Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, June 2, 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, June 2, 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
Bill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive 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
Board Members AbsentPaul 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
Deb Wallace, Representative 17th District
Joe Zarelli, Senator18th 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 PresentRon Anderson, Columbia River Crossing
Ed Barnes, Labor Round Table
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Jim Carothers, City of Camas
Neal Christensen, David Evans & Assoc.
Todd Coleman, Port of Vancouver
Eric Forsyth, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Lloyd Halverson, City of Camas
Jon Haugen, Citizen
Mark Herceg, City of Battle Ground
Schuyler Hoss, Governor Gregoire’s Office
Michael Kepcha, Citizen
David Knight, Citizen
Jim Karlock, Portland Citizen
Sharon Nasset, Portland Citizen
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Debbie Peterson, Citizen
Jennifer Rabby, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Troy Rayburn, Clark County
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Stephanie Turlay, Citizen
Mark Turpel, Metro
Bill Wright, Clark County
Andrew Young, MacKay & Sposito
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOT
Staff PresentMark Harrington, Transportation Analyst
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff AssistantII. Approval of May 5, 2009, Minutes
MARC BOLDT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MAY 5, 2009, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
John Haugen, Vancouver citizen, addressed the Columbia River Crossing Project. He said he had not yet seen when the federal government is going to provide the 80% of funding that is required to build the $4.1 billion crossing. He said the legislature would be asked to provide 10% from Washington and 10% from Oregon to provide funding for the structure as well. He questioned where the money has been spent. He said the Columbian newspaper said that $75 million has already been spent with $60 million from Washington and $15 million from Oregon. He said another $51 million has been allocated to the project without a single shovel full of dirt. He said he has sent a letter to WSDOT and e-mails to two of his staff. Mr. Haugen is asking if the $75 million is the correct amount spent on the project, and who it has been spent on, the companies. He said he sees that $464,000 is to be allocated to a company in Austin, Texas for some polling. He said he did not know if that money is part of the $75 million or part of the $51 million that is yet to be spent. He asked that the members of the Council address where this money has gone and what they will see in the future. He said there has not been federal government input as far as their funding input. He said without their name and date on a time line, he did not see this project going anywhere.
Stephanie Turlay, Vancouver Citizen, agreed with what Mr. Haugen had said. She said that she feels that not much consideration has been given as far as the tolling is concerned on this project. She said she thinks that the government needs to pony up before they do anything. She would not turn a shovel until the money is in the bank. She said promises are empty air and political promises are even worse. She said one thing she thinks that has been missed in the entire situation is that on the Portland side of this project, you still have the bottleneck at the Rose Garden. Portland still has not come up with a conclusion or a way to correct this problem. So we have a wonderful 12-lane bridge going into a bottleneck, which does not relieve any of the congestion. She said it concerns her that citizens come before the Board and speak of the problems, but they do not get the answer back. She said they do not sit down and say this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to do it. She said the elected officials need to be honest and forthright and come up with the answers that they need. She said she had been to many meetings with no answers. Ms. Turlay said that she thinks that if the bridge does go forward, the citizens of Oregon and Washington are only responsible for the on and off ramps. This should be a federal project; it is a federal highway. To put it on the backs of the people of Washington and Oregon is wrong. She also said regarding tolling, if they decide to toll, the maximum that they should toll the residents of Clark County and Multnomah County is 50 cents each way. She said the people should not be stuck with the burden of paying off the bridge with tolls. She said they should be charged a minimum charge to help pay for the on and off ramps, and let anyone else who uses the I-5 system pay the burden of tolls. She said we should be given some sort of deal because we live here and use it, but not saddled with the entire bill. She said something that needs to be looked at is a reverse tolling. She said it is time for the elected officials to provide the answers to what the citizens are asking.
