 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, April 24, 2003, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Room 370 A and B, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:33 a.m. at Metro, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager
Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region 1 Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Executive DirectorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Francine Floyd, Metro
Mark Turpel, MetroInterested Guests Edward Barnes, WSDOT
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Kate Deane, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Fred Eberle, ODOT
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Patrick Greene, C-Tran
Marty Harris, Portland Development Commission (PDC)
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Robin McArthur, ODOT
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Philip A. Parker, Visitor
Thomas Picco, ODOT
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, Tri-MetCraig Pridemore asked for approval of the February 27, 2003 Meeting Report. The Meeting Report was approved as written.
Marty Harris, Economic Development Director at the Portland Development Commission, on behalf of the Regional Economic Development Partners gave a review of the Regional Economic Policy Task Force charge and approach. She talked about the Regional Partners’ work, undertaken with the assistance of the Metropolitan Institute at Portland State who helped form the Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force. The Regional Partners are listed on the back of the green brochure (“Regional Economic Development Partners”) handed out and included in the meeting record. The list included a number of governmental groups within the region (including Clark County and the City of Vancouver), several private sector supporters, and two organizations representing large organizations of businesses (the Westside Economic Alliance and the Portland Business Alliance). In addition, the group includes the Portland Ambassadors, an organization actively involved in assisting with the recruitment and retention of businesses in the region, and major utilities. The Partners’ members are employees who work full-time on economic development issues on behalf of their employers.
The Regional Partners began over a decade ago. The group formed with the idea that to effectively recruit businesses to the area, they needed to 1) work as a region, recognizing the regional strengths, and 2) recognize that no one community was strong enough to attract all of the different business elements that were needed to have a strong economy. The Partners are trying to get the region focused on how economic development is influenced by the decisions of many very important players who impact the region’s ability to attract and retain businesses. As industry grows, the natural environment, including education and workforce training, are important parts of the infrastructure that attracts and retains a strong employee base. The Partners have been trying to get people to recognize the interplay of all these factors, for a healthy environment where businesses are eager to come, stay and grow.
Last spring, the Partners put together a proposal asking the Metropolitan Institute to form a task force to evaluate the recent economic development strategies that have occurred on a subregional basis throughout the region. A memo dated November 1, 2002 addressed to The Metropolitan Economic Policy Task Force from Ethan Seltzer/Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies regarding Task Force Charge was handed out and is part of the meeting record.
The Task Force work was meant to recognize recent studies done by several local governments. For example, Portland completed a study last fall, and the City of Vancouver, in Clark County, has also done a study. The Partners wanted to see: 1) where the overlaps were so that we could start building on a common vision, 2) where there were points of contention. The Task Force has almost completed that analysis. The Task Force, along with the Regional Partners, has suggested that the beginnings of a regional strategy go forward. Over the next several weeks, the Partners will draft a vision for what an economic development strategy could be. This vision will address issues that you are engaged in dealing with, as well as our educational institutions, the public schools, and workforce training.
The Partners see their role as two-fold: 1) to help define what the vision should be, and 2) to work with the business to understand what our business’ strengths are and what those strengths need in order to continue to be strong. The Partners’ goal is to stay on top of the types of industry clusters that exist in the region, as well as those that seem to be emerging, based on the strengths already here and trends in the national and international economy, and to inform the community of the needs for those clusters. What are the land needs? What are the freight-related needs for those industries? What are the workforce needs of those industries? Then we can make informed decisions about how to forward work plans in response to what the business needs of the future are and what will drive a healthy economy for the region. The Partners will continue to work with individual businesses to keep them here and recruit new businesses.
Fred Hansen commented that although the vision was still coming together, there is a wide range of activist roles that government entities can play. Mr. Hansen asked Marty Harris to explain where the Partners were on that continuum.
