Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 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 Steve Stuart on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center Sixth Floor Training Room, Vancouver, Washington. Attendance follows.
Board Members Present Nancy Baker, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Marc Boldt, Clark County Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Molly Coston, Washougal Council Member
Lynn Halsey, Acting C-TRAN Exec. Director
Jeanne Harris, Vancouver Council Member
Tom Mielke, Clark County Commissioner
Royce Pollard, Vancouver Mayor
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
Deb Wallace, Representative 17th District
Board Members AbsentBill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
Brian Prigel, Bingen Mayor
Jason Tell, ODOT Region One Manager
Jim Honeyford, Senator 15th District:
Bruce Chandler, Representative 15th District:
David Taylor, Representative 15th District
Don Benton, Senator 17th District
Tim Probst, Representative 17th District
Joe Zarelli, Senator 18th District
Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District
Jaime Herrera, Representative 18th District
Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District
Jim Jacks, Representative 49th District
Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Guests PresentFred Abraham, Clark County
Ron Anderson, Columbia River Crossing
Ed Barnes, Labor Round Table
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Mike Carnahan, Clark Central Labor Council
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield
Paul Edgar, Portland Citizen
Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver
Jim Karlock, Portland Citizen
Sharon Nasset, ETA Portland Citizen
Jerry Oliver, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Ron Onslow, Ridgefield Mayor
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Debbie Peterson, Vancouver Citizen
Kimberly Pincheira, Rep. Brian Baird’s Office
Jim Quintana, C-TRAN
Troy Rayburn, Clark County
Scott Sawyer, City of Battle Ground
Ron Swaren, Portland Citizen
Mark Turpel, Metro
Damon Webster, MacKay & Sposito
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOT SW Region
Staff PresentLynda David, Senior Transportation Planner
Mark Harrington, Transportation Analyst
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff AssistantII. Approval of April 7, 2009, Minutes
MARC BOLDT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 7, 2009, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Ron Swaren, Portland citizen, said there is a move to bring light rail to Vancouver. He said it is a very expensive proposition, and feels that for every $2 ticket there is at least $10 of federal subsidy. Mr. Swaren provided pictures of something that has been developed in Germany. He said that Europe has a lot of double-deck vehicles. He said the picture was a rail bus, and said it is propelled by its own diesel engine and runs on rail tracks. He said he thought that if there was a need for a commuter rail vehicle, this would be one option. Mr. Swaren said he has been interested in seeing a bridge and rail corridor. He had a photo rendition of the Yaquina Bay Bridge in Newport and made it into a double arch bridge. He said a double arch bridge is very seismically safe. The top level could carry traffic and be accessible for bicycles and pedestrians and a lower level for rail. He said if the CRC does not follow through, this would be a good option. Mr. Swaren provided pictures of the rail bus and the bridge along with a map of a possible rail route and written descriptions.
Paul Edgar, Portland area citizen, said he sees an opportunity in front of the RTC Board with the agenda item of the household travel survey. He said he sees this as an opportunity to gather information on origins and destinations and real data. He said this can be done on the Web and gather information from license plates. He said this can be used to answer if light rail could service them. The travel survey should come up with some good information that we can actually use for long term visioning. He said they could identify employers that they may want to take to their economic development council and say these employers should be induced to putting up an office in SW Washington. If they can see that these employers have a number of employees driving from Clark County, having an office in Clark County would save commuters from driving and be able to work in SW Washington. He said he did not see the possibility of doing it with the draft scope of work that is to be presented. He said it requires greater thought and said he would like to help do that.
Debbie Peterson, Vancouver citizen, said she wanted to speak about the future of our families in Vancouver both from a livability and a financial trend. She said she has explained the defenses of light rail and the CRC project. She said the I-5 Bridge has a strong rating compared to the Marquam Bridge. She said several accounts have been presented of the failures of light rail systems. At the last RTC Board meeting, she asked for one good reason why we should support light rail. She said Jeff Hamm gave three reasons: light rail reduces congestion, CO2 reduction, and many jobs from the projects. She said light rail does not reduce congestion, and said the greatest amount of reduction in the country is 3 percent. She said in order to save in CO2, the bridge would have to be 140 years old. This project will have many short term jobs in 3 to 5 years. She said this project would have to continue to be fed in order to benefit. She said 39th Street in Portland is a disaster, and said light rail is sucking every penny of their money into it. She does not see the benefit. Ms. Peterson spoke to foreclosures in the city. She said that statistics show that people who foreclose typically only have $500 per month. She said these people would be saddled with a $100 per month light rail toll plus taxes. Ms. Peterson finished with a quote from Senator Don Benton in August 2008. He said “Given the above information, please tell me and the people of Clark County who are watching today what is it that we are not seeing? What benefits of this project are you seeing that at least 70 percent of us people who are your constituents are not seeing? I and everyone else watching would like an answer to that.” Ms. Peterson said she is still waiting for a viable answer.
