Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Wednesday, January 2, 2008, 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 Royce Pollard on Wednesday, January 2, 2008, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Elections Building, Vancouver, Washington. Attendance follows.
Board Members Present Marc Boldt, Clark County Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Molly Coston, Washougal Council Member
Bill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director
Pat McDonnell, Vancouver City Manager
Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner
Royce Pollard, Vancouver Mayor
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Jason Tell, ODOT Region One Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional AdministratorBoard Members Absent Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
Brian Prigel, Bingen Mayor
Roy Randel, Port of Ridgefield Commissioner
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, Senator18th District
Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District
Jaime Herrera, Representative 18th District
Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District
Bill Fromhold, Representative 49th District
Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Guests PresentRon Anderson, Columbia River Crossing
Mike Bomar, BIA of Clark County
Ed Barnes, Labor Round Table
Jack Burkman, WSDOT
Peter Capell, Clark County
Rob Charles, City of Battle Ground
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield
Evan Dust, HDR
Vinton Erickson, Citizen
Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing
John Hoefs, C-TRAN
Travis Huennekens
Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver
Jim Keithley, Clark County Assoc. of Realtors
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
Joe Melroy, Port of Ridgefield Commissioner
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County
Randy Mueller, Port of Ridgefield
Bill Myers, The Reflector
Ron Onslow, City of Ridgefield
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Ed Pickering, C-TRAN
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Marty Snell, Clark County
John White, JD White/Berger Abam
Rex Wong, Columbia River Crossing
Staff PresentBob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff AssistantChair Pollard welcomed Molly Coston, Washougal City Council Member, the new representative for the cities of Camas and Washougal. Chair Pollard noted that Port of Ridgefield Commissioner Roy Randel was the new Port representative, but not able to attend today.
II. Approval of December 4, 2007, Minutes
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2007, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
There was no citizen comment.
IV. Consent Agenda
- January Claims
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JANUARY CLAIMS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Federal Functional Classification System: City of Vancouver Requested Changes, Resolution 01-08-01
Dean Lookingbill said that the Functional Classification is the process of grouping the highways, roads, and streets by the character of mobility and access they provide; some providing greater mobility and others providing greater land access. As a part of the Federal Highways directive, WSDOT has primary responsibility for designating and updating the highway functional classification system. However, RTC as the federally designated MPO is the key player in developing the overall county-wide functional classification system. In December 2003, when the Urban Area Boundary changed, the functional classification system was updated. Now, following completion of the local Comprehensive Plan updates, local jurisdictions are reviewing functional classifications for consistency between local and federal classifications.
Mr. Lookingbill noted the list of changes being requested on page two of the resolution and displayed on a map slide. The Regional Transportation Advisory committee (RTAC) has reviewed the City of Vancouver’s requests at its November16 meeting and concurred with the requested changes. With RTC’s concurrence, the City of Vancouver’s changes can be forwarded to WSDOT. WSDOT Region Highways and Local Programs Office will also review and comment on the requests. Then the requested changes that have the concurrence of the Region’s Highways and Local Programs Office will be forwarded to WSDOT ( Headquarters) Data Office and in turn submitted for FHWA approval.
Betty Sue Morris said they make changes in their road classification all the time and never bring them to RTC. She asked why this was coming to RTC. Mr. Lookingbill said the County’s Comp Plan has a separate roadway classification process. If their classifications change to a point that they are inconsistent with the federally designated classification system, then changes need to be made in the federal functional classification system to make them consistent. Commissioner Morris questioned Pete Capell about the changes that the County has made but had not been brought to the RTC. Mr. Capell said they had not had a change that required a reclassification for quite some time. Mr. Lookingbill said that normally what happens is that as a roadway gets improved to match up with the surrounding growth, it is upgraded. For example, it might go from a minor classification to a principal arterial.
Chair Pollard assumed that the two Vancouver projects that crossed into Camas were agreed by both cities. Mr. Lookingbill said yes they were. He added that type of coordination is important since some roads do cross jurisdictional boundaries, and you want the roadway to be consistent in both.
Mark Boldt asked if these roads are to be built or what is done when a road is put on the Clark County Road Atlas to be built? Mr. Lookingbill said that is usually the starting point. Today’s Board action is to make sure that the federal functional classification is consistent with what the local plans have. In some cases, it may have been a neighborhood street that has later become a collector. Once classified as a collector or higher on the federal functional classification, it becomes eligible for federal funds. That is what some of the smaller communities are doing. That is not the case here for Vancouver. These roadways were already on the federal functional classification system, but are now upgraded.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 01-08-01, FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: CITY OF VANCOUVER REQUESTED CHANGES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEFF HAMM AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VI. 2008-2009 Vancouver Area Smart Trek Program, Resolution 01-08-02
Bob Hart said this resolution is asking for authorization to implement the 2008-2009 Vancouver Area Smart Trek (VAST) Program. The resolution would obligate the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for that purpose. The Vancouver Area Smart Trek Program is the Intelligent Transportation System for Clark County. RTC has been responsible for the coordination and administration of the VAST program since January 2001. It is a partnership of different agencies: RTC, the City of Vancouver, Clark County, WSDOT, C TRAN, and the City of Camas, along with participation by ODOT and Metro as the need arises on bi-state issues as well. The MOU that was signed outlined how they would work together to implement ITS projects to improve operations in the region. It has been an effective forum to date for joint funding applications and working together in coordinating projects.
A second MOU was done in November 2004, that formed the Communications Infrastructure Committee (CIC) that has the same agencies, but includes the information technology staff and communication infrastructure staff to discuss that end of ITS. Unlike other programs that are more common in transportation, the ITS scope is on the operations between communications side and not the capital side.
RTC and the VAST program have been quite successful. They were interviewed last summer by Federal Highways as a good example of regional collaboration on operations in ITS. Mr. Hart said that early this year, there will be a publication out by Federal Highways recognizing their program as among the top eight in the country as a good example for operations and coordination.
In addition to the ongoing coordination and management of the VAST program and the VAST committees, four items were completed under the 2006-2007 Program. Those include 1) the Phase II traveler information workshop in September, 2) increased sharing of fiber and communications assets, 3) improved communications asset management, and 4) development of successful funding applications of individual and multi-agency cooperative projects to implement the VAST 20-year plan.