Marty Harris explained that the Partners are fairly close. She referred to the Portland strategies report which she helped to author. The report includes a range of factors that have to come together. Whether you are talking about the City or the Region, the factors are the same. There is unanimous agreement among the Partners on what those factors are. The Oregon Business Plan refers to the same factors on a statewide basis. If those are the factors and this is part of the vision, the challenge is where do we begin and what are the specific factors that need to be addressed (given that we have limited resources and limited opportunities)? This is where the individual experts need to begin identifying the process more specifically. For example, there would be strong interest from the Partners on issues to protect the land near major transportation intersections for job creation and freight mobility. Marty Harris said she wasn’t implying that the Partners were going to come up with a recipe for telling you what your jobs are. At this point, the Partners’ goal is to help frame the context to help you and other types of institutions better understand the impact from the choices you make on the ability of businesses to grow.
Rex Burkholder said that Marty Harris had raised a critical issue for the Bi-State Committee—specifically, protecting intersections. A private sector business’ perspective on this issue could help governments. Washington and Oregon have different text on the issue. Even within the region (Oregon), there is groundwork for intense competition. This was evident during the urban growth boundary expansion discussion—especially for communities in real fiscal straits, who were competing with their neighbors to get the increased tax base. Due to our existing structure, Oregon doesn’t have revenue sharing, nor does Washington. Mr. Burkholder asked, are the Regional Partners going to identify the institutional setups that currently stand in the way?
Marty Harris answered, absolutely.
Rex Burkholder suggested that the Partners provide some regional comment on land use around intersections.
Marty Harris said the vision would be a regional task. The Partners can state what they think would help address these problems. The single greatest barrier right now to cohesive regional development is the issue that Rex Burkholder raised—where the tax revenues come in—we all want the tax revenues within our jurisdictions. It’s hard to take the long view and realize that if a business locates in Gresham or Hillsboro, instead of the City of Portland, it still is good for the City of Portland. The notion of regional tax is something that people need to start talking about openly because that is how we will begin to address that issue. A much simpler notion that would help the region is “smart permitting.” “Smart permitting” is where all of the different permits required by the local jurisdictions would become the same. A business locating in more than one place within the region, would no longer have to try figuring out all the different permits required—just because they cross a street into a different jurisdiction. There are some communities that have done that. The tax base is a real issue during recession times. One of the strengths of the Partners is that they really do work together. PDC leads the recruitment piece for the Partners simply because they have deeper staff to be able to help in some of the smaller communities.
Rex Burkholder commented on revenue sharing and regionalization. Mr. Burkholder said there’s a lot of work to be done. He added that it is great to have the leadership, education and assistance from the Partners on these issues.
Marty Harris said that the Partners aren’t trying to do the Committee’s job, but rather to provide some useful information to help you do your job.
Andy Cotugno said that Marty’s last comment was important to think about. He asked, how does the Committee want to relate to this group? The Bi-State Transportation Committee is still in an infancy of converting from the transportation coordinating committee to a broader coordinating committee. This Committee needs to figure out how we want to interface with the Regional Partners’ functions.
Marty Harris said thank you for the invitation to speak to the Committee and that she was available for questions anytime.
Kate Deane, ODOT, distributed the Draft Purpose and Needs Statement for the I-5 Delta Park Project (see “Draft Purpose and Need: I-5: Delta Park to Lombard Project”). Page 1 is a summary on the project background and context. Ms. Deane referred to page 2, saying that they were doing the Environmental Assessment on this project. The Citizen Advisory Committee and the Environmental Justice Work Group helped put the report together. The first public open house was scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2003. Invitations to the Open House were distributed (blue handout). The status of the Purpose and Needs was that the advisory committees agreed to take this statement out to the community for review and comments. Ms. Deane said they are open for comments from the Bi-State Committee, as well as public comments. She anticipated that the Purpose and Needs Statement would be adopted in May or June. Kate Deane read the Project Purpose (page 2). The next section stated the Project Need (page 2). More narrative would be added later. Ms. Deane explained the draft goals and objectives of the project.
Ms. Deane said a subject of some discussion, at a staff level, and among some Bi-State Committee members, is the issue of how are we to study HOV. She stated that there is no longer any separation between the Delta Park Environmental Assessment (EA) and consideration of HOV. It will be considered within the EA.
