Public testimony at the Sept. 15 joint meeting reflected the range of community views on the I‑5 bridge program. Supporters including business and construction groups urged timely replacement and emphasized economic and seismic risk; other witnesses urged fiscal scrutiny, an immediate low‑income toll program and clearer oversight.

Support for replacement: Ron Arp, president of Identity Clark County and coordinator of the Clark County Transportation Alliance, said the region depends on the corridor and urged continued legislative leadership to move to groundbreaking. Con Tran, speaking for the Oregon chapter of the National Association of Minority Contractors, said the project "will create thousands of living wage jobs" and called it "a once‑in‑a‑generational opportunity for local businesses," particularly minority‑owned firms. Dee Birch of the Associated General Contractors urged accelerating replacement and cited examples of rapid rebuild after unexpected bridge failures in other states.

Concerns about schedule, cost and federal funding: Joe Cortright of City Observatory criticized schedule slippage and the absence of an updated total cost estimate. Cortright noted earlier public statements and told the committee the project is "2 and a half years behind schedule" and warned that previously published 2022 estimates could be 40–60% lower than current market prices, a gap that could push the total into the $10 billion range. Dress Crossing Alliance representative Chris Smith urged that a low‑income toll discount be available at the commencement of pre‑completion tolling and recommended delaying large spending authorizations until the SEIS, ROD and updated cost estimate are finalized.

Equity and multimodal connectivity: Sarah Iona Rohn, representing walking/biking advocates, pressed for integrated multimodal connections and elevator redundancy, and asked that active‑transportation and transit connections be "collocated" or have short, reliable transfers. Several witnesses asked the committee to require clearer oversight structures and stronger fiscal accountability before broad STIP spending approvals.

Ending: Committee members acknowledged the mix of views and asked staff to accept written follow‑up questions; staff said they would provide responses and updated documentation ahead of the December meeting.