The Battle Ground City Council voted 4-3 on Monday, March 3, to approve a resolution formally opposing the inclusion of light rail in the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) project.
The decision by the council was echoed by local residents who stated their concerns about costs, safety and the lack of perceived benefits for Battle Ground residents.
Resolution No. 25-02 asserts that extending light rail across the Columbia River would place an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers while providing little to no benefit to the city and surrounding areas. Councilmembers debated whether the city should take a stance at this stage in the project, with some arguing it was too late to have an impact, while others emphasized the importance of representing constituents' voices.
Council debate highlights differing perspectives
Councilmember Tricia Davis, who introduced the resolution, stressed that the issue is about cost and fairness. Davis asked city staff to bring a resolution opposing light rail before the council following a Feb. 18 meeting in which IBR representatives presented an update about the bridge. The presentation did not alleviate Davis' concerns about the costs of light rail.
“The opposition to light rail is based on money, ridership and the fact that it brings Battle Ground no benefit,” Davis said. “I think it’s important that we stand firm for people who have voted no in the past.”
Councilmember Victoria Ferrer voiced concerns about the prioritization of light rail over roadway capacity, referencing surveys that indicate regional transportation issues are more related to vehicle congestion than a demand for light rail.
“Why are we taking away a section of that road to be used for light rail when only less than 2% of our commuters are using light rail?” Ferrer asked.
However, other councilmembers, including Deputy Mayor Shane Bowman and Mayor Troy McCoy, questioned whether passing the resolution would have any meaningful effect. Bowman additionally said while C-Tran’s bus system is used by relatively few Battle Ground residents, it provides essential transportation options for those who rely on it.
“What we say is not going to change the design of this bridge,” Bowman said. “We have to be careful because this could have consequences that we may not like.”
McCoy expressed concerns about the potential repercussions of the city taking a hard stance against the project. He also highlighted his reservations about directly opposing light rail itself, as opposed to simply opposing the city's residents funding light rail.
Major design changes, such as eliminating light rail, would require revisiting the environmental review process, which could result in costly delays.
"Shame on this council for not having this four years ago, or three years ago. That's when we should have had this discussion," McCoy said.
Councilmember Cherish DesRochers expressed discomfort with the political nature of the discussion, opposing the resolution.
“It feels like it’s a very partisan issue when we’re a nonpartisan group,” DesRochers said.
Ultimately, the resolution passed with support from Davis, Ferrer, and Councilmembers Jeanie Kuypers and Eric Overholser. McCoy, Bowman, and DesRochers opposed it, favoring a version stating the council's opposition to funding light rail.
Council directs McCoy to vote for language reversal at upcoming C-TRAN meeting
Following the light rail resolution vote, the council held a separate discussion on how McCoy, who represents Battle Ground on the C-TRAN Board of Directors, should vote at the board’s upcoming March 11 meeting. The board will consider reversing a previous change in language that allowed C-TRAN to financially support light rail operations and maintenance.
According to the C-Tran presentation on Dec. 10, costs for light rail to be included in the IBR Project, with light rail operations and maintenance funding with opening day fiscal year 2023 dollars with an average inflation rate of 4.5%, would be roughly $21.8 million. Alone, light rail operations and maintenance would cost $20,238,570.
McCoy sought direction from the council, noting that the decision on C-TRAN’s funding obligations is likely more impactful than the city’s resolution opposing light rail.
The council largely favored McCoy voting to reinstate the original language, which prevented C-TRAN from funding light rail. However, McCoy expressed concerns about potential repercussions.
“If we rescind this agreement, it could set the bridge project back 1.5 to 2.5 years at a million dollars a day,” McCoy warned. “That would be around $540 million in additional costs.”
McCoy also previously expressed concerns that Battle Ground residents could face higher sales tax rates to cover the costs of light rail operations and maintenance. The revised language allowing C-TRAN to financially support light rail could lead to new funding mechanisms, including a sales tax increase of up to 0.9%. This could disproportionately affect communities like Battle Ground that do not directly benefit from the service.
Despite concerns, the council provided McCoy with majority backing to vote in favor of reversing the language. The Clark County Council and City of Vancouver will vote in favor of keeping the current language.
Any tax increase to fund light rail would require approval from Clark County voters.
Public weighs in on light rail debate
During the public comment period, multiple Battle Ground residents voiced opposition to light rail, citing concerns over costs, crime and potential increases in homeless individuals.
“If light rail goes in, those big-city problems will be on (their) way,” Battle Ground resident Travis Grove said. “... I don’t think anyone wants to see homeless people camping in their front yard.”
Another speaker, Margaret Tweet, questioned why light rail was being prioritized over roadway capacity.
“We are not providing for freight. We are not providing for vehicles,” she stated. “Half the bridge goes to transit, bicycles and pedestrians. It’s unfair and unbalanced.”
No speakers voiced support for light rail during the meeting.
