Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers and public question auxiliary‑lane choice, diversion and light‑rail scope as staff defend SEIS findings
Summary
Committee members and public commenters pressed program staff to explain why the SEIS recommends one auxiliary lane (not two), dispute diversion forecasts and question the funded phase’s light‑rail terminus; public commenters urged release of working papers and greater governance transparency.
A substantial portion of the committee’s time on June 12 was devoted to questions and public testimony about lane configuration, diversion and transit scope.
Multiple legislators and public commenters said the meeting lacked clarity about when the decision to recommend one auxiliary lane was finalized. Representative Boshart Davis told the committee the slide called one auxiliary lane ‘‘less costly’’ but asked for the math and provenance behind the recommendation. Chris Regan, the program’s environmental manager, said the recommendation is documented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement and was informed by partner agencies and analysis. Regan said a corridor‑wide cost delta between one and two auxiliary lanes was ‘‘somewhere between $600 million to $1,000,000,000.’"
Public commenters challenged the traffic forecasts. Joe Courtright, a traffic analyst who testified during public comment, said the investment‑grade analysis indicates a large permanent drop in trips on I‑5 after tolls are implemented and predicted substantial diversion to I‑205. Courtright told the committee: "when you implement tolls on I 5, but not I 205, 50,000 vehicles a day will stop crossing the I 5 Bridge." Program staff responded that level‑3 traffic and revenue work focuses on the tolled bridge, that the SEIS diversion analysis projects less than a 3% permanent diversion to I‑205 by 2045, and that the team will monitor travel behavior pre‑ and post‑tolling and develop operational responses if diversion materializes.
Several commenters and some members also questioned phased light‑rail decisions. Dress Crossing Alliance’s Chris Smith asked who decided to stop the built‑out light‑rail alignment at the Vancouver waterfront rather than continuing to Library Square, and requested clearer governance and public involvement for detailed transit design. Program staff said transit design work for extension readiness is included in the first funded phase and that further transit design detail will proceed through the FTA capital investment grant process and partner‑agency coordination.
What’s next: Legislators asked for the working papers and modeling inputs referenced by the consultants and for a written readout about when the auxiliary‑lane recommendation was made. Program staff committed to follow up with documentation and to continue outreach on diversion mitigation and small‑business contracting opportunities.
