Sharon Wylie — The speaker repeatedly addresses Chair Wylie while thanking and acknowledging her leadership and the committee, including opening and closing remarks directed to the chair.
Greg Johnson — Identified himself as the outgoing program administrator for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
Greg Johnson — Praised for his service to Oregon and Washington in advancing the program.
Greg Johnson — Expresses gratitude to the committee, says he has served longer than planned, and indicates he is moving on to the next phase of his life.
Greg Johnson — Says he will continue to watch the program and help answer questions if needed, describing the project as a professional challenge of a lifetime.
Greg Johnson — Praised for his work, patience, and education of the committee.
Greg Johnson — Thanked for his work and partnership on the project.
Carly Francis — Named as one of the presenters.
Carly Francis — Introduced as the interim administrator for the program, with a transportation background and regional experience.
Carly Francis — Identified as taking over the next leg of the project.
Ray Mabee — Named as one of the presenters.
Ray Mabee — Introduced himself as assistant administrator for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and began discussing critical milestones.
Administrator Johnson — Ray Mabee referenced Johnson's earlier remarks.
Administrator Johnson — Noted as wrapping up his work and accomplishments on the program at the end of the year.
Administrator Johnson — Praised for steady and expert leadership of the project.
Ed Orcutt — Referenced indirectly as Administrator Johnson in the prior context; no direct speech in this section.
Ed Orcutt — Representative Orcutt is recognized and asks about materials costs, completed work, and the difference between escalation and inflation. The discussion continues with clarification focused on how escalation differs from inflation, forming one coherent exchange.
Ed Orcutt — Referenced as someone who was not yet on board when the committee first discussed recruiting for a general engineering consultant. The exact identity is uncertain; 'Johnson' is questionable in this context.
Jake Fey — The follow-up question is attributed to Representative McLean in the surrounding dialogue.
Jake Fey — The question is directed to Representative McLean in the transcript.
Jake Fey — The speaker says they will ask the question differently later and then transitions to another member's question.
Jake Fey — The next question is attributed to Representative Fey in the transcript.
Jake Fey — The question is attributed to Representative Fey.
Jake Fey — The chair says Representative Tran was skipped and invites them to speak.
Jake Fey — Addressed in the response to the question about economic impacts.
Jake Fey — The chair says there are two more questions for this part, naming Representative Manix.
Jake Fey — Asked for the evaluation and report to understand how the project is impacting jobs in Oregon and Washington.
Jake Fey — Representative Tran raises concerns that the report is being delayed and urges the team to prepare at least two scenarios regardless of the Coast Guard’s decision. The discussion then continues with budget and report estimate questions, including thanks to Tran for the inquiry and requests for more detail on cost drivers. The exchange transitions to Representative Fye, who asks how long it will take from a decision to deliver a cost estimate, keeping the focus on the same reporting and budgeting timeline.
Jake Fey — Representative Tran is referenced as having raised cost challenges earlier.
Jake Fey — Representative Tran is called on by the chair and asks whether geotechnical drilling research and the soil conditions could inform deepening the channel for a fixed bridge. The chair then responds directly to Tran’s question regarding the scope of the testing.
Greg — A person named Greg is referenced as a possible person to answer the question, but the speaker is unsure.
Greg — His audio was described as very poor, and the chair asked him to improve it.
Carla Francis — Carla Francis introduced herself as the interim administrator, noting she will serve until the states appoint a permanent replacement, and added that the cost estimate process is critical work that she is beginning to engage with as the incoming interim program administrator.
Mr. Francis — The committee addresses Mr. Francis, the presenter, and questions him about the budget estimate as part of the same ongoing exchange.
Jeff Wilson — Senator Jeff Wilson asked whether the committee would be able to clearly see cost comparisons and options for the bridge span, including fixed versus non-fixed span alternatives and how those choices might relate to removing light rail or other mobility lanes. The exchange continued as he was directly addressed by name in the response.
Jeff Wilson — Senator Wilson raises concerns that TriMet is in a fiscal mess and questions how Oregon’s share of operations and maintenance costs will be covered. He asks for a detailed plan, pro forma, or projection showing how both sides of transit O&M will be funded and says the commission would want to see it. In response, the presenter acknowledges the concern and says TriMet is working on and budgeting for the project, while Wilson reiterates that he wants a clear funding plan.
Annette Cleveland — Annette Cleveland was recognized to speak and argued that providing a cost estimate too early could be inaccurate and misleading, suggesting that delaying the estimate would be preferable to avoid errors.
Annette Cleveland — Senator Cleveland was acknowledged and thanked for his leadership and support on a complex project, with later remarks crediting him as one of the committee members who helped move the effort forward and restart it to avoid failure.
Carly — Asked a question of Carly regarding the effect of delaying the cost estimate.
Paige Sloop — Introduces herself as an assistant program administrator at IBR and takes over to answer the next question.
Paige Sloop — Paige Sloop is referenced as having explained that the level of service has been adjusted, with a later mention pointing back to her earlier explanation of that same service-level change.
Mr. Stephen Witter / Steve Witter — Introduced as the deputy assistant administrator for the IBR program and begins discussing the transit ridership model.
Mr. Maybe — The person being questioned about geotechnical drilling and soil depth; name is uncertain in the transcript.
John Ley — Argues the committee should have a decision-making package or discussion about cost changes and budget flexibility.
John Ley — Notes that the bridge affects air travel and multiple airports, and that the project requires balancing several transportation modes.
John Ley — Referenced as having said the committee will have a chance to fit the budget to available resources.
John Ley — Thanked for comments and then the meeting transitions toward the public hearing.
Ms. Francis — The speaker thanked Ms. Francis for continuing to work on the project and praised her ongoing involvement. The speaker also expressed appreciation for the quality of communication and information sharing from the I-5 bridge site, including updates on Facebook and on-site.
Joe Cortright — Joe Cortright is introduced as the first witness and then testifies as an economist with City Observatory. In his remarks, he criticizes the committee for not receiving the project cost estimate and says the project’s cost range appears to be between $5 and $7.5 billion, again emphasizing the lack of disclosure.
Joe Cartwright — A transcription error appears to misname Joe Cortright in the chair's thanks.