C-Tran’s board of directors plans to reconsider sharing the cost of running light rail across a planned Interstate 5 Bridge replacement.
TriMet estimates it will cost $20.2 million a year to operate a light rail line into Vancouver once the new bridge is in place.
The board of Clark County’s transit agency had long opposed helping pay for light rail operations before changing its stance in November.
“I would like to know the public’s opinion of returning to the board’s previous position of not funding operations and maintenance of TriMet light rail,” Michelle Belkot, a Clark County councilor and C-Tran board member, said in a Jan. 14 meeting. “A number of us were very surprised by the cost of light rail versus C-Tran bus service.”
The board agreed to revisit the light rail financing decision in two months, during its March 11 meeting.
C-Tran board member and Camas City Councilor Tim Hein said earlier this month that he regretted voting for the November resolution, which opened up the possibility that Camas and other C-Tran district residents might shoulder some of the light rail operating costs.
“I wanted to know the motive. Why were we striking the ‘will not be responsible for’ language to ‘C-Tran may participate in funding?’ ” Hein said.
Hein and several other C-Tran board members — including the board’s new chairperson Washougal City Councilor Molly Coston, Battle Ground Mayor Troy McCoy and La Center City Councilor Sean Boyle— said the projected light rail operations and maintenance costs were surprisingly high.
“I was shocked,” Coston said. “It seemed like an unbelievably high number. And I have no idea how, on our side of the river, we could fund that.”
McCoy abstained from voting on the November resolution. He said he had “sticker shock” when he saw the projected light rail costs.
“The dollar cost was not presented to the board before (the November vote),” McCoy said. “I don’t think there was any ill intent there, just people trying to hurry. But it was probably not the best way to go about it.”
Coston said she and other Washougal officials need more information about the light rail extension and its possible operating and maintenance costs.
“I want to make sure I am arming myself with good, solid information,” Coston said. “With this bridge, we have a once-in-a-100-years opportunity to get it right. And the more multimodal options we have, the better off we are.”
McCoy said although he and other Battle Ground officials question light rail’s benefits for their city’s residents, they do not want to derail the replacement of the I-5 Bridge.
“It’s hard for the (Battle Ground) city council and citizens to see the direct benefit of light rail because of where we’re at, geographically,” McCoy said. “But there is no doubt we need a new bridge. … So I don’t know that a resolution (opposing light rail on the new bridge) is something we want.”
A resolution opposing light rail on the new bridge is exactly what Camas council members are expected to approve during their next regular meeting Monday.
Camas council members discussed a resolution opposing all light rail trains on the new I-5 Bridge during their Jan. 21 workshop. Several council members said they had heard an outpouring of anti-light rail sentiments from constituents this month.
“The comments I’ve received have been 100 percent opposed to light rail, to the expense. It’s very interesting. … I haven’t received any comments in favor,” Camas Councilor Marilyn Boerke said
If approved, the Camas resolution would officially oppose constructing the light rail extension over the new bridge and, instead, push for relying on C-Tran express buses that already run from downtown Vancouver to north Portland across the current I-5 Bridge.
“C-Tran services in this area and for Clark County, in general, provide flexible and frequent routes for our citizens using a variety of vehicles and propulsion modes that are responsive to current and future ridership needs,” the resolution states. “Maintaining the current level of service of C-Tran over the Interstate (5) Bridge would not require any special engineering or vehicular weight considerations absent the inclusion of the (light rail) component.”
The resolution states that the light rail piece of the Interstate Bridge project “is superfluous to the actual needs” of the Camas community “given the historically low ridership on the C-Tran Commuter Express to downtown Portland due to multiple factors, including decreased downtown (Portland) employment, high commercial occupancy rates, shifting business and work patterns, increased remote work opportunities and increased employment opportunities present in Clark County, all of which do not support a light rail project that was designed to support an anticipated rise in ridership.”
Other officials in smaller Clark County cities, however, say they are still open to the idea of including light rail on the new bridge and caution that numbers associated with public transportation ridership and the light rail trains’ projected operating expenses are still preliminary.
“There is still a process to go through,” McCoy said, adding that he hopes Battle Ground officials will soon learn more from Interstate Bridge Replacement Program leaders. “Does (light rail) make sense right now? No. But we shouldn’t make a decision based on today’s numbers. If COVID taught us anything it’s how fast things can change. My biggest goal is to slow everybody down and let cooler heads prevail.”