Vancouver City Council Thinks CRC Light Rail is a Done Deal?


Based on the quotes in this Oregonian article, it would appear that the view is that the citizen vote in 2012 is about how to fund transit operations on the Columbia River Crossing, not whether to:

The C-Tran board of directors, which includes three Vancouver City Council representatives, has set a vote on the sales tax for August or November election in 2012. Construction on the project is slated to start in late 2013.

But Columbia River Crossing Director Nancy Boyd, who was appointed leader of the project May, said the decision to include light rail was made when a locally preferred alternative was adopted by all the project partners in 2008. If the sales tax ballot measure were to fail, she said, the project would have to work with C-Tran to come up with another plan to raise $2 to $3 million a year.

Other council members also said light rail has been part of the equation from the beginning.

“I’m sorry that it’s been interpreted that the vote on light rail funding is a vote on light rail, because I know of no one who has said that specifically,” Councilman Jack Burkman said.


28 responses to “Vancouver City Council Thinks CRC Light Rail is a Done Deal?”

  1. Wow. I wonder if the decision on tolls is going to “be on the tail end” as well.

    I’m getting the feeling that lawmakers are pushing forward with the project and listening less to objections of residents on both sides of the Columbia. I’m all in favor of light rail to Vancouver, but this decision by Vancouver’s city council seems indicative of that push.

  2. If Vancouver residents want high bridge tolls to pay for both the bridge construction and the construction of the light rail extension, I’m all for it. It would go a little way toward reducing the subsidy for motor vehicles (though parking would still be subsidized most places), while making the Yellow Line a better option for many people, compared to paying the bridge toll.

    But I don’t think C-Tran should be forced to cut bus service to fund light rail; there needs to be new revenue for an expanding system, in a growing suburb.

  3. “If Vancouver residents want high bridge tolls to pay for both the bridge construction and the construction of the light rail extension, I’m all for it.”

    That’s the convenient presumption city council has made. That Vancouver residents want light rail and want to pay for it.

    Unfortunately, just like with the LO steetcar and MLR, the way this moves forward is by prohibiting the voters from actually telling them what they really want, or don’t want.

    This blatant abuse of power, anti-voter over reach and what appears to be corruption is causing quite the crescendo of outrage.

    The CRC, as planned, has so many fatal flaws, raised by so many people, that it could not be more insulting to move it forward than if it were deliberately crafted to be insane.

    One has to wonder how far off the entire ordeal is from blowing up in their faces.

  4. So what are they going to do when the voters up there reject funding for light rail operation? Look for volunteer rail operators, or just cut bus operations?

  5. I think the bridge is a fait accompli. Definitely not the best solution, but at least it’s good to know that Clark County voters can’t strip out the light rail portion of the project, the only part of the project that makes sense. Apparently capital funds for the MAX extension are NOT in the sales tax proposal. Bad news for the anti-rail crowd.

  6. “So what are they going to do when the voters up there reject funding for light rail operation?”

    They will be ignored by the anti-voter crowd.

    Similar to the anti-voter memebers of the Lake Oswego City Council and Clackamas County Commission who are heading for severe defeats.

  7. And similar to Portland residents, who don’t really want an automotive firehouse pointed at the Rose Quarter.

  8. Back in 2006, someone on the Clark Co. side of things said ‘they have a preferred alternative, and the train to Vancouver is already running on it.’

    The reason I’m opposed to the CRC rail is because of what little it would do for Vancouver.

    When I go to Uptown Village, it’s teeming with vitality and probably just as (if not more successful than many Portland neighborhoods), yet there’s not a single streetcar/train around. C-TRAN buses on several routes run through every few minutes. It’s a pleasant stroll on well-maintained sidewalks, too. You can get to wherever you need to go.

    Instead of land uses and transportation that would benefit Downtown Vancouver, it’s clear the idea is to turn it into ‘somewhere you go so you don’t have to be there,’ like a mega-version of the old 7th St. Transit Center. Since they want to put in stops every few blocks and several huge parking garages, that’s going to contribute even less to any sort of usefulness to Downtown Vancouver.

    They say it’s going to benefit Clark College and it would become the only community college in the region with direct light rail access, however the station is at a far corner of their property on the other side of athletic fields, parks, and other greenspaces, far away from the purpose and function of the college. What will be next to the rail station? A honkin’-huge parking garage!

    What do I think would work? Well, I’m not from Vancouver it’s not my decision. What I do know is urgent action is needed so that an entire county doesn’t lose their bus service (which is gazillions of times better than TriMet bus service). Worse yet, Clark Co. would lose virtually all say in transit matters as TriMet Board and management would become the de facto autocrats. (‘ooh, we need more money, let’s raise our charges to C-TRAN because they have no choice!’)

    So what are they going to do when the voters up there reject funding for light rail operation?

    They will be ignored by the anti-voter crowd.

    Probably just like TriMet, where they cut and gut bus service and operations because “we have to do this!”