Kate Deane said there would be more to report to the Bi-State Committee on alternatives, discussion on the screening process, and committee feedback on what should move forward. If we wait until the June 26 meeting, we will have gone through that process and another public meeting. We will really be at the point where we have the committee’s recommendations to us, and we could get the Bi-State Committee’s final approval. She said if the Bi-State Committee decides to hold a May 22 meeting, she could get input from the Committee at that time. She said if the Bi-State waits until June 26 to have the next meeting—there would be less time to consider Bi-State comments.
Chair Pridemore asked whether anyone wanted to schedule another meeting. Kate Deane offered that if anyone had particular interest in the process, she would make sure they were in the information loop. Kate Deane said she could send information on screening criteria, draft evaluation criteria, the draft alternatives, analysis of how the alternatives are screened, and what the recommendations are for moving things forward. This information would come out in the May/early June time period.
Fred Hansen asked Ms. Deane to explain the scope of the EA, in regards to some of the things done by the I-5 Partnership. He asked, would the EA be looking at the interchange or impacts on the Rose Quarter/I-84, I-405? Ultimately, what it does to pull from I-205? Kate Deane said the
I-205 impacts could certainly be looked at. Fred Hansen said that the public would demand it also. She added that the Rose Quarter was definitely on her “radar screen” because there was question that if we do the Rose Quarter Project (3 lanes plus the ramp improvements)—what are the freeway operations likely to look like? Ms. Deane said they do have that in their work plan.
Thomas Picco, ODOT, was the project manager on the Rail Capacity Study as part of the I-5 Partnership. Mr. Picco referred to the handout “I-5 Rail Capacity Study – February 2003.” He gave a presentation to the Bi-State Transportation Committee last year before the study was completed. The consultants were asked to do some additional work. Some simulation model runs were done to look at different scenarios and at existing conditions. The analysis confirmed that the heavy rail network in the Portland/Vancouver was very congested. The two main lines go to one single bridge crossing (the Burlington Northern Bridge) across the Columbia River. The Ports have their terminals in many places in this area. Industrial sites served by rail are also scattered about this area. There are many conflicting movements. A high number of switch engines and utility work engines are using the main line to do their business and to go back and forth across the river. If additional capacity isn’t developed, there will be difficulty growing a regional economy, with the two Ports unable to develop to their full potential. In addition, they wouldn’t be able to add additional intercity passenger trains in the Corridor.
Mr. Picco said that they asked the members of their steering committee (comprised of some Bi-State Committee members, members from both DOT rail committees, the Cities of Portland and Vancouver, Metro, RTC, representative from the Union Pacific Railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Amtrak) for improvement ideas. The steering committee identified ten “Incremental Improvements (listed in the“I-5 Rail Capacity Study,” on Table 3-1 and on the map “Rail Capacity Improvements Needed Next 5 to 10 Years”). Consultants also did some additional work on conceptual engineering drawings and better cost estimates. Mr. Picco said he gave the Bi-State Committee an earlier estimated cost on the total of these projects at about $132 million. Preliminary cost estimates were now up to $170 million. They compared the improvements against the existing conditions and found significant benefits. If these improvements were done and there was no growth, it would cut freight train delay by ½. Some of the “mini choke points” were identified within the network. A growth model was run, assuming a 3.25% growth per year. The railroads were very insistent on that growth rate. There are a number of different analyses that can be used to come up with a growth rate assumption. The 3.25% is generally good for planning purposes. They ran the model and found that these incremental improvements would probably give us 5 to 10 years of additional capacity, and the ability to add some intercity passenger trains, add additional freight train activity. The next question was what will get us 10 to 20 years? With regard to the next steps and the next types of improvement, they assumed there would be an order of magnitude improvement going into this final model run. They thought that the next major bottleneck would be the Burlington Northern Rail Bridge, a double track bridge. The good news was, the consultants determined that this would probably not be the major bottleneck, which is good because it would cost about $300M for such an undertaking. The consultants did identify what they considered to be the problem, which is in the last set of drawings in the handout (see the three maps “Portland-Vancouver Terminal Area”).
