Despite maintaining a cordial tone, the La Center City Council’s frustration over the anticipated costs of light rail was made abundantly clear last week.
The La Center City Council expressed frustration over the inclusion of light rail in the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Project during a Wednesday, Feb. 26, presentation by project representatives. Concerns primarily centered around the high projected costs and the potential financial burden on Clark County residents.
Frank Green, an assistant program administrator for the IBR program representing the Washington State Department of Transportation, presented an update on the project’s progress.
Mayor Tom Strobehn criticized the project’s proposed three-lane design. While auxiliary lanes are included in the draft bridge plan, Strobehn expressed doubt that they would adequately address the long-term surges in traffic.
“I think you guys are building a bridge for yesterday, not tomorrow. Three lanes is ridiculous,” Strobehn said.
Strobehn also challenged Green on whether the project adequately plans for future growth, questioning how a projected regional population increase of four million people in the next two decades would be accommodated with three lanes.
Green defended the plan, emphasizing safety improvements and wider shoulders but maintained that the current three-lane configuration, with auxiliary lanes, was projected to function effectively through 2045. Strobehn remained skeptical, calling the plan short-sighted given anticipated growth and increasing congestion.
“The worst part is we’re talking about $5 to $7 billion and as we get construction going, we’re gonna need another bridge because (by) 2045, we have another 4.5 million people arriving within that time frame,” Strobehn said. “There’s no way that’s gonna accommodate everything, the trucks, the traffic flow. It just doesn’t seem like a great overall plan or answer to the problem.”
Council members questioned the validity of the polling data that was presented as evidence of public support for light rail. Councilor Myrna Leija noted that in her 15 years speaking with residents, she has never heard strong support for light rail in North Clark County.
“In 2012 and 2014, when it was put before the voters, it was voted down,” Leija said. “What people would like is a new bridge or a better repaired bridge, a wider bridge — that’s just common sense. But the expense of this, and knowing that we most likely are gonna be taxed plus pay tolls, I haven’t talked to anyone that wants that.”
In 2022, all eight local partner agencies, including city councils and transportation boards, voted to support a version of the bridge with light rail, citing community feedback and technical evaluations. Leija criticized this polling process, arguing that the 2022 community opinion poll, which surveyed roughly 1,000 residents across the entire region, did not adequately represent North Clark County’s perspective.
According to the poll, 79% of total respondents supported extending light rail across the bridge, including 84% in the Portland metro area, 90% in the City of Portland, 69% in Vancouver and 61% in Clark County overall. However, Leija maintained that the results primarily reflected urban areas and did not accurately capture sentiment in North Clark County, where opposition to light rail appears stronger.
“1,000 of that is minuscule. It’s not even 0.01%,” she said.
Mayor Strobehn announced that La Center would conduct its own poll through a future website update to gauge local opinion on light rail, citing concerns that the local perspective was not adequately represented in the previous survey.
“To Myrna’s credit, it’s not an accurate depiction of people’s opinions because we don’t have the numbers on how many people were actually called in the county or how that was verified in the city. From my own observations and the opinions I hear from the public in North County, they’re not in favor of light rail,” he said.
KC Kasberg questioned why both light rail and a bus transit system were necessary, noting that they appeared to duplicate efforts and raise unnecessary costs. IBR representatives responded that the two systems serve different purposes: light rail connects to an 80-mile regional network, allowing riders to access destinations such as Hillsboro, OHSU, and the airport, while express buses offer a direct downtown-to-downtown service with limited stops. However, councilmembers remained skeptical of the necessity of both systems operating simultaneously.
Sean Boyle argued that the City of Vancouver should take on more of the financial responsibility since the project primarily impacts them.
“I don’t see the benefit to me living in La Center, but for Vancouver it makes a lot of sense. And so if there are other alternatives into keeping the light rail and those operation maintenance costs being picked up somewhere else, I think that’s something that can be explored,” Boyle said.
Leija added that the cost of light rail might make sense for ports and cities close to it but not for rural areas such as La Center.
The conversation also touched on the recent decision by the C-Tran board to alter its policy on light rail funding. In November 2024, the board revised its stance, removing a previous prohibition on using C-Tran funds for light rail operations and maintenance. The new language allows for potential financial contributions but does not mandate them.
This change has raised concerns among La Center officials about how the estimated $21.8 million in annual operations and maintenance costs would be covered. However, additional funding from C-Tran would require approval from a majority of Clark County residents, and the agency is not expected to shoulder the full cost alone.
Green acknowledged the concerns but emphasized that funding commitments from both Washington and Oregon, as well as federal grants, have made this iteration of the project more financially viable than past attempts.
La Center officials remain unconvinced that the benefits of light rail outweigh the costs. The discussion ended without clear resolution, but council members indicated they would continue to seek further clarification on funding mechanisms and cost breakdowns in future discussions.
If light rail is excluded from the project by the partner agencies, the project will need to restart completely. Additionally, roughly $2 billion in approved federal grants will be unusable due to the exclusion and the grant’s timing requirements.
