Findings of the Transportation Futures Committee
Recommendations on the TFC Findings From Management Team
The Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 was passed in response to concerns statewide about rapid growth and the impacts on traffic congestion, air quality, housing costs, and quality of life. The GMA set up a framework for a long range comprehensive planning process that addressed growth related issues. The transportation element of the GMA Plan for Clark County calls for establishing a regional transportation system that is balanced across all modes of travel and recognizes the link between transportation and land use in order to provide mobility for the movement of goods and people. The Plan identifies three major activity centers, downtown Vancouver, Salmon Creek/Washington State University and Vancouver Mall. A key element of the Plan is the identification of the need to develop high capacity transit (HCT) in the travel corridors connecting the activity centers.
Previous transportation system analysis concluded that all HCT modes, including light rail transit (LRT), should be evaluated further in the I-5 corridor and that only HCT bus options should be evaluated further in the I-205 corridor. Analysis of the two bi-state corridors resulted in the selection of the I-5 corridor as the first priority for HCT in Clark County. Subsequent studies resulted in the selection of LRT as the preferred mode and I-5 as the preferred alignment in Clark County with a terminus in the vicinity of 88th Street. A local financing proposal was developed to provide local funding for an LRT project from Clark County to Clackamas County, Oregon.
In February 1995, Clark County voters defeated the financing proposal for the Clark County portion of the South/North LRT project. The defeat of the LRT vote led to an extensive discussion of the next steps for addressing bi-state transportation needs. Policy makers agreed that it was imperative to engage the community in a full debate on a wide range of transportation issues and needs facing Clark County. Hence, shortly after the vote, local elected officials recommended that a citizens-based discussion of future transportation issues be implemented.
As a first step in the process, the Board of Clark County Commissioners and the Vancouver City Council appointed a group of citizens to serve on a Focus Group to recommend a citizen-based approach to discuss our community’s future transportation needs. The results of the two Focus Group meetings in May 1995 became the foundation for the issues subsequently examined by the Transportation Futures Committee.
The Vancouver City Council and Clark County Commissioners appointed 30 people to serve as members of the Transportation Futures Committee (TFC). Committee members were asked to represent themselves and were not asked to speak for specific interest groups, organizations or neighborhoods. They were individual citizens who reflected the diversity of the community in regard to transportation issues in Clark County. Two members subsequently resigned for medical and work reasons.
The figure below displays the TFC structure.
The Management Team, composed of representatives from the participating jurisdictions, provided direct support to the Committee. The facilitator’s role was to promote a positive environment for Committee relationships and discussion. Participation and comment by the community was an important element in the Committee’s deliberations and meetings and in addition to the community outreach activities, included public comment time at the meetings.
There were four distinct phases of the process which are illustrated in the following figure.
The development of the TFC findings began with a process similar to that followed during the development of the transportation vision and identification of problems and is illustrated below.
These findings are based on the Committee’s evaluation of transportation options related to the transportation vision, which states:
To promote regional mobility of people and goods, Clark County will have a comprehensive transportation system accountable to the public that:
And is:
The following findings represent a consensus by the TFC of how best to attain their vision and solve or address the transportation issues of the community. They are based on TFC’s assessment of transportation options relative to their vision and evaluation criteria. The findings are also based on the TFC’s review of information presented during the study process.
The Transportation Futures Committee finds that current and past land use and transportation planning and funding have encouraged use of the auto to the detriment of alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel. The Committee recommends adjusting this imbalance by supporting a balanced approach to improvements, including public mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and roads.
The Committee finds that land use decisions should not only be supported by transportation planning, but should encourage more responsible neighborhood development that supports multiple transportation alternatives. Techniques to achieve this goal include:
The Committee finds that local government should include capacity for public mass transit and other alternative modes in overall road capacity when meeting concurrency requirements.
To reduce commuting trips, the Committee supports incentives for citizens and the private sector and requirements for government to encourage the following:
The Committee endorses sufficient funding for maintenance and necessary expansion of our existing road system.
