Camas poised to oppose light rail on future I-5 bridge

Camas officials are poised to formally oppose the inclusion of light rail trains on the Interstate 5 (I-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 across the (bridge),” Camas City Councilmember 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 work on the new bridge, which will replace the seismically vulnerable I-5 Bridge, is expected to begin in 2026. The decision to draft a resolution formally opposing light rail across the new bridge followed a Camas City Council workshop on Monday, Jan. 6, when C-Tran’s deputy chief executive officer, Scott Patterson, presented an update on the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program and unveiled data showing it will likely cost nearly $2 billion to install two miles of light rail infrastructure on the future I-5 replacement bridge and 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 (O&M) costs for C-Tran’s express buses crossing the new bridge would be much less, around $1.55 million a year, according to Patterson’s presentation. “Why the big discrepancy?” Camas Mayor Steve Hogan asked Patterson during the workshop. Patterson said the answer to Hogan’s question has “multiple parts,” including the number of light rail trains and the frequency of service compared to C-Tran’s plan to run four or five additional express buses to shuttle commuters across the new bridge. “TriMet’s light rail system proposed two (MAX trains) every six-and-a-half 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 added that 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 workers commuting from Clark County into Oregon. Patterson also acknowledged that more Clark County residents are now working remote and have no need to commute to an office or job site in Oregon. “That also is a good thing — it means more people are staying here and spending money here,” he said. C-Tran Board OKs language change; Hein regrets 'yes' vote Hein, who has represented the Camas Council on the C-Tran Board since 2023, said he had a few questions during the Board’s November 2024 meeting, regarding a proposed language change involving C-Tran and its share of the proposed light rail system’s (O&M) costs. Before the November meeting, C-Tran leaders had been clear that the Southwest Washington public transit agency would not be responsible for any of light rail O&M costs. The new language, however, stated that C-Tran “may” cover some of those costs. “I had some initial concerns,” Hein said. “I wanted to know the motive. Why were we striking the ‘will not be responsible for’ language (and replacing it with) ‘C-Tran may participate in funding’?” 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. Hein 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 2024, Hein said he was shocked by projections showing it would cost $2 billion to install light rail tracks across the new bridge and that the annual light rail O&M costs would top $20 million. “When I saw the numbers, I couldn’t believe it,” Hein 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 O&M costs. “I regret my vote in November, given what I learned in December,” he said. Hein shared those regrets with Camas City Council members last week during the Council’s workshop on Monday, Jan. 13. “When I looked at these numbers in December, I thought, ‘There must be a mistake. These can’t be real,’” Hein told the Council. “The numbers were so large and really didn’t make sense. I would like to go to TriMet and ask them to show us the books. How could it be this much?” 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 told the Council. “I’m not aware of any light rail system that is not more expensive to operate compared to buses.” Patterson added that the push to bring light rail into Vancouver and connect to TriMet’s MAX light rail in North Portland goes back to the 1990s. “There has been a long commitment to try to get light rail into Vancouver,” Patterson told the Council last week, adding that the IBR program’s Oregon partners have long advocated for light rail as the preferred mass transit option for the replacement bridge. Following Patterson’s presentation, other Camas officials voiced opposition to light rail on the new bridge. “I think it’s misguided,” Camas Councilmember John Svilarich said Monday. “We spend $2 billion to build less than two miles of transit and then spend $20 million to run it? It just doesn’t sit well with me.” Hein says light rail not flexible enough Despite a 2022 agreement amongst Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program stakeholders that light rail is the preferred mass transit option for the new bridge, Hein said he believes there is still time for IBR program leaders to change their minds. “It’s a good time to pause, and ask, ‘Why are we doing this?’” Hein said last week. “I’m ready to hear why Vancouver believes (light rail) is important given the engineering and financial constraints. I’m ready to hear that argument. Just tell us why. When we are spending public dollars, everything should be in the open.” Patterson told the Council last week that there is still plenty of time to discuss light rail O&M costs. “We’re trying to send the message that there is no immediate need to solve this funding issue,” Patterson told the Council. “As we move into 2025, we will get updated ridership (data), 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 IBM program.” Currently, around 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 light rail and express bus costs associated with the future 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 future C-Tran services and needs. “We are currently