Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 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 Craig Pridemore on Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 4 p.m., at the Marshall House, 1301 Officers’ Row, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow.
Board Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Kate Deane, ODOT (Alternate)
Bill Ganley, City of Battle Ground Council Member
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
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
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
GuestsEd Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner
Mark Brown, City of Vancouver
Bob Byrd, Identity Clark County
Heather Catron, ODOT
Chris Christopher, WSDOT
John Cullerton, Metro
Paul Edgar, Citizen
Jack T. Evans, Citizen
Chad Hancock, WSDOT
John Idsinga, City of Battle Ground Mayor
Jilayne Jordan, WSDOT
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
Connie Kratovil, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Dick Malin, Citizen
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Bill Wright, Clark County
Teresa Weil, WSDOT
Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver
The Columbian
The Reflector
StaffMark Harrington, Transportation Analyst
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Sr. Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Staff AssistantChair Pridemore welcomed Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder as a new 2003 Metro representative on the RTC Board of Directors.
II. Approval of December 3, 2002, Minutes
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2002, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JUDIE STANTON AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Chair Pridemore requested that any comments relating to issues of HOV be addressed during that agenda item. He asked for other citizen comments.
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County, introduced Bob Byrd, who is on Identity Clark County’s Board of Directors and their Transportation Chair.
Commissioner Ed Barnes, Co-Chair of the I-5 Partnership Committee, noted the presentation of the Committee’s recommendations to the Governors of both Washington and Oregon. The Partnership involved much time and energy and citizen involvement. The Women in Transportation looked at this project along with other projects, and in 2002, they picked the I-5 Partnership as the number one transportation project in this area. On December 11, 2002, Commissioner Barnes and Henry Hewitt were presented the certificate for this achievement. Mr. Barnes in turn presented the certificate to Mary Legry, WSDOT. The certificate stated that the Women in Transportation have given the 2002 project of the year to the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation for the I-5 Partnership Transportation Trade Partnership Study. Commissioner Barnes said it is an honor to have this project selected as the number one project in this area. Mary Legry said her thanks on behalf of their team from both sides of the river.
As new Chair for 2003, Craig Pridemore presented a plaque to Arch Miller from the RTC Board. The plaque states the RTC Board of Directors thanks you for your leadership as Chair of RTC in 2002. Mr. Miller said he very much enjoyed the past year as Chair of RTC and thanked members.
IV. Consent Agenda
- January Claims
- 2003/2004 WSDOT Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment, Resolution 01-03-01
- FY 2003 Unified Planning Work Program Amendment, Resolution 01-03-02
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JANUARY CLAIMS AND RESOLUTIONS 01-03-01 AND 01-03-02. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Vancouver 18th Street Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment, Resolution 01-03-03
Dale Robins said the City of Vancouver is requesting a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) amendment to expand the scope of their 18th Street project. The City of Vancouver is in the process of conducting preliminary design and environmental assessment for this project. The scope of the existing 18th Street project is from NE 86th Avenue to 162nd Avenue and the scope would expand east to 192nd Avenue. In addition, they are requesting an additional $265,000 of regional federal STP dollars for this work. This amendment would allow the City to coordinate the transportation circulation element of both the 18th Street corridor project with the Section 30 sub-area plan. He noted the letter requesting this amendment was attached to the resolution.
Dale noted that there was a discussion by RTAC (Regional Transportation Advisory Committee) on this agenda item. In the end, they recommended approval based on the importance of the 18th Street corridor to the region. They decided that even though this request was inconsistent with a number of RTC Board adopted MTIP amendment policies. Specifically, the project was inconsistent with the following adopted policies, additional funding for the design phase is not allowed, funding increases must maintain the same local match ratio, and additional funding is allocated based on the region’s ranking by needs criteria. (This project is ranked second on the list.)
RTAC members wanted the RTC Board to recognize the regional significance of the 18th Street project and is proposing that the RTC MTIP Amendment Policies be suspended and the MTIP be amended to expand the scope and funding for the 18th Street project. There was also discussion of funding. The preferred funding option would basically transfer STP funding forward from right of way or from another project, with no allocation impact.
ARCH MILLER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 01-03-03. ROYCE POLLARD SECONDED THE MOTION.
Lynne Griffith asked if this request was for this time only and did not change the established policies. Mr. Lookingbill said yes, that given the importance of the project, the request was to just suspend the policies for this project only.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VI. Vancouver HOV Lane Pilot Project Recommendation
Chair Pridemore stated that the RTC Board of Directors is not the decision-making authority for the HOV lanes. RTC is advisory to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The issue today is to make a recommendation to WSDOT about the decision they will make for the I-5 HOV lane pilot project.
Paul Edgar, resident of Hazel Dell, said he believes that transportation is a key to creating jobs. He believes that the HOV lane initiative has a very strong probability of negative feed back on any state or countywide vote to approve transportation infrastructure investment. He feels the HOV lane project is ill-conceived, and if kept, the lane would create anti-transportation thinking “zealots” who would vote down funding on future transportation projects that are critical to our area. He said this would almost guarantee a negative vote on light rail.
Jack Evans, resident of Ridgefield, said he is against the HOV lanes because he travels south on I-5 every morning at 6:15 a.m. He said he felt it isn’t working and has not since it began.
Dean Lookingbill noted and distributed to RTC members a memorandum from Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Transportation Services Manager, and an RTC Board Member, who was not able to attend the meeting.
Mr. Lookingbill began with brief background information on the HOV lane project. There was a three-year process where the policy was formed, a systems plan was completed, and this I-5 project was selected to be the first project implemented. The recommended HOV project was designed as a bi-state project from 134th Street in Vancouver to Lombard Street in Portland. The completion of the I-5 widening from Main Street to 99th Street in combination with the current two-lane bottleneck at Delta Park resulted in implementing what is now known as the southbound HOV pilot project from 99th Street to Mill Plain Boulevard. The policy objectives for the HOV project were to 1) help manage traffic congestion, 2) make more efficient use of existing facilities by carrying more people in the HOV lane than the general purpose lanes, 3) encourage more carpools, vanpools, and transit ridership, and 4) provide travel time savings and better travel time reliability for HOV users. An evaluation plan, led by WSDOT was developed prior to the initiation of the HOV project to monitor the operation of the HOV lane, and the evaluation period in now complete. The full final report was presented at the December 2002 RTC Board meeting, and a summary was attached to the recommendation memorandum.
The operation of the HOV lane has been monitored by eight performance goals. The HOV project has met six of the eight goals throughout the evaluation period. The project is not meeting the goal to move more people in the HOV lane than in the adjacent general-purpose lane. The corridor as a whole continues to carry more people in fewer vehicles as compared to the base line. Carpool use is up and transit ridership is up and from the last data collected, the trend has gone more positive to a point in that the HOV lane is carrying 90% of the same volume of persons as in the general-purpose lane. The second goal that is not being met is the public opinion goal.
Mr. Lookingbill added that there have been a series of lane closures and lane modifications due to final paving, signage, and drainage work throughout the pilot project. There was a decision made early in the widening project to open the lane up one year early. There has been discussion that in hindsight and given the difficulties of the additional paving etc. that that may or may not have been the best option. He noted additional transit parking spaces have been added during that time period as well.
RTAC received a briefing on the project at their December meeting and members noted several technical elements that would warrant consideration of extending the pilot project period. The item mentioned by RTAC was the ongoing final construction activities occurring in the corridor. They also noted that experience in the Puget Sound region showed that increasing the person use of an HOV lane can take several years, and that it was important to look to the future and preserve travel options.
The Bi-State Transportation Committee met on November 21, 2002, and agreed to adopt a resolution to encourage the continuation of the southbound HOV lane because of the beneficial impacts to the transportation system. The Port of Vancouver Commissioners adopted a resolution in support of the HOV Pilot Project at their November 26 meeting. The C-TRAN Board of Directors also adopted a resolution supporting the continuation of the southbound I-5 HOV Pilot Project at their December 10, 2002 meeting.
For the HOV recommendation, three possible options have surfaced for discussion:
Option 1: Discontinue the HOV Pilot Project
Recommend that the Washington Department of Transportation discontinue the Southbound HOV pilot project and convert the HOV lane to general-purpose use on a 24-hour basis. Continue the collection of data for at least one more year to provide information on travel time, transit and carpool use, and overall person demand in the corridor without HOV in the corridor. This will provide additional information on I-5 corridor performance should there be a later decision to reconsider HOV in the corridor.
Option 2: Permanent Adoption of the Southbound HOV Lane
Recommend that the Washington Department of Transportation permanently adopt the Southbound HOV Lane, continue to monitor lane performance and identify ways to improve I-5 corridor operation. In addition, C TRAN should pursue actions to provide additional park and ride capacity and transit service in the corridor pending the openings of the 99th Street Park and Ride facility and the possibility of opening a new Park and Ride facility associated with the Amphitheater Complex.
Since the southbound I-5 HOV lane is the initial phase of a bi-state project, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the City of Portland, and other JPACT members are encouraged to continue the process to extend the southbound HOV lane into Oregon to the vicinity of Lombard as part of the Environmental Assessment for the I-5 Delta Park to Lombard project. ODOT should also be encouraged to designate the northbound HOV lane as permanent.
Option 3: Continue the HOV Lane Pilot Project
Recommend that the Washington Department of Transportation extend the Southbound HOV pilot project and continue the collection of data and evaluation of lane performance during that time period. In addition, C-TRAN should continue to pursue actions to provide additional park and ride capacity and transit service in the corridor pending the openings of the 99th Street Park and Ride facility and the possibility of opening a new Park and Ride facility associated with the Amphitheater Complex.
Since the southbound I-5 HOV lane is the initial phase of a bi-state project, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the City of Portland, and other JPACT members are encouraged to continue the process to extend the southbound HOV lane into Oregon to the vicinity of Lombard as part of the Environmental Assessment for the I-5 Delta Park to Lombard project. ODOT should also be encouraged to designate the northbound HOV lane as permanent.
At the end of the next phase of the pilot period, the performance of the HOV lane should be assessed and a decision about the final status of the HOV lane should be considered. Key factors in that decision should be improvement in the trend toward carrying more people in the HOV lane than in the general-purpose travel lanes and to sustain the attainment of carrying more people in the I-5 corridor with HOV than in the baseline without HOV.
An issue to be considered in terms of further monitoring the facility is the need to address the cost of this analysis. When the initial pilot project was set up, WSDOT had a budget item available for that and in current budget there are no funds available.
Mr. Lookingbill listed a series of policy implication for the Board’s consideration. Removing the HOV lane would address concerns about not meeting the goal to carry more people in the HOV lane than the general-purpose lane average. It also responds to not meeting the public opinion goal. If HOV in the corridor is reconsidered at the later date, removing the HOV lane now may limit the future ability to implement HOV strategies in the I-5 corridor. While WSDOT HOV policy supports general-purpose lane conversion to HOV, public acceptance of lane conversion is limited.
Permanent adoption of the southbound HOV lane would benefit longer-term policy goals in the I-5 corridor including: 1) managing the corridor to move people while plans and designs are being developed to add future freight and person carrying capacity; 2) maintaining effective transit operations and market share in the corridor; and 3) support the future interface of commuter transit service with Interstate Max.
Continuation of the Pilot Project would allow more time to assess HOV lane performance and potential while preserving policy goals as described above. It would also support additional transit service and expansion of park and ride capacity in the corridor.
Mr. Lookingbill noted that there was a national peer expert review panel that tracked the project throughout its life. They met on December 20, 2002 to review the #4 Evaluation Report. They agree that the data monitoring was thorough and done well. They felt that as a yearlong project, it was a fairly ambitious goal to move more people in the HOV lane than the general-purpose lane in that time period. They felt that even the 90% level was good. For travel time savings, while per person, it is not great, as congestion continues to build in the corridor, that certainly gives a significant advantage. They were not surprised about the public opinion. Their view was that this could have resulted from the fact that since the lane opened, there had not been very much effort for public outreach of what was going on. Their recommendation was that continuation of the pilot project was warranted, and that significant improvement in person carrying capacity would result with the transit improvements that would take place in the corridor.
Mr. Lookingbill noted the many comments received from the public via phone calls, e-mail, and letters.
Judie Stanton said in referring to the discussion of funding needs for WSDOT to continue the monitoring. She asked if the HOV lane would continue, if there would also be a commitment to continue the enforcement? Don Wagner said the enforcement piece is separate. Washington State Patrol has a permanent motorcycle patrol here, and yes, they would continue the enforcement regardless of the HOV decision.
Dean Lookingbill said in addressing the cost for monitoring, some of the monitoring could go on in the routine sense. The cost of the development of the four data reports and the consultant time is what would need to be addressed if option three was selected.
Lynne Griffith asked if there is a proposed time for the extension of the pilot project. Mr. Lookingbill said the staff recommendations at this point do not address the timeline. Given the recommendations of the expert review panel, it is suggested to have a timeline that would include other significant changes to support the lane such as more park and ride availability. Lynne Griffith said there are some important points that need to be made given that a lot of emphasis is on the transit benefits associated with HOV. She said we are all aware of the pressure that this region is feeling in terms of being cost effective, using resources wisely. It will become more and more challenging. One of the important tools for transit to use their resources wiser and maximize the investments that have already been made in public transportation is HOV lanes. To C-TRAN this means minutes saved every single trip that the bus travels I-5. Minutes translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a year. That additional service is hard to not be supportive of. Representing the high capacity element that is in this community at this time, if HOV is eliminated, we may be making decisions about high capacity transit of the future. This needs to be factored in when making these decisions. The HOV lane is an essential tool for any mixed use between automobiles and transit vehicles to move people. We would be forced to have separate right of ways with a much higher cost. As congestion becomes more of a problem and travel times deteriorate, we need to weigh these issues in on our actions today.
Judie Stanton said she agreed that it all boils down to dollars and cents. The I-5 Partnership recommended millions if not billions of dollars worth of capacity improvements on I-5. A small part of their recommendations talk about demand management. She said there are a lot of us who don’t use those two lanes for the two hours in the morning, and it is realistic for us to expect those who do, to use them more efficiently or efficiently as possible before asking them to pay for improvement to capacity (new bridge, light rail, additional lanes). She said the voters are saying do more with the resources that we give you. It is consistent for us to turn back and say do more with the resources we give you. She said that is what we are saying when for only ten hours a week we are saying double up.
Bob Talent asked for clarification of the statement “the latest data shows that persons in HOV lane are 90% of the persons in the adjacent general-purpose travel lane.” He asked if this meant that for every 10 people in the general-purpose lane, 9 are in the HOV lane? Mr. Lookingbill said yes. Mr. Talent asked how is it that there is such a wide variety of testimony that says there are hardly any vehicles in the HOV lane. Mr. Lookingbill said it is people who are counted, not the vehicles. It is how they are carried. One bus carries 40 people. This would be 40 vehicles in the general-purpose lane in comparison. It was noted that of all people in the HOV lane, about one-third are bus riders and two-thirds are carpool people.
Royce Pollard said for him, the defeat of R-51 has changed a lot of perceptions on how things are going to get done in the future here. He said we now have to preserve options for the community and have a vision for the future. This is not just about tomorrow or the day after, it is about the future and keeping the options open for the community. Right now, we don’t have a system. Our system is only in asphalt and riding the bus. There are no real options for our community, no light rail option; there is an HOV pilot, which could be part of the future. He said he does not know if HOV is the answer, but it is one of the few options that we still have available to us to use. He said the national peer review group weighed quite heavily in his decision. The fact that they said our expectations were higher than what they would have had, particularly with the construction that was going on at the same time. Their suggestion in order to run a fair test, a longer time is needed than what has been done. He said this is a critical time period, but it is two hours a day, five days a week – ten hours a week. He said many comments have been received and listened to. This is what resulted in the cut back from the initial three hours per day to two hours a day. He said he is leaning strongly toward the continuation of the pilot project.
Betty Sue Morris asked about the boundaries of the Delta Park widening project. Kate Deane said it is called the Delta Park to Lombard project but is basically Victory Boulevard to Lombard. Where the lane drops from three lanes down to two lanes and picks back up where Columbia Boulevard comes in at the on-ramp and becomes the new third lane. Betty Sue Morris asked if ODOT is intending then to switch the general-purpose lanes that extend from the bridge to the north end of the Delta Park widening project so there is a continual HOV lane from 99th Street to Lombard? Kate Deane said ODOT in parallel with the engineering and environmental work for the Delta Park project, will be making a determination with their regional players if it should be an HOV lane or not. This will include the feasibility of an HOV lane and where it begins and ends in the I-5 corridor southbound. She said ODOT via the RTC study conducted last year, made a determination that there is really no feasible way to extend an HOV lane across the bridge without new capacity. Craig Pridemore said this was discussed at the last RTC Board meeting and staff is very careful to express that vision for the future, and he said given the leadership on the Oregon side, asked Rex Burkholder if he felt the Delta Park project would move forward if it was not an HOV lane. Rex Burkholder said he did not believe it would move forward if it were not an HOV lane.
Betty Sue Morris said the question is the length of the freeway southbound from the bridge to the beginning of the Delta Park project. She asked if it would it be the intent of ODOT to convert that from a general-purpose to an HOV lane or would it be a stretch of HOV southbound north or the river and then a stretch of general purpose lane just south of the river where Jantzen Beach enters and exits I-5 and then south of that HOV lane between Delta Park and Lombard. Betty Sue Morris said in order to have a continuous HOV lane, some general-purpose lanes will have to be converted. Kate Deane said in the northbound HOV lane, there is a very small stretch that was converted. It is possible that on the southbound sections, something similar may be done. There was discussion of possible conversion from general-purpose to HOV and the legality of converting lanes. Bill Ganley said when lanes are converted to HOV, it will cause failure on the HOV. Don Wagner said to clarify, when a system is put in place, it converts a lane. When segments of general-purpose lanes are converted to HOV to complete a link in a system such as a three-mile HOV stretch north and a three-mile HOV stretch south, with one mile in between that is converted, these are some of the most effective working systems in the Puget Sound area. Segments of general-purpose lanes were converted to complete a system. It is true that if you take a whole roadway system and convert it to HOV to create an HOV system, that has not been successful. Mr. Wagner said to keep in mind that it is not only the issue of the end of the bridge. There are lanes that come on, merges and weaves. He said that on the Oregon side southbound, you might not start HOV immediately after the bridge because there is no place to put the signs. He said northbound, there is signage almost one mile ahead of the changes. He said it would probably be similar to northbound and start somewhere near Marine Drive area and continue on down. That may mean a quarter of a mile of converting from general purpose to HOV.
Arch Miller said this HOV lane is the first small segment of what is hoped to be long term from 134th Street in the north down to I-84/I-405 split in the south. He said the message to Oregon is if you don’t make that HOV on your side of the river, then we will recommend not doing it on this side of the river. We cannot get the time savings that we need with the short segment that we have. The whole corridor needs to be in place.
Betty Sue Morris said the defined area only extends to Lombard in Oregon. Kate Deane said for clarification, when ODOT does the HOV study, they will address the logical beginning and end place. She said they would be looking at those issues. She said it is important for Washington to know that they are aware of the importance to have the HOV on the Oregon side for the success of the corridor.
Bob Talent asked if the time element was determined for option three? Mr. Lookingbill said that no timeline was set. The time frame would be set around some of the transit projects. If that option were recommended, staff would work with C-TRAN to see when some of those transit facilities may come on line. Mr. Talent questioned the need for the public to have a timeline. Mr. Lookingbill said it might be that a range of time is given. Don Wagner said to clarify for WSDOT, that if the pilot project is continued, they will have to work with Federal Highway Administration and will need to request a period of time. The expert review panel did say not to just choose a time such as one year. If transit service is not going to come on in a year, then don’t close down the time line, it needs time to develop. Give it 18 months to 2 years. Lynne Griffith said dates really need to be nailed down. There are three projects in the corridor that C TRAN is watching closely. She said 99th is advancing on schedule with completion in 2004. She said 134th and 179th are critical factors, but not funded at this time.
Bill Ganley said he had done a lot or research on HOV. He said an interesting point that he found was that environmental groups are split, some for HOV and some not. The reason being that it changes the urban growth boundary out farther and ties everyone to the car. He thinks there is a battle between light rail and HOV for the Portland Metro area. Mr. Ganley highlighted some of the information that he found about HOV for Washington. He said this region is at a great beginning point to make a decision. He asked if this project had dollars specifically dedicated to HOV that would have to be returned if it was no longer an HOV lane? Mr. Wagner said no. Mr. Ganley said the bridge is the problem that will not allow HOV across and asked if the number of cars that exit to Mill Plain or SR-14 were counted and how many are going across the bridge. Mr. Ganley also said that truck traffic is stuck in the middle lane, and asked if the freight issue was addressed. Mr. Ganley asked if the original design of I-5 was for HOV. Mr. Wagner said the original design was in the 1970’s, and during that time all options were looked at including HOV. At that time, there was clearly no need for HOV, and no system plan for that. He said there is no difference in designing a lane for HOV or for general purpose. They are 12 foot wide and the exact same shoulder differences. I-5 was designed as a freeway lane. It works as a general-purpose lane or as an HOV lane. Mr. Ganley said he is not opposed to HOV lanes. He said he conferred with the mayors, city managers, and staff of the other north cities that he represents, Yacolt, Ridgefield, and La Center to take the position that he took at the C-TRAN meeting to oppose the current HOV pilot program. He believes that we need to look at a regional issue. The ones that are successful are the ones that are on a regional basis. That would include Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties to work with us to develop a regional plan. He said the leaders of this region need to take a serious look at the design of what is needed for the region to be successful. He said this is why he thinks this pilot project should be discontinued and revisited at a later time. He said he would choose option one.
Betty Sue Morris said she would pick option one also. She has looked at this as a pilot project, but for her the data is not there on a number of levels to continue it. She said if 90% of the people are in the HOV lane, and one-third are in buses, they felt they would be in buses whether it was HOV or not. She said the savings for transit time for all lanes has not been modeled were that lane was converted back to a general purpose lane. She also said the population forecast for Clark County does not justify the use of an HOV. The forecast is for 1.5% population figure. The data that RTC has used is old data. In order to talk about the population growth in this area over a 20 year horizon, she does not see that it justifies an HOV lane at this time. She said her own random sample of liberal thinking people said dump it. She said as a non HOV user, she would like to get through a little faster when she is not in the HOV.
Rex Burkholder said in regard to discussions on the other side of the river, they are further developed and built out as an urban area. He said they are looking at the end of highways. What they now have is what they will have. Communities that get pass-through traffic (Lake Oswego, Beaverton, North Portland) are very resistant to having more capacity added to their community. There is no benefit to it, and in many cases actually loose. An example is downtown Lake Oswego Highway 43, south of that area has so much traffic that ODOT’s suggestion is to go to six lanes. That is through downtown, and what happens to the quality of life there, and why sacrifice that for the people who drive pass-through the area. If we are not able to expand, then how do we increase the capacity? He said he did not know if HOV was the answer, but we do need to manage what we have. We have a limited resource that will become more and more limited with more demands, and need to make that work. Mr. Burkholder said in isolation, this is hard to judge if it will work or not. He said he started out as a bicycle advocate. He said people said why should we put in bike lanes – no one rides bikes. In the city of Portland, they have 8,000 people a day ride their bikes downtown to go to work. That would take a bridge with two lanes to accommodate those people and about four parking garages for the cars. There is a system to measure impact by. At first as a single piece, it was a laughing stock of why would you do something like that. That is where this decision is. Here is a piece that might work, to maintain the option and continue to do more tests of examination can benefit. You can always go back and make changes in the future. We need to manage what we have, and HOV is one management tool. Mr. Burkholder stated that the people that he represents did not support widening I-5 through Delta Park unless it was HOV. They saw it as more traffic and impact to the community with no benefit. That HOV piece on the Oregon side was part of that agreement.
Arch Miller said there is no HOV north of the bridge, and it may be that south of the bridge, the traffic may spread out as well. All things need to be looked at. He said clearly, the single biggest problem that we have today southbound is still the bridge, not the HOV lane. He said that Commissioner Morris said that the people riding buses would be riding buses whether there was an HOV lane or not. He said that he recalled that there were more people riding the buses than before the HOV lane, and asked Lynne Griffith is this was true. Lynne Griffith said that was correct. She said there has been about a ten percent increase over the last quarter. That is because C-TRAN was able to expand the capacity of parking spaces at Salmon Creek. Mr. Miller asked if this was because of the expansion of parking and not HOV. Ms. Griffith said it was because of both. She said HOV is running four to nine minutes faster on the bus. That is dollar savings, and it allows for two additional trips in service when HOV opened because of the quicker return of the buses. That can be meaningful in terms of expansion of ridership. She said as Mr. Lookingbill said earlier what is unfortunate is the timing of this. It will be interesting to see what happens if there is a whole parking facility that opens with the capacity of 650 vehicles and they are able to board public transportation. What will happen to the HOV lane then? She said even under these restrained conditions, they have seen increases.
Mr. Miller said in reference to the negative impact to trucks. He said the Port of Vancouver has not received one remark to the delay of trucks because of HOV. He said they have about 1,800 trucks a day in and out of the Port, and there has not been one complaint. Bill Ganley said he was looking at trucks that were traveling through. He said that even with only a two hour time period, for delivery trucks, this is a freight issue that is not answered by HOV.
Mr. Miller said the report from the peer group is very important. He said from the standpoint that when HOV was opened, he received a heated call from Senator Benton about a situation in the state of New Jersey where these experts studied and New Jersey did get rid of the HOV lanes. Mr. Benton said it was important to note that. Mr. Miller said the expert review peer group that studied New Jersey was the same group that studied our HOV pilot project. He said the peer group told us to continue the project. That is important to note. Mr. Miller said in that confidence, he would like to make a motion.
Bill Ganley said in the review panel study, the chart they had ranked us in the middle. Don Wagner said that the chart that was shown had systems that had been in operation anywhere from 1 year to 15 years in some cases. Our system has been in place for 1 year. We need to recognize that in the first year, we have not met all the goals, but it is not that all the systems that were taken out, were taken out after one year. That is something to note on the chart.
Bob Talent said options one and two are absolute and concrete. Option three gives us the option to review and accumulate more information and not absolute. It gives us flexibility to deal with these public relations issues and transportation quality issues in the future. Options one and two are absolute and possible fatal flaw. He said he agrees with Mr. Miller.
Betty Sue Morris said that technically it would probably be option three that is chosen. That being the case, she asked if we would keep the same targets to measure against. Mr. Lookingbill said that is a decision of the RTC Board. The RTC Board originally recommended these target goals and consistency would be something to address. He said these goals were not prioritized, but they are the right measures to address. If there was something else that the Board would like to address, that can be done.
Judie Stanton said things can be redefined along the way, but it is her concern of the additional costs of continuing to monitor the project if option three was chosen. Mr. Lookingbill said the studies were done every three months and that could be changed to affect the cost. Mr. Wagner said it was an 18-month study with Parsons Brinckerhoff to collect the data and write the reports, close to $90,000. Most of that was in the report writing. There are a variety of ways to reduce that cost. That cost can be tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue the work in the magnitude of possibly $30,000 - $40,000 for each of the years that it is continued as long as there is not a lot of detail changes and lengthy fancy data reports.
ARCH MILLER MOVED FOR APPROVAL TO CONTINUE THE I-5 HOV PILOT PROJECT FOR THE TIME THAT IS DETERMINED NECESSARY TO HAVE VALID INFORMATION INCLUDING THE OPENING OF ADDITIONAL PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES. JUDIE STANTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. BETTY SUE MORRIS AND BILL GANLEY VOTED NO ON THE ACTION.
Arch Miller suggested that a letter go to our members of the legislature from Southwest Washington from this Board explaining the decision that was made and the recommendation of the expert review group. Mr. Lookingbill will carry that out.
Royce Pollard said we need to continue to look at the criteria that we have for consistency, but said we may want to look at expanding those options. Craig Pridemore said consistency is important. Betty Sue Morris said consistency is important but asked if we have the capacity to model the same measurements against a non-HOV lane. Mr. Lookingbill said a simulation model can be created to do that, but it is more of an expensive option. It may be that when ODOT is doing their evaluation, we can piggy-back on another option. Betty Sue Morris said it is the length of time it takes that she is looking for. Don Wagner said when this was first looked at 18 months – 2 years ago, the consultant was asked to do a model, which was presented to this Board. He said they may be able to run that model with modifications to achieve this answer, but not certain.
Mr. Wagner said the final decision of the HOV pilot project will be made by WSDOT. He said they would take the recommendation of the RTC Board along with the data that has been received, discussions with the Washington Transportation Commission, and Federal Highway Administration. He said it is his goal to have a decision by the end of January. That decision will be relayed back to the RTC Chair before it becomes public.
VII. Regional Transportation Priorities: 2003 Washington State Legislature and Federal; TEA III Reauthorization Priorities
Dean Lookingbill said it is increasingly important not only to identify the most important projects in light of limited transportation funds, but also for the purpose of communication priorities to citizens as well as the region’s state and congressional representatives. The RTC Board has approached the prioritization of transportation projects both on a system wide basis as well as on a project by project basis. The purpose for discussion is to be prepared with prioritized transportation project requests if the legislature were to look at a new transportation revenue package. One of the difficulties of developing a priority list is the fact that it is unknown at this point if there will be a new transportation revenue, the size, or policy emphasis of a state funding package. Mr. Lookingbill referred to the Phased List of Regional Interstate and State Projects in Clark County, 2002-2003 MTP that was included in the meeting packet. This list was put together by RTC and WSDOT staff. Mr. Lookingbill highlighted those projects. A correction was made to the I-5, 99th Street to I-205 Widening project changing the $34 million amount to $35 million. Mr. Lookingbill said the I-5/134th interchange project would need to address the relocation of the park and ride facility since the project removes the existing park and ride facility. Given the fact that more design work has been done on the 134th interchange project than the 219th interchange, a funding modification to the I-5/219th Street interchange project would be a $5 million price not the $1.9 million. The I-205 flyover ramp to 112th project has $4 million local funds available for the project that is not listed. In addition to specific project requests, the Strategic MTP identifies two long-term project concepts whose scale, financing, and economic importance will have major land use, and transportation system impacts beyond the 20-year timeframe of the MTP. The first project involves the continuation of the I-5 Partnership Study recommendation to pursue the development of an EIS for replacing or supplementing the Interstate Bridge and the bridge influence area. The second project, the I 5/I 205/SR-500 light rail loop, relates to both the I-5 Partnership recommendation but also to the future high capacity transit system for Clark County. There is opportunity to pursue federal project development funding for both projects within the earmark process for the TEA III transportation reauthorization bill. Mr. Lookingbill addressed a coordinated support effort for bi-state transportation projects significant to our region.
The Skamania and Klickitat County Transportation Policy Committees have also begun the process of identifying their federal transportation reauthorization priorities. As they complete their process in early January and as the RTC Board completes their process in February, the Skamania and Klickitat priorities will need to be combined with the Clark County list.
Arch Miller said at the last meeting in December with our local legislators, the message was quite clear from them that they want the 219th Street Interchange. Mr. Miller said they have the authority to do that project whether we recommend it to them or not, so we should have the design and right of way at the top. He said we could tell them we want three projects funded, those two and the I-5, 99th to I-205, which is ready to construct. This is just one option.
Royce Pollard said the City does have a different list, but there is not a problem in discussion. We have not had a problem in the past in establishing priorities. He said the Legislature not only told us in transportation but in other areas as well. He said it would be nice to have some guidance other than having us just prioritize everything. Maybe we could get an idea of how much money we really have. That would certainly have some impact on what we decide to do, and whether a project is 50 percent funded, what the percentage of local match is, and if it is phased. He said we have no guidance at all. He said he supports a prioritized document, but believes we may need some time to think this. If we are just going to establish priorities without any kind of guidance or standards, it can become a free-for-all, which is not how we have operated in the past. Mayor Pollard said the City has the I-205 project that already has $4 million to go towards it. It is a very important project of the City of Vancouver and also for the region.
Betty Sue Morris asked Mark Brown if there was a way to structure the list of projects by biennium. She asked how long it takes to do the pre-design, and asked if there was a way to structure the list to sequence our request to the legislature. This list is just project by project.
Mark Brown said yes, that the request that he heard was to strike a list that is more sequential in terms of what really will happen over a period of time. Betty Sue Morris said that was what she was requesting. She said she has had conservations with north county residents and has made it clear that the County’s number one priority is to get money for the 134th Street interchange since that area is under moratorium. She said she believes the major issue with 219th is that some of the others remain up high on the list, because we cannot spend in the next biennium all the money for the I-5 134th Street interchange anyway. We need to know a position amount of appropriations in the transportation budget that starts design, and as time passes, will continue to be funded. She said from her perspective, she would really drop the I-5, 99th Street to I-205 project down for now. There are other much more serious economic development issues.
Mark Brown said not only is there a great uncertainty, there is talk of 3 cents, 5 cents, indexing, non-indexing, so there is great uncertainty over what a package might look like in terms of value. He said a second question is whether they go to a six year horizon rather than a ten year. So it is spending dollars over six years versus dollars over ten years that really affects the sequencing of projects. He said it is hopeful that by early February there may be some sense of both the possible size or if it is a six or ten year horizon. Both of these help in general guidance.
Betty Sue Morris said that her suggestion would be to look at this list in sequential order rather than priority order. There won’t be much money, but there are a lot of projects. We will not get full funding for any of the projects.
Don Wagner said WSDOT has the information on these projects and the phases and can help provide that. He said in regard to the thought of not doing I-5, 99th to 134th, basically all the dollars need to be assigned to a project in the year that the contract is let. He said the project would not be completed in one year, but even if it was started late in the biennium, they would need to have all of the $35 million out of this biennium to assure that the construction could be completed.
Don Wagner said for clarity, the budget that is moving forward has $40 million in the next biennium statewide for all mobility improvements. Every project on this list being a mobility project.
Betty Sue Morris requested for the next meeting a realistic timeline that sequences these projects, and said it would be helpful to have both six-year and ten-year horizons if possible.
Ed Barnes said a concern that he has, as a Transportation Commissioner is that the Channel Deepening project should be added to the list. The economy of this region depends on the deepening project for all jurisdictions of the whole metropolitan area. February 4, 2003 this will go before the Legislature.
This discussion would continue at the February RTC Board meeting.
VIII. Value Pricing Overview
Given the length of the meeting and the time, the Value Pricing Overview would be carried over and be presented at the February meeting.
IX. Other Business
From the Board
Arch Miller said he had not stated this when he was presented with the plaque, but he wanted to thank Dean, Diane, and the staff of RTC. He said it has been a pleasure to work with them as RTC Chair.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted the JPACT Meeting on January 16 and the next RTC Board meeting will be held on February 4, 2003 at 4 p.m. at the Marshall House.
RTC will be moving from their facility on Officers’ Row on February 7. They will be at their new facility on the southwest corner of the 4th floor of the new Clark County Public Service Center on February 10.
Key Facts, a publication of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) was distributed to members. The publication is a summary of transportation information for Washington State 2002.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 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.
       
|