The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project was supposed to solve one of the worst transportation bottlenecks on the West Coast.
Instead, it has become a case study in government inefficiency.
In this episode of Oregon D.O.G.E., Senator Mike McLane and Representative Shelly Boshart Davis sit down with civil engineer and marine construction executive Dee Burch to examine the staggering escalation of the Interstate Bridge replacement program — now projected at $13.6 billion.
Yes, billion.
From 2020 estimates of $3–4 billion… to $6 billion… and now more than $13 billion — without adding additional general purpose lanes.
So what happened?
A Bridge That Hasn’t Been Built — For Decades
Oregon and Washington have debated replacing the Interstate 5 bridge since the early 2000s. The Columbia River Crossing project collapsed in 2013 over disagreements about transit, design, and funding.
Fast forward to 2026 — and the same arguments remain.
- Disputes over light rail
- Tolling controversies
- Design disagreements
- Climate and equity mandates layered into core infrastructure
- Conflicting political priorities
Meanwhile, the existing bridge was built in 1917.
It carries an estimated $132 million in freight per day.
And it remains one of the worst bottlenecks in the nation.
Where Did the Money Go?
The latest design proposal allocates:
- 54% of bridge surface area to transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure
- 46% to vehicle and freight traffic
Despite costing more than double earlier projections, the bridge would still include only three northbound and three southbound lanes — the same as today.
At $13.6 billion, that raises a serious question:
Is this about solving congestion — or serving competing political agendas?
The Cost of Delay
Dee Burch points to the 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse as a contrast. After a catastrophic failure, a new bridge was designed and built in 14 months.
Not 14 years.
The lesson? When leadership makes something a priority, government can move quickly.
In Oregon and Washington, decades of debate have produced:
- Escalating construction costs
- Increased regulatory burdens
- Project Labor Agreement mandates
- Expanded prevailing wage rules
- Ongoing design indecision (fixed vs. lift span)
- No finalized funding strategy
Every year of delay raises costs. Every year increases risk.
And every year leaves the region vulnerable to a major seismic event.
A Subduction Zone Reality
The current bridge was never designed to withstand a major Cascadia subduction zone earthquake.
If it fails, the consequences are enormous:
- Freight disruption from Mexico to Canada
- Fuel supply interruptions
- Grocery shortages within days
- Emergency services bottlenecks
- Economic paralysis for the Portland-Vancouver region
This is not hypothetical. It is risk management.
Leadership vs. Politics
The recurring theme in this episode is leadership.
Strong governors working in coordination with federal partners could accelerate this project dramatically.
Instead, Oregon continues to layer social priorities, regulatory expansions, and political symbolism onto a core infrastructure project — while costs soar and timelines stretch indefinitely.
At some point, the question becomes simple:
At what price does “the best bridge is a built bridge” stop being true?
This episode challenges listeners to reconsider how infrastructure decisions are made — and whether Oregon’s current political structure is capable of executing large-scale projects efficiently.
Because if we cannot build a bridge in 20 years…
What does that say about the future?