Following an update from Interstate Bridge Replacement Program leaders, some Battle Ground City Council members are considering a resolution opposing light rail.
During the Feb. 18 meeting, project leaders provided an overview of the bridge replacement’s latest developments and addressed council members’ questions, particularly about the financial impact on Clark County residents. Key topics included tolling and funding for the light rail component.
The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, initiated in 2019, aims to modernize the aging I-5 bridge connecting Vancouver and Portland. The northbound span is over a century old, while the southbound span exceeds 65 years. Project goals include improving traffic flow, reducing accidents, increasing earthquake resilience and expanding public transit options. The recently released 10,000-page draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluates various design alternatives.
Construction is projected to begin in 2026.
However, the bridge’s estimated cost, ranging between $5 billion and $7.5 billion, has raised concerns among council members. With $4.3 billion in secured funding from state and federal grants, tolls are expected to cover the remaining $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion.
Councilmember Tricia Davis questioned the necessity of light rail and its projected ridership.
“To me the elephant in the room ... is the money,” Davis said. “I’m concerned that light rail is not going to be as prosperous as you think, whereas we’re kind of not looking at the bus rapid transit option.”
Program Administrator Greg Johnson acknowledged those concerns but emphasized that the project is a compromise between Washington and Oregon stakeholders.
“If this were purely a Washington or Clark County project, we’d be done,” Johnson said. “But we have a partner on the south side of the river that views itself slightly different and has different needs than folks on the north side of the river.”
Following the presentation, Davis suggested that the council consider a resolution opposing light rail, similar to Camas’ unanimous vote on Feb. 3.
“I think it’s important when our voters in the past have voted no that we do have a strong stance on something that affects our city um highly,” Davis said. “So I understand that it might not be a be-all-end-all, but I think it’s important to notice, how strongly we feel about it.”
In November, the C-TRAN board revised its policy on light rail funding. Initially, C-TRAN would not be responsible for operational or maintenance costs within Vancouver or Clark County. The revised language now states that C-TRAN may contribute to funding for bi-state transit operations, including maintenance, security, and station upkeep.
According to a Dec. 10 presentation, the estimated cost for light rail operations and maintenance on opening day, adjusted for an average inflation rate of 4.5%, would be approximately $21.8 million. The light rail’s standalone operations and maintenance costs would be around $20.2 million.
Councilmember Victoria Ferrer also supported drafting a resolution opposing light rail due to financial concerns.
“I would be in favor of it because I think it does, like you said, shed light on it,” Ferrer said. “You have a lot of residents who are against it.”
Removing light rail from the project could create significant delays. During the presentation, Johnson warned that major design changes, such as eliminating light rail, would necessitate revisiting the environmental review process, leading to costly delays.
“If we say that we’re not going to do light rail, that we’re going to go to bus rapid transit or not have a transit component, we would have to go back into this environmental document,” Johnson said. “At this point, the estimates are anywhere from a year and a half to two and a half years to get back to this point of where we are now.”
Johnson noted that delaying the project by revisiting the environmental review could add approximately $300 million in inflation and lost construction windows.
Mayor Troy McCoy agreed that Battle Ground residents should not bear the financial burden of light rail but hesitated to take an outright opposing stance.
“I do not want to kill this bridge,” McCoy said. “I do not want to be the town of 20,000 that provides a veto on a $6 billion project that impacts the economics of this region for multitudes of decades to come.”
Councilmembers Jeanie Kuypers and Cherish DesRochers shared concerns about financial implications but did not fully commit to supporting a resolution directly opposing light rail.
The council is expected to discuss potential resolutions and financial implications as the IBR project progresses.