The Phase II Traveler Workshop built upon work that was done and implemented in 2006. The Phase I improvements expanded on the previous WSDOT web page to include: a full Vancouver-Portland metro area display of bi-state camera images; added major city streets and county roads to the “travel alerts” page for construction and lane closures; added arterial video images from city and county closed circuit television cameras; congestion flow map information on the freeways within the Vancouver urban area and on the freeways within the Portland metro area.
The Phase II workshop in September was attended by almost 40 management and staff from the VAST agencies including ODOT and Metro and by WSDOT staff from Olympia. It was a successful workshop with many productive and new ideas resulting. They are still working on the final report and recommendations, but some of the common ideas include arterial congestion maps, more arterial cameras on the street, real time travel alerts, and a better way to distribute the information to the public.
The VAST agencies executed a Communications and Interoperability Agreement in 2006 to support sharing of fiber communications among the VAST members and authorized agencies to enter into fiber asset sharing permits. The purpose of the agreement was to maximize resources by making more effective use of existing infrastructure. Since the execution of the agreement, five fiber permits have been executed between agencies for sharing fiber infrastructure. One example is one that connects the Washington State Patrol with CRESA using both City and County fiber to make that path. They have five more permits under discussion for 2008. One of those would connect C-TRAN’s park and ride facilities at 99th Street and Fishers Landing with their maintenance facility at 65th.
The communications asset management is also important. VAST has acquired software that serves as a database-mapping tool to help better understand and support the sharing of fiber assets. They did a lot of data entry last year and are working at doing more in the upcoming year to get more detailed fiber information. The purpose is to both manage the shared assets better and to help agencies manage what they have already in a more effective way.
In addition to the overall coordination and planning of the VAST program, the Steering Committee worked to develop joint funding applications to apply for CMAQ funds. Some key projects include:
- Additional traffic detection and cameras on SR-14 and I-205.
- 134th Street Signal Optimization Project.
- Signal Integration Projects on Andresen Road and Thurston Road.
- Arterial cameras on Fourth Plain and Mill Plain.
- Truck Signal Priority on Fourth Plain and Mill Plain between I-5 and the Port of Vancouver.
Money for Transportation Management work stations for Clark County and Vancouver as well as a data network that will allow the WSDOT, County, and City of Vancouver to share data and video information and get better access to what is already out there.
The proposed 2008-2009 VAST program is consistent with RTC’s adopted 2008 Work Plan and will continue the ongoing coordination and management activities. Other activities anticipated include:
- Assess effectiveness of the implemented VAST projects.
- Update the VAST 20-year plan and federally required ITS regional architecture.
- Complete the Phase II traveler information final report, recommendations, and next step priorities.
- Complete detailed data conversion process
Mr. Hart noted that with CMAQ funds probably disappearing in the new Transportation Act, the Steering Committee wants to work to identify additional funding sources to continue to implement and improve operations in the region.
In the previous program, the ITS technical assistance to RTC and the VAST agencies has been provided by the IBI Group and would continue that support in the 2008-2009 program. RTC has received a federal earmark of $427,000 for ITS. The VAST Steering Committee partners have begun to identify potential projects, which will be brought back to the RTC Board for action at a later date.
Mr. Hart said the total budget for the 2008-2009 VAST Program is $260,000, which is funded by $225,100 in federal CMAQ funds and $34,900 in local match. The CMAQ funds have already been programmed in the adopted 2008-11 Metropolitan Transportation Program and planned for in RTC’s 2008 Work Plan. Approval of this resolution authorizes the Transportation Director to execute an agreement for their use. The program budget consists of $143,000 in agency funds and $117,000 in technical assistance and training.
Bill Ganley asked if there was a way to benchmark or to show the improvements in the transportation system. He said with the rate of technology and this being new ground, he would like to see that we are still in line in keeping up and the benchmarks used to show the improvement.
Bob Hart said they felt it was important to look back at what they have done and ask how well they have done. How the high tech projects improved operations through the region to get a better assessment of how they have done to this point. Bill Ganley said he was trying to apply it to the average driver. Mr. Ganley also noted that Washington just passed a law that if he is checking his Blackberry to see congestion on the corridors, he could get a ticket. It was noted that was an issue. Mr. Ganley said he thought it would be helpful, and he has seen it in other areas, to have message signs showing the travel times through the city. For example, on I-5 have signs with current travel times posted to allow options of travel prior to off ramps to take an alternate route. Mr. Hart said that is something that Oregon does in some of its corridors. Part of the issue is getting the detection out there to provide the accurate information. Mr. Hart said they are working with variable message signs that provide travel time information and more creative ways to get the information out to the public. Mr. Ganley also commented on the new flashing yellow turn lanes on Mill Plain saying how well they work to help the flow of traffic. He asked if that was part of the ITS. Mr. Hart said yes. At their workshop, they had a person from Bellevue, and Bellevue currently provides arterial congestion information to the public on their web page. He said our region wants to get a broader amount of information out there than they currently have.
Marc Boldt asked how the truck priority on Mill Plain and Fourth Plain would work. Mr. Hart said that essentially, when a truck is approaching an intersection, if it is less than a certain distance from the intersection, it will get additional green time. It limits deceleration and acceleration of heavy vehicles and improves the flow of the corridor. It ends up helping other vehicles as well, because of the time necessary for the heavy vehicles to get moving or to stop. Mr. Boldt said he drove those two roadways in a truck a lot most of his life. He said Fourth Plain was about four minutes faster than Mill Plain. He said if these improvements are done on both corridors, it will be even more of an incentive to get trucks on Fourth Plain, and he said he thought the reason that Mill Plain was built was to get trucks off of Fourth Plain and on to Mill Plain. Mr. Hart said that is a good point for their technical committee to discuss, because this project is not implemented yet, but it is funded. They are still scoping how they approach the project.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2008-2009 VANCOUVER AREA SMART TREK PROGRAM, RESOLUTION 01-08-02. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VII. RTC and WSDOT Interlocal Agreement for Columbia River Crossing, Resolution 01-08-03
Bob Hart said the RTC Board has had several updates about the CRC, but today he wants to discuss RTC’s role. In January 2006, the RTC Board approved an Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for RTC’s participation in the CRC project. In February 2007, the Board approved a resolution to amend the Interlocal to upgrade the travel forecasting license to participate more fully in the travel modeling element of the CRC project. Over the last year, the CRC team and agency staff have worked toward publication of the DEIS and locally preferred alternative for public review in February 2008. CRC staff will present later in the agenda about the project and touch upon the schedule as well.
