[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6322145,"mediaKeyId","2348231-59d91044327a8d66d7aae350122195f6","parentId",2348231,"title","Interstate Bridge Replacement officials brief Battle Ground council on light-rail plan, funding and timelines","audioSeconds",3302,"startMs",792000,"endMs",4094000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2348231-59d91044327a8d66d7aae350122195f6&start=792&end=4094","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2348231-59d91044327a8d66d7aae350122195f6/thumbnail_792000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322145/Battle-Ground-City/Clark-County/Washington/Interstate-Bridge-Replacement-officials-brief-Battle-Ground-council-on-light-rail-plan-funding-and-timelines","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322145-0cabe10360768dfb5e62ef21698b244d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776067082&Signature=Qo-EWb~igwTP38tJBrsw9x3~mTA4Gn~EiA8-Xd5xjowUS7LpKIiYzJD98kmgtBzhFGikKehb6HtPvo~2ObrkVxiq5Uy4jepPdXSn0AL3eT06WlO8iRhgqzE9YDkC~rBfhBSWiwhdtkgwPRdEfFH6h~raTKHILl5FHhQ3-kKUogmbWCgQ9I3gJ0c6SMXkO-I323~x4M2Fy4eRoXJ2IotB~9WH-DVYgBvubQEPZgQbSP4VmhmxgEH1Uo3xX9x5Ja~8s6ytT-C0Nm8BoxffRYfUGGO-HmqFm7U3THX6KuaorvSe3dY~lgxuXHSK8GaDxvr~ITufqDmCpD3AY1hCwXATww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Battle Ground City, WA","date","2025-02-19T17:01:27Z","article","Interstate Bridge Replacement Program officials on Feb. 18 told the Battle Ground City Council that the program’s modified locally preferred alternative (MLPA) studies a five-mile corridor across the Columbia River that would replace the 108-year-old I‑5 bridge, add auxiliary lanes and extend light rail from the Expo Center in Portland to Evergreen Street in Vancouver.

“This project is too important to lay dormant,” Interstate Bridge Replacement Program Administrator Greg Johnson told the council, describing the program’s revival in 2019 after the earlier Columbia River Crossing effort stalled. He said the project is currently in a supplemental environmental impact statement phase and that staff received close to 9,800 public comments during the draft comment period.

Why it matters: program leaders said the corridor carries a high proportion of freight (about 11% of daily traffic) and $132 million worth of goods across the bridge each day, and they presented funding progress, schedule risks and trade-offs that would follow any major change to the studied alternative.

Environmental and design status
Program staff said the project builds on work done during the Columbia River Crossing and that the current NEPA process is a supplement to an earlier record of decision. The MLPA under study includes a 5-mile corridor, seven interchanges, and a modern river crossing. Transit investments would include an approximately 1.9-mile light-rail extension with three new stations (Hayden Island plus two stops in Vancouver), integrated bus rapid transit (BRT) connections and express bus lanes using shoulder improvements.

Funding, grants and schedule
Frank Green, assistant program administrator, outlined funding the program is seeking and assembling. He said the two states have each identified approximately $1 billion in legislative support in recent sessions, and the program has authority for tolling that staff described as roughly $1.25 billion. Program staff said the region has secured and executed multiple federal awards: a USDOT “mega” grant they identified as $600 million and a Bridge Investment Grant they stated as $1.5 billion; the program is also pursuing the Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant (CIG), a multi-stage process for which the project is in early stages and could receive final CIG funding around 2028 if it advances through engineering.

Program cost estimates and risk
Officials presented a 2023 cost range of $5 billion to $7.5 billion and said the program has targeted roughly $6 billion in funding needs. Separately, staff said roughly $5.5 billion in commitments exist at this stage. They warned that if partner communities change the MLPA — for example, replacing planned light rail with BRT or removing a transit component — the environmental work would have to reopen, setting back the schedule by an estimated 1½ to 2½ years and adding an estimated $300 million in inflation/escalation costs; that delay also could push the in‑water construction window beyond the program’s objectives for a 2027 start of key bridge work.

Operations and maintenance questions
Green said the FTA CIG process requires a transit operations-and‑maintenance (O&M) plan and that O&M costs remain an open question for the region. He described preliminary service assumptions of trains running every six or seven minutes and said the O&M plan must account for vehicle operations, bridge inspection and maintenance, station operations and security and any park-and-ride or parking operations. Program staff and regional partners have not yet finalized how O&M will be funded.

