Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, 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.

Minutes

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, February 1, 2005, at 4:05 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center Sixth Floor Training Room, Vancouver, Washington. Attendance follows.

Board Members Present
Brian Beecher, Washougal Council Member Marc Boldt, Clark County Commissioner Bill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member Matthew Garrett, ODOT Region One Manager Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Exec. Director/CEO Pat McDonnell, Vancouver City Manager Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner Royce Pollard, Vancouver Mayor Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Board Members Absent
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor Brian Prigel, Bingen Mayor Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator Jim Honeyford, Senator 15th District: Bruce Chandler, Representative 15th District: Dan Newhouse, Representative 15th District Don Benton, Senator 17th District Jim Dunn, Representative 17th District Deb Wallace, Representative 17th District Joe Zarelli, Senator 18th District Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District Richard Curtis, Representative 18th District Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District Bill Fromhold, Representative 49th District Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Guests Present
Sam Adams, City of Battle Ground Ed Barnes, WA Transportation Commissioner Peter Capell, Clark County Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield Paul Edgar, Citizen Bart Gernhart, WSDOT Brent Grening, Port of Ridgefield John Hoefs, C-TRAN Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver Mike Mabrey, Clark County Dick Malin, Citizen Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County Sharon Nasset, Citizen Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Scott Sawyer, City of Washougal Bill Stewart, The Oregonian Mark Turpel, Metro Terri Tweedell, Identity Clark County Steve Vestal, WSDOT Bob Voller, Citizen Bill Wright, Clark County
Staff Present
Lynda David, Senior Transportation Planner Mark Harrington, Transportation Analyst Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff Assistant

II. Approval of January 4, 2005, Minutes

ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 4, 2005, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

III. Citizen Communications

There was no citizen comment.

IV. Consent Agenda

1. February Claims

LYNNE GRIFFITH MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA FEBRUARY CLAIMS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

V. 2005-2007 MTIP Amendment #1: Federal 2005 Appropriation Earmarks, Resolution 02-05-01

Dale Robins said all regionally significantly projects must be listed in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP), which in turn becomes a part of the statewide State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

In December 2004, the Federal 2005 Transportation Appropriation Bill was passed and included earmarks for six specific projects in our region. This amendment will amend the 2005-2007 MTIP to bring in the projects that were part of the 2005 Appropriation Bill. The amendment includes the following projects:

• I-5/Columbia River Crossing, WSDOT, $2.0 million, Discretionary Funds
• SR-14 Pedestrian Bridge, City of Vancouver, $1.5 million, Discretionary Funds
• Clark County ITS, C-TRAN, $2.0 million, Section 5208 Funds
• I-5/I-205/SR-500 Transit Loop AA, $1.5 million, FTA New Starts
• Port of Ridgefield Grade Crossing, Port of Ridgefield, $1.0 million, Discretionary Funds
• Fruit Valley Bypass/26th Av. Extension, Vancouver, $1.0 million, Discretionary Funds

All six projects will be programmed in the 2005 element of the 2005-2007 MTIP. This amendment is found to be consistent with all state and federal requirements, and is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Congestion Management System, air quality conformity analysis, and is financially constrained. All projects were included in the existing regional air quality conformity analysis. The STIP summary pages were attached to the Resolution that was included in the meeting packet. These projects will help to meet the need for transportation system investment in the region. Federally funded projects must be programmed in the MTIP and STIP in order to obligate federal funds. Action on this amendment will provide $9 million in federal transportation funds for transportation system investments in the Clark County region.

Mr. Robins noted one correction to the STIP Summary page for the C-TRAN ITS project. The corrected amount of match should be $2 million not $500,000.

ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2005-2007 MTIP AMENDMENT #1: FEDERAL 2005 APPROPRIATION EARMARKS, RESOLUTION 02-05-01. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

VI. Federal RTC Planning Certification Review and Final Report

Dean Lookingbill said that federal statute requires that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must jointly certify RTC’s metropolitan transportation planning process at least every three years. FHWA and FTA completed their most recent review of RTC’s process in October of 2004. Mr. Lookingbill referred to a memorandum and summary letter of the results of the certification process included in the meeting packet. Because the Vancouver-Portland region is considered one metropolitan area, the letter and the certification process is conducted simultaneously for RTC and Metro. Copies of the full report were distributed to Board members.

