The light rail they have in mind is a proposed extension of Portland’s MAX system between Clackamas TownCenter in Oregon and 99th Street in Hazel Dell. Next month, Clark County voters will add their voices to the discussion as they go to the polls February 7th to approve sales and excise taxes that will finance the project.
That connection between light rail and business in Clark County is complicated and goes beyond the image of transporting upscale Portland consumers into eclectic downtown Vancouver shops. Giving commuters other options for getting to work is also an important element, but again, it’s not the whole picture.
“We have a major regional transportation crisis on I-5,” says Robert Hennessee of the Community Involvment and Marketing Office at C-Tran. “I-5 is the economic lifeline of the entire West Coast, and we have a choke-hold on it right here.”
Hennessee points out that Vancouver is situated at a spot known historically for trade and commerce. “The Chinook Tribe traded here between the inland and coastal tribes, and the Hudson’s Bay Company was established here as a trade center.” The confluence of the Columbia River and the north-south Interstate system makes Vancouver a critical link in today’s market.
Growth in Clark County’s population in recent years has outpaced projections, averaging more than four percent per year since 1990. Everything points to continued growth at the same or greater pace in years to come.
Attracting new business is an important stabilizer of such intense population growth. In addition to providing jobs for county residents, new employers strengthen the tax base that pays for community support services. Without it, residents must bear a greater portion of the cost for community services, generally through increased property taxes.
While Vancouver is in a good location to attract new business, other factors diminish the effects of that attraction, some of which light rail can address. Most critical is the problem of air quality.
“The metropolitan area has been declared in violation of the Federal Clean Air Standards for ozone levels,” says Hennessee. In order for a new company to locate here, it must incorporate rigid emission control systems into its facilities. This makes it more costly to set up business, and many companies choose to settle elsewhere, in regions that already comply with those standards.
It isn’t big business that causes poor air quality. It’s road traffic. The 1993 Clark County Carbon Monoxide Emissions analysis indicates that, while industry contributes 17 percent of that pollutant into our air stream, 55 percent comes from vehicles. Ten years ago that figure was 45 percent. Putting in light rail will take some of our cars off the roads, and that will help reestablish compliance with federal clean air standards.
Businesses considering a move to Clark County also look at the surrounding community in order to assess the quality of life that will be available to their employees. “If we can tell an employer that we have an effective, up-to-date transit system,” says Marc Veneroso, engineer and member of the Vancouver Planning Commission, “one that can get you quickly into downtown Vancouver or downtown Portland, we begin to look more attractive.”
Veneroso admits that light rail will probably not keep I-5 from reaching capacity, “But for every light rail car on the track, you’ll take 40, 60, 80 cars off the road. It can start to have a significant effect on traffic, depending on how many people use it.”
There are arguments against light rail, and one is that precise question: how many people will really use it? According to the experience of other light rail systems in the United States, forecast riderships don’t always match up with reality.
Metro Transportation planners have a good track record. “MAX has been as successful as predicted,” says Veneroso, “which is testimony to the efficiency and the ability of the local transportation planners.” In fact, Portland’s MAX system is considered a national standard by which other transit systems are developed.
John K. Spence, a Clark County resident who has spoken out against light rail, feels that other alternatives, such as adding commuter lanes, additional bus lines, or building another bridge have not been adequately explored. “We’ve had a mandate to explore different options, but from the beginning, light rail has been the only option considered.”
Spence believes that increasing the present service provided by C-Tran and Tri-Met across the river would be a much more cost-effective solution that will meet commuter needs for years to come.
Hennessee points out that several factors prohibit the option of building another bridge. Funding for new highways is tight because, due to the Clean Air Act, all proposed projects must prove that building them will improve air quality. “That couldn’t be proven in Clark County,” he says.
Furthermore, Oregon voters have refused to allow more highways in the Portland area, so any bridge Washington builds would empty onto congested residential streets in north Portland.