  9. CTran service better than bus service in Portland? By what measure? As a test, I checked Google to see how long it would take me to get from Vancouver Mall to Vancouver Amtrak. Apparently, CTran does not participate, so using Google directions on your computer or smart phone is useless.

    Using CTran’s site, I get a trip time of 49 mins, vs. 16 mins for driving the 7 miles. A similar trip in Portland from Mall 205 to Union station is 41 mins on the bus, or 35 on max, including walking. There are more options, both in mode and frequency.

    Or are you talking about the overpriced hybrids CTran bought to drive commuters down to Portland and dead-head back every morning?

  10. While C-TRAN is a fine transit agency, and provides good service given the territory it serves (territory which is overall far less dense, and a bit more skeptical of public transit), I too am curious of the “better service than TriMet” claim.

    Only one C-TRAN line, the 4 from Delta Park to Vancouver Mall, offers anything remotely resembling frequent service. Another, the 37, runs on 20 minute headways. The rest of C-TRANs lines top out at two busses per hour.

    OTOH, C-TRAN is cheaper to ride, assuming you stay within the C-Zone. ($1.55 for a single adult ticket).

  11. “Only one C-TRAN line, the 4 from Delta Park to Vancouver Mall, offers anything remotely resembling frequent service.”

    Huh? The 65 from Fisher’s Landing to Parkrose runs every 15 minutes during the morning and evening commutes.

    Maybe you meant over the I-5 bridge? Or outside of rush hour?

    I’m not a huge apologist for C-Tran, but their 164 express bus
    from Fisher’s landing to downtown Portland is a pretty good deal for $3.25, given that it only takes 20 minutes if there’s not heavy traffic.

  12. “And similar to Portland residents, who don’t really want an automotive firehouse pointed at the Rose Quarter.

    Bob R. Says:

    Firehose, you mean? :-)”

    I don;t get either one of those.

    Translation?

    ——————————————————————————–

  13. Translation is the following: If Vancouver’s opinion of LRT ought to be sufficient to kill the LRT piece–why isn’t Portland’s opinion regarding the added general-purpose freeway capacity accorded the same respect? Widening the freeway moves the morning traffic jam to the south, something which the city is opposed to.

    If the CRC gets built, it gets built as a package deal.

  14. I still haven’t heard what is the intended response to the problem of not tolling the Glenn Jackson bridge and the likely shift of trips to I-205 to avoid paying the toll. Has there been any more thought put into that issue?

  15. Jim –

    According to at least one media report, you are an organizer (or major volunteer) of the initiative campaign. Can you give us any feedback on how it’s going so far? How many signatures do you have, and do you anticipate meeting the deadline?

  16. As of last week, it looked like it was going nowhere. Not that it would matter if it did. The Vancouver initiative wouldn’t keep Clark County or C-Tran from building light rail, and it wouldn’t keep Vancouver from building benches, water fountains, garbage cans or other public amenities at the stations, or from putting money into parking structures located near the stations. All Vancouver would really need to do is not spend any money to build rails, overhead wire or purchase vehicles. That’s fine; there are other players who could.

    Since light rail is probably a necessary part of the deal to build this monstrosity and there are billions of dollars in contracts at stake, the Vancouver initiative — even if it made it on the ballot and passed — wouldn’t be more than a slight road bump.

  17. EngineerScotty Says:

    Translation is the following: If Vancouver’s opinion of LRT ought to be sufficient to kill the LRT piece–why isn’t Portland’s opinion regarding the added general-purpose freeway capacity accorded the same respect? Widening the freeway moves the morning traffic jam to the south, something which the city is opposed to.
    If the CRC gets built, it gets built as a package deal.

    The Rose Quarter I-5 is part of an interstate system serving about 50 million people. Why not fix a choke point, even if it is within city limits?

    I can see the explanation that widening of the Rose Quarter is strategized to accommodate an enlarged Columbia River bridge. However, we could run out of money, so it might not turn out be a package deal in the end result.

    But since it is past time for a west side route (which has been awaited longer than a replacement I-5 bridge) this can be built to facilitate all modes of transport.

  18. Bob R. Says: Jim –
    According to at least one media report, you are an organizer (or major volunteer) of the initiative campaign.
    JK: Who me??

    Bob R. Says: Can you give us any feedback on how it’s going so far? How many signatures do you have
    JK: We have all taken an oath of silence.

    Bob R. Says: do you anticipate meeting the deadline?
    JK: Actually there is no deadline, only cutoff dates for particular elections and the fact that signatures turned in must be less than six months old. The city charter language is that, after validation and other details, the measure goes on the next “municipal election”

    Here is the operative language of the measure:

    SECTION 2. Prohibit City Officials to promote or establish Light Rail:
    1 . The Vancouver City Council, City Manager, City Officers, City Employees or City Agents shall take no action, nor enact any legislation that would promote or establish the extension of Light Rail across the Columbia River into the city of Vancouver.