FHWA and FTA’s review consisted of three primary activities: 1) review of planning products, 2) a site visit, and 3) preparation of a report that summarizes the review and offers findings. The review focus on compliance with Federal regulations, challenges, successes, and experiences of the cooperative relationship between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and its member jurisdictions, the State Department of Transportation, and transit operators in the conduct of the metropolitan planning process. Mr. Lookingbill said, as the letter states, FHWA and FTA have certified RTC’s federal transportation planning process with no corrective actions and only a few recommendations. Mr. Lookingbill referred to page 8 of the report that lists a summary of RTC’s review in a table format. Full text of RTC’s portion of the report begins on page 26.

Arch Miller said the Certification Review showed no corrective actions and only a few recommendations for RTC. He commended Dean and his staff on the very positive certification of the planning process. He asked all to join in a round of applause for a job well done.

Matt Garrett said the report showed that Metro had some corrective actions along with recommendations and asked for clarification. Dean Lookingbill said that Metro was very aware of the corrective actions and staff is working on those issues. They are not in jeopardy of losing their receipt of federal funds.

Marc Boldt asked about the public outreach to the legislators. Dean Lookingbill said that all the members of the 15th, 17th, 18th, and 49th legislative districts are members of RTC and receive information. The public outreach comments in the federal certification were oriented toward federal requirements and the public in general.

VII. Presentation on Salmon Creek I-5/134th and 139th Street Interchanges Project

Pete Capell, Clark County Public Works Director and Bart Gernhart, WSDOT Project Development Manager, are working as a partnership team on the Salmon Creek Interchange Project. Mr. Capell said they initially presented this project to the RTC Board in November, and since that time, their staffs have met several times. They have conducted a Cost Risk Assessment, are finalizing a Partnering Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), have agreed on a Recommended Build Alternative, and have met with major businesses in the area. Clark County is exploring options for ways to move construction up to the ’07-’08 biennium and are proposing to do advance bonding with Clark County funds for the Nickel Package funds as a way to advance WSDOT the funds they need and do both the County’s and the State’s portions at one time. He said this would also provide real cost savings and would allow the project to be delivered years ahead of the current schedule. Since the project was needed “yesterday,” acceleration of the schedule is good for the region.

Mr. Capell said there is a critical need for federal earmarks to help finance the project. He said the project is listed in the Federal Transportation Reauthorization request for $18 million and a 2006 Appropriation request for $3 million. These are included as part of the regional request that will be discussed later in today’s agenda.

Bart Gernhart noted the map of the project that was distributed and displayed on a slide as well. He highlighted the Recommended Build Alternative. He said it is different from the original project. It avoids major impacts to a motel, an oil distributor, large wetland, a library, and a park and ride lot. The original plan had ramps coming from the I-5 median exclusively for HOV and transit to 139th to and from the south. The new plan includes a half diamond interchange at 134th and a full interchange at 139th on I-5. This splits the traffic between 134th and 139th. The Interstate is also improved by extending merge lanes northbound up to 179th off ramp and southbound 1000 feet. Bart Gernhart further explained the project. The new over-crossing and interchange at 139th Street will be above both I-5 and I-205. The project will be in two phases, with the I-205 ramp work in the second phase.

Mr. Gernhart said now that they have defined the scope of the project, they are focusing on staging and funding. He said it appears that they can save the taxpayers a lot of money if the State builds the I-5 ramps to the 139th over-crossing at the same time the County builds the 139th over-crossing. He said combining these parts of the project would also be the most functional for users. Hence, the rational for trying to advance part of the State’s portion of the project.

The County and the State plan to sign an MOU the following day, on Wednesday, February 2, 2005. They are pursuing a couple of options. 1) County fronting the State funds for the I-5 work, and 2) the State advancing the I-5 work in the Nickel Program. They have hired a consultant (HDR) to address the environmental work and Parsons Brinckerhoff to address the Federal Interstate Access Report. WSDOT and County staffs are splitting various other tasks such as surveying, roadway design, bridge design, etc. WSDOT has already begun the acquisition of right-of-way. He said they are confident that they can begin construction by 2008 but are trying to begin in 2007. The actual construction start is dependant on funds being available. The final stage of construction is the I-205 work. This is still scheduled for construction in 2011 as per the 2003 Legislative Transportation bill, the Nickel Package. This is a team project. Mr. Capell said with Legacy Hospital-Salmon Creek and its medical office buildings opening this year, traffic in that area will get worse and they may face concurrency problems, but the ‘07/’08 construction period should keep them from going to a moratorium.

