Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Thursday, August 7, 2001, at 3:00 p.m. at the Marshall House, 1301 Officers' Row, Vancouver, Washington. The agenda for this meeting is also available.
I. Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Arch Miller on Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 3 p.m., at the Marshall House, 1301 Officers’ Row, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow.
Board Members Bill Ganley, City of Battle Ground Mayor
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Judie Stanton, Clark County Commissioner
Bob Talent, Skamania County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional Administrator
GuestsDon Benton, Washington State Senator, 17th District
Mark Brown, City of Vancouver
Pete Capell, Clark County
Don Carlson, Washington State Senator, 49th District
Pat Collmeyer, Citizen
Kate Deane, ODOT
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
Connie Kratovil, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Tom Mielke, Washington State Representative, 18th District
Val Ogden, Washington State Representative, 49th District
Ed Pickering, WSDOT
Glenn Schneider, WSDOT
John Spence, Citizen
StaffBob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative AssistantII. Approval of July 12, 2001, Minutes
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE JULY 12, 2001 MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND APPROVED. LYNNE GRIFFITH ABSTAINED.
III. Citizen Communications
John Spence referred to a letter he sent to the RTC Board. He said capital costs of all reasonable alternatives must be recognized before selecting a preferred option for additional traffic lanes over the Columbia River.
Arch Miller proceeded with a letter that the RTC Board received from Senators Benton and Zarelli and Representatives Boldt, Dunn, Mielke, and Pennington. In the letter they ask that the Board revisit the issue of the HOV lane on I-5. Vice Chair Miller said we were fortunate to have Senator Don Benton and Representative Tom Mielke present to discuss the letter along with Senator Don Carlson and Representative Val Ogden.
Senator Benton said there were three main issues that are reason enough for the RTC Board to reexamine their decision regarding the I-5 HOV lanes and make a new decision. First he said is the trust issue. He said when funding was approved, it was for a general-purpose lane. He said this was a conflict with the trust of the citizens, which elected him to vote on issues and the fact that the purpose of the funds seemed to have been changed after the funding was approved. A second issue is safety. He said he has concerns with the traffic merging from SR-500 and 39th Street on to the HOV lane and those traveling in the lane trying to get off. The third issue is the numbers that were used to justify the HOV designation, were based in part on the fact that a park and ride was to be constructed by C-TRAN, which is now somewhat questionable. Senator Benton felt that the numbers need to be looked at again and adjusted accordingly. He does not believe that the numbers justify the designation of an HOV lane. He asked if the numbers that were used to base the designation of HOV included the projected numbers from the potential park and ride at 99th Street. Senator Benton asked that another look be taken.
Arch Miller said notes were made of these comments and that other comments will be taken and then the Board will come back and address these issues.
Representative Mielke said he questioned the lane being used for HOV when the studies show the benefit of an HOV lane is estimated out to 2012 or 2015. He felt that the public should be given the general-purpose lane first and then readdress the issue with the benefit so many years out.
Representative Ogden said she had several comments. The final budget that was passed which included the HOV lanes was very clear as to the intent, passed in both the House and the Senate. In the Transportation Committee, they spent a long time in terms of amendments to that current law budget. The rule was that in either caucus, Republican or Democratic, of the Transportation Committee that if there were amendments they had to be supported by a majority of each caucuses. Representative Mielke did request that the HOV lane be taken out. There was not support in his caucus for that. When you talk about legislative intent, it was absolutely clear that the HOV lanes were funded and were intended to be in the transportation budget. She said they knew what they were doing when they approved the budget. Representative Ogden said the issue all along has been about who’s in control. She said this is an issue for RTC who is set up to make these decisions, to do the studies, and as a legislator, she understands that while there are statewide policy responsibilities of the legislature, this HOV project is a responsibility that is passed down to you. Representative Ogden said whether she supports HOV lanes or not is not the issue. Personally, she said she does. The issue is that it was RTC’s decision, and we, the state legislature, supported that in terms of the transportation budget in the House and Senate and then signed by the Governor. She encouraged RTC to continue with their plan. It is for one year as a demonstration project to see if it works. If it does not, then it is RTC’s responsibility to make the changes.