As the MPO for Clark County, RTC has a mandated role regarding the DEIS process. That role includes the requirement that the RTC Board make a decision regarding the locally preferred highway and transit alternative and amend the Metropolitan Transportation Plan accordingly.
Between now and 2009, several key activities will be underway. The recommended LPA will undergo refinement and additional analysis to optimize its performance prior to final LPA adoption. In addition, following a supportive LPA decision, the next phase of the project will be to prepare the final Environmental Impact Statement and complete the record of decision for the project.
The previous agreement between RTC and WSDOT consisted of the day to day activities of project development, developing alternatives, transportation data and analysis, and the travel demand model elements of the Clark County side of the project. RTC’s role in the next phase of the project would be similar to the previous interlocal agreement and would continue through the record of decision. Approval of this resolution would authorize the Transportation Director to enter into a new interlocal agreement with the WSDOT to cover RTC staff costs for their participation in the project.
Commissioner Morris said the document stated that a more detailed scope of work would be available at the meeting. Mr. Hart said he did have copies of the scope of work, and those were distributed to those who wished. Mr. Hart said RTC’s roles will be similar. There are three key areas they will be involved in more heavily: the overall coordination of the project, the transportation planning side, and the transit planning.
The total budget for RTC’s participation in this phase is just over $200,000. Action on this resolution would also amend the RTC 2008 budget to include the Columbia River Crossing Project.
Steve Stuart said that nothing in the resolution is giving specific authority to approve or promote a specific locally preferred alternative, within the resolution or within the interlocal agreement. He said he just wanted it clear that this is not giving authority to sign off on any decision. Mr. Lookingbill said this is strictly for technical and analytical staff work. He said that it would be noted in the minutes that this resolution and the Interlocal agreement are solely for staff technical work. The recommendations and decisions on the locally preferred alternative is an RTC Board decision as well as a decision by the other sponsor agencies.
Betty Sue Morris had questions on the tolling elements of the scope of work. She asked if the toll revenue projections as referenced looked at different toll structures and have they been used elsewhere? She said at some point in time, if a forecast is made to reach the alternative, a common number will be needed to cross all the alternatives or there would not be adequate comparisons. She asked if the Board would be kept up to date on how those toll numbers are approached. She said it almost reads as though it is a foregone conclusion that there will be tolls. She said she believed that it is, but she still holds out on varying tolls on varying lanes in for at least one free-lane. She said she is a fan of congestion pricing, and thinks that lanes that allow you to go faster are worth more, but at the same time you need at least one free lane. She asked how RTC staff would approach this discussion of tolling. Bob Hart said the tolling assumptions is being led by the CRC team. RTC’s role is more of technical quality control review of information feedback to the team on the work. Ms. Morris said when it states that RTC will provide review of toll rate structures that means only a technical process review will be made. Mr. Lookingbill said that is how the scope is primarily written. RTC staff is the Board’s staff, so input that is provided by the Board that they are interested in such as this, staff can carry that forward, and ask if the technical process is addressing issues that this Board is interested in. Mr. Lookingbill said the way this was originally written is that the scope and the process on the Columbia River Crossing has tolls included; we’re identifying an avenue that provides some technical evaluation. The policy side that the RTC Board may want to intervene on through staff gives an avenue to see that technical work. If there are questions that the Board would like to formulate in terms of the issues, staff can carry that forward to see that the technical analysis is happening. He said it is not intended that staff would, via the interlocal agreement, generate those questions. That is for the Board to do. Ms. Morris asked if Mr. Lookingbill foresaw discussion at the RTC Board about the type of toll and whether or not there would be a free lane or if all lanes would be tolled the same. She asked where that discussion would take place if not at RTC. Mr. Lookingbill said it could take place at RTC. He said they would see in today’s presentation the assumptions that they started out with having $2.00 and some variance for the replacement and the supplemental with a higher toll. Via this Boards discussion and whatever charge that is given to staff, it cycles back through the policy piece.
Jeff Hamm noted on page one of the scope that duration of the work scope states “18 months from January 1, 2007 to February 28, 2009”, and asked for clarification. It should state “the duration of this work scope and budget is 14 months, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009 through the Record of Decision for the CRC Project.”
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RTC AND WSDOT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, RESOLUTION 01-08-03. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VIII. FY 2009 Federal Transportation Appropriation: Recommended Regional List of Projects, Resolution 01-08-04
Dean Lookingbill said this is an annual practice of the RTC Board. The list of regional projects has been recommended by the RTAC Committee for FY 2009 Federal Transportation Appropriation request. The region’s 2009 federal transportation appropriation request is similar to the previous 2008 request. Although a 2008 federal transportation bill has yet to pass congress, staff understands that there will be a very limited FY 2008 appropriation earmarks. Consistent with the RTC Board’s policy framework, this would mean that the unfunded projects would be carried forward from the 2008 appropriation into the 2009 request.
Mr. Lookingbill said the policy framework for identifying federal earmark projects agreed to by the RTC Board recognizes that the projects must be in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for Clark County or Regional Transportation Plans for Skamania and Klickitat counties. Project requests should be limited to a dollar amount and category that is appropriate. The project requests should be one that can be obligated within the timeframe of the appropriation bill. The RTC Board has said that these projects should emphasize economic development, job growth and safety. If a project is submitted on the regionally recommended list but does not receive an earmark, it could be carried forward to the next year. Recognize that jurisdictions may seek earmarks outside of the regional process, but these are strictly at the request of that jurisdiction. Any funding gap would be the responsibility of that jurisdiction.
Dale Robins highlighted the list of projects as they were listed in a table at the back of the resolution. The first list of projects is for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
- The West Vancouver Freight Access project is a Port of Vancouver project to construct freight rail improvements into their facility. The Port received a 2008 earmark just under $1.4 million. This 2009 request is $4 million for construction. Steve Stuart asked if the request includes the 2008 dollars. Mr. Robins said the request was generated before the 2008 earmark was received, but generally what happens on these projects is that any request over $5 million is not really realistic. As a result, each year another request is made.