Marc Boldt asked what would be done at 120th and 139th. Mr. Gernhart said there would be a temporary ramp. Lynne Griffith asked about the park and ride facility, since the original plan was to move the lot. Mr. Gernhart said with the shift to 139th, it would not be necessary to relocate the park and ride facility.

Royce Pollard asked the total cost of the project. Mr. Gernhart said a Cost Risk Assessment was done as part of this project. The report is not back yet, but they are generally within the same budget as originally proposed.

Arch Miller noted the amount of intersections on 139th and questioned the timing of the lights. Mr. Gernhart said with the limited access and travel split between both 134th and 139th, travel through the area will be much better. The project cost was stated at an estimated cost of $70 million.

Betty Sue Morris said that 134th is looking better. She said that the residents of the area will have to understand that “this is the ultimate project. If the streets there get full again, there will be no fix.”

VIII. Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Goals, and 2030 Growth Forecast

Lynda David said at the January RTC Board meeting the process to begin the 2005 MTP update was begun with discussion of MTP vision and goals as well as timeline for the development process. At today’s meeting, the MTP Update process will continue with discussion on two key elements of the Plan, 1) MTP Goals and 2) the 2030 growth forecast. At the January meeting she provided a brief outline of the current MTP goals. The starting point of a Plan should be articulation of key policies and goals so that they can guide the Plan and shape its priorities. Since the January meeting, RTC staff has had additional discussion with members of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) on MTP policy issues, and those comments will be presented today. Ms. David said after gathering today’s comments, and once all updated local comprehensive plans have been received and reviewed, then the updated set of MTP goal statements will be brought back for the Board’s approval at a later date.

On the first page of the Memo that was included in the meeting packet, the current MTP goals are listed on the left and comments from Regional Transportation Advisory Committee members are listed in italics on the right. Ms. David highlighted several of the MTP goals with comments. She explained that it is well understood that a priority goal is to have the transportation system support economic development, and she explained that the RTAC comment relates to an issue that if transportation projects are needed to access new employment areas, these projects may not compete as well for state-wide federal and state transportation competitive funding which currently places a high priority on addressing safety and existing capacity problems. It was suggested that the goal to “select cost-effective and affordable alternatives” be re-worded as a goal to make most efficient use of the existing transportation system, for example through access management, improvement of intersection geometry, enhanced traffic operations, fixing bottlenecks and chokepoints that relates to one of the policy goals of the update to Washington’s Transportation Plan (WTP), as well as use of a mix of transportation modes, system and demand management. RTAC members also suggested rewording of the goal to “preserve community values” to make it clearer. It is recognized that this goal acknowledges the transportation system being a contributing element to the region’s quality of life, but it was also suggested that it includes the need to solicit community input and to reflect this public comment in the adopted MTP.

RTAC members agreed that the MTP should continue to include the countywide transportation planning policies from the Clark County Comprehensive Plan. RTAC members also commented on the key policy issues that were discussed at the January Board meeting that are re-listed on page 2 of the Board’s Memo that relate to providing transportation system development to core urban areas or smaller, satellite cities, to relieve existing congestion or to access new industrial/commercial areas, or to provide investment to highway or transit modes. RTAC members commented that the MTP goals, overall, are highway oriented and should be considerate of and address other modes. They also had concerns for sustainability; for example, in some of the core urban areas there are no further opportunities for widening streets to add capacity so the focus shifts to maximizing the efficiencies of the existing system. City of Vancouver staff talked about having “complete streets” that accommodate pedestrian, cyclist, and driver/passenger. This also relates to system and demand management as well as making investments to solve bottleneck and chokepoint problems.

At the January 2005 RTC Board meeting, the MTP update’s horizon year was discussed. While local comprehensive growth management plans have a 2023 horizon, federal law requires that the MTP cover a planning period of at least twenty years; that is 2025. However, the U.S. DOT has often recommended that the horizon be extended to at least 23 years to ensure that the Plan covers a 20-year period during all three years between MTP updates; that is 2028. Also, with the major transportation planning studies ongoing in the region, extending the planning horizon beyond 2025 would be beneficial. At the January Board meeting, there was general support for extension of the horizon year beyond 2025. RTAC members also discussed the MTP horizon year and reached general agreement that the recommendation to the RTC Board is to extend the MTP horizon to 2030.

