If members of the C-Tran board of directors are surprised, imagine how taxpayers feel. Revelations about the cost of operating and maintaining a light rail system in Clark County threaten years of planning and could influence public opinion about the proposal.
“That number — it seems so outrageous,” said Bart Hansen, who represents the Vancouver City Council on the board of directors. “I’m trying to take this seriously, but it’s hard for me.” Or, as a headline at Columbian.com summarized: “C-Tran board shocked at $21.8M per year light rail budget staff unveils at meeting.”
It is the latest twist in the difficult effort to build a replacement Interstate 5 Bridge.
Officials have recommended that light rail be included on the span, extending the Portland area’s MAX system into Clark County. And this week, C-Tran staff told board members that light rail and additional express buses will cost an estimated $21.8 million a year to operate and maintain. According to The Columbian, Washington would be expected to pay approximately $7.2 million of that, with the remainder coming from Oregon and from fares paid by riders.
For perspective, C-Tran’s operating expenses for 2024 are budgeted at $82.2 million. That covers salaries, maintenance, insurance, depreciation and other expenses for a system that had approximately 4.7 million riders in 2023.
The cost that would accompany a light rail system is one reason for concern. Another is the obfuscation that kept the C-Tran board — and the public — in the dark. For a proposal that has been in the works for years, subject to scrutiny and negotiations, transparency is essential. Along with exclamations of surprise from officials, the revelation should lead to disappointment from taxpayers.
C-Tran officials previously insisted they would not pay for light rail operations in Washington. But the board voted last month to alter that provision, deciding that the agency “may participate in funding the operations and maintenance of the bistate transit.” That increases the burden on Clark County taxpayers, and it leaves C-Tran officials searching for alternatives.
Agency staff have presented several options for funding the added cost, including a 0.1 percent or 0.2 percent sales tax increase; a high-capacity transit sales tax of up to 0.9 percent; or a sales tax addition in a portion of C-Tran’s district. Any of those measures would require voter approval that, in our opinion, would be unlikely.
Instead, officials should consider a ticket surcharge for riders who cross the Columbia River on light rail or the possibility of using bridge tolls for offsetting some operating costs. Meanwhile, Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle urged C-Tran staff to seek funding from Olympia, saying, “Bistate transit — that happens nowhere else in the state of Washington.”
Regardless of the proposals, the latest revelation threatens the entire project. On this side of the Columbia River, it will increase opposition to the inclusion of light rail and call into question the transparency and fiscal responsibility of organizers. As Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, said during an interview with KGW-TV: “I have people in my community say, ‘What are you going to do when I’m sitting in traffic on the new bridge … and am passed by four people on light rail?’”
On the Oregon side of the river, insistence that light rail be included on the bridge likely will remain strong, even if an incoming Trump administration alters the federal perspective on transit projects.
At this point in the process, any changes that surprise officials — and, therefore, the public — are disappointing and damaging.
