Small cities are likely to have less representation on the C-TRAN Board of Directors in the near future, but C-TRAN remains committed to serving all of its jurisdictions
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
As reported earlier this month, it is likely that the C-TRAN Board of Directors will soon have a major change in its representation, with the smaller cities losing one or two seats.
C-TRAN wants to make it clear, though, that C-TRAN expects to maintain its current service levels throughout Clark County, and it is also open to expanding and improving service.
The C-TRAN Board Composition Review Committee has recommended that the state accept its proposal for 3-3-3 format, which would keep the city of Vancouver with three seats, add a third seat to Clark County, and take away a seat from the small cities, leaving them with three. The current format is 3-2-4, with small cities having four seats.
The change was deemed necessary after the Washington State Department of Transportation informed the C-TRAN board that it was out of compliance with state law in regard to representation based on population. In fact, some members of the review committee are not confident that the state will accept this 3-3-3 proposal, and that it is very possible the C-TRAN board will move to a 4-3-2 format, with Vancouver getting four seats and the smaller cities sharing two seats.
C-TRAN’s communications office reached out to Clark County Today this week, hoping to get the message out that regardless of the makeup of the new board, C-TRAN is committed to serving all communities in the county.
“In fact, C-TRAN has significantly expanded service levels in the smaller jurisdictions in recent years,” according to a release from C-TRAN.
That includes:
- The Current, which launched in 2022, provides on-demand transit service in the entire city limits of Camas, Washougal, La Center, and Ridgefield. The Camas/Washougal service zone is the busiest of all service zones on The Current.
- The Current will expand to Battle Ground next month.
- Fixed-route bus service was added to Ridgefield in 2022 and La Center in 2025 via Route 48. That route also provides service to ilani Casino.
- C-TRAN has invested additional trips or higher frequency on several existing routes serving small jurisdictions, including Route 7 (Battle Ground), Route 47 (Battle Ground/Yacolt), Route 92 (Camas/Washougal), and Route 48 (Ridgefield/La Center).
The C-TRAN 2045 long-range plan includes future route concepts throughout the county, as well.
“C-TRAN is currently conducting outreach across all jurisdictions to gather feedback on the plan and the collective vision for the future of public transportation in Clark County,” the release said.
“C-TRAN strives to provide service based on the unique needs of each part of our service area, and we constantly work with our board and community partners to make improvements where possible. That’s an ongoing process as our community grows and evolves.”
In the past couple of weeks, Camas city leaders have started asking if the city should continue its partnership with C-TRAN. That discussion was sparked by the possibility that C-TRAN (and its taxpayers) will be paying for annual operating and maintenance costs for Oregon’s light rail expansion into Vancouver.
City leaders noted that Camas pays $5 million into C-TRAN while receiving roughly $2 million worth of service. The costs for Camas would increase, leaders noted, if C-TRAN is involved with TriMet and light rail.
City leaders got those numbers from C-TRAN itself. C-TRAN also provided those numbers to Clark County Today.
The chart below estimates the 2024 sales tax collection, population, and operating expenses in each of the jurisdictions served by C-TRAN. The information was compiled as part of the board composition review process now underway.
| Jurisdiction | 2024 Sales Tax Collected | 2024 Service Area Population Estimates | 2024 Fixed Route and C-VAN Operating Expenses | |||
| City of Vancouver | $49,361,531 | 58% | 202,600 | 44% | $53,592,023 | 70% |
| Clark County UGA | $18,862,380 | 22% | 164,598 | 36% | $15,824,079 | 21% |
| Camas | $5,045,549 | 6% | 27,660 | 6% | $1,990,782 | 3% |
| Battle Ground | $4,651,651 | 5% | 22,470 | 5% | $2,504,543 | 3% |
| Ridgefield | $3,811,407 | 4% | 15,790 | 3% | $315,002 | 0% |
| Washougal | $2,835,296 | 3% | 18,150 | 4% | $1,891,038 | 2% |
| La Center | $616,678 | 1% | 4,045 | 1% | $69,120 | 0% |
| Yacolt | $213,926 | 0% | 1,670 | 0% | $11,954 | 0% |
| Totals | $85,398,419 | 100% | 456,983 | 100% | $76,198,541 | 100% |
Also read:
- Rep. John Ley’s new bill calls for an independent audit of Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project
Rep. John Ley introduced legislation requiring an independent audit of the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project to review costs, management, and oversight. - Opinion: IBR’s evasive, misleading and dishonest excuses for higher cost
Joe Cortright argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has withheld detailed cost estimates while offering contradictory explanations for rising costs tied to the I-5 Bridge project. - Rep. David Stuebe sponsors bill to strengthen enforcement of auto insurance laws and protect Washington drivers
Rep. David Stuebe has introduced HB 2308, a bill aimed at strengthening enforcement of Washington’s auto insurance laws and increasing accountability for repeat uninsured drivers. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement’s Park & Ride insanity
Bob Ortblad criticizes the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s proposed Park & Ride garages, arguing the costs are excessive and unlikely to receive federal funding. - Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement $13.6 billion estimate is too low!
Bob Ortblad argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $13.6 billion cost estimate understates the true expense, citing comparable projects, construction challenges, and engineering assumptions.
It appears the city of Vancouver operates at a loss. Should be shut down. Camas should bail out as they are subsidizing other municipalities. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see this is a scam.
Of course C-tran will say they’ll take care of Camas, no matter what.
But if you believe that, then you need to be reminded of two old sayings:
1) If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale
2) You butter my bread and I’ll butter yours
C-tran might continue to provide services to Camas without their tax support, but wait until the first problem comes along… like a budget shortfall. Who do you think will get dropped first… those cities who pay millions to C-tran in taxes, or those cities who pay nothing to C-tran?
C-tran really, really, needs to go on a diet. They’ve simply become a “cadillac” service when a “plain chevrolet” service would work just as well.
OK so C-Tran is committed to all jurisdictions. If I were managing C-Tran I would look at the ridership to each jurisdictions. I would then sell of the huge empty buses (five or less on board consistently), purchases the smaller, more economical busses and provide some individual services and redo major routes. C-Tran is a money loosing agency right now.
To see these articulated buses during peak hours carrying 8 to 10 riders! Cost effective?
Since C-Tran means Clark transportation why are we running around in Multnomah county? The taxpayers are Washington State should never have to cover any of the fair for C-Tran operating outside of Clark county. If people want to ride the bus and they want to take C-Tran into Multnomah county they should have to pay the total complete cost in fares
CTran’s income his hidden n sales tax. Remove their sales tax participation and change to a property tax basis (like the Library) where they need to ask for a rate/amount for a defined period of time. This would open the books so people who pay the bills can see what they are really paying.