Sharon Nasset said she was glad to hear of a discussion about tolls. She said she thinks that the very first thing that needs to come out about tolls is that we had a local bridge before they took it for I-5, and therefore, the federal government should consider that we need a local bridge and they should pay the most, because they took the bridge that was here to begin with. Ms. Nasset said another issue is how to keep the cost down. She said she has not seen numbers for the individual pieces of property. She said she thinks that to take down the bridge will cost about $150 -$200 million. She named several buildings including the floating homes at Jantzen Beach currently near the I-5 freeway near the bridge on the Oregon side and the cost she believed it would cost to take them and remove them. She noted employees loosing their jobs and having to relocate them, construction crews to take it all away and crews to build the new with interruptions. Ms. Nasset said the best way to cut a billion dollars is to go to bare land next to the Burlington Northern Rail where there would be no interruptions and all the other issues. She said the NEPA process is to look at the benefits, and has not been followed. She said you will go to court if you do not go back and do the NEPA process. (Handouts from Ms. Nasset were distributed to Board Members as requested.)
Debbie Peterson, Vancouver citizen, she said she is not going to go over the same issues that she has before. She wanted to talk about philosophy. She said she was watching a show where the audience was listing rights that people have lost in the last several months. One woman said we have lost the right to participate in government. She said she went on to say that when people get involved in government, they participate and vote and have initiatives and attend meetings. When the Supreme Court decides to overrule their initiative process, where the legislators decide to ignore the initiative process and take the vote, which was won over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says we’ll just ignore the voters then. We have lost our right to participate. Ms. Peterson said when you as elected officials hear week after week about things regarding this bridge, and when you hear how bad light rail is, every week you move forward. When polls say we do not want light rail, and you as elected officials ignore it and move forward with the project. What you in effect are saying is for people to not participate or bother to vote. You are ignoring what we have to say.
Jim Karlock said he has heard several times that the federal government requires that high capacity transit be an element of the CRC project. He asked where this came from and if it was indeed true.
Steve Stuart said it is not legally true that you must have a multi modal project to get approval or funding from Federal Highway Administration. There has been a lot who have said it because they believe that functionally, it would be necessary to have a project. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities are legally required for transportation improvements.
IV. Consent Agenda
- June Claims
- 2009-2012 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Federal 2009 Appropriation Earmarks, Resolution 06-09-20
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JUNE CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 06-09-20. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Please note that there was a slight discrepancy in the Staff Report/Resolution and the attached State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) report pages. The STIP report pages include the correct information, and RTC Board action approves the STIP report pages. The STIP pages include the text for the Columbia River Crossing project to also receive $1.3 million in High Priority funds.
V. Columbia River Crossing Project Update
Ron Anderson referred to the project schedule that was distributed. Copies of the slide presentation were also distributed. Mr. Anderson said their emphasis currently is to fill in the details of what is required for completing the FEIS. When they publish the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, they have a lot of options available for certain elements. This included items such as the bridge height, transit alignment station locations, and travel demand management plan sustainability strategic objectives. These will all be a part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. They hope to have a preliminary DEIS for review for the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Agencies by early fall. Mr. Anderson said they have 15 formal boards, committees, and working groups that are helping make these decisions. He said it starts with the Project Sponsors Council, to the Sponsors Agency Senior Staff, and down to their working groups. He said they have over 100 citizen volunteers helping make a change. They hope to have a draft finance plan by this fall. Early next year they hope to publish the Final Environmental Impact Statement and get a record of Decision by mid summer or late fall of next year. They will start their final design process and they could start buying right-of-way by 2011 and complete the final design and under construction by 2012 with completed construction by 2017-2019.
Mr. Anderson said this Friday, they will be asking the Project Sponsors Council to give them a recommendation on the number of bridges across the Columbia River, whether they go with the three bridge option or a two bridge option. A two bridge option is what they call the stacked transit highway bridge with the Interstate traffic on the top level of both bridges and transit under one level on the southbound bridges and bicycle and pedestrian on the second level on the northbound bridge. Mr. Anderson said there are a lot of advantages of going with a two bridge option. These include a smaller footprint of the project and it has less piers in the water, less environmental impacts.
