming decade for deferred maintenance and preservation. Then there is $160 million for the SR-165 Carbon River Fairfax Bridge; $2 – $3 billion for the US 2 Trestle. Gov. Bob Ferguson wants $3 billion to replace and upgrade the Washington State Ferry system as 11 vessels retire by 2040. Then there's an estimated $4 billion for fish barriers. The IBR highlights the fact that their design provides only 46 percent of the bridge surface to cars and freight haulers. Pedestrians, bikes and transit are allocated 54 percent of the space. Graphic courtesy IBR A bridge should move traffic — not become a transit monument The IBR's so-called 'locally preferred alternative' is preferred by virtually nobody who actually wants a solution to the region's transportation problems. Replacing an over-congested 3-lane bridge with another 3 through lane bridge is beyond ridiculous, especially for a bridge expected to last at least a century. The bridge doesn't adequately solve today's congestion. In fact the IBR reports morning travel times on I-5 will double by 2045 to 60 minutes. Fully half of rush hour traffic will be stuck going zero to 20 mph. Freight haulers are not happy – just ask Oregon Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis. An extraordinary 54 percent of the bridge surface is allocated to transit, bicycles and pedestrians, leaving substantially less space for the automobiles and freight haulers that actually move our region's economy. Furthermore, transit ridership projections were slashed by 84 percent after the 'locally preferred alternative' was approved by agencies with a huge financial interest in the light rail extension to Vancouver. Meanwhile, $3.5 billion is being devoted to the transit component. That's impossible to justify when the region desperately needs additional capacity for cars and freight. TriMet itself is struggling financially, having recently slashed 34 bus routes plus cut 8 miles from the MAX Green Line. Those cuts reportedly deliver less than half the savings the agency says it needs to avoid running out of money by July 2029. Washington taxpayers should not be financially tied in any way to a nearly bankrupt TriMet. Washington residents should not be asked to assume financial responsibility for TriMet's fiscal mismanagement, whether through direct funding, operating subsidies or an expensive light-rail component attached to the IBR. If TriMet cannot afford to operate the system it already has, Washington taxpayers certainly should not be put on the hook for expanding it across the Columbia River. Other communities are showing us a better way Look at the Hood River–White Salmon bridge project. At approximately $1.12 billion, it is reportedly 60 percent designed. Why should we pay 15 times that much for a bridge roughly 900 feet shorter from Hayden Island to Vancouver? Yes, the Hood River bridge will only have a single vehicle lane plus bike and pedestrian facilities, but it demonstrates a much more realistic cost. Then look at Cincinnati's Brent Spence Bridge Corridor. Construction began this past May on an eight-lane, $4.4 billion bridge project with no tolls and no expensive transit component. It is receiving $1.635 billion in federal funding. In 2014, Figg Engineering offered a 'fixed price' contract to build an East County Bridge over the Columbia River for $860 million. There is no reason we can't get an affordable, fixed price contract on the IBR. If Ohio and Kentucky can build an eight-lane interstate bridge through a major urban area without turning the project into a $15 billion transit extravaganza, why can't we? The answer shouldn't be more consultants, more public relations campaigns or more years of studies. It should be accountability. Will Governors Bob Ferguson and Tina Kotek stop the huge waste of the people's money? Early IBR planning noted significant growth in vehicle traffic over the Columbia River. But growth was limited on I-5 due to 'capacity constraints' on the I-5 Interstate Bridge. Graphic courtesy IBR Let's build the bridge we actually need Washington and Oregon have approximately $4.2 billion committed to the IBR, including $2.1 billion federal dollars. Subtract the $321.7 million already spent, and roughly $3.9 billion remains. That's the cost they said was needed to build the bridge replacement and immediate connections. That's enough money to have a serious conversation about priorities. There are roughly 30 components in the current IBR project plan. Legislators on both sides of the Columbia should go through them one by one. Ask a simple question: Is this necessary to build a safe, functional bridge and connect it to I-5—or is it an expensive extra? Build the bridge. Prioritize automobiles and freight. Remove the $3.5 billion transit component. Eliminate unnecessary freeway caps and expensive extras like the Marine Drive maze. Stop spending millions of dollars selling the public on a project that nobody wants. Reports indicate approximately $30 million has been spent on public relations and communications promoting the project. That $30 million should have gone toward actually building infrastructure. Taxpayers don't need another sales pitch. They need a bridge that is affordable and moves cars and freight. Cars and freight haulers make up the overwhelming majority of the users of the I-5 Interstate Bridge. Of the estimated 185,000 daily users, bikes, pedestrians and transit riders make up less than 2 percent. Graphic courtesy IBR It's time to say no more For six and a half years, we've watched the IBR grow from a $4.8 billion project into a $15.2 billion one. We've spent $321.7 million before construction. WSP has pocketed millions. We've endured years of delays, including debating a bridge 62 feet lower than the current structure. Projected transit ridership was slashed by 84 percent. We've watched the project's design and scope expand to include a light rail station 91 feet above the ground at the Vancouver waterfront, which later became the 'end of the line' for phase one. And now we're told the project isn't fully funded — and is still $2.2 billion short of Phase 1. There also remains the huge financial threat of $10 per day bridge tolls which nobody wants. This isn't a transportation success story. It's a warning about what happens when the government stops treating taxpayers' money as scarce and views them more like an ATM. We don't need another 20 years of sales pitches, consultants and excuses. The people don't deserve 20 years of construction, on top of further cost increases they can't afford to pay. We need to build an affordable bridge. Use the billions already committed. Strip the project down to its essential purpose. Give priority to the people and businesses that depend on I-5 every day. Put cars and freight first. Eliminate the unnecessary extras. And don't spend another dime on light rail. Portland-Vancouver residents deserve a safe, modern, functional crossing. Frankly, we need a third bridge to provide redundancy and added vehicle capacity. It's been over 40 years since new vehicle capacity has been added to the region. The taxpayers deserve one they can afford. After six and a half years and more than half a billion dollars spent on two versions of essentially the same project, it's time for legislators on both sides of the river to draw the line. No more blank checks. No more excuses. Build a bridge we need and can afford. But stop the $15 billion boondoggle.