Thomas Picco read the Overall Conclusions from the “I-5 Rail Capacity Study.”
Kay Van Sickel asked, would the $169M give 5 to 10 years of life, and would $25M to $75M get another 10 years? Thomas Picco agreed. At that point, they might need to look at additional capacity across the river. I-5 Partnership Rail Capacity Study Recommendations state that the Bi-State Coordination Committee form private/public advisory rail form. That Committee would become a vehicle by which the incremental improvements could be discussed and moved forward. Issues of cost allocation could be discussed. As the new Bi-State Coordination Committee is formed, they could help move forward important freight rail issues within the region.
Rex Burkholder asked if the railroad companies were waiting for public entities to do something about the problems. Thomas Picco said that the railroads are looking over their entire system, nationwide. Of course they will put their money where they have the highest rate of return, which is not necessarily at this site here. In terms of serving the Puget Sound area, a lot of the rail traffic goes through the Portland/Vancouver area. There is recognition of the need by the railroads for some improvements to be made in this area and freight issues are rising on their “radar screen.” If we find a public benefit as it relates to intercity passenger rail, anytime we wish to introduce new service, we have to negotiate with the railroads over compensating for the capacity losses that might occur from running additional trains. The attitudes seem to be improving, in terms of willingness for the railroads and public to see if there are mutual benefits for participating in funding some of these improvements.
Patrick Greene (C-TRAN) asked, do you see a need to replace the current rail bridge across the Columbia River? Thomas Picco answered, yes and since that is an expensive undertaking, they wanted to defer that project for now. Patrick Greene referred to the Truman-Hobbs Act funding that Thomas Picco mentioned earlier. It was Mr. Greene’s understanding that that was rejected. Mr. Picco explained that some of this information he pulled from the report. At that point, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Corp of Engineers had not decided. They have, in just the past
3 – 6 months, decided not to fund an improvement to replace the swing span with a lift span on the rail bridge or to relocate it closer to the center of the channel. He said he would monitor the status over the years. Patrick Greene said he was interested in having more detail on the conclusions here, as this somewhat surprised him. He asked for a more expanded report on this, if available. Thomas Picco said yes, he has an expanded report, although not too much more information. He added that if the Truman-Hobbs Act funding were awarded, then that would have been a source of money that would have worked with railroads. Mr. Picco said he couldn’t speak beyond this point, but he could pursue more answers. Patrick Greene said he could be contacted later to receive that information.
Thomas Picco added that the full study is on the website: http://www.odot.state.or.us/rail/ including information on model runs, findings, the conclusions, engineering conceptual drawings of the ten incremental improvements plus the additional freight separation.
Susie Lahsene asked that in the modeling assumptions, did we assume the swing span was in place or that it was replaced with a lift span? Thomas Picco answered, no; he believed that we assumed it stayed as is.
Bill Wyatt said what he appreciated about the study was that it suggests a series of smaller investments required, before you get any utility out of the extended bridge. To spend money to build the bridge and then discover that all the “choke points” along the way would prevent you from gaining the additional benefits of the bridge improvements. He said that was really the contribution of the report. He added that we are on “uncharted waters” here to some extent on the public vs. the private in relationship to contribution and benefit. There are a number of potential, significant public benefits from targeted investments listed in the report. One of them is the volume of intermodal traffic that could travel on these rail lines between Portland and Seattle. Presently, the speed is so slow. Trucks are a more competitive alternative for a fairly significant volume of activity that moves between the Portland area to the Puget Sound area. When you increase rail speed, rail becomes a more competitive alternative.
Rod Monroe asked, when looking at high-speed passenger rail, was there any further discussion of moving high-speed passenger rail entirely to this side of the Willamette River, rather than to cross over to Union Station?
