Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Interstate Bridge Replacement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Economist warns I‑5 bridge estimate could be double; commissioners press staff for clarity

Oregon Transportation Commission · January 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A City Observatory economist told the Oregon Transportation Commission that internal IBR documents show cost ranges much higher than public figures and urged immediate transparency. Staff said the August basis‑of‑estimate was an input and promised a validated five‑mile cost estimate in March.

Joe Courtwright, an economist who identified himself as director of City Observatory, told the Oregon Transportation Commission during public comment that documents obtained by public records request show the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) cost range could be "12.2 to $17,700,000,000," substantially higher than the $5.5–$7.5 billion figures previously presented.

"The interstate bridge project is going to cost at least double what we've been told," Courtwright said, and he submitted the records for the public record. He criticized program communications and said staff had known of rising costs and delayed releasing estimates. Chair Brown thanked him for the submission and moved on to an informational program update.

At a staff presentation, Ray Mabey, assistant administrator for the IBR program, said prior benefit–cost work and financial plans used the 2022 estimate and that an August internal basis‑of‑estimate was an early building block, not a final validated number. Carly Francis, interim program administrator, said the program is working to finalize the five‑mile cost estimate and related environmental record of decision and is targeting a March release of the updated estimate.

Commissioners pressed staff on why draft inputs in August were not clearly flagged and asked whether costs were being set on the low end. Francis and Mabey described a structured workshop process to validate inputs, risk percentages and contingency, and said sequencing—starting at the river and using progressive design‑build—are part of the strategy to manage cost and delivery risk. Commissioners urged staff to provide the commission and legislature timely, clear documentation of assumptions and to brief legislators directly.