Ed Barnes, Vancouver citizen, thanked Governor Kulongoski for going out to the Expo Center the previous Wednesday bringing to light the importance of the Columbia River Crossing, with walking paths, bike paths, and light rail. Mr. Barnes noted the article in the Columbia regarding the I-205 bridge and how long it took to get the funding and the construction started. He said to look at what is happening in the I-5 crossing after 15 or 16 years of discussion. He said not one piece of land has been purchased, no concrete poured, or steel put up. He said City, County, State, and Federal governments are doing all they can to stretch dollars, and we keep hanging on and keep having public meetings for 15 years. He said it seemed that at some point in time, we need to take action. What would this bridge cost us if we would have built it 10 years ago? How much would we have saved? He said the longer that we delay the process, the greater the cost will be, and we may not even be able to build a bridge that will relieve congestion and help freight mobility. He said it is very frustrating to see this going on and on. He said this is a Federal Defense Highway that was set up by Eisenhower. The Federal government needs to step up to the plate, because they are responsible for the highway, and they dictate what happens to it. Mr. Barnes said he is disappointed that after 15 years, we are basically no better off.
Sharon Nasset, Portland citizen, said she has been attending the RTC meetings since 2002. She said it appears to her that ODOT and WSDOT have taken over the responsibilities of the Sponsors Council. She said there was never discussion about non elected people making the decisions as the Sponsor Council. She said the reason there is no leadership is because employees are running the show and not the leaders. Ms. Nasset said Sponsor agencies are required by the Federal Government. She said she did not believe the leaders advocated to them, and she believed the decisions that they have made have not been very good. She said she has not seen a monthly report that says what the Sponsor Council’s decisions would be for this month and how WSDOT and ODOT have decided what they want done. Ms. Nasset said an example is that the first 18 months, there was no environmental justice group set up. This was when projects were screened and projects removed. She said there was no Sponsor Council set up. She asked who made that decision. She said she would like the leaders to take responsibility as a sponsor agency and not have ODOT and WSDOT employees doing what elected officials should be doing. She said elected officials need to talk with the Federal Government to find out what they are supposed to be making decisions on and go forward. She said they need to go back and look at the actions that have been made that are inappropriate. She said one is that no one can come up with an official Bridge Influence Area map. Chair Stuart said he had the map in his hand, and he would give it to her. Ms. Nasset said that Metro and several others said that map doesn’t exist. She said she would look at it, but she said that map and the I-5 Task Force which said that it is the entire corridor and study short and long of several projects and recommended in the EIS and BIA that be studied. Ms. Nasset said she gave Dean an immense amount of documents proving what she has said all along, and it has not been sent to any of the Board Members or is it in public comment. She said communication to the Board is supposed to be given out. She would like this communication to be sent to Board Members. She said the reason this is off track is because employees are running it and leaders should be. Ms. Nasset said that in the minutes from last month when she spoke she said they had a rally and there were 7 elected officials involved and 4 spoke and 13 other elected officials have signed letters saying the CRC has not followed the NEPA and they think a Supplemental Environmental Impact needs to be done and that there were also other elected officials and the 7 elected officials that wanted to speak and were involved in the rally only 2 were signers of the letter. The minutes only said that there were elected officials involved. She said she hoped the meeting notes would be changed, because when 20 elected officials have signed against it, this is a major problem.