Thomas Picco answered, no. They didn’t look at that specifically. They did a commuter rail study and looked at the Rose Quarter area as a possible terminal. He asked, are you talking about the Willamette River? Mr. Monroe said, yes. Thomas Picco said probably they would need to speak to the City of Portland and SHPO about the Union Station’s historic status as a rail center. There could be some savings in that regard, in terms of time. However, you would need new trackage and possibly a new tunnel. Presently, there is a single access tunnel that Union Pacific owns.
Bill Wyatt said one of the things this report does is allow us to figure out how to make better arguments now on investing in a specific project, at a specific location, and what it will do to improve passenger rail capacity. Any of these improvements will help increase capacity for passenger rail.
Ed Barnes mentioned that there could be a third player – Rail America. He reported that they just dedicated a rail loop in Grays Harbor for a new grain terminal up there. They are going to start hauling soybeans from the Midwest plus other items that are going to be coming out here, and shipped out to the Far east, etc. They are looking to be a major player in freight rail and to help improve the tracks between Seattle and Portland for passenger rail. They are planning to utilize or become a partner with Union Pacific or Burlington Northern in the rail industry out here. Mr. Barnes told Thomas Picco that he could get some information for him on this.
I-5 TDM Proposal
Kate Deane said ODOT put in a request to Metro’s MTIP for $200,000 to initiate the transportation demand management study that was recommended in the I-5 Partnership. The recommendations for the 150% list are completed. The recommendation is to fund it at $100,000, not at $200,000. Further it is recommended to seek funding from partners across the river to supplement whatever else needed to go into the study to make it a whole study. Andy Cotugno said a June timeframe is set for adoption and the funding is for 2006 and 2007. Kate Deane said, if they are successful in getting funding for the study, they would also be trying to see whether there’s any possibility of moving the year of that funding up. Sometimes other projects get slowed down for reasons beyond their control, so if there were a way to move the project up, they’d like to see that happen. They are moving forward on seeking funds for the TDM proposal.
Chair Pridemore asked Kate Deane, is the share being requested, the $100,000, to close the funding gap? Kate Deane said the Committee would need to develop a work plan and see how it scales out.
Regional Freight Data Proposal
Kate Deane reported that the Committee also has a recommendation for funding a regional freight data proposal. She asked Susie Lahsene to explain.
Susie Lahsene said many of you have been interviewed in order to get a better understanding about the policy questions on freight data. The Committee has submitted a request through the MTIP process for $500,000 to provide better understanding of how freight moves on the transportation system. We are trying to better understand the spatial geography of freight. In other words, what is the relationship of freight to the economy? Specifically, how does it relate to the land use activities? How do truck operations influence capacity on the system? How does capacity on the system influence truck operations? What can we be doing to improve how our system operates and make strategic investments? This funding recommendation has also made the 150% list. We will be looking for help with the local match on this project. Susie Lahsene asked for the support from the Bi-State Committee as these projects move through the MTIP process. They are hoping to be able to use the money before the 2006-07 timeframe.
Rod Monroe said the list is really at about a 200% list right now.
Andy Cotugno explained that the public comment period was open until May 16, 2003. Some of the other advisory committees that are focused on particular topics have made recommendations. MPAC, for example, last night made recommendations from a land use perspective. The TOD Steering Committee made recommendations from a TOD perspective. The Bi-State Transportation Committee can also make recommendations on these two applications, if they chose to do so.
Chair Pridemore said the Committee could weigh in on these applications. He asked if there were any objections to weighing in? The Committee agreed to do so. The Bi-State Transportation Committee recommended the following: 1) that the I-5 TDM proposal be funded; and 2) that the Regional Freight Data Proposal be funded and that a letter from Chair Pridemore be prepared and sent to Metro with these recommendations.
DEIS Funding/Study Initiation
Kate Deane reported that ODOT requested $4M from the federal 2003 appropriations and were successful in getting $3.5M for the next phase of doing an EIS. She stated that $14 or $15M is what they would request next, to do the whole study. Oregon and Washington DOTs were in discussions about the next steps for the EIS. They are committed to implementing the recommendations put forth through the I-5 Partnership process.