It is a unique bridge that is open web type metal composite bridge of steel and concrete which gives some advantages. He said they think it might be a cost effective bridge especially for transit. One of the things they are looking at as a potential as a two bridge solution would be cheaper than a three bridge solution in their preliminary look. It will be unique enough that they do not know that for sure yet. At the same time, they know it can be a more effective cost for transit to be inside one of the bridges than if it has to be on its own bridge. That should be a benefit to the transit cost. They know it is a better solution for navigation because ship passages have less distance to go through. It opens up more shoreline access for development and they think the visual impact is going to be pleasing. He said there are a few negatives. It will have operational problems, because he noted that if you stack transit and highway in the same bridge and there is a problem, where transit runs into a problem or the highway has a problem it could potentially disrupt one or the other. He said they do not see that as a serious problem. That is something that they currently are looking at. He said a lot of folks are worried about safety and security for pedestrians on a second level of the bridge, and they are addressing those issues.
In terms of aesthetics of the bridge, the project has used an Urban Design Advisory Committee that is Co-Chaired by Mayor Pollard and Mayor Adams. They have been working on bridge type and aesthetic considerations of whether it is iconic form, how it will look, user experience, and sustainability. Mr. Anderson displayed a few images of some of the preliminary bridge sketches of bicycle pedestrian facilities. By putting the bike/ped facility inside the bridge allows them to be nearly 25 feet wide and 20 feet high with an open panorama view. It will be lit at night with a lot of security in it. They will probably have at least one overlook where people can walk out and look over the river and enjoy the scenery. Mr. Anderson said they still have a lot of work on pier detail and design. They have many concepts of whether they have some kind of a gateway or entry feature. There will be electronic tolling and they will have to accommodate toll entry signing, etc.
Rex Burkholder said the proposal that came forward was how to meet all the needs that we identified in the EIS and met all the purposes. He said they should be looking at financing and what we can afford. In terms of bridge design, he said he had some concern about the timing of going forward on the bridge design and then finalizing the finance plan sometime later. He asked how those were going to interact in terms of the prioritization of what you build when, how to build, phasing, and such. He said that has a big impact on bridge design.
Ron Anderson said they are currently going through an exercise of what they call their cost estimating validation process. This is a risk based process looking at cost of the project. This breaks it down into the details or elements. They are at the point where they have to be very serious about what this project will cost. They will be able to come back through the Project Sponsors Council and Sponsors Agency Senior Staff and break out these details about adding things and what the cost would be. That will come through the tolling discussions about what the impacts would be on toll rates based on some of the options. He said that data will be coming back for the Boards and Councils to consider.
Steve Stuart asked Don Wagner to weigh in on the financing discussion. Don Wagner said they are looking at a process where you can try and find out what the key elements are that have to happen first. They have designed a project as it is necessary that would address the future needs of the facility for 20 years by requirement, but for practicality for the next 100 years. Experience on very big projects like this have shown that it is very unique to have all the money for all of the project on the very first day, so you look at what you can build first. At a very high level, do you build the road approaching the bridge first or do you build the bridge first? If you decide to build the bridge first then how do you connect the bridge? Since this bridge will be much higher than the old one, it would be a mistake to believe that you could just tie it in on Hayden Island with the existing interchange and on SR-14 with the existing interchange. Mr. Wagner said it is a long process they are currently going through. They are looking at how they might phase the project. He said he wanted to be clear that there is a difference between phasing an element and eliminating an element. He said at this point, they are looking at somewhat all combinations. He said that they are looking to see if there is anything that they thought at some point was necessary that maybe now several years into the process later, we find it is not necessary or necessarily the size we thought it was. He said the next question is what can be phased? For example, 30 years out you need two on ramps to address concerns at a particular location, but maybe for the first 10 years, you only need one on ramp. Those are the type of things they are looking at. He said it’s not an easy process or a short process. They hope to have those preliminary answers by fall of this year. That does line up with the phasing plan. Mr. Wagner said that timing was not right to ask the Washington legislature for lots of money for this project. The Oregon legislature is still meeting. They are dealing with some big transportation issues, and there wasn’t a big ask from the Oregon legislature because construction will not start yet. The Federal Government is in reauthorization on both the transit element as well as the highway element. That is where our first asks are coming from. They have had some very serious conversations with the congressional delegation from both sides of the river about what that ask might look like and what the reality is of getting that money and over what timeframe. These are all big dollar numbers, and the reality is that nobody has that kind of money on hand right now. It is pretty clear that it will need to be a staged project.