Chair Stuart said he would give Ms. Nasset and Board Members a copy of the Bridge Influence Area map that he had in his files from 2002. Ms. Nasset said that map has white dots on I-5 and it is an artist’s rendition of the Bridge Influence Area. She said that same map with dots on I-5 is labeled the I-5 Trade Corridor. Chair Stuart said this map says the Bridge Influence Area and he would get it to her. He said he does not know of any other map. This map clearly states Bridge Influence Area. Ms. Nasset said it has no boundaries on it, and it is the same as the Trade Corridor map.
Representative Wallace said that if there are documents that were sent as public comment, then those should be sent. Chair Stuart agreed. Dean Lookingbill said in terms of public comment, at last month’s meeting, Mr. Lookingbill presented information for Ms. Nasset and copies of a series of documents including the handout that Ms. Nasset presented was distributed to Members. He said if there is something else, he would send that out. Chair Stuart said Ms. Nasset’s documents would be sent to all Board Members.
IV. Consent Agenda
- May Claims
- 2009-2012 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Clark County Low-Cost Run-Off Road Safety Improvements, Resolution 05-09-15
- 2009-2012 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: C-TRAN Economic Stimulus Grant, Resolution 05-09-16
- New Transportation Authorization Bill: Regional High Priority Project Requests, Resolution 05-09-17
Dean Lookingbill said the MTIP amendment for Clark County is a standard request. The MTIP amendment for C-TRAN is a little different in that out of the Economic Recovery funds, one of the steps that C-TRAN can go through is to seek discretionary funds. This action conditionally includes the projects. Item D. amends and confirms the regional list of high priority federal transportation authorization projects. Three project changes have occurred since the March action. First, the City of Vancouver’s project slightly changed. The Washougal E Street project was added, and the WSDOT added the request for funding for the CRC project.
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA MAY CLAIMS AND RESOLUTIONS 05-09-15, 05-09-16, AND 05-09-17. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Spending of Federal Economic Renewal Grants, Resolution 05-09-18
Dean Lookingbill recalled that it was the RTC Board’s request to develop a resolution regarding the spending of federal economic renewal grant funding modeling it after the resolution passed by the Clack County Commissioners. The thought being to buy American products, keep Americans employed, and where possible use local services.
MARC BOLDT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 05-09-18, SPENDING OF FEDERAL ECONOMIC RENEWAL GRANTS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VI. Household Travel Survey: Consultant, Draft Scope of Work, and Budget, Resolution 05-09-19
Dean Lookingbill said this agenda item would be presented by Mark Harrington. He said Mark is one of two RTC staff that work on the travel modeling process among other things.
Mr. Harrington said the purpose of this agenda item is to review the Household Travel Survey Scope of Work and to request RTC Board authorization for the Transportation Director to enter into an agreement with NuStats to provide consulting services for the survey. Mr. Harrington said in December 2008, the RTC Board approved entering into an agreement with WSDOT Local Programs to obligate $400,000 in federal Surface Transportation Program funds and to work with local partners to secure local matching funds. At that time, the Board also approved initiating a sole source process for securing consultant assistance in conducting the survey. Since then, WSDOT Local Programs has approved RTC’s request. RTC is currently finalizing interlocal agreements with WSDOT, C-TRAN, Clark County, and the cities of Vancouver, Camas, Washougal, and Battle Ground for a total of $64,500 in local matching funds.
The survey’s purpose and need will help to understand how, why, when, and where its residents travel. The last household survey was conducted in 1994. Since that time, there have been changes in demographic trends and social trends, and technology has evolved. The County has grown significantly larger and become a diverse urban region. All of these factors change or alter how people make their travel decisions throughout the day.
Mr. Harrington said the consultant that was selected for the survey is NuStats out of Austin, Texas. They are one of the leading travel survey firms in the country. There are only a small handful of such firms. They have conducted more travel surveys across the country than any other firm. They are the firm that was used in the last travel survey in 1994. Since that time, they continue to be a leader in advancing the state of the practice in travel survey design and implementation. NuStats will be utilizing advanced computer-aided telephone interviewing software (known as CATI) linked to real-time geocoding software to facilitate the collecting of trip data, including detailed geographic information regarding trip origins, destinations, and routes. Mr. Harrington provided a three-minute video clip of a real interview being done for a survey of a city. He noted to take particular attention to how the interviewer utilizes the mapping software. They have information about the street layouts, transit stop locations, land marks, and various points of interest. With that familiarity of the area that the survey is being done, it gives much better data responding back to the survey. Part of RTC staff’s responsibility in the project will be collecting those points of interest information for our local region, such as schools, medical facilities, parks, retailers, as a host of other information. This will aid in better data collecting, in that the respondents to the survey will be talking to someone who knows about the area rather than a call center that has no concept of the geography.