Don Wagner said they have looked at the implementation between the two DOTs . There are several independent projects moving forward—whether they be Delta Park or the Salmon Creek projects, or the Land Use Accord. The big question for the two DOTs is what is the implementation framework for moving the whole package forward By a late June/early July timeframe, they hope to have a better understanding of what this framework would be. He said that several comments were made at this meeting, regarding looking for funding from partners on the other side of the river. Mr. Wagner hoped that by the June meeting of Bi-State Committee, he would be able to report on what their funding future looked like.
Dean Lookingbill suggested that with the Bi-State Committee’s permission, he would pull together a memo for this group and list those who have taken action. The memo would be a compilation of activities. Craig Pridemore agreed that was a good idea. He asked, would we send the letter to the State? Dean Lookingbill answered that it could be useful when speaking to their State Transportation Commission. But, he said it would also be helpful for everyone around the table to contact their respective state agency.
Update on the Intergovernmental Agreement Subcommittee
Rex Burkholder reported they formed a subcommittee, and under the direction of the chair, started the process of developing an IGA for the Bi-State Coordination Committee. Last week they held a meeting. The initial process that they laid out was to get an advance of money from ODOT to hire a consultant that would help raise the issues and interview with the agencies. Then they could come back to this Committee with an outline or a recommendation for an IGA. Also they would be working with legal staff from each of the agencies. There have been a number of issues identified that need to be addressed. One issue is determining the northern and southern boundaries for this committee. Other issues are membership, and agencies that should be involved. Right now, they are still working on the boundaries. Mr. Burkholder said they hoped to have more information for the Committee at the June meeting.
Fred Hansen asked if they have chosen a consultant yet? Rex Burkholder answered, no. They have a list of people and are also seeking other recommendations. He asked Kate Deane to explain how the consultant selection process worked.
Kate Deane said that they are using one of three methods in order to speed up this process. The Department of Justice has a mediation roster and we can pull from that roster fairly easily and contract with people. A second methodology they are going to use is a flexible services’ contract in the ODOT/Region 1 Planning, where there are some people who are interested and capable of working with that group. Finally, there are intergovernmental partners, through the university system where there are some resources in terms of collaboration kinds of mediation folks who would be available. They’ve got a list of people and would be happy to share that information with this Committee. She said they are about ready to push the “go” button. If there were any other people the Committee would like interviewed, she asked that they contact her right away. The idea is to send a letter of solicitation out to these people, interview them at a staff level, and then make a recommendation. If they have any questions, they will touch base back with the Steering Committee. Kate Deane hoped to be able to have these people signing a contract or IGA by June and work additional details out over the summer/early fall. The goal is to come back to this Committee with a formal IGA in late fall.
Chair Pridemore said he wanted to call the Committee’s attention to the draft EIS for growth management planning in Clark County. A CD was handed out to Steering Committee members titled “DEIS for the Comprehensive Growth Management Plans of Clark County.”
Dean Lookingbill handed out a memo dated April 24, 2003 regarding 1990 – 2000 Comparison of Jobs and Census Work Place Data for Clark County.” The comment period for the DEIS is open for public comment until May 5.
Rex Burkholder referred to the memo, page 4, table 3 (“Clark County Commuters: 1960 to 2000”). The table shows the number of commuters who travel back and forth over the river, and noting that 12,149 Oregon residents work in Clark County (in the 2000 count).
Don Wagner commented on the commute north/south and gave some counts on the number of commuters.
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver, commented on the fine work that Thomas Picco did on the “I-5 Rail Capacity Study “ that he presented earlier today. Mr. Fratt called attention to Chair Pridemore’s earlier comment today about the region. Our region competes with San Pedro Bay (LA Long Beach). We have to do that by uniquely working with these private corporations. There are things we can do and many of these ideas are in this study. He also added that we have a strategic advantage and that strategic advantage is the Columbia River—it separates us so much but it also brings us together. He said to look at the results of the study and work to find ways to implement the ideas.
The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be held on June 26, 2003, at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|