Senator Carlson said the issue of transportation is something that affects us all and that we are all interested in it. He said he was not an expert in this area and RTC has spent much more time studying this than he has, as have the members of the Legislative Transportation Committee. The House and the Senate has spent a lot of time looking at the whole issue of transportation as well as the HOV lane. He said he wanted to remind members of the comments he gave for the record at last month’s RTC Board meeting. It is absolutely crucial that Oregon maintain the commitment to build the additional lanes on the south side of the bridge at the Delta Park interchange. Part of his commitment and the legislative commitment to include the HOV lane on the Washington side is to show good faith so the Oregon side would also recognize the need for that additional lanes to try to help the gridlock problem. The problem is substantial and he said you, the experts have identified how the HOV lane on at least a pilot project basis would be appropriate to help work for the longer-term solution. The transportation budget including the HOV lane was passed on a bipartisan vote in the House and the Senate. The budget funded the HOV lane in this year’s legislative package, recognizing that the third special session had some difficulties and a number of legislatures were not there at the time of the vote including five of the six that signed the HOV letter to RTC. Those who were there, by majority vote did pass that bill that was signed by the Governor. Senator Carlson said he believed that if the HOV lane does not work out, RTC would need to take the action necessary to remove it. He said he continues to suggest that the proposal to the Regional Transportation Council has considered the project on a pilot basis and should to proceed with the process.
Senator Benton said he does not want confusion to occur between budgets. He said his comments refer to this year. In reference to the $290,000 for striping and designating the HOV lane, he said he was talking more of the $40 million that was appropriated for a general-purpose lane in prior year budgets. He said there are two different issues, stating that when the legislature approved the HOV lane, they actually approved funding for the striping, and that is why he is asking that it be revisited. He said it is a local decision but felt the numbers do not add up to the final decision.
Representative Ogden said in reference to Senator Benton’s comments, she said that there were two budgets that funded the total project. However, it did not just say HOV striping. It said HOV lanes, and there was extensive discussion about that. This was not done because no one knew what he or she was doing. There was extensive discussion in the transportation committee, in the democratic caucus and the republican caucus about what this budget meant. In the total budget, it was a line item very specifically, so they knew what they were doing. It was not just about striping, it was establishing an HOV lane.
Representative Mielke said because of discussions and differences of opinions on the Bill, it never passed out of the Transportation Committee; it was moved forward into the Transportation Budget.
Vice Chair Miller opened discussion for the RTC Board. He began by asking for some background information from Don Wagner. He asked when money was appropriated to expand, in this case I-5, from two lanes to three lanes, was it designated that the third lane must be used for HOV or must be used as a general purpose lane, or was it just appropriated as a third lane. Don Wagner said it depends on where you are in the state. If you are in the Puget Sound area, there is a specific pot of money called Core HOV funding. It is taken right off the top of the states improvement budget. For that money, which Clark County does not qualify, it is very clear that anything that is built with that is HOV or the improvement of the HOV system in the Puget Sound area. It is very well defined. Throughout the rest of the state, and this particular project, the actual dollars for the Main Street project that is being build today, was money that we got in the 1999/2001 biennium. In the proposal from WSDOT, it said to add lanes to I-5 and spelled out the corridor. It did not say general purpose, it did not say HOV, it simply said add lanes. Funding came from the I-one funding category. Core HOV also comes out of the I-one program. The project that is on Main Street was funded out of the I-one program. Mr. Wagner recalled the actual project that is underway began under Referendum 49, which had money, and then I-695 took it away. The project was advanced under the Referendum 49 dollars. The project was designed, all the right of way was owned. It was a “shelf” project; that could move as soon as money became available. It was put out to bid and a contract prior to I-695, and I-695 took away the money. It was one of ten projects statewide that was actually contracted during that period of time. Going back to the issue if HOV was intended on the project, he said the project was designed over 20 years ago. The original environmental document did address HOV; however, at that time it was deemed that it was not appropriate as a solution. The document does talk about HOV. WSDOT has been in conversation with the Federal Highway Administration out of Olympia. WSDOT had not moved forward to address the modification of the environmental document until this time because they did not want to do that until they knew they had money to complete the project. The process for Federal Highways to approve the project is a modification of the existing document. It is not a full-blown EIS. He said Federal Highways have been very supportive of moving forward with this and that they should have an answer within two weeks. He said the HOV is a one-year pilot project.
