Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 4:00 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 Chair Arch Miller on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., at the Marshall House, 1301 Officers’ Row, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow.
Board Members Bill Ganley, City of Battle Ground Council Member
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Jeff Guard, City of Washougal Mayor
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
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Transportation Services Manager
Judie Stanton, Clark County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region 1 Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Jim Dunn, Washington State Representative, 17th District
Paul Edgar, Citizen
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
Jeanne Lipton, City of Vancouver Council Member
Tom Mielke, Washington State Representative, 18th District
Tom Ryll, The Columbian
Sharon Wylie, Clark County
Joe Zarelli, Washington State Senator, 18th District
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Diane Workman, Administrative Assistant
II. Approval of April 9, 2002, Minutes
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 9, 2002 MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CRAIG PRIDEMORE AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. BILL GANLEY ABSTAINED.
III. Citizen Communications
Chair Miller welcomed Senator Joe Zarelli and Representatives Mielke and Dunn.
Representative Tom Mielke said he, along with Paul Edgar, had an opportunity to attend a staff meeting to discuss the preliminary draft of the I-5 HOV Evaluation Report #2. Representative Mielke distributed a four-page letter he put together with the assistance of constituent Paul Edgar summarizing their interpretation of the analysis. Representative Mielke said it is his concern that it is still not meeting its goal and that it is affecting other corridors parallel to I-5. He highlighted other concerns that he has as listed in the letter. Representative Mielke recommended that the HOV Pilot Project be ended earlier and to move forward with the remainder of the project.
Chair Miller said the letter from Representative Mielke was lengthy, and it was not possible to respond accurately to all the concerns that he addressed at this moment. Chair Miller asked Dean Lookingbill to meet with Don Wagner and his staff to respond to Representative Mielke’s letter with copies of the response sent to RTC Board members also. Representative Mielke said he wanted to publicly thank Paul Edgar for his hours of work on analyzing the HOV data.
IV. Consent Agenda
- May Claims
- Clark County GIS Interlocal Agreement, Resolution 05-02-09
CRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, MAY CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 05-02-09. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. I-5 HOV Lane Pilot Project Evaluation Report #2
Dean Lookingbill referred to a memorandum along with the copy of the Vancouver HOV Lane Pilot Project Evaluation Report #2. The memorandum lists the eight goals of the HOV project and the findings for each one comparing the March 2002 information to the baseline information (September 2001) and to the first evaluation (November 2001). Mr. Lookingbill said of the eight HOV goals, the HOV pilot project is meeting five goals, partially meeting two goals, and is not meeting one goal. Mr. Lookingbill highlighted the goals with their findings and conclusions.
- Move more people per lane in the HOV lane during the a.m. peak period than in either of the adjacent general-purpose lanes. (not met) The lane is not currently carrying more people per lane than either of the adjacent lanes.
- Reduce peak periods travel time for HOV lane users and reduce the average per-person travel time for all users. (partially met) Peak period travel times for HOV lane users are being reduced. Average per-person travel times for all users are not being reduced.
- Minimize impacts to other traffic in the corridor and on parallel facilities. (met) The share of traffic on I-205 has increased slightly while the share of traffic on Highway 99 and Hazel Dell Avenue has decreased. The share of traffic on Main Street has increased. Part of this increase may be attributable to the full opening of I-5 /Main Street interchange. Traffic on Lakeshore has also increased.
- Increase the use of carpools, vanpools, and transit. (met) The number of carpools and transit riders has increased. Transit ridership increased initially and remained stable from November to March possibly reflecting that C-TRAN’s I-5 park-and-ride lots and commuter buses are at capacity.
- Maintain safety by not increasing the accident and incident rate in the corridor during HOV lane operating periods. (met) The number of accidents and incidents has not increased since the HOV lane became operational.
- Maintain the HOV lane’s effectiveness with appropriate enforcement. (met) WSP regularly patrols the HOV lane. The observed violation rate for the HOV lane is low at 4%.