Mr. Harrington noted the brief outline of the scope of work listed in the resolution. Also a detailed scope of work was attached to the resolution. The survey project is scheduled to begin in May of 2009; survey design this summer; will be in the field between August and November of 2009, matching when school is in and travel times are more normal; and final report completed by the spring of 2010.
The primary product of the survey is the actual household travel data set, which will provide descriptive data regarding the travel behavior of at least 1500 Clark County households. Mr. Harrington referred to page 3 of the Scope of Work displaying a table of the core data elements for the regional travel survey. The four main topics are Household Data File, Person Data File, Vehicle Data File, and Place Data File. The Household Data will have detailed data about the household including household size, income, vehicles, rent or own and more. The Person Data will include person number, age, gender, driver, work schedule, student, along with others. Vehicle Data will include vehicle make and model, lease or own, fuel type, etc. The Place Data File will have the trip information, where they start the day, each location traveled to, mode of travel, time of arrival, where the parking location is. Mr. Harrington said an example is in New York City where you live in one location and the car is parked in another location, so you need to travel to get your car. That type of travel happens here in downtown Vancouver as well as elsewhere in the region.
The travel data will include number of trips, trip purposes, trip departure times, trip distances, travel times, travel mode, ride sharing, trip origins and destinations and others. This data can be used in a host of applications. It most typically will be used to look at the variation in travel behavior across different types of households and across households from different locations. For example, it can be used to analyze to what degree the residents of different areas of the region work and shop where they live.
Mr. Harrington said the total budget for the survey is $464,500. The action requested authorizes the Transportation Director to enter into an agreement with NuStats to provide consultant services for the Clark County Household Travel Survey.
Mayor Pollard confirmed that the same consultant was used 15 years ago, and asked if an RFQ was done or needed to be done on this. Mr. Harrington said yes they are the same consultant, and he recalled that back in December, RTC Board approved initiating a sole source process for securing consultant services for a number of reasons. One being that there are only two or three firms across the country that do this type of work. At the same time right now concurrently in Oregon, the state as well as the metropolitan areas are embarking on a travel survey. So with Metro’s efforts, having the ability to work with the same consultant, some of the ground will already be laid in inserting the design. There is also a need in this region to have a consistent data set. As we move forward, we will have a consistent data set from Clark County as well as the Portland Metropolitan area. The combined set of data will work together and be consistent in the analysis methods as well as the development of the various models that are used throughout the region. Mayor Pollard said he is disappointed that in these times, he questioned if there was anyone in Washington State that did this kind of work. Mr. Lookingbill said there is not a firm in Washington State that has this level of ability. He also said that in addition to the compatibility, we saved considerable resources by using some of the same instruments that were developed for jurisdictions in Oregon, including the Portland area.
Marc Boldt said he agreed with the Mayor. He said these are very personal questions, and he hoped that the survey people have good backgrounds.
Mr. Lookingbill said the survey screening process is very detailed. But these people are volunteers, are screened, and agree to do this. They are mailed these surveys that they fill out all of the information. What has been shown and discussed in today’s video were the retrieval steps. At this point they have already filled out this diary and mailed it in. It is then entered in the data base as shown in the video clip. That is the last step of the process. Commissioner Boldt referred to page two of the Scope of Work and said 20 of these people are going to get $100 for an hour of their time and input. Mr. Lookingbill said that is a pre-test step. Even though this process is already field-proven, this step will allow the survey to be geared to our specific community and adjustments made. Commissioner Boldt asked as this moves along, if the County and City of Vancouver have an opportunity of getting the data that is relevant to them. Mr. Harrington said the data base that is generated out of this will be available to County and City staff along with all RTC partners jurisdictions.
Deb Wallace said she saw some opportunities with this. She said not just taking the information that we are trying to get, but it can also be an opportunity with this number of participants, if there was the ability to provide some feedback information and ask for their e-mail addresses for our list. If people are interested in participating in a survey like this, they may want more transportation information, and this may be a way to outreach more people if they were given the opportunity. She suggested taking this as an opportunity to share our information and ask if they would like to be included on the list. Mr. Harrington said they could work with the consultant on how to do this and ask if they want to be more involved and contacted. Chair Stuart said he agreed and that it needs to be specific to let people know that there is an opportunity to say yes or no.