- SR-14 Camas Washougal Widening Project is phase 2 of the project with widening from Union to 32nd Street to start the design work. This is a $3.0 million request for design.
- Port of Ridgefield Railroad Overpass project provides overpass access from Pioneer Street down to the Port Property in Ridgefield. A $1.5 million request for design.
- Vancouver Waterfront Access project is the top priority for the City of Vancouver. This provides access to the 40 acres along the waterfront, which includes several grade separated tunnels under the railroad tracks and street improvements. The city is requesting $7.0 million for design.
- The 18th Street Corridor Improvements project is the second priority from the City of Vancouver. This project makes improvements from I-205 to 138th Avenue to match up with the WSDOT I-205 18th Street Interchange Project. They are requesting $5.0 million for construction.
- North Parkway Street Improvements project is the first priority for the City of Battle Ground. They are requesting $1.0 million to make arterial improvements along that street for construction.
- SE Grace Avenue Improvements project is the second priority project for the City of Battle Ground. This is for arterial improvements, widening, center turn lanes, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. This is a $0.5 million request for right-of-way.
- The SR-35 Columbia River Crossing FEIS project in the Columbia Gorge. This is looking at the replacement of the existing Hood River Bridge. The Klickitat RTPO is requesting $1.0 million for a Final Environment Impact Statement.
- The SR-14 Gorge Safety Improvements project is in the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area. This is for rock fall type improvements. This Skamania RTPO request is for $2.0 million for design and construction.
This second list is requesting Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program (IM) funding.
- The Salmon Creek Interchange project received just under $700,000 from the 2008 appropriation. The Clark County road improvement project 2009 request is for $3.0 million for design and right-of-way.
- The I-5 at SR-501 Interchange project is a City of Ridgefield request for $3.0 million for construction.
- The Columbia River Crossing project is requesting $5.0 million for design.
This last list is requesting Section 5309 funds.
- Fleet Vehicle Replacement Program from C-TRAN to replace vehicles. The 2009 request is for $5.0 million. C-TRAN did receive just under $0.5 million in the 2008 appropriation.
- The HCT Alternatives Analysis project is based off the HCT study being completed and a priority corridor highlighted in that study. C-TRAN would move forward to begin alternative analysis on the priority corridor. The request is for $2.5 million for alternative analysis.
Jeff Hamm noted that the C-TRAN Board will be addressing this project at their meeting next Tuesday for discussion.
Dean Lookingbill said that Senator Murray will be in town on January 14, 2008. RTC has a time slot from 2 to 3 p.m. to present our regional transportation priorities to her. Mr. Lookingbill said this will be an opportunity to meet with her and present our region's priorities.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FY 2009 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATION: RECOMMENDED REGIONAL LIST OF PROJECTS, RESOLUTION 01-08-04. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MARC BOLDT AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
IX. 2008 State Legislative Session: Regional Transportation Priorities and Clark County Transportation Alliance Statement
Dean Lookingbill said the State Legislature is soon to start their 60-day session. In looking at last year, the 2007 session’s main item in transportation for discussion was the realization that there had been considerable cost inflation in the Nickel and Partnership Projects. The RTC Board had said that our top priority is to protect those projects that are currently identified, and work toward making up that inflationary gap. In fact we did well thanks to our legislative delegation and also to staying together as a region that we received an additional $172 million for that set of Nickel and Partnership projects. This takes our list to about $700 million. That list of projects was included in the memorandum included in the meeting packet. Mr. Lookingbill said as we face this legislative session now is the opportunity for the RTC Board to begin to look for 2008 legislative transportation priorities. He said he supposed that one might be the continued support and maintenance of the list of Nickel and Partnership projects. In addition to that, the Clark County Transportation Alliance has traditionally prepared a statement as proposed by the Clark County Governmental Affairs Roundtable. This statement was also attached to the memorandum. In summary, the statement begins by acknowledging the legislative leadership and passing the two previous revenue packages. The statement goes on to recognize the importance again of ensuring the Nickel and Partnership projects for our region stays in place. It makes a significant statement regarding that if there is discussion of a new revenue package that both of the previous revenue packages went to state projects. Second, that any new revenue package needs to look at a significant direct distribution of revenues for local governments. Third, that the top regional priority is the Columbia River Crossing project. Fourth is that a change in the transit statues to allow high capacity transit sub-districts. It also recognizes funding for freight mobility. Mr. Lookingbill said last year, the Board discussed the Transportation Alliance statement and decided to not to sign (put RTC’s label on) the statement. There are about 17 entities that sign the statement.
Royce Pollard said he thought it was general enough that it does not commit us to any specific directions. He said what it does do is relay our intent to the legislature in a way that gives them a sense of where we want to go and our priorities. He said he would be supportive of it.
Mr. Stuart said he had a little concern of the language to advocate for the Columbia River Crossing Project without anything specific to advocate for the locally preferred alternative for the CRC project. He said we are so wrapped up in looking at an LPA, which there is a staff alternative in February, and the CRC Task Force will be asked to sign off on a draft LPA in March and in June, it will be finalized. With all of these things going on, the LPA is what it is all about, because that will hopefully be the consensus of the region. Mr. Stuart said it is written broadly enough that it does not stop him from making a motion.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ENDORSING THE CLARK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE STATEMENT.
Betty Sue Morris said she needed to know what the vote was on. She said if it says the Columbia River Crossing is our top priority, then she will not be able to support it. She said she would rather have the 134th project and the Freight Rail project and a lot of individual projects.
PAT MCDONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. COMMISSIONER BETTY SUE MORRIS AND COMMISSIONER MARC BOLDT OPPOSED THE MOTION.
X. Columbia River Crossing Presentation
Doug Ficco, Project Director for the Columbia River Crossing, said he would give a brief project update, discuss the cost estimates, spend most of the time on the draft finance plan, and then cover the project schedule and next steps.
Mr. Ficco displayed a draft rendering of the Supplemental Bridge alternative with high capacity transit structure. This has a new southbound structure for the highway and the northbound traffic will be two lanes on the east structure. He also displayed the Replacement Bridge Alternative draft rendering. This is a new northbound structure and new southbound structure along with a third structure for the high capacity transit. A sub alternative of the replacement structure shows putting the high capacity transit inside a box below the southbound highway structure. This is referred to as “transit in a box”.