- Maintain or improve travel time reliability for carpools, vanpools, and transit. (met) Peak period travel times for carpools, vanpools, and transit users are being reduced. Average speed for the HOV lane is 58 mph.
- Maintain public opinion or improve public opinion as to the effectiveness of HOV lanes. (partially met) Public opinion about the HOV lane is mixed in the March 2002 survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the respondents surveyed agree that the WSDOT HOV lane is an excellent or good idea. This is a decrease of 11% from the September baseline survey. Most respondents have formed opinions about whether or not to make the HOV lane permanent. The percentage of respondents who support permanent adoption of the HOV lane remained constant at 49%. 49% oppose permanent adoption.
Don Wagner said at this point, the information from the second report does not indicate a need for an immediate decision for a change. There will be two more data reports between now and the end of October. There is a lot of information in the report. The survey does show that the undecided respondents from the survey prior to the opening compared to the current responses have made decisions. In the question of whether or not the HOV lane should become permanent, the respondents indicate either they love it or they hate it. It is about 50%/50% with very few who are undecided.
Rod Monroe asked how the usage numbers compared to the northbound HOV lane in Oregon. Mr. Lookingbill said this facility has different characteristics in how many transit routes utilizes it, and in its peaking characteristics as compared to the northbound I-5 HOV lane. The main difference is how SR-500 feeds southbound versus the northbound lanes. For the northbound lane, 400-500 additional people are in the HOV lane compared to the GP lane. Public opinion continues to run high also. Kay Van Sickel said 70+% were in favor of the HOV lane. Rod Monroe said the Oregon I-5 HOV lane has been in effect for almost four years. That is a big difference from Vancouver’s six months. Arch Miller asked what Portland’s numbers showed in the first six months. Kay Van Sickel said they were very similar. It has stayed almost steady. The usage has slowly increased. She said they have had very positive response from day one. Also, with the schedule that C-TRAN is running, they have been a steady user of it as well.
Arch Miller said he was surprised that the southbound HOV is not carrying more people. You would think it is the same people going in the morning as it is in the afternoon, yet the northbound in the afternoon has far more people. Lynne Griffith said some of what is happening could be similar to how C-TRAN is routing their buses. Frequently, C-TRAN buses headed to the I-205 corridor service use the HOV lane northbound because they can get them north faster. They then go cross county to the I-205 area after they have crossed the river. Possibly some of the cars are doing the same. Dean Lookingbill said for the southbound vehicles, it is difficult for SR-500 traffic to get into the HOV lane. That is one of the reasons, for ultimately making the southbound HOV a bi-state facility so they would be able to access the lane and stay in that lane as they cross the river. This situation was known going into this as a first phase while preserving the opportunity to have a bi-state facility in the future.
Royce Pollard asked Don Wagner for more information on the public opinion poll. Don Wagner said the poll was very similar to the first poll that was taken. They did a statistical sampling of about 2000 homes. There was screening; they had to utilize the facility during the hours, during different days of the week to be actually counted in the numbers. Out of the 2000 households called, about 200 actually met the criteria to get the statistical sample. The questions were virtually the same as they were in the first sequence. From the groups, they are sorted by zip code and within the zip code there are broad areas such as Vancouver, Salmon Creek, North County, and Battle Ground. The dilemma is that within each of the smaller areas, they do not have a statistical sample. The observation of the group that did the survey said they saw the same trending that they saw in the first poll. They don’t think there is anything unique about it. They are not the same people that were called each time. It was random dialing. Bill Ganley asked how Oregon did their polling. Kay Van Sickel said it was slightly different, but it also was a random sample.