Vice Chair Arch Miller stated that in last month’s meeting minutes, Mr. Wagner said that if we decide to remove this project at the end of the pilot, we have federal authorization to do so without a penalty to us. Mr. Wagner said that is correct, that they have approved that. Mr. Wagner said that if we run the tests any time in the year based on our criteria to see if the HOV is working or not working, it could be eliminated without jeopardy to the state. If at the end of the year, we are not certain, we have the ability to ask the FHWA to extend the pilot for another year, and they have said they would be more than willing to do that. Oregon has had this type of experience with their pilot project as well.
Arch Miller said the second issue that Senator Benton brought up was the safety of the merging traffic lanes. He said RTC has had discussions regarding that but asked Mr. Wagner to give an overview of that. Mr. Wagner said HOV lanes that are not separated by a fixed barrier from the general-purpose lane allows drivers to judge when they need to get over to an exit. He said it was not WSDOT’s intent that the HOV lane would gain the majority of its traffic from SR-500. Although, they do know that there is a lot of traffic from SR-500 that wants to cross the bridge. The best benefit of the HOV lane would be to begin at 99th Street or 78th Street. From SR-500, there is not as much of a benefit at that point. Dean Lookingbill said during the course of the HOV study, there was a traffic operational analysis of how that weave merge would happen. The computer program analysis showed that in the SR-500/I-5 section there was not any more or less of a safety issue than under the current design.
Arch Miller said Senator Benton’s third issue was a park-and-ride at 99th Street that has not yet materialized. Dean Lookingbill said that the HOV modeling did assume a 99th Street park-and-ride in the 20-year analysis. He said their assumption was that the facility would be built. Lynne Griffith said C-TRAN is committed to the project. They have some funds already allocated toward the project and are in the process of acquiring the land. The appraisal for the parcel is currently in front of FTA. They have engineering and design set for next year and anticipate construction for the following year. The commitment is there. Salmon Creek park-and-ride is up and running and at capacity. They currently would be feeding all that service into the HOV facility. They are expanding that operation by four additional trips this fall to be in sync with the opening of the HOV lane. They are looking for temporary parking and have a number of avenues for their commuter service to accommodate current demand as well as the expanded demand later this fall. They are looking at Klineline, at 179th and a temporary application at 99th while they are going through the design phase. She said there clearly is a capacity issue at park-and-rides. They are still parking and riding. An interesting statistic is what is happening now is that they are providing services that are creating 40-60 standees per hour. The demand is there in Clark County. She said it has been a challenging year.