Mr. Ficco said for the past year, they have refined their alternatives and narrowed their cost estimates. They have done this with a Cost Risk Assessment process. The process has three components to it: base cost estimates, flowchart or schedule, and a risk register that was developed with help from the Value Engineering Workshop. These components are put into a Monte Carlo simulation to produce a risk based year of expenditure cost estimate. The results of the assessment are used for communicating the project, developing risk management strategies, analysis of project alternative, and project and program management. Another Cost Risk Assessment will be done this spring once they have a locally preferred alternative. At this point, the preliminary cost estimates are a snap shot in time. They will continue to change as they refine their design. The preliminary cost estimate is $3.1 to 4.2 billion, which incorporates all of the four build alternatives. The cost breakdown by component is: Total I-5 highway related costs for the replacement bridge is $2.85 to $3.01 billion and for the supplemental bridge is $2.66 to $2.81 billion. For High capacity transit, bus rapid transit is $0.52 to $0.98 billion and light rail is $0.60 to $1.15 billion. Mr. Ficco said there is a larger range in the transit piece because there is a variation in alignments. This includes the minimal offering segment, which is a short segment, and also a long segment that goes to the Lincoln area.
They are looking at several ways to fund the project. For highway funds, they are looking at federal discretionary funds (including Corridors of the Future), state funds, toll revenue, and other such as private. For transit funds, they are looking at local transit revenue sources, federal discretionary transit grants (New Starts), and toll credits for the match to the discretionary grants.
Mr. Ficco highlighted some of the financing options that are going to the draft environmental impact statement. He said these are draft tables, and many revisions will be made. He said again, these are just a snap shot in time. As they move through the FEIS, the scenarios will most likely change. He said this is to just show that it is financially feasible to build this project at this point in time. Mr. Ficco said they already have $20 million toward this next step for design from the Washington Transportation Partnership Account (What is left of the original $50 million.). They will also use toll revenues, federal discretionary highway funds, and new state funds including: fuel tax, license for trucks, buses, for-hire vehicles, license fees for passenger vehicles, sales and use tax on passenger vehicles, motor carrier tax and fees, and DMV fees.
The I-5 tolling assumptions include the following: It will be electronic tolling only. There will be no toll booths. They will mainly use transponders, and vehicles without a transponder will pay a surcharge. That surcharge will most likely be what the difference in cost is to collect the money from a transponder versus reading license plates and sending a bill to the owner of the vehicle. Royce Pollard asked if there is no toll booth, how the fee is collected. Mr. Ficco said they will be sent a bill. It takes a picture of your license plate, reads it, and sends them a bill. He said it is about $1.00 to process that. They are also using a schedule type of toll where tolls vary by the time of travel. Peak period trips will cost most. They have looked at two peak period tolls, a two-way for a replacement bridge at $2.00 and two-way for a supplemental bridge at $2.50. The tolls will most likely increase over time at general inflation rate. He said it will not increase every year, but it will be every three or four years it will go up so it will not be an uneven amount.
Steve Stuart asked who has the authority to do that. Mr. Ficco said that will be done through the Transportation Commission who had the authority. Mr. Stuart said so there is not a vote on the toll, it is just through the Transportation Commission, and they can increase it as they see fit. Mr. Ficco said he did not know their whole legal obligation. They do have control over tolls. He said they will look at what is owed, and how that gap is paid. Mr. Stuart said he was looking at what goes through legislative authority or agency authority versus voter authorized. Don Wagner said it is not agency. He said in the state of Washington, the legislature has to approve a toll project. That is where they say there can or cannot be a toll. The CRC project is not an approved project for tolling at this point. The commission then is given the responsibility of setting the toll. Jason Tell said in Oregon, the legislature has given their transportation commission sole authority to both select which projects and the rate. Mr. Wagner said at this point, they do not know how the two commissions come together to set a toll. Decisions on which side it is put on and who will collect have not been yet made. Mr. Wagner said they will be looking at which state may have the best advantage from tolling and which one has the least costs. Bill Ganley asked if the toll revenues were broken down between the two states as to where revenues came from. Mr. Ficco said at this point they are assuming a 50/50 split. Steve Stuart noted the percentage of where the trips originated from both sides and the fact that more trips were Washington trips almost an 80/20 split. Mr. Wagner said at this point, they do not know what the cost is, so they cannot speak to exactly who is paying what percentage. The initial phase, they are at a 50/50 obligation that each state will be at through the design. When they get to actual construction, keep in mind that the revenue sources may be completely differently between the two states. Oregon may want to put a lump sum into the project, but Washington does not want to. In that case, they would have to go back and calculate how that plays out in the toll structure. He said if Oregon puts a big lump sum in and Washington doesn’t, then it would make some sense that a higher percentage of Washington folks using the bridge might play itself out. Those decisions have not been made yet, but they are discussions that will carry forward. Mr. Lookingbill said those numbers are approximately correct. If you look at the modeling work that has been done and at the number of originating trips that use the I-5 Bridge, about 75 percent have an origination in Clark County. Rex Burkholder said as a reminder that those are the assumptions that were used to do the modeling, and that this is not a policy issue. All agreed. Mr. Ficco said they have a way to go before they get to the policy piece.
Mr. Ficco said there are many issues that will need to deal with as far as the bonding of the tolls, a 30-year bond or a 40-year bond, government backed, or non-recourse. This is why there is a variance in the amount of toll that will actually be collected. Jeff Hamm asked if there was room in these assumptions for managing the lanes along the lines of what Commissioner Morris referred to in terms of the revenue generation. He asked if there could be a free lane and still toll the others in such a fashion to generate this level of revenue. Mr. Ficco said you can never generate the same level of revenue. He said his concern is that it would cause terrible congestion because everyone would be jumping over to the free lane. He said that is just one issue. He said if everyone starts using the free lane, the idea of tolling part of it is a good traffic management tool, but at the same time it is there to help pay for the project. Commissioner Morris asked if any numeric modeling had been done on that scenario. She said she didn’t think that everyone would jump into the free lane. If the point of building a bridge is to be able to get there faster, and that is why we assume people want a new bridge, she didn’t think there would be that many people in the free lane particularly during the busy hours of the day. Mr. Ficco said during the peak period, it would not be an issue, but during the off peak period, why would anyone travel in a lane that they have to pay for. He said for example, if he was traveling that corridor between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., he would be driving in the free lane so he would not have to pay. Steve Stuart said if there was no traffic, he would be upset if he had to pay at all. Ms. Morris agreed. She said those numbers need to be calculated. If volumes are that low, not that much money will be lost for not collecting tolls at all. She said she recalled from the focus groups that people said they have to make five and six trips across the Columbia River Bridge on a daily basis, and they cannot afford to pay a toll every time they make one of those trips. She said in our anxiousness to build a new bridge, she said we can’t deny the fact that there are people that cannot afford to pay $2.00 to cross the bridge for a single trip. Ms. Morris said there are people who do not have a lot of money, and we forget that.