Thayer Rorabaugh asked if the typical seasonal variation in interstate traffic flow had any impact on the numbers. Don Wagner said it does have an impact on the numbers. He said for that they are looking at a permanent traffic counter to see overall traffic growth, what is happening in the area. Mr. Rorabaugh asked with this region having one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, what kind of affect this could have. If we have folks that were working in Oregon, and now are laid off, which was around the first of the year, that would be reflected in these numbers. He said it should also be reflected in the count station that is set up as well. Don Wagner said to make it clear, they cannot answer those kind of questions out of the information that they are gathering. A lot of assumptions can be made about those types of things, many valid. He said this is one of the dilemmas for our decision makers. They will have data based on what is actually happening, the numbers of vehicles, riders, park and ride consideration, and all other aspects. Lynne Griffith asked of the 2000 that were called and the 200 that were landed on, if they tracked those who are using the HOV lane versus those who are not using the HOV lane in comparison of the first survey. It was uncertain if that data was available, and staff would research.
Chair Miller said that Mr. Wagner said there was nothing showing that we should stop the HOV lane at this point, so it will proceed on course.
VI. I-5 Partnership Study Update
Mr. Lookingbill referred to the information included in the meeting packet. He noted that additional information was distributed to members as colored copies of a PowerPoint presentation on the Bridge Influence Area. This would be referred to instead of the Bridge Influence Area information that was included in the meeting packet. Today’s discussion is intended to focus on the recommendations for Land Use and the improvements identified in the Bridge Influence Area. The overall draft recommendation for the study is that: Physical improvements in the I-5 Corridor, beyond those already in the region’s transportation plans, are warranted and necessary to meet the transportation, economic, and livability needs of the Portland/Vancouver Region. The general draft transportation recommendations include three through-lanes, including Delta Park, a phased light rail loop in Clark county, additional I-5 capacity across the Columbia River, and interchange improvements. The specific recommendations of the study are grouped into ten different areas. Mr. Lookingbill noted there was an open house tonight at the Jim Parsley Center for public presentation and feedback.
In the Land Use Recommendations, the I-5 Task Force recommends that 1) RTC and Metro adopt and implement the following “I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord” along with the other members of the current “Bi-State Transportation Committee;” and 2) the Accord Signatories develop the operational details through the proposed “Bi-State Coordinating Committee.” The purpose of the Accord is a way to look at the bi-state land use and transportation issues together. Mr. Lookingbill noted that all Accord signatories with land use authority, in consultation with those signatories with transportation authority, agree to protect the I-5 Corridor by creating their own plans and agreements. The intent of the Accord is to not take away any of the jurisdictions responsibility for making their individual land use decisions, but rather to provide a mechanism to coordinate how some of the decisions are made in order to look at the transportation impacts. The existing Bi-State Transportation Committee advises the JPACT/Metro Council and the RTC Board on transportation issues of bi-state significance. This Accord says a new level of bi-state coordination is needed that would be advising JPACT/Metro, RTC and Clark County, because it is now bringing in some of the land use issues. JPACT/Metro covers their land use issues; for the Washington side that would involve Clark County.
Mr. Lookingbill distributed copies of the I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord document with changes that the Task Force made at their April meeting. The changes were made to item V. Actions Needed Before New Capacity in the I-5 Corridor. The change involved the Delta Park project and the concern to not slow down that project. The language would read As to the Delta Park Lombard Project, it is subject to 1) formation of the Bi-State Coordinating Committee, 2) the Bi-State Coordinating Committee’s review of the relevant environmental documents, and 3) the City of Portland’s plan to manage the interchange and the Delta Park Lombard area. The City of Portland agrees to create this plan consistent with this Accord. Additionally, the Accord signatories agree to consult with each other and the Bi-State Coordinating Committee before taking any official action that changes existing land use designations in the area adjacent to the Delta Park Lombard project if those changes could adversely affect the mobility standard of the interchange. As to the WSDOT 99th to I-205 project, the environmental work has been completed. This project also states in the Accord the agreement to consult each other and the Bi-State Coordinating Committee before taking any official action that changes existing land use designations in the areas adjacent to that project.
