Public comments split: labor, businesses support bridge; residents and engineers raise cost, safety and light‑rail objections

The committee heard 14 public speakers in a 30‑minute comment period that reflected sharply divergent views on the replacement project.

Supporters included labor and industry representatives who urged timely construction and local hiring. Tyler Smith of Ironworkers Local 29 said delays increase costs and unemployment among members and urged maintaining the schedule so jobs come online quickly. Business groups including the Fred Meyer Company and local economic development organizations described how the bridge supports freight reliability and regional commerce.

Opponents and concerned residents focused on cost, tolling and transit. Multiple speakers argued the design spends a large proportion of deck area on transit, bicycles and pedestrians and asked that light rail be dropped in favor of additional vehicle lanes; others warned tolls would push traffic onto alternative crossings and questioned whether the project would reduce congestion. An engineer, Bob Ortland, alleged the consultant WSP had misrepresented costs, ridership and seismic risk; committee members objected to language that called the consultant dishonest and Chair Cleveland cautioned against impugning motives. Commenters also asked for clearer local control over funding and adherence to prior local votes rejecting light rail in certain jurisdictions.

What happens next: the committee members responded to testimony with a mix of calls to move forward and calls for continued caution. Several co‑chairs and members emphasized the project’s regional significance and the need to maintain momentum to preserve funding, while others urged more active legislative direction and attention to unresolved public concerns.