Mr. Wagner said he would try to answer the question away from a policy standpoint. This is what was used to calculate the average toll for bonding, average toll is $2.00. There is a lot of room to figure out what the dynamic pricing might be and what other options there are. This is assuming tolling only the I-5 structure, not tolling I-205, so that route is free. Mr. Wagner said they have a lot of work to do, and they have experts on board that do the tolling scenario for the bond companies. He said to keep in mind that part of this is congestion pricing, part of it is to pay back a debt. Enough revenues need to be generated in order to do that. All the scenarios folks are discussing will be explored even in more detail as they get ready to issue some bonds, if they get to construction on this. For the conversation now, he said they are still looking, and there are a lot of opportunities for how you would configure the tolling. The key element is for pricing, it appears that in these kinds of average prices that we could afford a structure and improvements on both sides of the magnitude that we are looking at. That is all that this is conveying. It is showing the Federal Government, who would be asked to back this, whether or not there is a feasible way to do this. Commissioner Morris said she understood that, and that she understood the elasticity of the figure that is listed in terms of what it may actually wind up at. She said there is a point where policy does need to play into the model. Her point is that an I-205 bridge is not a free route across the river for anyone who lives in the core area of Vancouver and is trying to get to Interstate. That is not a free route, because of the distance that is involved and the complications of getting back to the I-5 corridor from the I-205 bridge is very difficult to do. She said her point remains that we need to remember, and she said she wished that we would begin to mix policy with model at this time. She said by the time you build the model, you get locked into a policy. She said she would continue to say forever that there are people who cannot afford to pay that toll, and we are ignoring that.
Steve Stuart asked to clarify what Mr. Wagner said, regarding the $2.00 and $2.50 toll cost is peak hour price, not the average. Doug Ficco said that is peak hour price. Mr. Stuart said that means that the average of a 24 hour period would be lower than that. The most that someone would pay, according to the model, would be $2.00 or $2.50. Mr. Wagner said it would be the average for the vehicles that cross during that period. Mr. Wagner noted in reference to Commissioner Morris’ comment of free lanes. If there was a free lane, and that is calculated into 30,000 cars crossing during the peak hour, and one lane is free then the toll lane would have to compensate for that to get us back to that average cost for the period. Ms. Morris asked if that amount could be modeled. Mr. Wagner said yes that can be done. Ms. Morris asked if those could be built into the discussions instead of building the models assuming that all of the lanes are going to be tolled, because there is no toll on I-205. She said it is an appropriate time to begin the discussion of how much more that would have to go up. If it has to go up a nickel, it’s not a big deal. She said most said at this table that if we wanted to get some place during the rush hour, we would not get into the busy lane where it is congested but would pay a toll. She said assuming there was a free lane, how much more would it go up to allow that? Mr. Wagner said that can be modeled, but it has not been modeled yet. He said it is early at this point.
Royce Pollard said there are other alternatives for people. There will be buses, bus rapid transit, or light rail available. He said he would hope that when modeling, they look at reduced rates for carpooling and other options that electronics allow us to do. He said he has a hard time of the concept of giving a free lane away when we are trying to raise money and spread it out among people to pay for the bridge. It is significant. He is not close to being there, and said he doesn’t know why we are not proposing tolling both bridges. He said he has not heard that reason. He said he would like to see the modeling process go through and see what comes up. Ms. Morris said this is just an additional step, and not a big deal. She said if you know how many cars are going to be crossing in each lane, and you figure that one of those lanes are free, then take that number of people and distribute it across the other lanes. She did not think it was that big of calculation. Ms. Morris said light rail and bus do not work specifically for people who work at scheduled times that are not compatible with light rail or bus or live on either a light rail or bus line.
Steve Stuart asked if this was being modeled for all the trips going back and forth or just for a one-way toll. Mr. Ficco said this is for trips going back and forth, two-way trip. This is a total for a two-way trip.
Bill Ganley said he would like to see the different scenarios modeled including I-205. He also asked if the Oregon and Washington legislatures had to have an agreement. Mr. Tell said the Oregon Transportation Commission has the authority on the Oregon side. Mr. Ganley also said that he hoped that because Washington people have to pay Oregon income tax when they work there, he thought our Washington legislature should look to Oregon to give them at least a tax refund on their income tax for the toll.
Rex Burkholder told Chair Pollard he had a couple comments on an issue. He said it was an important issue, which is the issue of equity. If we just start out with the concept that we want to look at making sure that equity is addressed. He said he thought that there are many techniques to do that that haven’t been brought up here today. He said what goes forward in terms of tolling and deciding how to deal with those low income people, which would not be the majority of people using the free lane, just those who want a free lane, there are many different strategies such as refunds. He said they have had some of these discussions on the Oregon side about how to do that. He said we are here looking at a financing plan and can we even afford to build this bridge. He said the issue of equity is a big one, and how to create equity in this area. Chair Pollard agreed. Commissioner Morris said if Mr. Burkholder could find a strategy that compensates for a free lane and it refunds the money; that would be most welcome. Mr. Burkholder said this is looking at sending out a bill for the toll. If you are under a certain income, you could get a refund on your income tax or some sort of mechanism. He said we would just have to create them.
Philip Parker said earlier in talking about tolls in Washington, the legislature passed it to the Transportation Commission, and Tim Eyeman came in with one about fees and tolls. At this point, the Transportation Commission is not sure if they can raise the toll without going back to the legislature for approval or to the voters, so by the time this comes out, it should be settled. At this point in some of the projects in Seattle though, the Transportation Commission doesn’t know where the legal initiative will land, and it is difficult. Hopefully, by the time this region reaches that point, it will be resolved.