RTAC recommends 2030 as the MTP horizon year because 2030 does not extend too far beyond the 2023 comprehensive plan horizon so the MTP update can still be based on the land uses in the adopted comprehensive plans. Revenue projections and cost estimates for transportation projects and strategies 20 plus years out is always a difficult exercise, and again, year 2030 does not extend too far beyond the minimum required 20 year horizon of 2025. Planning and environmental analyses for the large-scale projects foreseen for the I-5 and I-205 corridors would benefit from an extended horizon year. RTAC members did express concern about how to extend the horizon to 2030.

RTAC members said that the next step for MTP development should be to set target population, household, and employment numbers to use for the 2030 horizon although the reality is that whatever they set as the totals may be realized in 2025, 2030 or later depending on the performance of national and regional economies. In February, RTC should work with County staff to complete the 2023 growth allocation as the basis for the 2030 process. In March, work should proceed to complete the 2030 growth allocation and develop the 2030 regional travel forecast model, and by June, the Board should be able to consider the 2030 transportation system needs. This schedule would set things up well to meet the required December 2005 adoption of the MTP update.

Arch Miller said this was not an action agenda item, but that he would be asking for Board action on the 2030 horizon date so staff could move forward in the process.

Betty Sue Morris said she had a problem with the horizon year. She said that Clark County and RTC model differently, and the numbers are not the same. The employment totals from RTC’s transportation model and Clark County’s model are different. She said the County Commissioners are trying to settle Appeals resulting from the GMA Plan and felt that should be done before looking out to 2030. She also felt the employment totals need to match. Lynda David explained that the County and RTC use different employment totals that come from the same base, but are for different purposes. Results or output from the County’s Vacant Buildable Lands Model (VBLM) model is used as the basis for input to RTC’s Regional Travel Forecast Model. The County’s model is used to analyze consumption of land. For employment purposes, the model is looking at the existing consumption of land and future land needed to accommodate commercial and industrial employment uses. The VBLM uses total wage and salaried employment data from the state’s Employment Securities division. This data does not include the self-employed and/or people who work from home. The RTC’s Regional Travel Forecast Model is concerned with forecasting all future trips on the region’s transportation system. It uses employment data as one of the model inputs. The travel forecast model uses the County’s employment data as the basis but then factors it up by about 34% above the wage and salary employment. These employment numbers match employment data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that includes wage and salaried jobs as well as self-employed, work from home and agricultural employment. The model is trying to capture all trip making associated with employment, for example people who work from their homes may travel out to meet with clients or may make trips to buy work supplies. Ms. Morris said a compromise needs to be made somewhere so there is clarity. This becomes very important to local jurisdictions as they establish and update capital facility needs and traffic impact fee programs. At present, Ms. Morris said employment numbers are unclear. Royce Pollard said that might need to be resolved, but that should not keep us from looking farther out to the future. It should not prohibit looking at 2030.

Dean Lookingbill said that the employment totals in the transportation model are based on the county’s VBLM totals and then in order to capture the trip making of the self-employed they are factored up which boosts the employment total. Ms. Morris said that was the cause of problems at 134th and at Mill Plain. Five years ago 1995 was used as the base. She recommended that no growth forecast should be done until the County was finished with the Appeals, which could be September.

Arch Miller asked Mr. Lookingbill what the timeline was for this. Mr. Lookingbill said that the MTP needed to be completed this year. He said he believes staff can sort out the differences and that they can propose a seven-year forecast of growth beyond the 2023 to 2030. Ms. Morris suggested that RTC and Clark County need to resolve the employment total differences because they are significantly different.

Royce Pollard suggested doing both, and delay a final decision on the 2030 numbers for one month. He suggested County and RTC staff meet and look at the BEA numbers and the VBLM numbers.

Marc Boldt asked what the goal of the MTP was. Mr. Lookingbill explained that its goal is to take the adopted future land use plans, translate these into future transportation needs and to put before the RTC Board for their adoption a set of recommended regional transportation system improvements. Mr. Lookingbill said the transportation problems identified at I-5 and 134th and on I-205 have been identified as needs in previous transportation plans and should not be a surprise. These needs were forecast years ago, as a result of the growth planned in the comprehensive land use plans. Marc Boldt said the reality is that everyone wants money and to get it they lobby the legislature.