Don Wagner said he certainly supports this project. He said timing is everything. This was started a while back. Right now this data will be used to calibrate our model. He said travel patterns today versus the 14 other years, recalibrating the model to a short-term decrease in our economy with the trips changing and unemployment at what it is, could be a problem. He said some sort of check needs to be put in so that the model is not recalibrated for the next 15 years based on what we hope is a short downturn in our economy. Mr. Lookingbill said they recognize this. In any survey, even as scientific and geographic as this, there is a bias. Clearly, doing it at this time, we will need to correct for that bias. He said they have already discussed this with NuStats.
Tom Mielke said the period that the survey is going to be done is in the summer to November. Mr. Harrington said it will start in August. The travel dates will be during the school time. They will start recruiting people weeks before they actually record their travel day. The actual day that they record their travel will be when school is in session and before the Thanksgiving break.
Rex Burkholder said they are seeing a lot of change in accessing people, especially younger population who do not have a land line. He asked what the strategy is for those who use cell phones in their homes for example. Mr. Harrington said within the survey design, there are three distinct sampling frames: a land line phone based sample, a cell phone based sample, and a third sample for those who do not have a land line or a cell phone will be targeted with direct mailings to capture those that do not have access to a phone. Councilor Burkholder said some of the smaller used modes such as biking, walking, and transit, he said the plan is to over sample for transit to get some numbers that populate the model. He asked if there were plans to do this with other modes as well. Mr. Harrington said their main focus is gong to be on the over sample of the transit mode within their model it is something that loads on a particular facility because of various traffic. They will still be gathering information on whether people are doing walk or bike and those modes will be included, but he did not see a specific threshold. Every household member including children will be a part of the sample so if they walk to school or take a bus, or are dropped off, that will be captured in the survey. Mr. Harrington said they will be comparing the data samples with Metro as well. Mr. Burkholder said they would be over sampling the biking and walking pieces as well this time.
Mayor Pollard asked if this survey includes travel into the metro area or if it is Clark County only. Mr. Harrington said it includes travel for residents from Clark County to where ever they go whether it is Woodland, Skamania, or Portland, to their destination.
Chair Stuart said there were comments earlier in citizen communications that he wanted to cover. For the purposes of mass transit LRT, and BRT, he asked if the data could be used to get possibilities of transit options based on trip origin and destination and travel times. Mr. Harrington said they would have trip origins and destinations information. The sample size can be weighted and expanded to represent the population on the entire county to see what types of patterns are seen. Chair Stuart asked if we were asking for the employers or the address. Mr. Harrington said they are asking their work location, not their particular employer at that location. Chair Stuart suggested that employer names be asked. He said the suggestion was raised that we look at those employers to move to Clark County if they have significant Clark County employees. Chair Stuart said there are other things that could be done with that. For example van pools and other options where employees are traveling from a similar location to a similar destination and do public outreach. Mr. Harrington said it is something that they could look into. They have some flexibility in the survey design. The RTC Board agreed to have this looked into.
Steve Stuart asked if the data base would be put into a form such that anyone other than you or another jurisdiction transportation analyst will be able to use it. Chair Stuart asked if citizens would be able to actually use this information. Mr. Harrington asked if he meant a simplified Web tool to run their own queries on the data that is not something that they necessarily have considered. They will be doing reporting that will do a lot of the simple questions. It will be in a standard Microsoft Access data base format for those familiar with running a data base. It is public data so if it is requested, they can view it. Chair Stuart said he was thinking a simple way for a citizen to look and see what is going on and where people from their area going and figure out travel patterns. He said there is a portion of this study money going to RTC’s budget, and he would like to see some sort of back in tool to this. Mr. Lookingbill said they are at the point of determining the pieces to this study and these are good ideas. He said he is hearing this is a good tool and a good opportunity to learn about transportation as compared to where you live. Chair Stuart said this may be something that could be collaborated with Metro as well. There were no further questions, and Chair Stuart asked for a motion.