Mr. Ficco displayed the toll rate structure that they have used in their analysis. The times can change along with the dollars. He said they will be fine tuning this to optimize potential tolling revenues while minimizing the diversion potential to I-205. Mr. Ficco said they made preliminary assumptions for the purpose of testing toll rates in the DEIS. Those assumptions are draft and subject to change over the next few years. He said they do have discussion of tolling I 5 and I-205 is in there as well. He said preliminary toll revenue projections show that with the assumed tolling rate, approximately $1.0 - $1.35 billion could be generated through tolling I-5.
Mr. Ficco displayed two Finance Plan Scenarios for the highway piece one with a low toll and discretionary federal revenues, high state and regional contribution and one with a high toll and discretionary federal revenues, low state and regional contribution. He said there are many ways to put together a package; these are just two that are currently in the draft EIS. Mr. Ficco highlighted some of the finance package options.
Mr. Ficco said financing the transit piece has several issues that they need to get through. He said institutional arrangements and funding agreements will be established between ODOT, WSDOT, TriMet, C-TRAN, City of Vancouver, and City of Portland. The agreements will include project development and design responsibilities, owner/operator roles, local match and financial obligations. Also, Washington’s High Capacity Transit Act requires public vote prior to implementing a BRT or LRT project. Along with the vote it provides for three dedicated funding sources if it is a positive vote. The question was asked if it needed to go to a vote even if a revenue stream is not being asked for. Mr. Ficco said yes, that you still have to get the vote even if you are not asking for revenue. There are two pieces you can do at one time or separate. One is to ask to have it and the other is to ask for the funding.
They will be looking at using tolls credits for matching any federal money. The local revenue options in Washington include taxes provided by the HCT Act and taxes and motor vehicle license renewal fees allowed for Transportation Benefit Districts. Local revenue options in Oregon include formula federal funds, state lottery funds, private contributions, and existing revenue sources. The cost allocation between C-TRAN and TriMet still need to be negotiated. Mr. Ficco highlighted some of the transit capital finance plan scenarios. The dividing line that they used was the transit station at Jantzen Beach. It could be done at the State line as well. That will be a discussion at negotiations. A full length terminus is to the Lincoln Park and Ride, and a short terminus is to either the Mill District or to Clark College.
Mr. Ficco displayed a graph with a comparison of total transit operating costs for the entire C TRAN system, all HCT modes including BRT and LRT, and the TriMet north of Portland system which consists of the Yellow Line MAX and 10 TriMet bus routes. The graph showed the amount of operating costs incurred in 2007, as well as forecasts of operating costs in the future years, all in fiscal year 2007 current dollars. The existing conditions are at $66 million, the No Build is about $70 million, Alternative 2 with a replacement crossing with BRT is about $75 million, Alternative 3 Replacement Crossing with LRT is about $73 million, Alternative 4 Supplemental Crossing with BRT is $114 million, and Alternative 5 Supplemental Crossing with LRT is about $105 million. Mr. Ficco noted that the supplemental transit costs compared to the replacement are almost double. The reason is because of a much more robust bus service in the supplemental options.
The project schedule shows that they are currently selecting the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft environmental Impact Statement. Late February 2008 they will release the Draft EIS for public comment along with a draft locally preferred alternative. Early 2009, they will have a complete Final EIS and secure federal approval. Betty Sue Morris asked at what point they ask for public vote. Mr. Ficco said that depends on if it is decided to do it in one piece or two. The earliest that it could be is November 2008, or it could be spring 2009. He said funding issues need to be addressed such as what the state legislatures in both Washington and Oregon might do for possible funding generation from the state along with what the federal government might be able to help with the project. He said a lot of things need to come together, not only the vote for local operating costs, but also capital costs. The Task Force meets on January 22 and then on April 17 for the final meeting (which was moved from a March date) to reach a formal recommendation. Mr. Stuart said prior to the April meeting, since Dean is the RTC representative, it would be good for the Board to have a discussion in order for him to present our position. Dean Lookingbill said the discussion was planned for the March Board meeting prior to the March Task Force. Now that will become an April RTC Board discussion prior to the April Task Force. Betty Sue Morris asked when the request needed to be in. Mr. Ficco said after they get the comments back and have the Task Force discussion, they will take the Locally Preferred Alternative and the DEIS to the Agency Sponsors for concurrence in May and June. By August 1, 2008, they will submit the New Starts application.
Rex Burkholder referred back to the highway finance plan scenario. He said he was looking at the gap that said regional and state funds. It is looking from $800 million to $1.3 billion. He asked if that was reasonable with what is going on in both states in terms of the dollars that we are looking at. Jason Tell said for Oregon, he said he has a few points of hope. He said those are big numbers. The Governor recently privately or in small groups has been talking about the need to do something in the 2009 session, something significant for transportation funding. It was something that almost got taken care of in the last session. They had a long to-do list and took care of some other things they need first. There is talk about 2009 needing to be done. He said he has heard the Governor saying something really needed to be done. At the business summit, a month ago, the Governor said it and named the CRC project by name as something that we need to take care of soon. He said that is the first time he has heard a Governor in Oregon come out and name a project like that in the way he did, and say this is something that we need to do. Mr. Tell said they have heard similar things, not quite as strong about the need to do something and specifically the CRC project from legislators. He said that is a significant shift from what has been seen in the past. He said these are big numbers, but he is seeing these things that are coming out this early and they are not telling us forget about it. They are saying we need to do something and we need to do it soon. He said he is encouraged about what he has seen so far.
Don Wagner said on the Washington side, these are numbers that would be consistent with what they have seen on other Mega projects, whether they are in the Seattle area or in Spokane. He said he doesn’t know where they will come up with the money, but these are within the size that is going to other Mega projects within our state. He said he thought they were reasonable, and they have been vetted to our leadership. Mr. Burkholder said that was what his question was, whether or not this was a reasonable expectation, and as well with the federal government. Jason Tell said on the federal side, he said he thought this was an aggressive ask, but people are not dismissing it as ridiculous. He said their delegation is going to feel some pressure that this is a significant ask, and it is. But he said on the good side of things, like congress has done for light rail projects for many years, they are now starting to do for the highway side where they have carved out a separate program, specifically to deal with big projects. So the way the game works back there, once they do that, if we don’t get the money, it is going to go to New York or California or somewhere else, once they carve out these programs. The good news is they are not going to fight uphill to create a whole new category. There will be something there; how big it is they do not know. He said there will certainly be a lot of competition, but over the last several bills they have moved towards creating a New Starts type approach to highways, they just don’t have the rigorous scrutiny that is going on the light rail side. The Corridors of the Future Program and Projects of National Significance are several steps. He said their delegation has done a good job, because they got I-5 designated in prior bills as one of those Mega projects so they are already going in eligible. It will just be how big is it and who is competing.