Royce Pollard said he appreciated what Mr. Wagner had said. He said that reality dictates that we look at phasing. The key to him for phasing is that we need to have the land available to do what is necessary to provide for the next 50 to 100 years for this bridge even if we don’t do it now. He said unless we provide the land to do it, then we are deceiving ourselves for something less than what we expect to do. Mayor Pollard said the project has some very highly qualified people on the bridge design group, architects, engineers, and landscape artists. He said a concern from his side of the river is that the citizens of Vancouver and Clark County are the ones who will be looking at the bridge. People on the Oregon side will as well, but not to the extent that the Vancouver side will. He said they are very concerned about the visual picture that people will be looking at. He said the Friday Project Sponsors Council meeting will be an interesting discussion.
Ron Anderson continued with the Light Rail Planning in Vancouver. He said the Vancouver Working Group is made up of citizens and business members from the greater Vancouver community. This group of 20 has met every two weeks on a Thursday night. Mr. Anderson said that Thayer Rorabaugh, Jeff Hamm, and Dean Lookingbill have been very involved. The committee has worked through alignment decisions. They are recommending a north/south two-way couplet, one way on Broadway northbound and southbound on Washington. They recommended an east/west two-way route on McLoughlin. Their last meeting was spent looking at a center-running transit alignment. Mr. Anderson said he thought this to be the preferred alternative. This would have island platforms with raised roadway. This allows for some parking, two-way traffic, and a safe center island. The Group deferred any decision on station locations in downtown Vancouver until they could get more information on the park and ride. That will be discussed over the next several meetings. They have a major park and ride planned for the Clark College area which is about 1700 vehicles, one in the Mill District, and another around the SR-14 interchange. Jeff Hamm clarified that the Vancouver Working Group’s purpose is to make recommendations to the City of Vancouver, C-TRAN, and the CRC Project and Project Sponsors Council, an advisory group.
Ron Anderson addressed tolling. He said that the Washington State Legislature passed some requirements that the CRC project must meet. They look at tolling as accomplishing two things: 1) to generate revenue to help pay for the project and 2) to manage traffic and the system. The Toll Study Committee consists of the heads of both Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation, Secretary Paula Hammond and Director Matt Garret and the Chairs of the Washington State and Oregon Transportation Commissions. They are to develop a process to go through that would include evaluating potential diversion on the transportation system, such as if you toll I-5 and not I-205, what the impact is to the system and what if you toll both bridges. They are looking at the most advanced tolling technologies and how that could impact how the system runs and travel speeds and reliability. They also want input from the local agencies and the public on the impacts of tolls, and diversions and the impacts to city streets. The Tolling Study Committee is to take a report back to the Washington and Oregon Legislature in January 2010. Things they hope to learn from this process include: how tolling will work best for the CRC and the region, how to best meet the needs of residents of Oregon and Washington, users of the bridge and adjacent communities, and what the tolling approach is that makes the most sense and considers a variety of project and regional needs.