DON WAGNER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY: CONSULTANT, DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK, AND BUDGET, RESOLUTION 05-09-19. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS. ALL IN FAVOR ANSWERED AYE. CHAIR STUART ASKED FOR ALL OPPOSED AND THE MOTION CARRIED. CHAIR STUART ASKED COMMISSIONER MIELKE IF HE OPPOSED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MIELKE SAID HE THOUGHT THERE WAS TO BE MORE DISCUSSION. CHAIR STUART SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Mielke said he was concerned as to why they went so far for a consultant for the survey. He said he did not understand why there was no one in Washington that could do this survey. He asked if this could be dealt with at the next meeting as to if a more thorough job of looking for a consultant could be done. Mr. Lookingbill offered that with what we are asking for and the qualifications, there is no firm in the State of Washington or Oregon that can meet these survey requirements. He also added that part of what is important in this survey is data compatibility and saving several dollars. He said they would not want to put themselves at risk of not being compatible with Metro’s data for our region.
Chair Stuart said there is a Parliamentary procedure problem here. Commissioner Mielke said he doesn’t feel comfortable in having a bigger choice to choose from. He did not want to vote yes when he was not sure. Chair Stuart said from a Parliamentary procedure standpoint, they are at the point of a motion for Reconsideration to come before the Board since a vote was already taken. A motion to Reconsider was needed and a vote on that to bring the item back and then readdress it. Tom Mielke motioned to Reconsider. It was noted that a motion to reconsider needed to come from some one who had voted as a positive and offers to bring it back on the table.
CHAIR STUART ASKED IF SOMEONE WHO VOTED AYE ON THE MOTION WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION. NO ONE WISHED TO RECONSIDER. CHAIR STUART SAID THEY WOULD MOVE FORWARD AS INDICATED ALONG WITH THE ONE NO VOTE FOR COMMISSIONER MIELKE.
Mayor Pollard commented that he had concerns about an out of state consultant, but he said he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation that Dean provided and no longer has any concern. Commissioner Mielke said he did not see another bid on the project and time to discuss it.
VII. C-TRAN 20-Year Transit Development Plan
Jim Quintana with C-TRAN said the last time that he presented to the RTC Board, he discussed the three transit concepts, Coverage-Based Growth, Productivity-Based Growth, and Regional High Capacity Transit. At the March 10 C-TRAN Board meeting, they reviewed all the input that they had received from public and stakeholder input. They wanted to take parts of the best of the three plans and make an alternative. The C-TRAN Board agreed and directed them to proceed with the development of a preferred alternative with these considerations: to strike a balance between fixed route and commuter service hours, to balance productivity and coverage specifically to address growth, and to ensure service continues throughout the entire C TRAN service area.
Their work includes these service concepts of what they are calling today the preferred alternative. They are not only looking at expanding their commuter service to Portland but to inter Clark County and increase service on I-5 and I-205. They would have continued service out of Salmon Creek, 99th Street, Fishers Landing, and the BPA park and ride to Portland. They also have limited service. Limited service is service that doesn’t go all the way to Portland. Currently, it crosses the bridge and serves the rail heads at Delta Park on I-5 and Parkrose on I 205. Currently, they have one trip in the morning and one trip in the afternoon that provides commuter service to the Delta Park/Vanport Station from Battle Ground, which actually starts in Yacolt and ends in Yacolt. He said they talked about increasing the frequency, the number of trips to provide that service. In the case that the CRC is built, it would terminate in downtown Vancouver. Limited service would be inter Clark County commuter service. Another is in Camas/Washougal. Currently, they have a limited route that starts in Washougal and goes to Fishers Landing and downtown Vancouver and over to the Delta Park/Vanport Station. They would increase the number of trips there to increase services to that community in that part of the county. Two additional new investments are the possibility of 219th Street/SR-502 park and ride facility at the new interchange. The ridership that models there is quite exceptional with the people who want to come out of Battle Ground or La Center or Ridgefield that could park there and take express service down the freeway. Another possible park and ride is at 18th Street/I 205. Ridership models out high there as well. Mr. Quintana said that RTC’s HCT Study really identified I-205 as one of the corridors that needed some service.