Arch Miller asked Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor and Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Regional Manager to comment on the status of the Delta Park project. Kay Van Sickel said they have a federal grant earmarked and the environmental and design document is underway for Delta Park. They are looking at the Federal Borders and Corridors for a possible future funding source for that third lane. They have made a strong commitment as an agency to the project. The current northbound HOV lane is working very well. The usage has not shown a decline and has lasted through the year. The acceptance from the public is very steady with 70 percent positive support from users and nonusers. All in all everyone involved in the project has praised it as a successful HOV lane. They are looking at making it permanent as they go through and do the work on I-5. Ms. Van Sickel said ODOT as a state agency has committed to this and will try and continue to move forward. Rod Monroe said in regard to the politics of getting the Delta Park bottleneck fixed, he as the chair of JPACT and chair of the Bi-State Transportation Committee, said he has been working very hard to get public acceptance on the Oregon side for the project. The state legislature created a very small pot of money for transportation projects, and that is one of the projects that is on the list that may or may not be funded out of that small pot of money. Mr. Monroe said he would be lobbying for it to be one of the projects funded. The political role within the city of Portland for building, for adding general-purpose traffic lane capacity to any of the major highways is very limited. Charlie Hales, City of Portland Commissioner and JPACT representative, has said he does not favor any additional new highways or expanded highways in Portland with maybe one or two exceptions, with Delta Park as one of those exceptions. The neighborhood groups through north and northeast Portland have been very critical of expanding I-5, if it means simply more single occupant vehicles through their neighborhood. Politically, getting that lane designated as an HOV lane will not be an easy task, but having the southbound lane in Washington designated as HOV helps considerably in the political process, because it allows him to say the Delta Park third lane will be an extension of the HOV system on the Oregon side of the bridge. It will help assist in allocating the funding in Oregon.
Arch Miller said the issues raised by the legislature have been discussed and talked through and asked Board members if they had further comments. Betty Sue Morris said there was one issue that was missed and that she would like to raise it. She said both Senator Benton and Representative Mielke referred to the will of the voters. She said that was also referred to in the HOV letter as well. She said first let me also warmly welcome our legislators attending today’s meeting, as they have always been gracious in welcoming us to legislative meetings. She continued that it is wise to remind them that this body, just like the legislature, has legal responsibilities and legal authorities and that this body is largely seated by elected officials just as themselves. It is the same people that elected Senator Benton, that elected Commissioner Stanton, and the same people who elected Representative Mielke that elected Mayor Ganley and herself. To suggest that only they, reflect the will of the voters and the will of the tax payers, rather than we, is a disservice to the voters and clearly dishonors the rest of us (seated at this table), who have just as duly been elected and charged with responsibility for the public dollar. She said she is very troubled by the comment about not assisting in future projects. The letter to the Board suggests that he would not support future projects identified by the local elected officials in the region. She said she would go back in history with Senator Benton, because the two of them were in the legislature together a number of years ago when Arch Miller from the Port of Vancouver, the Columbia River Economic Development Council, the Mayor of the City of Vancouver, and the Chair then of the County Board of Commissioners came to the legislature and asked for money for the Mill Plain Extension. Specifically she remembers Senator Benton arriving late to the dinner that the local delegation had hosted to talk with them about the Mill Plain project, which did not come from RTC. It came from the business leaders in the community and the other elected officials. She said she remembers Senator Benton walking in the door saying “What do you want; I’ll get it for you.” It was your entry line. She also recalled Senator Benton’s support for 192nd Avenue, which also came to the legislature through elected leaders. It did not come directly from this body. So, she said in conclusion, she does not see a need to address this issue further. She said all of the RTC members have spent considerable time on HOV. They have duly made a decision based on the study, and it has been a lengthy process including discussions with the Transportation Commission to do the pilot project. She said they are anxious to proceed, recognizing that the intent is to start this HOV project as a pilot and if it doesn’t meet expectations, it can be turned back to a general-purpose lane with no trouble at all. She said she truly appreciated their concern. She said she would certainly appreciate their help with future projects in Southwest Washington. She welcomed the legislators to attend future meetings. She said she felt that RTC does not need to discuss the HOV issue further.
Arch Miller said as has been expressed, it has been the intent of RTC to continue with the plan to put in the southbound morning only HOV lane. The only way to change the Board’s previously adopted plan is to vote to not do it. Senator Benton has suggested postponing it. This would require a motion from the Board. There was no motion from the Board. The HOV lane would proceed as planned.
