After hours of public comments and weeks of community meetings around Clark County, C-TRAN board members pushed pause at the last minute on a Tuesday vote about funding for future light rail expansion across the Interstate Bridge from Portland to Vancouver.

The vote on a seemingly small change to the agency’s written conditions for the replacement of the bridge has lately raised concerns that the local transit agency could cause a larger breakdown in the overall bridge plan, leading to years-long planning delays and jeopardizing billions in state and federal dollars.

C-TRAN board members were clearly divided heading into Tuesday’s meeting. After tense debate, Clark County Chair Sue Marshall tabled any decision about Southwest Washington cities paying for light rail for the bridge.

C-TRAN is made up of representatives from small cities around Clark County, including La Center, Camas, Battle Ground and others, as well as officials from the city of Vancouver and Clark County. Together, they collectively pay for C-TRAN bus operations.

Light rail is currently included in the plans for the new I-5 bridge. It’s considered a key design element needed to get state and federal grants for the bi-state project. But a number of small cities say that, because they’re located outside Vancouver, they won’t benefit from light rail, and they’re reluctant to pay for its future maintenance and operations.

During Tuesday night’s meeting, dozens of people spoke for and against supporting light rail. The debate largely broke down between fears over the safety and cost of light rail versus acknowledging Clark County’s rapid population growth and the need to invest in a more dynamic city.

Nancy Miranda of Yacolt, Washington, described her safety concerns when riding TriMet light rail in Portland.

“People urinating, pan handling, even physical abuse. Many times, I’ve felt threatened,” Miranda said.

“Light rail is perceived by many, because police aren’t always on there, as a high-speed way to import mentally ill drug addicts and criminals from Portland to Vancouver,” warned Gary Gaskill. “Whether that’s true or not, it is a perception many people have.”

A number of younger people spoke in favor of the county contributing to light rail funding. They argued that Vancouver’s current transit system of buses connecting to light rail in Portland is inadequate for commuters, and the needs of residents are changing as the region’s population grows.

“We have to adapt with the times,” said Devan Williams. “We have a lot of young, ambitious people who want to continue to grow this community. They want to be entrepreneurs. They want to build businesses, build dynamic communities. And to do that you need to also have other opportunities in infrastructure to move people around.”

City councils around Clark County convened meetings over the past six weeks to discuss changing the language in a key bridge planning document before sending representatives to Tuesday’s C-TRAN meeting.

Officials in cities like Camas and Battle Ground passed resolutions saying they’re opposed to paying for light rail costs.

Battle Ground’s council wrote that the capital and maintenance cost of light rail “is too burdensome to our city and residents, would provide little to no benefit now or in the future, and should not be included as part of the IBR Project.”

Right now, the cities on the C-TRAN board that are most opposed to light rail pay a fraction of what Vancouver already covers for mass transit services.

While Camas paid $5 million in sales tax revenues for the C-TRAN’s 2024 operational budget, Vancouver paid $49.3 million, according to the agency. Vancouver officials have been lobbying C-TRAN’s board members to support light rail funding.

C-TRAN’s share of light rail operations and maintenance costs on the Washington side of the river are expected to be around $6.8 million per year when the new bridge is built, according to the transit agency.

Funding could come from a voter approved 0.2% sales tax increase, which is the maximum the transit agency can raise its rate. For consumers, the increase would translate to an additional two cents per $10 spent.

With Tuesday night’s vote tabled, C-TRAN staff said it would reappear during the board’s next meeting on April 15.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/12/clark-county-transit-punts-decision-i-5-bridge-light-rail-funding/