C TRAN board language and local partner concerns
Councillors asked about the role of C TRAN (Clark County’s transit agency) and whether the agency would take responsibility for light-rail O&M. Scott Patterson, deputy chief executive officer at C TRAN, said the C TRAN board removed restrictive language in November 2024 that would have categorically prevented C TRAN from paying light-rail O&M costs; since then, the board considered more permissive language but may revisit a more restrictive position at a March meeting. Patterson said if the board reverts to restrictive language, it would limit one of the region’s options for funding O&M even though other partners might contribute. He and other program staff said those policy choices affect the program’s ability to secure some federal grants that consider local funding commitments for O&M.

Ridership, mode choice and trade-offs
Program staff described the MLPA decision to use light rail across the bridge — rather than a bus-only solution — as a regional compromise that links the two sides’ high‑capacity networks and leverages capacity advantages of rail. They cited regional modeling that produced a preliminary combined ridership forecast of about 30,000 daily trips between light rail and express bus in future-year projections. Staff said BRT is an effective mode in many corridors but raised constraints: light rail can carry more passengers per hour and operates on a separated guideway; achieving equivalent separated BRT facilities would require additional guideway that may not attract the same federal capital funding. Staff also described potential express bus improvements that would use bus-on‑shoulder operations through the upgraded corridor.

Traffic, safety and travel-time effects
Program presenters said design changes — including auxiliary lanes and consistent 12‑foot lanes with wider shoulders — would improve safety and throughput. Staff estimated congestion hours across the corridor could fall from roughly 10.5 hours per day today to between 2½ and 3½ hours per day after the improvements. They offered a northbound travel-time example in which peak travel time through the corridor could drop from about 40 minutes to approximately 25–26 minutes, a roughly 40% reduction in the modeled scenario.

Public comment and local council concerns
During public comment and the council Q&A, some residents and councilors pushed back on light rail and raised cost and voter‑preference concerns. A public commenter, Margaret Tweed of Camas, told the council she opposed light rail on the bridge and cited earlier 2012 countywide votes she said rejected rail. Several council members asked for underlying survey questions and ridership assumptions and stressed the need for clearer O&M funding commitments before the council takes a formal position.

What’s next
Program staff said they will return with more refined numbers and invited further questions; they noted the MLPA and funding decisions are regional and require partner consensus. Key near-term milestones identified by presenters include the program’s final environmental work, continued grant development (including the FTA CIG multi-stage process), and pending local partner policy decisions such as the March C TRAN board meeting on O&M language.

Discussion items recorded during the study session are presented as discussion and requests for further information; no legislative action on the IBR program was taken by the Battle Ground City Council on Feb. 18.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02-18-2025 Battle Ground City Council Study Session & Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Interstate Bridge Replacement Program leaders told the Battle Ground City Council on Feb. 18 that the modified locally preferred alternative under study would replace the 108‑year‑old I‑5 bridge, modernize ramps and extend light rail from Portland’s Expo Center into Vancouver while the program continues federal environmental review and pursues major grants.","taxTitle","Battle Ground City, Clark County, Washington","taxId",53947,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322141,"Battle Ground council renames community center, reviews 2025 street preservation and narrows speed‑limit change",225,5793000,6018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2348231-59d91044327a8d66d7aae350122195f6&start=5793&end=6018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2348231-59d91044327a8d66d7aae350122195f6/thumbnail_5793000.jpg","/articles/6322141/Battle-Ground-City/Clark-County/Washington/Battle-Ground-council-renames-community-center-reviews-2025-street-preservation-and-narrows-speedlimit-change","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322141-38e2db889bf618060f92a63933f0d5bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1776067082&Signature=YYySZ98Qe9zYPisPANW~4dhRNU~VsLVf1PlpipQgrzAkSXxbbZF0-SrS4tfTOMcElKnnsa-3IiMigWQyAqW2Ln9yWFV-RQwo-Q-sX~ZtwdIDeueKZ-TofwKFTdtobfnILSLGpTxhtEtUQRDQ9gMnwlI7g6SAbQKcdEMzzslAbwyrqbr~ZmiFfnlgd2QPr7i6SapZfjDYT89N9pTmC-es5Q5lZ58FmtJEo7Z-odOr-xbV0xUSFtiib2NHOKcxA9P~yInBXMZw81gWMhZVd7z3kLOOil8EBpSL~UEWrty~Orip8rjlkKB6EN~gTJY05WdOu-1wkmL2yMjhgm6XI9U5Bg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Battle Ground’s City Council on Feb. 18 adopted a resolution renaming the Battleground Community Center as the Battle Ground Event Center, and heard staff presentations on the city’s 2025 street preservation program and proposed changes to city speed limits.