Vice Chair Miller stated that RTC has asked staff to set up meetings with all nine members of the legislature from SW Washington. Meetings will be set up to review and help them be aware of the process that RTC goes through to prioritize projects. He said RTC looks forward to getting their input on the process that is used.
Don Benton asked if staff would be updating numbers regarding the park and ride that is not yet built. Arch Miller stated that C-TRAN said the engineering dollars would be here next year and construction would be the following year. That is the anticipation of the plan, to be operational as early as 2003. The Delta Park project is dependent on the funding source. It is a priority at JPACT and that means as soon as you can identify a funding source. Again asked if the HOV numbers would be readdressed, Dean Lookingbill said the assumption is that the park-and-ride would come on line. The evaluation of the pilot project will address Senator Benton’s issue about numbers. If it does not meet goals and expectations, it will not be continued. Senator Benton asked what numbers the evaluations will be based on. Don Wagner said the evaluations are not based on projections. Projections are used to see if it should move forward or if it will work. Evaluations are based on numbers that the HOV lane is carrying more people than the general-purpose lane. Counts are taken prior to HOV during peak commute time and during the use of HOV at peak commute time. The counts are taken based on the actual traffic using the HOV lane. As we move on in time, when the park-and-ride lot does come in, it should continue to be more successful in the future.
IV. Consent Agenda
- August Claims
- Interlocal Agreement: Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP), Resolution 08-01-11
CRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AUGUST CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 08-01-11. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. I-5 Partnership Study: Columbia River Crossing Concepts
Dean Lookingbill said this agenda item was a direct request from the Board at last month’s meeting. Mr. Lookingbill said the study began in January 1999 as the Portland-Vancouver I-5 Trade Corridor Study. It was conducted by ODOT and WSDOT in a partnership process. A key element of the study was RTC and JPACT working together and seeing the need of a leadership committee to assist in working on the problem. This included citizens and business leaders. The committee was charged with several questions: 1) what is the magnitude of the problem; 2) what is the cost of inaction; 3) what improvement would be needed; 4) how could they be funded; and 5) what are the next steps. The findings from the study found that the industrial areas surrounding the corridor and that the corridor was at a cross roads that connected rail, barge, air, and surface transportation facilities were unmatched in the region. Traffic is growing and port access is limited. The conclusion was that there is need for improvement that is above and beyond anything that could normally be programmed. A major capacity expansion project would be needed to solve the problem. All funding options should be open, including tolling. Following these Phase I recommendations, Phase II was started which is now titled the I-5 Partnership Study. A bi-state Governors’ Task Force has been convened to guide the study process. The Task Force was convened in December 2000. Members of RTC sit on that committee as well as a number of business and community leaders. There have also been a series of community forums attended by several hundred people. The process has identified a problem statement, a vision statement and set out a series of options to be studied. Those options include 1) Baseline, 2) Express transit with no major corridor highway expansion, 3) LRT with no major corridor highway expansion, 4) Commuter rail, 5) Express bus with a major corridor highway expansion, 6) LRT with major corridor highway expansion, and 7) Arterial bridge to improve freight access. This fall the modeling work should be complete and presented to the Task Force. A draft recommendation is planned for by the end of the year, so that they can be included in discussions for the next six-year federal transportation bill. By late spring of 2002, the study recommendations should be in place. Today’s discussions for the RTC Board will focus on the river crossing concepts and their impacts. Mr. Lookingbill introduced Connie Kratovil with Parsons Brinckerhoff who is leading the Design Team.
Connie Kratovil said that Kate Deane, ODOT, the project manager and Ed Pickering, WSDOT, were both in attendance and available for questions. The Governor’s Task Force was presented with 20 options in March. These options were narrowed to 9 at the end of May and further narrowed to the option packages just mentioned. Ms. Kratovil distributed handouts that included the problem, vision, and values statement, an overview of the nine option packages and maps, and a list of special analysis areas and map. She said the conceptual design work began June 1 and will be completed by mid-September. It has been designed to test for fatal flaws. Ms. Kratovil highlighted the problems and constraints associated with any of the river crossings. Key items included the following:
- Right of way is a very important concern in the I-5 corridor.