Rod Monroe said the whole thrust of this is for us on either side of the Columbia to understand that the land use decisions that are made have an affect on the entire region. He used the example that Metro is the process of UGB expansion discussions. This is required by state law every five years to review whether or not they have a 20-year supply of land. If they decide they don’t, they have to expand the urban growth boundary to provide that. There is a debate as to where to put that new growth. Some want to put it into eastern Clackamas County where there is no infrastructure, because that is where the exception land is. It is also farthest away from where the job space is. Over 60% of Clackamas County residents leave the county to work in Multnomah or Washington Counties. If all of the expansion of the urban growth boundary happens in eastern Clackamas County, there will be increased pressure for people to move to Clark County, which will create problems with Clark County’s land use needs and also transportation needs between the two states. If some of the expansion is put in Washington County or Western Clackamas County where there is more job space, demand will provide an immediate effect of providing additional housing land where it can immediately be developed and be a safety valve against forcing more and more people across the river. What ever is done on either side of the river affects the other and jurisdictions need to be aware of it. He said decisions need to be passed through the Bi-State Coordinating Committee.
Betty Sue Morris noted the reference of the WSDOT 99th to I-205 project, and said she thought the area of study went to SR-500. Mr. Lookingbill said the corridor study is from the I-5/I-205 junction (134th) to downtown Portland. The Bridge Influence area is SR-500 to Columbia Blvd. Betty Sue Morris asked if the note of the WSDOT 99th to I-205 project as listed in the Accord meant to keep your hands off. Mr. Lookingbill said the statement says that the project is through the full EIS, hands off. Commissioner Morris said she is concerned about the area of influence. She asked if the Coordinating Committee was going to have a role in decisions north of I-5/I-205 junction, how far south into Oregon do they have the same role? Mr. Lookingbill said it is not completely clear. Craig Pridemore said it goes to the Marquam Bridge, the whole I-405 loop. Clark County had an interest in I-5 through Portland, and Portland had an interest in Clark County further north. Mr. Lookingbill said these are two issues here. The I-5 Partnership Committee is addressing I-5 issues. The Bi-State Coordinating Committee would not just address I-5 issues; it will include I-205 as well. Commissioner Morris said she would feel better if there was a better delineation of the geography. She said that (the document) continues to talk about SR-500. Commissioner Pridemore said the Coordinating Committee would have an advisory role balanced between the two sides of the river. Commissioner Morris said it just always feels like Oregon thinks they know how to do it better than us. She said she would feel much more comfortable being a signatory to an agreement if she knew the geographic area of influence. She said it is clear about signatories being expected to try to come to some sort of modest respect. Arch Miller said that Dean would carry this message to the study committee. Mr. Lookingbill said the Task Force will make their recommendations and then come to RTC and JPACT/Metro for final decision.
Rod Monroe said that Betty Sue Morris has a point. With some leaders in Oregon, it is valid. He said it is also important as to who is in a leadership role. He said he feels the decisions in land use that Oregon/Metro makes have a greater impact on Clark County than the other way around. He said it can have a dramatic affect on Clark County’s ability to manage growth, if Oregon does it wrong. There are two sides to the street. Mr. Monroe said he refutes those on the Oregon side that feel Clark County’s land use planning process is inferior. There are some that still feel that way. He told Commissioner Morris that she was expressing that sensitivity, and he said he did not blame her. He said from his stand point, as long as he had anything to say about it, it would not be done that way.
Ed Barnes said more than the Task Force members need to attend the meetings between now and the final Task Force meeting. More people need to voice their opinions, not just the same people each time. He said to contact the Task Force members and let them know your concerns.
Royce Pollard said the committee that worked on land use, which Craig Pridemore was part of, had much discussion and debates and modifications were made to try and address issues on both sides. He said he has always had the same concerns as what Commissioner Morris has said, and has expressed them on many occasions. He said he sees the Coordinating Committee as a review and comment committee rather than a dictating committee. He said any clarification is a valid concern.
Craig Pridemore said the committee will decide on whether or not this decision or that decision will have a negative impact. Every jurisdiction will determine their own decisions by their governing body. The agreement very clearly states that everyone retains their original authorities. The committee has just an advisory role.