“As far as buses go,” Hennessee says, “additional buses on the highway will only add to the already crowded traffic stream out there.” Currently C-Tran and Tri-Met provide morning service from the Seventh Street Transit Center to downtown Portland about every seven minutes. Express service is available from Salmon Creek about every ten minutes during peak hours.
There’s no denying that the sticking point for many will be the proposed increase in sales and excise taxes to pay for Clark County’s share of the project. The impact of a 0.3 percent sales tax increase probably won’t drive many individual consumers into Oregon to do their shopping. Still, small businesses who must watch every penny are justifiably nervous about another disincentive for shopping in Washington.
Hennessee explains that very few options exist for local governments to raise money for projects like light rail. These include an employer tax, vehicle license fee of $15, commercial parking fee, sales tax and excise tax.
The first three options would not provide enough income to fund the project – in the case of the commercial parking fee, it wouldn’t generate enough money to pay for the cost of collecting it. That leaves only the sales and excise taxes as viable options.
Measuring the effects of an increased tax right down to the penny is easy to do, but measuring the lost income if light rail isn’t available is less tangible, an argument Veneroso feels strongly about. “Effective management of the growth that is headed our way simply won’t happen without light rail.”
Dr. Arthur C. Olson, D.C., is one of three county residents who drafted the statement of opposition included in the pamphlet mailed to voters prior to the election. He is concerned about the proposed alignment of the track along the I-5 corridor.
“I’m not totally opposed to light rail,” says Olson, “but it seems that the proposed route forces urban renewal” at the expense of eastern Clark County where growth continues to mushroom. He states that 1-205 and its bridge were built specifically to accommodate light rail, with space between the lanes available for the tracks. “That route would make much more sense.”
Light rail works best where density is greatest, says Veneroso, a factor that led planners to select the I-5 alignment. “Studies indicate that 80 percent of the people are willing to walk up to half a mile to use light rail.”
In areas of greater density, therefore, ridership will be higher. Present ridership on bus lines in neighborhoods along the I-5 corridor is significantly higher than along the I-205 corridor, and C-Tran is preparing to add additional lines to enhance that service.
Density in east county is generally lower, and newer developments that are more dense are frequently built with privacy walls and cul-de-sacs, arrangements not conducive to accommodating large buses and bus service.
Hennesee says forecasts indicate that light rail ridership along I-205 would be half what it would be along I-5. He acknowledges the rapid growth occurring in east county, however, and says light rail along I-205 is anticipated as part of the 20-year plan.
Vancouver residents won’t be riding the rails any time soon. In order to secure local, state and federal funding on both sides of the river, there is a flurry of activity going on now.
But construction is not anticipated to begin until 1998, with a completion date set for 2004. The projected growth of Clark County in the meantime suggests we may be quite ready to hop aboard when the whistle finally blows.
Where will it run?
The proposed route for the north-south connection to MAX light rail isn’t set in stone yet, but the focus has narrowed to a few specific options. A new bridge will be built immediately west of I-5 to carry the trains across the Columbia River, and the first station will be at the old Lucky Brewery site.
From there it will travel north along one of three streets: Washington, Main, or Broadway to McLoughlin. Still to be decided is whether the trains will run along a bidirectional track (both directions on the same street) or a couplet (the north track running on one street and the south another).
At McLoughlin two options exist. The track may turn east and connect with I-5 at McLoughlin, providing regional service to such organizations as the Veteran’s Administration and Clark College. This route would be somewhat faster.
The track may instead continue north on Main to connect with I-5 at about Kiggins Bowl. This would provide residential service to neighborhoods located along that corridor (Carter Park, Lincoln, and Shumway).
When the train finally does connect with I-5, it will travel along a route parallel to the interstate highway.
The rail’s terminus will be located on or about 99th Street. It may extend up to five blocks either north or south of 99th according to where land is available for such things as the station, parking, and rights-of-way.
Look for more “20 years of the VBJ” features in our weekly print edition, online at VBJUSA.com and in our free email newsletter, Just Business.
{jathumbnail off}