Another area to look at is high capacity transit. They have two different modes that they are looking at. With the CRC project, they are looking at potential light rail coming into downtown Vancouver and Clark College. They are looking at the Fourth Plain corridor as one of most likely bus rapid transit corridors just based on ridership. Mr. Quintana said they have been having discussions with the County and City of Vancouver regarding the possibility of the BRT on Fourth Plain. RTC’s study identified Highway 99, Fourth Plain, Mill Plain, and I-205 as corridors that would support high capacity transit. Mr. Quintana said they are looking at the possibility of a surface lot at Ward Road and Fourth Plain to help facilitate trips on a Fourth Plain BRT. He noted other local service frequencies that would also be increased. New local routes could include 172nd and 192nd corridors and east Fourth Plain to 162nd Ave. to Fisher’s Landing.
Mr. Quintana displayed a full map of the Preferred Alternative. The 20 year financial plan accounts for these capital investments: the Fourth Plain BRT and two new park and rides at 219th and 18th, and the expansion of their maintenance facility to handle the BRT vehicles and additional standard buses. Compared to the previous alternatives, the Preferred Alternative combines the best of the previous three to provide the highest ridership at the lowest cost HCT option. Mr. Quintana said RTC modeled alternatives 1, 2, and 3, along with the Preferred Alternative and highlighted those results.
Mr. Quintana said their next steps include completing the Preferred Alternative, create a phased implementation plan, complete a draft Transit Development Plan, continue to take public comment, conduct a public hearing, and hope to have Board adoption some time this summer.
Deb Wallace spoke of the park and ride at Evergreen versus 18th Street. She said she has heard from people in those neighborhoods about the advantage or disadvantage of the new park and ride at 18th versus offering mores service at Evergreen park and ride that used to be overfull. She said that is an issue that is out there. She said she thinks it is important to address the cost benefit of that change. Mr. Quintana said they will do that. He said that facility is at 138th and 18th Street. It is quite a ways a way from the freeway. He said one thing that they are learning is that the best success with a park and ride facility is visible from the freeway. They are seeing this with 99th Street.
VIII. Washington State Legislature, Transportation Update
Dean Lookingbill distributed copies of a summary table of the WSDOT Nickel and Partnership Projects in Clark County for the 2009-2011 Legislative Budget. There were also lists of all of the projects with WSDOT funding for Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat Counties. Mr. Lookingbill said there are a lot of good projects, and good news other than just the Nickel and Partnership projects. Mr. Lookingbill noted that a letter of support was sent to our full delegation after last month’s Board meeting. He noted that the 134th Street project is funded within the proper time frame, as well as continued work at I-205 and 18th Street, and widening of SR-502 to name a few of the projects.
Marc Boldt asked if the $51 million listed for the Columbia River Crossing is what is needed for the next two years. Mr. Lookingbill said the $51,499,000 listed assumes $30 million coming from Oregon. The remaining dollars ($21,499,000) are the last installment of the $50 million that was the Partnership allocation from Washington. Don Wagner said that was correct. Deb Wallace said she had asked the very same question, particularly since there were many talks over the years about Oregon’s piece of it, and it was time for Oregon to put money in as we have partnered for a long time. That is an important element and we are very appreciative of continued investments.
Chair Stuart said we owe a great deal of thanks to Representative Wallace along with our whole legislative delegation for their work on the Transportation Budget. He said that she spearheaded things for the region on the House side, and we would not have gotten where we did without her. Chair Stuart voiced appreciation from everyone.
Deb Wallace thanked everyone. She said this is a team effort with the people from Southwest Washington that are in Olympia. It doesn’t happen with one person ever. She said she could not tell everyone the number of times that she was on the telephone for instance with Dean saying okay here is what it looks like is coming out, what will be coming back to our list and knowing what our list is. The input from all of the jurisdictions and elected officials from our community was tremendously helpful along with our businesses and organizations around the community. She said this team effort helped us get where we are. Representative Wallace also noted to the Board that it would be beneficial to invite our current Chairs of Transportation Judy Clibborn and Mary Margaret Haugen from the Senate down to our region so that they know our area.