Mr. Lookingbill referred to the distributed presentation of the Bridge Influence Area – Summary of Findings. The draft recommendations for the I-5 River Crossing include: 1) New transit and vehicle capacity should be constructed across the Columbia River in the I-5 Corridor. 2) For Vehicles, there should be no more than 3 through lanes in each direction and up to two supplemental lanes (auxiliary or local access) in each direction across the Columbia River (total 5 lanes in each direction). For transit, there should be two light rail tracks across the Columbia River in the I-5 Corridor. 3) In adding river-crossing capacity, every effort should be made to avoid displacements and encroachments. 4) The proposed design should include safety considerations. Don Wagner stressed for clarification that the three through lanes, two auxiliary lanes is for the river crossing and the influence area is beyond the river crossing. Mr. Lookingbill said the bridge influence area, between the SR-500 and Columbia Blvd. interchanges, the freeway needs to be designed to balance all of the on and off traffic, consistent with 3 through lane corridor capacity and 5 lanes of bridge capacity, in each direction. Mr. Lookingbill highlighted some of the river crossing concepts. 1) New 5-lane southbound bridge with LRT on lower deck – west of existing bridge, northbound traffic on existing bridges. 2) Remove existing bridges, build a double deck 10-lane (5 each direction), plus LRT on separate new bridge. Navigational channel relocated to center of river and mid- to high-level bridges (reducing lifts) 3) A 4-lane supplemental collector-distributor bridge with LRT, plus existing 6 lane freeway. 4) 8-lane freeway concept plus new LRT bridge with two-lane arterial. Provides for new four-lane bridge with LRT, lift spans over current navigation channel, two lanes on existing northbound bridge could be used for HOV, express lanes, or potentially reversible lanes.
Mr. Lookingbill said this study is not intended to recommend a single alignment, but there may be a preference. Findings show concepts with 10 freeway lanes, and concepts with 8 freeway plus arterial lanes appear promising. Trade-offs need to be evaluated in future studies, including the balance of traffic on the freeway vs. local streets. Included in the draft recommendations is recognition that as a next first step towards making improvements, the bi-state region should undertake an Environmental Impact Study for a new River Crossing and potential improvements in the Bridge Influence Area. In the EIS, the BIA elements to be studied include 8 or 10 lane freeway concepts, replacement or supplemental bridge, joint use or non-joint use freeway/LRT bridge, 8-lane freeway with joint LRT/2-lane arterial, and HOV throughout the I-5 corridor. These draft recommendations will be presented at the open house.
The Task Force meets again on May 21, 2002, at the Luepke Center with their last meeting on June 18. After the final meeting, the recommendations will be brought to the RTC Board. Two issues that RTC will need to address will be initiating the EIS if decided and amending our Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
VII. Regionalism Concepts and Approach Following 2002 Legislative Session
Mr. Lookingbill said at their April meeting, the RTC Board of Directors decided to have the issue of regionalism brought back to their May meeting. The context for the May discussion was to include a review of the principles agreed to last fall and given the actions of the 2002 legislative session and identify a target date and/or process for reaching a recommendation in regard to regionalism. It was generally agreed that the structure of the Puget Sound Regionalism Bill does not match this region’s needs. The $200,000 in grant funds to support the process as discussed, is not available. Mr. Lookingbill noted a correction to the memorandum. As referenced, the regionalism bill is HB 2359, not 2304. Mr. Lookingbill noted in the memorandum the regionalism definition and principles in summary of the October 2001 RTC Board consensus. The last portion of the memorandum is post 2002 legislative session discussion. Throughout the 2002 legislative session, the new law transportation budget and regionalism were tied together. This legislative intent followed the policy as first created in the 2001 session: new statewide transportation revenues were connected to new regional revenues and some form of regional governance. The Puget Sound regional bill now put this intent into law. In that bill it states: the state cannot by itself fund, in a timely way, many of the major capacity and other improvements required on highways of statewide significance in the state’s largest urbanized area; Providing a transportation system that provides efficient mobility for persons and freight requires a shared partnership and responsibility between the state, local, and regional governments and the private sector. This states that the State has decided it cannot by itself fund major capacity improvements in urban areas. Furthermore, the legislation states that this requires a shared partnership and responsibility between state and local/regional governments. Mr. Lookingbill asked the question if our state and its urban regions has entered an era where the financial responsibility to generate transportation revenues for state-owned facilities is now shared between state and local/regional governments? The RTC Board’s decision to agree or disagree with the legislature’s position is a key element in shaping the course of direction to pursue in regard to regionalism.