Don Wagner answered a question that Commissioner Morris asked. The question was when the vote needed to be taken. Mr. Wagner said they are not real sure. From a federal perspective, they do not know if they need the vote before the Record of Decision or whether they can have that vote after the Record of Decision. He said they are asking the question, and they do not have an answer for them yet. The November of 2008 date is scary. He said a lot of work needs to be done before that. If they don’t need it until after the Record of Decision, that would allow them to move it into 2009, possibly December of 2009. That is just the state mandated vote. That is why the Feds cannot answer the question as easily for them. Jeff Hamm said what the Feds said that FTA says is they will not release money for you to go to final design for the high capacity transit until they’re assured that the financial plan is solid.
Steve Stuart referred back to the project schedule. He said one of the reasons that the time is short is because when you look at June, between June and August, the timeframe is narrow. He said he believes that RTC Board does need a conversation and a serious conversation about specifics about this project by April. The April to June timeframe is going to be when they model the LPA. The draft LPA will already start that modeling process. So he said they will be doing modeling on a draft LPA, so when we get to April, we will hear that they can make changes to it but that will push the time line. If the timeline is pushed any further than we already are, we are at risk of missing the FTA New Starts application timeframe. It really is important to submit specifics sooner rather than later so we can make sure we stay on time and meet that deadline if we are going to make any changes. If we just agree to the draft LPA submitted by staff, it is not a problem. If we want our input into this, and that changes the stats, we need to be involved early. Mr. Ficco said he agreed. He said if they thought it would just be a staff recommendation, they would be floating, but he said they know there is a lot of work going on and a lot to come. Chair Pollard said Doug or someone from the CRC staff will be at the RTC meeting every month to discuss the project. He said we can feed them our comments. Mr. Ficco said this has been good input. He said they will come back to the next RTC meeting probably with the finance plan that will be in the draft EIS, the finance chapter. He said they currently are listening to the Feds comments now.
Bill Ganley said he agreed that time is running short. He said he would like to see from Don Wagner what affect this new initiative from Tim Eyeman has on tolls, possibly an AG opinion. He would also like to know the political side of what the legislature has to do. He also asked with two legislatures, what the plan is. He asked Jason Tell if a gas tax increase was one of the options and if it would go to the vote of the people. Mr. Tell said that was one of the options. He said if it was referred it would go to the people, but he said he doubted that was what the plan would be. He said the legislature said that they really intended to take action in 2009. There is not a bill drafted that says what those mechanisms are, and the Governor has not said it is a five cents gas tax and that is what the package will be. He said they do have some committees that are looking at what some funding options might look like. Bill Ganley said he thought the two states need to come together and hopefully we are both on the same page. Mr. Tell said bi-state projects are complicated.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Tell what the probability that his legislature would vote a gas tax for funding. Mr. Tell said he didn’t know. He said his personal opinion is that if a vote would have gone to the floor last session, a gas tax would have passed. It never got to the floor, and a lot of legislators ended the session, and since have been saying, if it gets brought to the floor, they will vote for it. On the Washington side, the Secretary and the Transportation Commission bring a list of projects to the legislature. Ms. Morris asked once the financing is in hand, how the Oregon side makes decisions about where the money goes. Mr. Tell said traditionally, it is not the legislature that line items projects in Oregon. Traditionally, they create the funding source and the projects are selected by the commission. There is a lot of communication leading up to that. That has been the history, but they could do what they wanted. Ms. Morris said theoretically, it used to work that way when she was in the legislature, but not the same now.
XI. Other Business
From the Board
Commissioner Morris made an observation that she would like noted in the minutes. She said that the Columbian reporter on transportation Don Hamilton writes a lot, but she said she has not yet seen him at the RTC Board meeting or at a C-TRAN meeting. She asked that this be recorded as a formal comment in the minutes.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill said in following the Columbia River Crossing project, he asked the RTC Board if it would be valuable if RTC would schedule a luncheon discussion session possibly the third Thursday of each of the months from now to June that would have RTC provide a light lunch and an invitation primarily for Board members but also member agencies and public to carry out key issues in the CRC project. It could also be a carry over from issues discussed at the RTC Board meetings. There would be no action, but an opportunity to explore in more detail some of the issues, such as equity issues around tolling. He said it would be one hour from 12 noon to 1:00 p.m. and invite some of the CRC team to participate. He asked if there was interest. Ms. Morris asked that a sample of members’ calendars be checked to see what might work best. Mr. Lookingbill said he would describe it and send an e-mail out to members to ask for feed back. He said given the feedback, he would move to set up a meeting in January.
Mr. Lookingbill noted JPACT would meet January 10, 2008, at Metro at 7:30 a.m. The Transportation Corridors Visioning Steering Committee will meet on January 11, 2008, 9:30-11:30 a.m. at the Clark County Elections Building. Mr. Lookingbill said for this Steering Committee, two members are no longer on the RTC Board. He said there are only two meetings left. They are an advisory body to the Board. They have a meeting on January 11th and one in February. Council Member Helen Gerdy was on that committee and still in office. Arch Miller and John Idsigna are not longer in office. He asked if they wished to have them finish their term or not. The RTC Board made the original appointment. Mr. Lookingbill said John Idsigna is very interested in staying on. Bill Ganley said they discussed that at the last council meeting and they authorized him to represent the City of Battle Ground along with a City Council member. There was discussion of elected official representation. It was determined that the Board identified the entities and allowed them to choose their representative. Ms. Morris said this means that if Battle Ground wanted to continue to send Mr. Idsinga, it would be their choice. There are only two meetings left.
MARC BOLDT MOVED TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT MEMBERS ON THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS VISION STEERING COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2008, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 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.
       
|