The Committee strongly encourages consistent regular coordination between public and private entities engaged in transportation planning and construction.
The Committee favors a multimodal approach (i.e., roads, bicycle, pedestrian and public mass transit facilities) to address current and future transportation problems.
The Committee finds that a grid system improves links between neighborhoods, helps decentralize traffic throughout the road system, improves access for emergency vehicles, and fosters use of alternative means of travel (such as public mass transit, bicycling and walking).
The Committee finds that the following facilities and techniques will help attain the vision. (Not in order of priority.)
The Committee encourages local government to develop and implement a rating system for the quality and safety of non-vehicular transportation facilities.
The Committee finds that public mass transit is an integral component of a multimodal transportation system that provides alternatives to driving alone.
The Committee finds that current transit service should be more flexible and efficient. Some commercial or residential areas developed at urban densities are not adequately served. In other cases, existing service to more rural areas is not cost-effective and may not be desired by area residents. Consideration should be given to decreasing service in such areas to increase coverage and frequency in urban areas.
The Committee finds that public mass transit service provides a social service function by enhancing mobility for those who are unable to use a private automobile or other means of transport. The community should continue to be committed to providing public transit service to ensure mobility for all.
The Committee finds that paratransit service should be made available for the entire area within the Clark County/transit service boundary to improve mobility for all qualified citizens in the community.
The Committee recommends the following:
The Committee also supports continued investigation of:
The Committee supports a balanced approach to bi-state transportation issues, focusing on:
The Committee finds that a third auto bridge and highway corridor is not an acceptable solution to bi-state congestion.
The Committee finds that reducing automobile congestion and demand will free up capacity for freight highway needs. In addition, the Committee supports the practice of "piggybacking" (transporting truck containers by rail) as well as improved rail/truck/port connections (also referred to as multi-modal freight facilities).
The Committee urges local, state, and federal officials to actively represent the needs of Clark Commuters to Oregon.
The Committee finds that the following transportation financing principles will best attain the Committee’s vision:
The Committee supports the following financing options, in order of preference:
Following the completion and release of the TFC’s findings, an extensive public outreach process was initiated to get public comment on the findings. The Management Team reviewed the public’s comments and has developed the following recommendations based on the Committee’s findings and the results of the public review activities.
The recommendations resulting from the TFC findings have been separated into three distinct categories: 1) existing policies, (recommendations that can be categorized as already occurring within existing policies); 2) new policies or actions, (recommendations that require additions or changes to existing transportation policy; and 3) new activities, (recommendations that require more comprehensive study to determine feasibility before consideration for inclusion in transportation plans or policies). The categories of recommendations are arranged in the same transportation categories as the TFC findings.
Consider incorporating the following transportation financing principles into existing plans and policies:
A number of new activities and/or studies have been identified within the TFC’s findings. The purpose of the studies would be to provide a more comprehensive examination of the proposed transportation strategies or concepts.
HOV System/Facility Study The TFC identified high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes as the second priority for improving the I-5 corridor and as a strategy to address mobility for the internal Clark County transportation system. To date, the Clark County region does not have policies or programs to develop HOV facilities. The goal of a high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) program would be to improve overall mobility in the most congested parts of our region by increasing the people-moving efficiency and capacity of freeways and arterials. Integration of an HOV program with land use goals, transit operations and high capacity transit facilities could also provide incentives for people to choose higher occupancy modes of travel. A region-wide system plan for Clark County would define HOV policies/objectives, identify the need and benefits of HOV facilities and the location of possible corridors and/or facilities.
Commuter Rail Study The Committee identified commuter rail as a bi-state transportation option that should be studied to make more effective use of existing facilities. A detailed study of this concept is required to better understand issues including feasibility, cost, and demand.
Development of Mobility Quotient The Committee found that a method is needed to determine the quality, safety, completeness of non-vehicular transportation facilities that can support alternative modes such as walking and bicycling. Local jurisdictions should work cooperatively to develop and establish a mobility quotient to assess the constraints and opportunities of the transportation infrastructure for non-vehicular travel. The mobility quotient could, for example, identify areas of the transportation system where bicycle access is poor due to lack of roadway shoulders or disconnected bikeways.
