CAMAS — Camas officials are poised to formally oppose the inclusion of light rail on the Interstate 5 replacement bridge.
“The Camas City Council, with the mayor’s support, directed that a draft resolution be developed stating that Camas is not in favor of light rail,” Camas City Councilor Tim Hein, the council’s representative on the C-Tran board of directors, said last week.
Hein said council members will likely review the resolution later this month.
“Camas is going to be taking action on this. Our objective is to have a comprehensive position statement or resolution, hopefully by February,” Hein said. “I hope other cities join Camas. If not, we know where we stand on this. And hopefully, the powers that be will stop and think about what is the right thing to do. It’s OK to reconsider. It’s OK to say, ‘We didn’t think about this.’ ”
Construction on the new bridge, which will replace the seismically vulnerable span, is slated to begin in 2026.
‘Big discrepancy’
The decision to draft a resolution formally opposing light rail across the new bridge followed a Jan. 6 Camas City Council workshop.
C-Tran Deputy CEO Scott Patterson presented an update on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and unveiled data showing it will likely cost nearly $2 billion to install 2 miles of light rail on the replacement bridge to connect C-Tran facilities in downtown Vancouver with TriMet’s MAX light rail stations in North Portland.
Of even more concern to Camas council members was another estimate showing that the annual cost for operating and maintaining the new light rail trains in 2033 — the projected start date — would be $20.2 million, while the annual operations and maintenance costs for C-Tran’s express buses crossing the new bridge would be about $1.55 million a year, according to Patterson’s presentation.
“Why the big discrepancy?” Camas Mayor Steve Hogan asked during the workshop.
Patterson said the number and frequency of light rail trains compared with C-Tran’s plan to run four or five additional express buses was part of the difference.
“TriMet’s light rail system proposed two trains every 6½ to seven minutes during peak hours, which requires 19 or 20 trains dedicated to meet the expanded level of service,” Patterson said. “The issue is we are assuming only a modest increase in (express) buses … a handful of buses compared to all of the trains, which will all be new.”
Patterson said C-Tran is still waiting to see updated public transportation ridership numbers associated with the replacement bridge but cautioned Camas officials that Southwest Washington residents’ desire to take public transportation into downtown Portland has waned.
“Bus service into downtown Portland took a huge hit during the pandemic,” he said. “Portland has a lot of issues they’re continuing to work through. They don’t have the same number of businesses in downtown Portland.”
Patterson said that as Vancouver and other Clark County cities develop more employment opportunities on the Washington side of the Columbia River, there will likely be fewer commuters.
He also said more Clark County residents are now working remotely and have no need to commute.
“That also is a good thing — it means more people are staying here and spending money here,” Patterson said.
Hein regrets vote
Before the November meeting, C-Tran leaders had been clear that the agency would not be responsible for any of light rail’s annual operations and maintenance costs. The new language, however, stated that C-Tran “may” cover some of those costs.
“I had some initial concerns,” said Hein, who has been on the C-Tran board since 2023. “I wanted to know the motive.”
Hein said he and other C-Tran board members were told that the language change was needed to open up funding conversations with state legislators.
“That seemed reasonable,” Hein said.
He voted in November to approve the language change but said he would soon regret his “yes” vote.
When the C-Tran board met in December, Hein said he was shocked by cost projections.
“I couldn’t believe it,” he said. “I had voted in good faith for what I thought was a reasonable language change. When I saw those numbers — and C-Tran’s inherent obligation — I regretted my vote.”
Hein said he would not have approved the November language-change proposal if he had seen the projected operations and maintenance costs.
He shared those regrets with Camas City Council members last week.
“When I looked at these numbers in December, I thought, ‘There must be a mistake. These can’t be real,’ ” Hein said. “The numbers were so large and really didn’t make sense.”
Patterson heard Hein’s concerns and said the expensive nature of operating light rail systems is a nationwide issue.
“It’s not just TriMet,” Patterson said. “I’m not aware of any light rail system that is not more expensive to operate compared to buses.”
Following Patterson’s presentation, other Camas officials voiced opposition to light rail on the new bridge.
“I think it’s misguided,” Camas Councilor John Svilarich said Monday. “We spend $2 billion to build less than 2 miles of transit and then spend $20 million to run it? It just doesn’t sit well with me.”
Patterson said last week that there is plenty of time to discuss light rail costs.
“We’re trying to send the message that there is no immediate need to solve this funding issue,” Patterson said. “As we move into 2025, we will get updated ridership, updated capital costs, and be able to update our operating cost assumptions.”
He added that the C-Tran board will continue to engage state legislators “to look for other potential funding for light rail as part of the IBR program.”
Currently, about 75 percent of C-Tran’s funding comes from a 0.7 percent sales tax collected throughout Clark County. Patterson said that even without the additional costs associated with the bridge replacement, the public transit agency will likely need to ask voters to approve a 0.1 percent or 0.2 percent sales tax bump to fund C-Tran services.
Lack of flexibility
Hein said he worries that a light rail system across a new bridge will not be as flexible as it would need to be.
“We don’t really know what’s going to happen in the future,” Hein said. “All we know is what’s happened in the past. And we know that has changed. So we have to require flexibility. Nothing is more flexible from a mass-transit perspective than buses. I’m a big C-Tran proponent because I like C-Tran’s flexibility — you can choose routes and types of vehicles depending on your future needs. You can’t do that with light rail.
“So, Camas’ position is that supporting light rail … doesn’t make sense,” Hein said. “We already have services that are flexible. The C-Tran routes and express buses are there. We can increase capacity, and if ridership increases, we can adjust services.”
Hein is urging other Clark County leaders to ask the same questions Camas officials are asking about the need for light rail across the future bridge.
Looking to the future
Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle, C-Tran board chair, said she does not agree with Hein’s assumption that there is still time to change the mode of mass transit on the new bridge.
“The city of Vancouver has affirmed light rail as the mode per our Modified Preferred Resolution in 2022,” McEnerny-Ogle said in an emailed statement.
She added that Vancouver officials believe future transportation and climate goals warrant the addition of light rail on a new bridge.
“We believe future transit needs warrant spending on a variety of transit modes, including the light rail component,” McEnerny-Ogle said. “Enhanced transit will help move us toward achieving city of Vancouver, regional and state climate and equity goals.”
The Vancouver mayor also noted that the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program will pay the light rail capital costs.
“We believe there may be confusion around that, and we’ve heard people asking why Southwest Washington would pay to construct light rail,” McEnerny-Ogle said.
She added that there is still a plan for C-Tran express buses to transport passengers across the new I-5 Bridge and said the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s design includes running those buses on the shoulder to help cut through traffic congestion.
“The origin and destination points for the planned express bus and the light rail lines are different and serve different riders,” McEnerny-Ogle said, adding that the two are very different options.
“The time to change light rail and express bus components of the MLPA has passed,” she said. “Changing the mode now would require re-analysis of traffic and transit operations in the current IBR Program design.
“Re-analysis would take a lot of time, and we would likely lose our federal funding,” McEnerny-Ogle said. “Is that what we want? No. Is that what our federal partners want? No. We risk any support for a new bridge if we go this route.”