Referendum 51, a $7.7 billion statewide transportation revenue package, with over $200 million in projects in Clark County will go to voters this fall. If it passes, the state and interstate projects funded in our region would go a long way toward addressing the capacity improvements needed and prioritized by the RTC Board. However, consistent with the legislative intent, it would not complete the full scope of the state and interstate projects. Additional revenues raised via the regionalism approach or through federal sources would still be needed. If Referendum 51 fails, essentially no new capacity projects would be built. Chair Miller said of the projects that are in 51, there is $201,400,000 in funding, but the total cost of those projects is $533,528,000. We still need an additional $332,128,000 to complete the projects.
Senator Zarelli wanted to clarify the projects, stating he thought there was money for the completion of the Salmon Creek project as well as money for 219th. Mr. Lookingbill noted a distributed handout with information on the 2002 New Revenue Transportation Budget. This displayed a list of the projects and their costs. Don Wagner said the project listed as I-5/SR-502 Interchange is the 219th project. Senator Zarelli said he thought the 134th St. Interchange project was fully funded, and that there had been funding for paving listed. Don Wagner said that confusion is the fact that the County also has some work that they have budgeted for county roads in the same area. The money that the County had obligated to their work was added to WSDOT’s money and it still was short of what was necessary to do everything. Senator Zarelli said he was thinking of 139th where the interchange is moved to and the other roads that work into the new interchange (which would be County).
Arch Miller said discussion and a decision on regionalism is needed. If R51 passes, our projects needed in Clark County will not be fully funded. He said the state legislature has decided that it cannot by itself, fund in a timely way, major capacity improvements and that a partnership is needed. Yet the regional package that was put together for Puget Sound greatly restricts what any funds that are raised can be used for. If the state is going to rely on the regional people to raise the money, then we should also have the ability to say what we are going to spend it on through a vote to the people. Senator Zarelli said he thought it was trying to get it to capacity improvements. A lot of it was protection in the Puget Sound market where a lot of money was going to roadway improvements. He said it was written to appease that area.
Arch Miller said he thought for the next Session, we need to be ready with a draft regionalism bill. Betty Sue Morris said that she has lost enthusiasm for a regional package. She said it was diminished when she saw that the legislature actually wanted us to raise more money. She said it was further crushed when Representative Mielke, who has championed the 219th Interchange for many years, and the only opportunity to have that interchange is if Referendum 51 passes, and he is opposing Referendum 51. If the Legislators are going to make a decision that they simply can’t come up with the money and then they jeopardize a plan to even partially fund it, she said she has no interest at all pursuing a regional package. Arch Miller said if we don’t attempt to be leaders in this regard, then nobody else will.
Royce Pollard said he wasn’t as enthusiastic as he should be. He referred to the memorandum where it asked the question if our state and its urban regions have entered a new era where financial responsibility is shared. He said it appears, whether or not we like it, we don’t have a choice. We are being told and shown. He said he agrees with Betty Sue Morris; we are a donor county. We are getting $200 million, which is wonderful, but we have $500 million plus in projects. This community with all its needs, is still supposed to come up with $300 million. Mayor Pollard said there was a regionalism bill that we agreed with last time. He said he agreed that we have a responsibility. We need to let our legislators know that they put us in a box that we probably will never get out of; for this community to raise more than half of what is being proposed for us, even if 51 passes. Arch Miller said it doesn’t say that the community has to raise half, but it states that there has to be partnerships and there are federal dollars available.