- A major constraint is the river, which includes environmental and Coast Guard regulations.
- Another constraint is the airport, which includes air regulations (height of the bridge span.)
- There are FHWA highway design restrictions.
- Hayden Island and downtown Vancouver and the Vancouver Historic District all present significant constraints to any future project.
Ms. Kratovil distributed handouts that displayed potential cross sections of the I-5 Columbia River Crossings for option packages that include a new bridge. She highlighted these options including a new bridge with a lift span and a higher bridge with a lift span. Don Wagner noted that there are three ways to cross the river 1) on the river, 2) under the river, and 3) over the river. All have their share of problems. If you are going over the river, you have Coast Guard regulations and whether the high span is the height of the Glenn Jackson Bridge with the lift capability is one issue, or whether you go up to the total height that is necessary (178 feet) which also has many problems. The other option is to go under the water. Mr. Wagner said the discussion of the river crossing needs to be a policy discussion. He stated that there are four cross-spans on the Interstate system in the United States; we have two of them. He said presenting a fifth one to FHWA in the exact same corridor could be problematic.
Kate Deane said discussions need to take place with FAA and the Coast Guard to see just what the height regulations would be. She said that by January they hope to have three issues addressed 1) should the highway be three or four lanes, 2) what kind of transit, express bus or LRT, and 3) is there a new bridge. There was further discussion of the options to cross the Columbia River. The west arterial crossing or Port-to-Port crossing to assist in freight movement was also discussed.
Don Wagner said he had requested this agenda topic so that members could be made aware of some of the issues. There are some key fundamental policy issues that this Board will need to address. One of the current bridges will be 100 years old by the time anything is built. Relying on that for the next 100 years may be beyond what the designers in 1917 had in mind when they built it. The interstate system today is congested every time the bridge lift happens. He asked if we really want the next 100 years to have a lift bridge. If the answer is no, then there are two options, over the river or under the river and what that does to our community. Mr. Wagner said these are questions that need to be discussed before any outreach program takes place. He said he applauded the staff on this project. It is on a fast track and a challenging project. In Washington, the major projects ($4 and $7 billion projects in the Seattle area) are coming down to visit the I-5 Trade Corridor to see how we move this forward. They are amazed that we got two Governors to appoint folks to the task force and that FHWA is interested in talking with us about these issues.
Arch Miller said he was interested in the tunnel. He said this would get rid of anything on the river and over the river. A bridge Port to Port would have to be a very tall structure and at the same time, there is a very old railroad bridge that the turntable is not wide enough to let certain vessels through. They are talking about rebuilding it and putting the turntable in the middle. Why not build a new bridge Port to Port in combination with the railroad and replace it as well.
There was discussion of the finance issues. To get good financial support we will need very strong leadership from both states in Washington D.C. and a challenge to achieve.
There will be a public meeting on September 4 from 7-9 p.m. at the Water Resources Center to present the Bridge Options.
VI. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Prioritization Process: Initial Corridor Evaluations
Dean Lookingbill said as discussed at last month’s meeting, a “first-cut” evaluation of projects has been put together. He distributed copies and said Lynda David would take members through the information. Ms. David said at the July meeting, there was also discussion of how the transportation policy principles together with policies would be considered in evaluating project priorities. The relationship between the transportation policies and project evaluation criteria was discussed and staff was directed to initiate the project evaluation process. Ms. David highlighted the handout titled Evaluation Criteria with Relationship to Policy Principles and Adopted Policies, which was included in the meeting packet. She said they just completed the “first-cut” of the evaluation of projects. She said they went back to the 1998 evaluation criteria, looked at it and worked with the transportation corridors that were of most concern. She said in looking back in 1998, it took three meetings to go through the evaluation. Back in 1998 the Board had started with a Consumer Report type of rating with red or black circles, and then decided that numbers were wanted. This time staff began with the numbers, but that can also include the consumer report type rating as well.
