The proposed light rail extension into Vancouver has sparked a heated debate, with questions arising about Washington taxpayers’ responsibility for funding 45% of the annual operating and maintenance costs.
Some argue this cost-sharing is a fair contribution to an infrastructure project that promises regional benefits. Others contend that it places an undue financial burden on Washington residents for a project driven largely by Oregon’s transit needs.
We want to hear from you!
More info here:
Opinion: TriMet should receive the Golden Fleece Award
John Ley critiques TriMet's funding demands for the IBR, calling it a taxpayer fleecing.
Read more
Make your voice heard and join the conversation! Voting is quick and easy—let us know what you think.
Stay informed about this and other pressing issues at ClarkCountyToday.com.
Also read:
- VIDEO: Rep. John Ley – I-5 Bridge replacement project is a ‘light rail project in search of a bridge’
Rep. John Ley criticizes IBR design that allocates 54% of bridge surface to transit while costs balloon to $14.4 billion. - Letter: IBR/Light rail and chronic homelessness
Vancouver resident Bob Zak criticizes city council’s light rail endorsement and calls for tougher homeless policies. - Opinion: Crashes, crime, and confusion – Who’s responsible in parking lots?
Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl explains why police rarely patrol grocery store parking lots and what drivers can do. - POLL: Should Clark County’s 2022 anti-light rail resolution still guide council decisions today?
Wednesday’s council meeting reignited debate over the county’s 2022 resolution requiring voter approval for light rail projects. - Letter: Update – Extremely low bus ridership does not justify expensive TriMet light rail
Camas resident challenges IBR’s $3.5 billion light rail plan with C-TRAN ridership data showing transit use has halved since 2006.
wpDiscuz