Mr. Lookingbill said to clarify the list of projects being discussed in Referendum 51 is a 10-year revenue list. The list of projects that the RTC Board prioritized was a 20-year list.
Judie Stanton said if we pursue this it is just another revenue item on our plate. This does not even include local projects. Cities are struggling all over the county to come up with money. There are cuts in other arenas as well. She said there are all these competing needs for funds, and does not want one more thing on her plate, picking up the state’s responsibility to fund state facilities. There is also a lack of concern of managing the system that we have.
Lynne Griffith said this is also the loss of 40% of funding that transit has relied on.
Betty Sue Morris said if Referendum 51 passes, it would not take us long to put together a package. There was a package that we liked last year. The main issue for us is that we want the governance body to be RTC.
Royce Pollard said he would like to see us have something ready. He said he would hate to see money available and we not be ready. We were quite far along with the program earlier.
Arch Miller asked if we wait until the November election, and if referendum 51 passes, we move forward, if 51 doesn’t pass, would we still move forward.
Royce Pollard said we could be ready to see if it passes, and if it does not, then make a decision at that time what is best for Clark County.
Bill Ganley said he thinks the state needs to step forward. He agrees with Betty Sue Morris that we can put it together at the time we know the status of 51.
Thayer Rorabaugh said Referendum 51 addresses state facilities, and there is still a hole in how we fund our local projects. He said Regionalism is an opportunity to revisit that, with or without Referendum 51. A Regionalism package could be put in place given failure of R51. This would help focus on the local system.
Craig Pridemore said that if we put together a regional package, we should accept that we will have one regional package for the next 20 years. We need to make a decision about how it is appropriate to create that structure if indeed we want to create that structure. There is much more to this than if Referendum 51 passes or not.
Thayer Rorabaugh said he agreed that there are many other issues that we can begin to flush out, whether R51 has success or not.
Arch Miller said it appears that the expression is to not move forward till November but more time is needed in its crafting. Arch Miller said it should address any transportation project that is needed, not just significant highway projects. This would proceed with Thayer Rorabaugh, Sharon Wylie, Mark Brown, and Dean Lookingbill.
VIII. Other Business
From the Board
Don Wagner said he was just informed that Secretary of Transportation, Doug MacDonald, would be meeting with Oregon folks on bi-state issues on Monday, May 13, 2002. Mr. MacDonald has asked for a meeting with local officials also. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 3-4 p.m. at the Mayor’s office. Staff would be making calls for attendance.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill said an e-mail was sent to RTC Board members and a sample letter was distributed regarding support of intercity rail. Members agreed to send a letter of support from RTC Chair.
Included in the information distributed was a copy of a letter from Senator Benton regarding a joint resolution with Oregon. Mr. Lookingbill is in the process of tracking the situation. The letter asks that RTC suspend any Washington State participation in any bi-state meeting until this is honored. Board Members were not in favor of suspending any bi-state meetings and they will proceed.
John Fratt said the City of Vancouver and the Port of Vancouver are cooperating in applying for a Transportation Community Systems Preservation Program. A request has been made to Senator Murray, and Senator Murray’s staff has said she has it on her agenda to see if funding is available. Esther Street is terminated by the railroad berm. The berm separates downtown Vancouver from the waterfront. This would allow our community access to enjoy that area. Mr. Lookingbill said should it be funded, it is an earmarked category. It is federal funds, and should they receive funding, it would come back through the RTC Board. Don Wagner noted that when a request for funds is made to the Federal Highway Administration on transportation projects, please contact WSDOT with the information.
Mr. Lookingbill noted JPACT would meet on May 9, 2002.
The I-5 Partnership Study Meetings: Open House May 7 and May 8, Community Forum May 11, Governor’s Task Force Meeting May 21.
Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting May 23, 2002 at Metro.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on June 4, 2002 at 4 p.m.
Chair Miller said on June 4, he will be at camp with his ten year old. Vice Chair will call the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660
Public Service Center served by C-TRAN Route 3.
Officers' Row served by C-TRAN Route 32.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.