Lynne Griffith said the MTP document is a federal requirement of TEA-21. The Plan must be updated regularly as a condition for this region receiving federal transportation funding. The question today is if we look to 2030 or if we look to 2028. Steve Stuart said that given this is a required process, and Plans don’t predict completely, we need to move forward. He said Metro has 2040, and we don’t have that. Mr. Lookingbill said that RTC staff and County staff could begin with the Comprehensive Plans estimate and additional 7 years of growth.

Arch Miller said that RTC staff needs to have a forecast year to work on the MTP process.

ROYCE POLLARD MOVED TO USE 2030 AS THE MTP HORIZON YEAR. BILL GANLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Betty Sue Morris asked that RTC and County staff stress the need to work together and resolve the issues discussed.

IX. Federal ’06 Appropriation and Reauthorization Project Requests, Resolution 02-05-02

Dean Lookingbill distributed a revised resolution. He said as the Board may recall, the congressional discretionary project selection process is nearing closure for the FY ’06 federal transportation appropriation bill and for the reauthorization of TEA-21. The reauthorization project applications are due to the congressional offices by February 7, 2005, and the appropriation requests by late February.

The regional process to select projects began last December when the Board reviewed the list of projects that were funded in the ’05 federal transportation appropriation bill, the April 2004 projects listed in the House’s TEA-LU Reauthorization bill, and began a discussion of the Board’s ’06 appropriation and reauthorization project priorities. Since December, RTC staff has worked extensively with member jurisdictions to develop the proposed list of ’06 appropriation and reauthorization projects, which culminated with the January 21, 2005, RTAC project recommendations as listed in the resolution. Action is requested on this resolution, which will then become the regionally recommended list of projects for federal discretionary project support.

Based on the recommendations of RTAC and the project cost information received from local agencies, Mr. Lookingbill highlighted the following projects, which are recommended for RTC Board approval for Federal FY ‘06 Appropriation request.

• Salmon Creek Interchange, $3.0 million (Clark County)
• I-5 Columbia River Crossing, $8.0 million (WSDOT)
• East Mill Plain Blvd. 172nd Ave. to 192nd Ave., $1.25 million (Vancouver)
• I-205 Corridor EA, $3 million (Vancouver)
• SR-14 Corridor Camas/Washougal, $3 million (Port of Camas/Washougal)
• I-5/SR-501 (Pioneer Street) Interchange, $2.0 million (Ridgefield)
• Vancouver Smart Trek ITS Program, $1.5 million (RTC/VAST)
• SR-14 Slope Stabilization Scenic Area, $2 million (Skamania County)
• SR-35 Columbia River Bridge EIS, $.8 million (Klickitat County)
• Oregon Bi-State Support: I-5 Columbia River Crossing, $5 million (ODOT)

Betty Sue Morris asked about the ranking of the projects. Mr. Lookingbill said the Appropriation list is not in a ranking order and that has been the previous practice.

Marc Boldt asked if the I-5 Columbia River Crossing project is only the I-5 Bridge or if they would look at other corridor options. Mr. Lookingbill said the I-5 Crossing project is a multi modal analysis, but the scope of the project does not include the analysis of another new corridor or third bridge.

In regard to the federal transportation reauthorization request, Mr. Lookingbill recalled that this past spring, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed six-year reauthorization bills, but have been unable to reconcile the two bills to send a final version to the President for his consideration. Hence, Congress has taken a series of actions to extend the federal transportation programs authorized in TEA-21. The most recent extension continues the TEA-21 programs through May 2005.