IX. Other Business
From the Board
Don Wagner said he has had a lot of people ask him how contracts are going. He said since July 2008 through April 30, 2009, WSDOT awarded 115 contracts. Of those, 100 came in under the engineer’s estimate. The average under the engineer’s estimate was 29.5%. He said they were saving some money. Since May 1, they have let $6.3 million worth of contracts with 15% under engineer’s estimate. He said what is happening is that they are seeing 50% more bidders on every contract. Contracting industry that used to be doing mainly private work is now coming into public sector work. He said they are seeing a real benefit of that. He said certainly when they bring on the Stimulus dollars in the near future, he would expect to see those percentages go down a little bit, but it is certainly a different spot than where they were last year where they were seeing 15-20% increases on every contract that went out. Mr. Wagner said this is good news for them, and said he thought that this summer would be very productive. He did note that this would mean driving on the roads this summer people should be prepared to see that construction taking place. He said they have contracts on all the roadways. I-5 from the Clark County border north will have several major contracts going this year, mostly at night. He said there will be a lot of work out there and the public should see some really good roads out of this. He thanked the State Legislature for the Nickel and Transportation Partnership and to the Federal Representatives a thank you for the Stimulus money.
Chair Stuart said after the Board of County Commissioners’ hearing that evening, he would be leaving for the State Public Works Board retreat that is done annually. He said because of the budget shortfall, the Public Works Trust Fund for the next two years has been used for other purposes. It will use $365 million that would have been used for infrastructure projects. Chair Stuart said the Public Works Trust Fund is something that local governments benefit every day from. As the Legislature is looking at the next biennium, he said it would be his hope that we as a regional body and local elected officials get behind reinvesting in the Public Works Trust Fund. He said it is a very important piece of the puzzle. He said it is a loan fund that pays itself back over and over again.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted the Columbia River Crossing Project Sponsors Council meeting on Monday, May 4. Distributed for members were copies of the Project Sponsors Council’s Workplan. There are items that will come back to the RTC Board. For example, in June the decision of three bridges versus a stacked bridge will take place. He said the tolling discussions will also start up. These will be discussed at the June RTC Board. Over the summer, the Project Sponsors Council will be looking at the preliminary financial plan, and in the fall they will have a Draft Financial Plan. Another document distributed was the Financial Plan and Tolling Study Committee Timeline. This is the result of Legislative action. It has been marked as a similar process as the SR-520 process. The Project Sponsors Council will be engaged in this as well as individually. There will be a lot of public outreach to hear about it and also the response to that. Steve Stuart said as the listening sessions begin for the toll discussion, he said they would get the information to the RTC Board about when and where they are to occur. Chair Stuart said that in the Project Sponsors Council discussion about the meetings, they will make sure that a Sponsors Council member from Oregon and Washington will be at every one of the listening sessions to hear what people have to say on the subject. He said other Sponsors Council members and members of the RTC Board as well as others are welcome to attend to listen or comment.
Mr. Lookingbill distributed a handout of a Clark College project. Any project that receives federal transportation dollars must come through RTC. Clark College made an application through the reauthorization process (This was later corrected to be the 2010 federal appropriation process.) for the Fort Vancouver Way Pedestrian Safety Project. This is a pedestrian bridge over Fort Vancouver Way. Mr. Lookingbill talked with Clark College people and let them know that he would be informing the RTC Board of the project. There is no action needed by the Board, but conversations need to take place with the City of Vancouver. It is about an $8 million project that he wanted the Board to be aware of. It is a Six Year Reauthorization for federal earmark dollars through the high priority process through Congressman Baird’s office. Mr. Lookingbill has also contacted Congressman Baird’s office to let them know that we are aware of this project. In terms of future high capacity transit, there are questions of how that will be managed. Don Wagner asked if the project was in the TIP. Mr. Lookingbill said no, that they have made this application independently. There are no dollars programmed. At this point this has not had regional discussion, so we would not have this as a regionally approved federal request. Mayor Pollard said they would connect with the College on the project. Commissioner Boldt asked if the project was for safety. Mr. Lookingbill said yes there is a safety issue there, but whether an $8 million investment is the answer, we don’t know.
Mr. Lookingbill noted that the C-TRAN Board meeting was on May 12 at 5:30 p.m. and that JPACT would meet on May 14 at Metro at 7:30 a.m.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 4 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-397-6132
E-mail: info@rtc.wa.govPublic Service Center served by C-TRAN Route 3.
Officers' Row served by C-TRAN Route 32.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.
       
|