Council action
The council voted 6–0 to adopt Resolution No. 25‑01 renaming the facility after the Parks, Arts, Culture and Events (PACE) board recommended the change; the council recorded the motion, a second, and unanimous approval following a brief presentation from staff. The resolution passed with Deputy Mayor Bowman excused from the meeting.

“Although the community center is in high demand, often hosting multiple events on a daily basis, it is something of a misrepresentation to call it a community center,” the city’s deputy city manager told the council while summarizing PACE’s recommendation and the municipal code process (Municipal Code Chapter 8.18.100) for renaming city facilities. Supporters noted the change aligns the facility name with its current operation and senior programming updates.

Street preservation: 2025 program and budget
Public Works Director Mark Hercic presented the city’s pavement condition and the 2025 street-preservation plan. Citywide pavement condition index (PCI) is 72 on a 0–100 scale; the city maintains roughly 90 centerline miles of streets (about 7 miles of arterials, 17 miles of collectors and 63 miles of local streets). Hercic said unconstrained funding of about $4.5 million per year for five years would raise the network average to the low‑80s and eliminate deferred maintenance, while the city’s then‑current funding level of roughly $1.2 million per year would leave deferred maintenance rising to an estimated $16 million over five years.

For 2025 the proposed program focuses on the southwest portion of the city (neighborhoods south of Main Street around Winchester Ranch and Robinwood). The work package would include slurry- and cape-seal treatments across several subdivisions and replacement of roughly 50 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) corner ramps. Hercic said the 2025 package and remaining 2024 work and associated striping/marking contracts total an estimated $2.122 million.

Hercic described the city’s preservation strategy: “maintain the good roads first” to prevent higher future reconstruction costs, an approach the city uses to maximize PCI per dollar. He also told council that some 2024 work did not complete on schedule because a contractor started late and the city is resolving contract issues.

Speed limits: council directs staff toward study‑based option
Staff presented three options for revising local speed limits, noting state law sets 20 and 25 mph statutory limits and other limits require engineering studies. Option 1 would set most arterial and collector streets at 35 mph (with some corridors at 40 mph), based on speed-study results; Options 2a and 2b proposed a citywide statutory baseline with more 20–25 mph neighborhood streets and higher signage costs.

Council discussion favored Option 1 — a study‑based system that places most major streets at 35 mph — and several council members asked staff to wait for WSDOT’s input on state highway speeds (502/503/Main Street) before making final changes. Staff estimated sign procurement and installation costs would vary by option (Option 1 roughly $3,500–$4,500 for about 23 signs; Option 2a and 2b higher due to more signs). The council asked staff to return with final materials and recommended implementation language, and to bring the item back for formal adoption in March after WSDOT discussion.

Other notes
The council approved routine agenda items and a consent agenda in the meeting’s early business. Council members also heard reports from regional boards: C TRAN’s pending March discussion on language about transit O&M, RTC safety briefings, and an update on EMS procurement discussions at the county level.

What happens next
Staff will proceed with procurement planning for the 2025 street preservation contracts (slurry/cape‑seal, crack sealing and markings), develop final cost estimates for speed-limit signage based on the council’s direction, and return with ordinance/resolution language to codify speed-limit changes after coordination with WSDOT on state highways. The newly named Battle Ground Event Center will be reflected in city materials and facility signage per the adopted resolution.","The Battle Ground City Council on Feb. 18 adopted Resolution 25‑01 renaming the Battleground Community Center as the Battle Ground Event Center and reviewed the city’s 2025 street preservation program and proposed citywide speed-limit changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Interstate Bridge Replacement officials brief Battle Ground council on light-rail plan, funding and timelines

Battle Ground council renames community center, reviews 2025 street preservation and narrows speed‑limit change