Ms. David referred to the handout for the 2020 MTP Corridors and Evaluation Criteria with columns lettered A-S. A, B, and C list the corridor, location and the improvement. Ms. David highlighted each column. Column D is the cost estimate for June 2001 in $000’s. Column E is 2020 p.m. peak hour delay: average for corridor without MTP projects. Column F is total corridor miles. G is miles of corridor where volume to capacity ratio > 0.9 current year p.m. peak hour. H is % o corridor miles where volume to capacity ratio > 0.9 current year p.m. peak hour. I is miles of corridor where volume to capacity ratio > 0.9 2020 p.m. peak hour. J is % of corridor miles where volume to capacity ratio > 0.9 2020 p.m. peak hour. K is employment 2020 non-retail. L is employment 2020 non-retail weighed by trips. M is employment growth 2000-2020 non-retail. N is employment non-retail growth weighed by trips. O is commuter use 2020 p.m. peak hour work trips maximum ratio. P is commuter use 2020 p.m. peak hour work trips average ratio. Q is auto trips p.m. peak hour. R is costs per 2020 p.m. peak hour trips. S is freight tonnage category. This is based on Washington State’s Freight and Goods Highway System Tonnage Range. This relates to the amount of tonnage of freight carried on the facility per year.
Ms. David said these evaluations would be reviewed by RTAC and asked if Board members had any other indicators that they may want added to the criteria. She said other issues that need to be discussed are Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy, and transit service and facilities. Mr. Lookingbill said RTC staff would be working with jurisdictions’ technical staff on the analysis and bring it back to next month’s meeting.
VII. I-205 Access Decision Report: Draft Executive Summary
Dean Lookingbill said this for information to keep the Board updated on the access report status and the draft Executive Summary. This federal process is parallel with the I-5 North Corridor. The access reports are progressing well. Lynda David said the I-205 Study contract ends September 30. Between now and September 30, there will be a concluding meeting on September 6 of the Citizen Advisory Committee and an open house on September 18. Ms. David said over the summer months she has attended a number of neighborhood committee meetings and business community gatherings along with a booth at the Clark County Fair getting the word out. She said everyone has been very supportive and most comments include what is the cost and it is needed, a new access is needed between Mill Plain and SR-500.
VIII. Washington State Transportation Plan: Public Involvement Process
Dean Lookingbill said the Washington State Transportation Plan (WTP) is nearing completion and will be made available for public review and comment this fall. Key issues are the goals, objectives, and policy statements. The plan defines the needs of the state’s transportation system for the next 20 years. RTC staff has worked with WSDOT to ensure consistency with the WTP and RTC’ Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
IX. Other Business
From the Board
Arch Miller said a draft letter in response to Senator Benton and the other five signatories will be sent to Board members in the next day or two asking for comments and the letter to be mailed on August 16.
Don Wagner said the contract has been let on 192nd effective the first of August. Over a million of cubic rock is still necessary to remove. Arch Miller asked of the plans for north on 192nd. Don Wagner said the city has three segments to complete 192nd. He stated that part of 192nd splits the city of Camas limits and the city of Vancouver limits and the gravel pit is Clark County. The last segment to be connected is connecting to the interchange. He believes that the interchange will be open for some time before the 192nd is open for connection.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill said RTC will have their Federal Certification Process in October. This takes place every three years and Federal Highways and Federal Transit Administration come and certify our work. Part of the process includes a public involvement plan update. When it was done last time, RTC Board requested that they be notified 45 days prior to the action. This is notification. Endorsement of this will be presented at the October Board meeting.
The next RTC Board of Directors meeting will be Wednesday, September 5, 2001 at 4 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-397-6132
E-mail: info@rtc.wa.govPublic Service Center served by C-TRAN Route 3.
Officers' Row served by C-TRAN Route 32.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.
       
|