    SECTION 3 . Prohibiting City of Vancouver Funds for Light Rail:
    1 . No City funds shall be used to promote the extension or establishment of Light Rail across the Columbia River into the City of Vancouver, Washington.

    Thanks
    JK

  19. Who me??

    From The Columbian:

    When organizing this year’s effort in March, Columbia River Crossing critic Larry Patella said he and volunteers hoped to finish signature-gathering work by mid-June. But Patella said this week that he grew too busy with his own business to continue the effort, so he handed the responsibility over to fellow light rail foes, Camas resident Margaret Tweet and Portland resident Jim Karlock.

    “I’m not sure what they’re doing with it,” Patella said. “Between you and me and the fence post, I think it’s a lost cause right now.”

    Actually there is no deadline, only cutoff dates for particular elections and the fact that signatures turned in must be less than six months old

    Well, there’s sort of an implied deadline, far out in the future, isn’t there? First, if you’re short on signatures at the 6-month mark, you must accelerate the rate in order to ever reach a threshold of the minimum number of valid signatures. In the meantime, the CRC might actually get built, and Vancouver might actually make a funding commitment, perhaps even early.

    Here is the operative language of the measure:

    Does the “promote” portion of your “promote or establish” language run up against the 1st amendment? I would think that “no official action” would be OK, but “no action” could be interpreted to mean that an elected official couldn’t even stand up and give a speech favorable to light rail, which would presumably get that part of the measure tossed out in court. Is there something in Vancouver, Clark County, or Washington law which defines the word “action” to mean only official acts? Doesn’t seem particularly libertarian (small l), in any case. (Do you have a severability clause?)

  20. (Given the fact that an original backer of the measure has now speculated that the initiative is a “lost cause”, and irrespective of the fact that the Columbian reporter didn’t take the phrase “between you, me and the fencepost” as “off the record”, it seemed fair to ask you how the process was going.)

  21. “SECTION 2. Prohibit City Officials to promote or establish Light Rail:
    1 . The Vancouver City Council, City Manager, City Officers, City Employees or City Agents shall take no action, nor enact any legislation that would promote or establish the extension of Light Rail across the Columbia River into the city of Vancouver.”

    First of all, you can’t tell elected officials what they can and cannot talk about, debate, advocate for or against, etc., etc. It’s called freedom of speech. Second, assuming this;
    a) made it on the ballot,
    b) actually passed, and
    c) witstood the inevitable constitutional challenge,
    what’s to stop Clark County, C-Tran, Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, Washington State or any other entity from doing the same thing? This seems about as futile as telling ODOT or WsDOT that they can’t built freeways.

  22. Bob R. Says: Who me??
    From The Columbian:
    JK: Aw, come on, that was a smart ass wisecrack.

    Bob R. Says: … it seemed fair to ask you how the process was going.
    JK: Of course it is fair, even without the background.

    Bob R. Says: Does the “promote” portion of your “promote or establish” language run up against the 1st amendment? …. Is there something in Vancouver, Clark County, or Washington law which defines the word “action” to mean only official acts?
    JK: I didn’t write it. Our people took a pre-existing effort.

    Bob R. Says: Doesn’t seem particularly libertarian (small l), in any case. (Do you have a severability clause?)
    JK: It is very libertarian to not waste billions of tax money.
    Yes there is a severability clause.

    JK: BTW, here is the web site:
    http://www.stoppinglightrail.com/index.html

    Thanks
    JK

  23. I didn’t write it. Our people took a pre-existing effort. … It is very libertarian to not waste billions of tax money.

    Personally speaking, this illustrates one of my concerns about some who label themselves “libertarians” … There seems to be lots of energy out there when it comes to money (and money isn’t unimportant), but it seems to trump other more personal and direct concerns about liberty, including who you marry, when we go to war, what we can say, etc. (And lately, “what we can say” is mainly affirmatively supported when “we” are a big, possibly immortal corporation, rather than an individual human.)

  24. Bob R. Says: I didn’t write it. Our people took a pre-existing effort. … It is very libertarian to not waste billions of tax money.

    Personally speaking, this illustrates one of my concerns about some who label themselves “libertarians” … There seems to be lots of energy out there when it comes to money (and money isn’t unimportant), but it seems to trump other more personal and direct concerns about liberty, including who you marry, when we go to war, what we can say, etc. (And lately, “what we can say” is mainly affirmatively supported when “we” are a big, possibly immortal corporation, rather than an individual human.)
    JK:
    1. Are you questioning my motives?
    2. You should try hanging out with some real Libertarians.

    BTW, how do you feel about:
    1. Letting people live wherever they want (as long as they pay for it.)
    2. Government encouraging certain lifestyles, including high density, transit usage, bikes. Or should they pick favorite lifestyles to encourage. If so who does the picking – the party in power?

    Now, back to the Vancouver CC, CRC, C-Tran etc. topics.

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *