Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, 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, August 5, 2003, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center Sixth Floor Training Room, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow.
Board Members Bill Ganley, City of Battle Ground Council Member
Matt Garrett, ODOT Interim Region One Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Rod Monroe, Metro Alternate
Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Transportation Services Manager
Bob Talent, Skamania County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Ex Officio MembersDeb Wallace, State Representative 17th District
Joseph Zarelli, State Senator 18th District
GuestsSam Adams, City of Battle Ground
Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Brent Grening, Port of Ridgefield
Randy Jones, City of Ridgefield
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Mindi Linquist, Senator Murray’s Office
Dick Malin, Citizen
Robin McArthur, ODOT
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Ellen Rogers, Port of Ridgefield
Steve Schulte, Clark County
Mark Turpel, Metro
Dave Williams, ODOT
Bill Wright, Clark County
Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver
Sharon Wylie, Clark County
StaffLynda David, Senior Transportation Planner
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative AssistantChair Pridemore welcomed new Ex Officio Members who were present, Senator Joseph Zarelli and Representative Deb Wallace.
II. Approval of June 3, 2003, Minutes
BILL GANLEY MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 3, 2003, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOB TALENT AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
There was no citizen comment.
IV. Consent Agenda
- Ratification of July I, 2003, Action – July Claims
- August Claims
- RTC Capitalization Budget Amendment, Resolution 08-03-17
- Transportation Data Collection Contract, Resolution 08-03-18
- RTC’s Lease: Clark County Public Service Center, Resolution 08-03-19
LYNNE GRIFFITH MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS LISTED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Update: Port of Ridgefield Proposed Rail Crossing
Brent Grening, Port of Ridgefield Executive Director, distributed a handout and presented slides of the proposed Ridgefield Railroad Overpass. Mr. Grening said the proposed project will provide a grade separated highway overpass to the Port of Ridgefield and the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. The overpass access will allow three at-grade railroad crossings to be closed. As part of the State's high-speed rail program, WSDOT and Burlington Northern Santa Fe propose to construct a third rail to expand capacity and reduce congestion of the mainline in the 2015-2020 timeframe. With the construction of the third rail, WSDOT Rail program believes a rail overpass will need to be constructed in Ridgefield to reduce congestion and increase safety. He said the project would enable the regional goals of increasing freight and passenger mobility, increasing public safety, and protecting the environment and quality of life of the citizens of Ridgefield. Without the overpass, conflicts between train and vehicular traffic will increase and may limit the redevelopment potential of the Ridgefield waterfront. Without the overpass, train speeds may need to be reduced in order to allow vehicles to safely cross three rail lines.
Consistent with this effort, WSDOT, Burlington Northern, US Fish & Wildlife, the City of Ridgefield, and the Port of Ridgefield have begun planning necessary to place the Ridgefield rail overpass on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Mr. Grening explained the overhead map of the proposed overpass and highlighted the project benefits. The estimated budget for the project is $20 million, and they are currently working at identifying funding sources. This project is in the Port's Comprehensive Plan, and they are working with the City of Ridgefield to get it in their Capital Facilities Plan to be adopted in September 2003. The Ridgefield Community has placed the overpass project on its Community Action Plan, completed in 2002.
Arch Miller said this is a very important project not only for safety but also for freight mobility in Southwest Washington. He said it is quite a deal to remove three at-grade railroad crossings for one overpass. A couple years ago the Port of Vancouver build an overpass to eliminate one at-grade crossing with a cost in the $12 million range. This estimated budget of $20 million looks to be in line. Mr. Miller encouraged RTC to do what ever can be done to support this project. Dean Lookingbill said in the next Metropolitan Transportation Plan update, this project along with other projects will be reviewed for amendment into the MTP.
Rod Monroe said along with improving the freight mobility through that area, in the future, it is hopeful to have high speed rail. This would be a major improvement for that as well.
VI. SR-35 DEIS: Preliminary Preferred Alternative
Dale Robins said the purpose of the SR-35 Study project is to improve multi-modal transportation of people and goods across the Columbia River between the Bingen/White Salmon, Washington and Hood River Oregon communities. WSDOT, ODOT, and RTC are managing the project. The overall need for the SR-35 project is to rectify current and future transportation inadequacies and deficiencies associated with the existing Hood River Bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1924, and is the second oldest bridge over the Columbia River. In 1938 the bridge was raised and a lift span was added due to the construction of the Bonneville Dam. The bridge is 4,418 feet long and 19 feet wide. This provides two 9-½ foot travel lanes. (Standard lanes are 12 feet wide.) The bridge deck is open-grid steel. The navigational channel span is 246 feet wide. Coast Guard recommends a 450-foot wide span. There is no bicycle or pedestrian facility on the bridge.
A wide range of alternatives were considered in developing the SR-35 project. Mr. Robins highlighted the alternatives, which were narrowed to three river crossings in the existing corridor. A No action alternative was also considered, which would assume the existing bridge be maintained and remain much as it is today. The bridge would continue to be structurally limited (weight restricted) and functionally limited in terms of height and width restrictions. It would assume that the bridge would be closed some time in the future (assumed to be about 30 years.)
The identified preliminary preferred alternative is EC-2 West Alignment, which would be directly adjacent to the west side of the existing bridge. The new facility would have two 12-foot travel lanes, two 8-foot shoulders, and a 16-foot pedestrian/bicycle facility.
Staff is currently preparing the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for review. This will go out for public review in October. Following that, the region will be seeking funding to move into the Final EIS (FEIS). After a Record of Decision is issued on the FEIS, preliminary engineering would occur. Funding for the FEIS is currently being sought through a Congressional earmark.
Don Wagner said the current bridge is not a state-owned structure. It is owned by the Port of Hood River, and they collect the toll fees. Rod Monroe asked if the new bridge would be a toll bridge as well. Mr. Robins said most likely. The proposal is to have a toll in place to help pay for the cost of the bridge. Arch Miller asked who would own the new bridge. Mr. Robins said at this point, the proposal is to have the bridge be owned by the two states. The old bridge would be removed as part of this project and is included in the project cost. The bridge has been a revenue generator for the Port of Hood River, but the bridge is getting to an age that the maintenance costs are becoming greater than what the toll revenue generates. The current toll on the bridge is 75¢, with 50¢ going to the general fund and 25¢ to bridge maintenance. There was discussion of the position of the Port of Hood River on the project. Mr. Robins said the Port is very supportive of the study. Local elected officials on the Washington side have begun negotiations with the Port of Hood River to actually raise the toll 25¢, and this would be put into a bridge replacement fund. Mr. Robins said they are looking at approximately ten years before construction would move forward. The increase in the toll would be by an Interlocal Agreement with the Port, local jurisdictions, and the States. Arch Miller said if they were to increase the toll another 25¢ that he would encourage support for those funds to go towards a new bridge. Mr. Robins said the Port of Hood River owns the bridge but they are aware of the situation and are currently in negotiations to hopefully have this new replacement fund set up by next year.
Don Wagner said that when the Washington Department of Transportation looked at this, one of the reasons the No Action alternative was not to just modernize the existing bridge is that the legislation in the State of Washington clearly states that a new bridge is not a rebuilt old bridge. The only line that SR 35 cannot be built across the Columbia River on is the existing bridge. This new piece of state highway (SR-35) must be a new bridge. The current bridge is not a state highway, and is owned by the Port of Hood River and they are responsible and liable. Dave Williams said this project is a congressional mandate by then Representative Smith who was reacting to concerns by the citizens on the Washington side of the river. The legislation was written so SR-35 could cross the river and the highway and bridge would be state owned and not Port owned.
VII. WSDOT Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) Amendment #13, Resolution 08-03-20
Dale Robins said that this spring, the Washington State legislature passed a 10-year, $4.2 billion transportation funding package that included seven specific projects in the Clark County region. Two construction projects were amended into the MTIP in May. This proposed action will amend the MTIP to bring in the additional 2003 projects that are part of the State funding package. This amendment would include the design of the I-5/134th Street Interchange, I-5/SR-502 Interchange, SR-502/Widening from I-5 to Battle Ground, and Southwest Region Bridge Rail Retrofit. Also, since the state funding package will pay for the construction of the I-205 Mill Plain Off Ramp (112th Ave connector), the City of Vancouver is requesting that the STP dollars be moved from construction to design and that the discretionary dollars be moved to the I-205 Study. In addition, WSDOT and Vancouver agree to have WSDOT serve as the project lead on the I-205 Mill Plain Off Ramp project. All projects will be programmed in the 2003 element of the 2002-2004 MTIP.
Senator Zarelli asked about the moving of the funds, stating the legislature had specifically marked the dollars to projects. He was referring to the moving of construction funds to design of the I-205 project. Mr. Robins said the State Nickel Funding was specified for construction. The City of Vancouver is not moving any Nickel Funding but is moving other local/regional funds allocated to the project to design, so the project will be ready to proceed when the construction funding becomes available through the Nickel Funding Package.
Thayer Rorabaugh said the City of Vancouver had about $700,000 of Federal STP dollars, $200,000 of it was in design, and $500,000 was in construction. When the Legislature approved the Nickel Package, the entire construction portion of that project was funded. Their request is to take the dollars that had been allocated for construction and move them back to design, in other words, the City of Vancouver will fund the design. The Nickel Package funds for construction do not come until 2006.
BILL GANLEY MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 08-03-20 WSDOT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT #13. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BETTY SUE MORRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VIII. FY 04 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Amendment: I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership, Resolution 08-03-21
Dean Lookingbill said this amendment is for action to amend RTC’s work program in coordination with Metro. This also presents an opportunity to bring forward a discussion and update of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership project. Lynda David referred to Resolution 08-03-21 included in the meeting packet along with Attachment A, Metro Council Resolution and Attachment B, RTC’s UPWP amended pages. The amendment will acknowledge Metro’s amendment to their FY 2003/2004 Unified Planning Work Program. Specifically, Metro’s amendment incorporates ODOT’s description of the work to be carried out in FY 2003-2004 on the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership.
Dave Williams said the amendment to Metro’s FY 2003-04 UPWP will allow for the obligation of $3.5 million in federal National Corridor Planning and Development Program (Section 1118) funds to begin implementation of the recommendations from the Portland-Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership. It follows on the portion of the Strategic Plan recommendations that call for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Columbia Crossing and associated improvements. There are other components of those recommendations that are moving on a separate track.
Mr. Williams said ODOT has been discussing how to do this with WSDOT for some time. To begin with, a new bridge is very expensive, and the EIS will also be an expensive undertaking. It may involve tolling, and innovative finance that this region has not done before. It may require special legislation for both states on a variety of federal actions, and in addition, there are some new models in involving the private sector that may become available to us that speed up the delivery of the project rather dramatically. Mr. Williams said staff has concluded that before moving into an EIS, they need a plan of how they will move this project, and that is what is planned with these funds to be obligated. They hope to evaluate a variety of options of how to undertake the EIS and subsequent construction and operations of the bridge. He said they will come back with a set of work plans that will involve all the local partners that have worked on this project in the past.
Mr. Williams said they are looking at the different approaches to construct the bridge. Traditionally, the Departments of Transportation own the project all the way to the environmental process, through the engineering, and come up with a set of designs. This is then put out for competitive bids through the private sector. It is a long process, but guarantees that you get the results that you want. Both Washington and Oregon DOTs are experimenting with Design-Build, where the private sector is brought in one step early, and allow them to design and construct the bridge. Projects done in this manner in Oregon have shown to speed up delivery of the project. It doesn’t necessarily lower the cost, but it does speed up the benefits by opening the project sooner. There are now some other options that Oregon may be able to do. One is something called Design-Build-Operate. In this case, where we have a bridge that may in fact be tolled, we could have the firm that designs and constructs it, also operate it. There is also public/private partnerships where the private sector is brought in ahead of the environmental process and help shape the process. Mr. Williams said all these options will be considered to give us the best opportunity to move the project quickly.
Mr. Williams said with the obligated funds, they have seven basic components of work, and he highlighted these planned steps to reach the EIS. The goal is a nine-month time frame to have a plan of how to move this project forward through the environmental process and construction.
Matt Garrett said that the obligation of these funds will allow ODOT to move forward with this project, and they will continue the cooperative effort with both Oregon and Washington jurisdictions.
Don Wagner said that when this effort was started, they looked at how to fund something between two states. An early agreement for the I-5 Trade Partnership was to have the federal money funnel through Oregon in order to avoid confusion. It was agreed that the Federal 2003 money would go to the state of Oregon. He said they are trying to get Federal 2004 money for the state of Washington, so they can be equity partners as they move forward. In order to receive federal money, you must have local match. In the Nickel Package, the last legislation that was passed for this biennium, no state dollars were identified for this project. Mr. Wagner said they are now working with their federal delegation for money for this project. The results of that are not known at this time, but they do believe that the lack of financial commitment on Washington’s part is probably likely that we will not see a House earmark. They had thought they may have a House earmark for federal dollars in 2004, and that did not happen. They are now working with the Senate. Mr. Wagner said the intent of the Partnership is certainly there between the two states’ Director and Secretary, and they are in agreement to work at getting funding to move forward on this.
Representative Deb Wallace said this clearly shows the commitment, that if we want this project to go forward with improvements for a bridge across I-5, we need to be together to get funding for this. She said she is disappointed that at the state level we were not able to bring that support together. She said that everyone at the table needs to get together if we want to see this project go forward in the next ten plus years to build a bridge.
Lynda David said the action before the RTC Board is to adopt Resolution 08-03-21, which acknowledges amendment to Metro’s FY 2003/04 UPWP, and amend RTC’s FY 2004 UPWP to cross reference the I-5 Partnership work in Metro’s UPWP. The RTC Board action is also contingent on Metro Council’s final decision and the amendment to their UPWP.
ARCH MILLER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 08-03-21, FY 04 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENT: I-5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRADE PARTNERSHIP. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY THAYER RORABAUGH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IX. C-TRAN 20 Year Transit Development Plan Travel Demand Modeling Interlocal Agreement, Resolution 08-03-22
Dean Lookingbill said as a part of C-TRAN’s 20-Year Transit Development Plan, RTC has been asked to conduct the transit model analysis. As the Board is aware, C-TRAN’s 20-year plan process is underway and will result in a tool for projecting future transit financial and service levels. The plan is being conducted through an extensive community involvement process that will tie C-TRAN’s future plans to the community’s changing needs. The purpose of this resolution is to request RTC Board authorization to enter into an interlocal agreement to have RTC conduct the transit travel demand analysis and forecast the system-wide transit ridership changes for six different transit service alternatives. RTC’s analysis is expected to be completed by November of 2003 for a cost not to exceed $17,000. A full scope of work was attached to the resolution.
Dale Miller, C-TRAN, said C-TRAN’s 20-year plan process is known by the tag line “C-TRAN Road Map, a Community Vision for the Future” and is their first attempt at 20-year planning. They have community focus work groups, surveys, community events, and more obtaining input from the public.
Mr. Miller distributed C-TRAN Road Map Newsletters including a set of handouts with information on the five different funding and service alternatives. Alternative #1: No Sales Tax Increase, Reduce services by up to 40% to balance the budget. Alternative #2: Approximately 3/10 of One Cent Sales Tax Increase, Provide service to current service area. Alternative #3: Approximately 3/10 of One Cent Sales Tax Increase, Concentrate services in highly productive core urban areas. Alternative #4: Approximately 6/10 of One Cent Sales Tax Increase, Provide bus feeder service to full loop light rail. Alternative #5: Approximately 6/10 of One Cent Sales Tax Increase, Provide high-capacity bus service. Mr. Miller noted that in Alternative 4, the funding proposal of 6/10 of one cent tax increase does not include any funding for light rail associated capital, operating, or maintenance costs. Mr. Miller offered to give presentations on the Plan to any jurisdiction.
Dean Lookingbill said the land use assumptions for the travel demand forecasts will be the new proposed GMA comprehensive land use plan. Adoption of Resolution 08-03-22 would authorize the RTC Director to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with C-TRAN to conduct the identified travel demand modeling services listed in the Scope of Work for their 20-Year Transit Development Plan.
Deb Wallace moved for approval of Resolution 08-03-22. At this time, rules for the Ex Officio members have not been established. This will be a Bylaws topic to be discussed at the September meeting.
BETTY SUE MORRIS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 08-03-22 C-TRAN 20 YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOB TALENT AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
X. 2005-06 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Project Evaluation and Prioritization
Dale Robins said the Clark County region is required to adopt both a 20-year Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and a 3-year Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The projects that are in the TIP are drawn directly from projects that are listed in the MTP or from general recommendations in the MTP. Currently, we have a 2002-2004 TIP and are moving toward adoption of a 2004-2006 TIP. Projects that are currently programmed in the 2004 element of the TIP will be carried into the new TIP along with new projects for 2005 and 2006. Today’s discussion is about the evaluation and prioritization of these 2005 and 2006 projects.
Mr. Robins emphasized the relationship between the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). He displayed a slide listing the MTP Goals and the MTIP Criteria used to select projects and highlighted those items.
The RTC Board adopted the overall MTIP selection process, including needs criteria, in June 2000. The project selection process includes three steps: 1) Project Screening, 2) Evaluation and Ranking by Needs Criteria, and 3) Project Selection and Programming. Mr. Robins highlighted these steps. Mr. Robins referred to the spreadsheet included in the memorandum listing the projects and their scoring. The projects were divided into two sections, one for STP-TMA (flexible federal funds that can be used for a variety of projects) and one for CMAQ (funds to be used for projects that improve the air quality in the region). The same criteria are used to evaluate both projects with one slight difference on the CMAQ projects. The air quality points are multiplied by 2. The STP projects are based on 100 total points and the CMAQ projects are based on 110 total points. Projects are ranked based on their total points.
Based on their ranking, Mr. Robins listed the proposed projects. STP-TMA Projects: 1) NE 162nd Ave., NE 39th St. to Ward Rd., construction, 2) 192nd Avenue – Phase III, construction, 3) St. Johns Rd., 50th Ave. to 72nd Ave, right of way/construction, 4) NE 49th St., 112th Ave. to 122nd Ave., all. CMAQ Projects: 1) VAST-Management and Implementation, 2) Mill Plain Blvd. Pedestrian, 87th Ave. to Chkalov, 3) NW 149th Street, NW 21st Ave. to NE 4th Ave, 4) Andresen Road Pedestrian/Transit Improvements, 5) NE 72nd Ave., S or 63rd Street to 73rd Street.
Mr. Robins referred to the list of Draft 2005-2006 MTIP Programming Summary. This is the list of projects by phase, year, and cost. The list shows that about $6 million of STP-TMA projects can be funded and just under $3 million of CMAQ projects. Mr. Robins said the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee recommended concurrence with this list of projects at their July meeting. With RTC Board concurrence, RTC staff will prepare the actual 2004-2006 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for adoption at their October meeting.
Thayer Rorabaugh asked if this would fully fund the 162nd Avenue project. Dale Robins said the project is fully funded, but that there is a $3 million maximum federal money limit on a project and this project has limited on those federal dollars. The County would be paying for the remainder of the construction with other grant dollars. That project will not be eligible for any more STP funding.
Craig Pridemore asked if the main object is a focus on the best public investment to aid economic development, how that is incorporated in this criteria. Mr. Robins said if that is the desire, then the economic development criteria would need to be changed to make it more reflective of that goal. Senator Zarelli asked how a project was scored for congestion. Mr. Robins said they look at the current volume to capacity ratio and explained how that is scored. There was discussion of the scoring process. Mr. Robins said the criteria are set to meet all the goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The only criterion that is weighted is for the Congestion Management, which is 25 points. All other criteria are 15 points. The criteria were also developed to help leverage additional dollars. These criteria match quite well with the criteria of the Transportation Improvement Board, and have been extremely successful in quadrupling the value of federal money to get TIB money.
The RTC Board concurred with the listed 2005-2006 MTIP Project Evaluation and Prioritization.
XI. Other Business
From the Board
Craig Pridemore said in regard to the Bylaws issue, he asked if the Board preferred to have a separate small committee to address the revision or direct staff to bring forward proposed changes necessary to amend the Bylaws with the additional Ex Officio members. Dean Lookingbill said the amendment would include their membership, address alternates, and also structure the action and voting of the members. There was discussion of other MPO action on the issue of Ex Officio members and it has varied. Mr. Lookingbill said the Puget Sound area added 35+ legislators, and they have included those members via an E-mail process. Other areas have only added a couple members, so it is the decision of this Board as to how to how it should be addressed. There was discussion of specifying alternates on the Board. It was decided to have copies of the Bylaws for the next meeting for preliminary discussion.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted JPACT would meet on August 14, 2003, Metro at 7:15 a.m.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 4 p.m.
Mr. Lookingbill had available for members copies of a summary of the RTC briefing held for State Legislative Delegation.
Senator Murray and the Senate Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee Field Hearing, August 13, 2003, at the Public Service Center Hearing Room.
Mr. Lookingbill noted the distributed audit summary for RTC’s 2002 audit. The audit had no findings to report. Chair Pridemore noted that during the Exit Interview for the close of the audit, the audit staff was extremely complementary of RTC staff. They had very positive comments.
Also distributed was a copy of a letter sent from RTC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed rule to implement the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. The current standard is a single hour, and this change would mean that our region would not meet the requirement for the eight-hour standard. Likely, we would lose the federal funding allocations and the ability to access CMAQ funds that enable our region to maintain the standard.
Chair Pridemore asked Senator Zarelli or Representative Wallace if they had any comments.
Deb Wallace said it is good to be here to participate. She said there are many situations that we can work together to achieve goals.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 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.
       
|