collecting 0.7 percent, but that can go up to 0.9 percent with voter approval,” Patterson told the Council last week. “Long-range plans include potentially going to voters for that remaining 0.2 percent for service preservation and improvements. The current projections are fine for the next six, seven or more years, depending on how sales taxes come in. But there will be a time in the next decade when we will look at potentially asking voters to approve some level of (additional) sales tax to support the system, irrespective of this light-rail conversation.” And while Patterson said there is “no pressing need to advance a specific light rail transit O&M funding strategy at this time,” Hein said he believes now is the best time for Camas officials to voice their opposition to having light rail on the replacement bridge. “We’re going to spend all that money for light rail infrastructure and O&M costs … but when you look at the trends, they indicate a lot of people have left downtown Portland and there are fewer people going from Vancouver into Portland,” Hein said. Hein also worries that a light rail system across the future bridge is not as flexible as it needs 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 across (the new bridge) doesn’t make sense,” Hain 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 added that he would support adding or opening an extra lane to accommodate C-Tran’s express buses during peak traffic hours on the new bridge and would like to see IBR costs using C-Tran’s express buses instead of TriMet’s light rail MAX trains. “If you’ve got a C-Tran bus running every 15 minutes … let’s look at a combination of costs and ridership. Does light rail make sense, or do we need to put in a dedicated bus lane?” Hein said. “We’re talking less than two miles. I think there are parties too wed to the idea (of light rail) and they need to step back and say, ‘You know what? Our projections are wrong.’” 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. “Ridership would have to triple to come back to pre-COVID levels. It’s more expensive and our ridership is down,” Hein said. “We need to think about this. It’s not, ‘We decided we’re going to do it, so we’re going to do it,’ but ‘What is the right thing to do?’ We are changing. Southwest Washington is becoming more independent economically, and people are working from home, commuting less, wanting to be employed closer to where they live — all of these changes mean we need to be more flexible.” Vancouver mayor: ‘We risk support for a new bridge if we go this route’ Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle, the chair of the C-Tran Board of Directors, responded to Camas officials’ concerns about the planned light rail project and 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 the future I-5 Bridge. “We believe future transit needs warrant spending on a variety of transit modes, including the light rail component,” McEnerny-Ogle stated in her emailed response. “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 IBR 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 stated in her email. 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 IBR 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,” she said, adding that the two are “very different options.” As for Hein and other Camas Council members’ concerns about the O&M costs for the new light rail trains, McEnerny-Ogle said she believes it is too soon to voice such concerns. “We don’t know Southwest Washington’s proportional costs of the light rail O&M, so it’s premature to say our share is unreasonable. Of course we wouldn’t support anything unreasonable for our community,” McEnerny-Ogle said in her emailed statement. Asked about the language change the C-Tran Board voted on in November 2024, McEnerny-Ogle said discussions with the Vancouver City Council prompted the language-change conversation. “We need to discuss options for O&M funding for all the bi-state transit elements that IBR program partners committed to through the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative,” she said in her emailed statement. “Funding bi-state transit at an appropriate share of cost for Southwest Washington benefits our entire community and provides enhanced connections to C-Tran. We envision a mobility hub in downtown Vancouver where light rail will terminate and connect seamlessly with C-Tran transit. The bi-state transit investments we agreed to will dramatically enhance access to jobs and other key destinations.” The mayor said she believes it is “critical” that officials have more information about the expected transit costs and potential funding options before making any decisions about the O&M costs for light rail or express buses. “We’ve had less than a month to start talking about funding and state support,” she said, adding that changing the already agreed-upon mass transit options for the new bridge would likely endanger the project’s federal funding. “The time to change light rail and express bus components of the MLPA has passed,” McEnerny-Ogle stated in her emailed response. “Changing the mode now would require re-analysis of traffic and transit operations in the current IBR program design. That process started with (the Columbia River Crossing bridge design proposed for replacing the I-5 Bridge in the early 2000s) and was supplemented with over two years of additional analysis for the IBR Program. “Re-analysis would take a lot of time and we would likely lose our federal funding. Is that what we want? No. Is that what our federal partners want? No,” she said. “We risk any support for a new bridge if we go this route.”

Related Stories