In March of 2004, the region submitted a list of projects for consideration in the reauthorization bill. In April 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives released a list of specific earmark projects and funding amounts that were included as part of the House version of the reauthorization bill (TEA-LU). The list included the following projects for our region:

• I-5/Salmon Creek Area Improvement Project - $12.354 million (Clark County)
• I-5 Columbia River Crossing - $16 million ($10 million WSDOT/$6 million ODOT)
• I-5: Delta Park to Lombard - $15 million ($5 million WSDOT/$10 million ODOT)
• SR-35 Columbia River Crossing FEIS (Klickitat Co.) - $800,000 (RTC on behalf of Klickitat Transportation Policy Committee, Rep. Doc Hastings)

While two federal reauthorization transportation bills (TEA-LU and SAFE-TEA) passed last year in the House and Senate; given the new congress they are now officially “dead”. However, congressional staff have stated that the previous project commitments and their funding amounts as listed in the April ’04 TEA-LU bill are still the starting point for the reauthorization project request. Therefore, the reauthorization project list is in two parts. Mr. Lookingbill referred to the resolution and highlighted the projects. First listed are the TEA–LU projects from the April ’04 congressional recommendation, and second are the additional TEA-21 reauthorization projects. Both sets of projects have been recommended by RTAC. The Board’s decision today will need to address the initial reauthorization list as compared to the additional request in light of the probability that the final reauthorization bill is unlikely to provide an increase in the discretionary funds for our region. It should be noted that the Port of Ridgefield Rail Overpass project was funded in the ’05 federal appropriation bill and has been removed from the reauthorization request. The following projects were listed and explained.

April 2004 TEA-LU Project Requests and Recommended Funding:

• I-5/Salmon Creek Area Improvement Project, $20 million (Clark County)
  - $12.35 recommended in TEA-LU
• I-5 Columbia River Crossing, $50 million (WSDOT)
  - $10 million recommended in TEA-LU (WSDOT) and $6 million (ODOT)
• SR-35 Columbia River Crossing, $.8 million (Klickitat County)
  - $.8 million recommended in TEA-LU
• Oregon Bi-State Support: Delta Park, $32.8 million (ODOT)
  - $5 million recommended in TEA-LU (WSDOT) and $10 million (ODOT)
• SR-501 Overpass-Rail Improvement, $1 million (Port of Ridgefield)
  - $1 million recommended in TEA-LU,
  - $1 million funded in ’05 Appropriation

Additional February 2005 TEA-21 Reauthorization Project Requests Recommended by RTAC:

• SR-14 Corridor Camas/Washougal, $3 million (Port of Camas/Washougal)
• 18th Street between 87th Ave. and I-205, $8 million (Vancouver)
• I-205 and 18th Street Interchange, $10 million (Vancouver)
• Oregon Bi-State Support: I-5 Columbia River Crossing, $15 million (ODOT), or $35 million Projects of National Significance (ODOT)
• Columbia River Channel Deepening, $40 million, Energy and Water Act
• Interstate 5 at State Route 501 Interchange Replacement, $2 million (Ridgefield)

Mr. Lookingbill noted the project listed for Ridgefield is the revision previously mentioned and has been added to the revised resolution. These project lists once adopted by the RTC Board would represent the regionally supported list of projects for federal discretionary project funding.

There was discussion of the number of projects and the possible funds that would come to our region. Royce Pollard said that he had just returned from Washington, D.C., where he lobbied for money. He said that everywhere he went, he was told, “Times are getting tough. We will do what we can.”

Betty Sue Morris asked what the total dollar amount was for the I-5 Crossing project. Mr. Lookingbill said that if all current requests were fully funded, it would be in the range of $25-$30 million for the EIS.

ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 02-05-02, THE FEDERAL ’06 APPROPRIATION AND REAUTHORIZATION PROJECT REQUESTS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY STEVE STUART AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

X. Other Business

From the Board

Arch Miller said that RTC staff is currently working on setting up a visit to Olympia to discuss our regional transportation issues. They are possibly looking at the first week in March.

From the Director

Distributed to members were copies of the presentation that Mr. Lookingbill gave for the Columbian’s 2005 Economic Forecast – Transportation: Greater investment needed to keep pace.

Mr. Lookingbill noted JPACT would meet February 10, 2005, at Metro at 7:15 a.m. The Bi-State Coordination Committee would meet on March 24, 2005, at RTC at 7:30 a.m. Mr. Lookingbill also noted that the I-5 Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Task Force will hold its first meeting on February 3, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. at ODOT. The Task Force will be co-chaired by Washington State University Chancellor Hal Dengerink and former Oregon Transportation Commission Chair Henry Hewitt.

The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

For More Information Contact:

Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660

Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-397-6132
E-mail: info@rtc.wa.gov

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.

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2009, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.