Grid Street System Analysis The Committee supported a street grid system to improve linkages between neighborhoods, decentralize traffic throughout the road system, and promote the use of alternative modes of travel. Local jurisdictions are asked to work cooperatively to review ordinances for new development, especially residential development, and modify them to limit non-through streets, circuitous streets, and cul-de-sacs. Existing developments also should be assessed to identify locations where connections between residential areas and to activity centers for non-vehicular trips can be improved.
Public Transit (C-TRAN) Service for Public School Students The Committee supported further study of a concept to bus upper-grade level school children on C-TRAN. C-TRAN, in coordination with local schools and other agencies, should investigate the cost-effectiveness, efficiency, safety, and security of serving middle and high school students.
I-5 Capacity Study The Committee recommended that I-5 remain as the priority corridor for bi-state transportation improvements and calls for making more effective use of existing facilities with the focus on lower capital improvements before higher cost options are considered. Results of the survey also indicated that HOV improvements and I-5 widening be given consideration in the corridor A detailed analysis of I-5 capacity, including a reconnaissance of the effectiveness of a wide range of transportation modes should be undertaken to provide more balanced capacity and improved travel flows along I-5. Scope of analysis should include the full bi-state I-5 corridor from Clark County to downtown Portland.
South/North Corridor Project Involvement Light rail transit in the I-5 corridor was identified as a viable option by the Committee based on technical findings that the Clark County segment of the South/North Corridor has significant bi-state mobility benefits. It is recommended that a strategy be undertaken which focuses on lower cost options for the corridor in the near term and leaves light rail as an option for a future community decision. Accordingly, it is recommended that the South/North Final Environment Impact Statement reflect a phased bi-state strategy which includes near term bus and park-and-ride improvements in Clark County in place of the Clark County light rail terminus option. Additional new study activities previously mentioned in this report will be coordinated with the phased bi-state strategy and will include the bi-state mobility impacts of high occupancy vehicle improvements, commuter rail, and I-5 corridor travel flow improvement options. The Clark County region should continue participation in the South/North Corridor Study to ensure a coordinated strategy for resolving bi-state mobility problems.
Third Highway Corridor and Bridge Issues The Committee found that a third highway corridor and bridge was not an acceptable solution to address bi-state congestion, however, results from the public survey of the Committee’s findings, described in the previous section, indicate a difference of opinion on this issue. In order to further community discussion, a public discussion of a third highway corridor concept is recommended. In addition to the travel and cost impacts developed for the TFC, this discussion should address the following issues: air quality, land use, historical and cultural resources, and community goals and livability.
Transportation Financing The Committee recognized that transportation funding must be adequate to maintain the existing system and expand it where needed. A wide range of financing options that should be considered if additional funding is needed. Additional study should be conducted to determine the level of funding and the type of funding strategies and options that should be pursued to maintain the viability and growth of the transportation system.
Continuation of a Citizen Transportation Committee (CTC) A broadly-based representative countywide Citizen Transportation Committee could provide the mechanism to better community understanding and consensus for major transportation initiatives. The CTC’s responsibility would be to work together to recommend policies and solutions to our community’s transportation problems, with their authority agreed to among the RTC Board and all individual member agencies. The Committee could include some members from the previous Transportation Futures Committee but also include additional members to gain new perspectives. Overall, the goal would be to establish an ongoing advisory citizen transportation input process to complement the current decision process both at the regional and local levels. An ongoing Citizen Transportation Committee could be very useful in helping to implement TFC findings that require new initiatives (e.g. commuter rail, HOV lanes, public transit for school bussed children and others). The CTC could help identify transportation project priorities, in the discussion of new transportation funding sources, and other significant transportation issues.
This report was prepared by:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
[ Home | What's New | Agency | Duties | Services | Studies | Resources | Links] |
|||||||||||||||
Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
|
|||||||||||||||
