Ann Donnelly, a Vancouver businesswoman, is a former chair of the Clark County Republican Party. Photo Is light rail through downtown Vancouver still a condition of replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge? For years, Clark County residents have been assured that the two are inexorably linked. The Federal Transit Administration, we were told, required high-capacity transit as a condition of its support. All agencies, the argument went, selected light rail over buses. Democratic governors and legislatures in both Oregon and Washington agreed. Now, in 2025, the choice no longer appears iron-clad. Nationally, the DOGE-inspired emphasis will be on reducing wasteful spending. On the state and local level, the Legislature, the Clark County Council, and the Vancouver City Council are simultaneously grappling with budget deficits and rising costs. When asked, voters are inclined to revolt against new taxes, as occurred in November with Vancouver’s failed Proposition 4 to pay for additional police officers.

In 2025’s evolved political climate, the concept of Vancouver light rail running north along Broadway to the Marshall Community Center will and should receive scrutiny. First, long-term, is light rail the best solution for transit riders? Once the rails are installed through Vancouver’s historic heart, flexibility is precluded. The high-capacity alternative, a right-sized fleet of buses, would offer choices to adjust destinations, capacities and timing. Portland’s light rail, for example, has not lived up to its promises. Prior to opening its Yellow Line in 2004, TriMet estimated that in 2020 peak-hour MAX trains would run every 7.5 minutes and carry 35,320 weekday riders. Actual peak-hour arrivals were every 15 minutes (50 percent of promised) and ridership 10,611 (30 percent of promised), according to John Charles, Cascade Policy Institute. Even allowing for possible underperformance, is light rail for Vancouver affordable? The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program estimates capital costs of a light rail extension at $2 billion ($1 billion per mile). C-Tran staff estimate that operating costs for light rail are five times the costs of operating buses.

At a Dec. 10 meeting, C-Tran staff shocked board members with TriMet’s estimate of $21.8 million per year to operate the new light rail extension. TriMet expects Washington taxpayers to shoulder 45 percent. “It (the cost estimate) seems so outrageous,” observed C-Tran board member Bart Hansen. If so, the estimate should be audited. If TriMet is inflating its estimates, perhaps that is one reason Battle Ground’s Mayor Troy McCoy, C-Tran board member, reported that his council does not want to fund light rail. C-Tran does not have the budget for such operating costs. Alternatives include several sales tax measures requiring voter approval. In light of the failure of Vancouver’s Proposition 4 and past Clark County votes opposing light rail, such a ballot measure would almost certainly fail. In the incoming Trump administration, the Department of Transportation, a major funding source for the project, will have very different priorities than those during Biden’s presidency. Trump’s nominee for transportation secretary, former Congressman Sean Duffy, will be looking for economies such as cheaper, more effective buses replacing light rail.

Duffy, who appears likely to be confirmed, will soon receive a thorough briefing document from John Ley, a longtime local transportation analyst and critic of light rail, tolling and other aspects of the project. On Nov. 18, Ley submitted a letter to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg opposing the IBR’s application for federal funding on the grounds it fails to improve vehicle congestion and freight mobility. Ley intends to resubmit his letter to Trump’s new secretary. He will do so as the newly elected state representative from the 18th District. Buttigieg did not respond to Ley’s letter, but Duffy will likely find it persuasive.