Mr. Anderson said they have two Open Houses scheduled one at Jantzen Beach SuperCenter on June 23 and one in Vancouver at the Red Lion at the Quay on June 24. These will provide general project update and also introduce tolling to the community. The Tolling Study Committee’s first Listening Sessions are on June 30 and July 1. These sessions will have about 30 minutes of general project update and then it will be purely a listening session. The listening session will be the committee plus Project Sponsors Council Members, at least one from each side of the river. Mr. Anderson referred to the chart listing specific dates of the many efforts that are taking place in terms of the Tolling Study Committee timeline. Another chart listed the Financial Plan and Tolling Study Committee timeline. This lists the Financial Plan Development. They recently are in the process of completing an Origin/Destination Survey. During the weekday several months ago, they recorded on one day 70,000 license plates going back and forth across the river on both I-5 and I-205. They took that information and sent surveys out to all of those people. They got 5,000-6,000 responses back. This information is being used to help refine the tolling model to get better more accurate data. They are doing another weekend survey and currently are mailing those surveys out to the public now. They are also doing a Stated Preference Survey, which is just beginning. This process is to find out what people’s preferences are if there was a toll on the I-5 Bridge, would they divert to I-205 and vice versa. They will have all of the questions within a week and proceed with the survey. Mr. Anderson said they would have the most intense public outreach this summer than they have had on the project to date.
Marc Boldt said Mr. Anderson had said the State Legislature had said tolling was to pay for it and to manage it. He asked if managing meant to force people to I-205 with light rail or to slow people down with a toll. Mr. Anderson said the intent is to look at toll rates and see how you can get the best system efficiency and maximize revenues. He said if revenues are too high, there will be diversion and use of the bridge will drop. If tolls are too low, you miss the opportunity to repay the bridge and the cost of the bridge. He said it is finding that ideal spot. At the same time, they’re providing better bike/ped facilities, providing high capacity transit, and looking at travel demand systems. It is all of those. It is looking at managing the system as well as maximizing revenues. Another way to look at it is that it is not just to get revenue. Marc Boldt said when you look at a toll per car, do you look at how much money the state and the federal are going to give us, and what is left for tolling, average it out per car, or do we say we can afford this much per car and we need to ask the state or federal for this amount. Ron Anderson said they have done two preliminary toll revenue studies, and they have a pretty good idea about how much money they could get from tolls. He said it will be somewhere around $1.3-1.6 billion under the most optimistic scenario. Mr. Anderson said they know that the tolls cannot pay for the entire project. The question then is how much federal money there will be and how much state money will be needed. This process over the next six months will help determine that. He said they are not trying to say this is how much the project will cost, so how much are we going to charge in tolls. They think there is a maximum amount of money that citizens are willing to pay and then they will start diverting.
Rex Burkholder said in citizen comment, the question of incident of the tolls in terms of who would actually pay, through travelers, freight, trucks of various sizes, he asked if that kind of information will also come out of the tolling process. Mr. Anderson said yes that for the information about proposed toll rates, they are running tolling scenarios and how much trucks pay and how much cars pay, if there is any break for transit sort of things. That all will be available and discussed. They have been looking at $2, $4, and $6 tolls and what happens to traffic when different rates are used. He said the direction that they are getting from the legislature is to revisit the scenarios and see if any opportunities have been missed. That will come back to the Project Sponsors Council, and they may have to run additional scenarios.
Mr. Burkholder said that some of it is going to be an aggregate in the concerns of who is paying, if it is citizens of the region, outside passing through traffic, and such. Mr. Anderson said currently the look that they have had is that everyone that crosses the Columbia River will pay a toll. Mr. Burkholder asked if that was 50 % local contribution or will that come out? Mr. Anderson said the number of out of area traffic is relatively small on a daily basis, 5-10 percent. Most of the traffic is local.
Tom Mielke said they seem to be floating around with what that amount to charge will be. He said they should do something like the Narrows Bridge where it started out at $7 and they lowered it to $3.50. Don Wagner said the Tacoma Narrows project had a brief period of time upon opening when the tolls were reduced, but it was the understanding that the tolls would go up to the stated level at the end of that period. They are moving up in that direction. The difference that we are looking at is that no decision has been made yet. The two Transportation Commissions eventually set the toll rates. The assumption was that this would be a variable toll by time of day. During the peak period of the day, you would likely pay more than the off peak period, and there would also be a different rate for heavy vehicles, medium vehicles (trucks), and passenger vehicles. The actual toll setting is not likely to happen much different than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was set shortly before it opened. In the State of Washington, the legislature has to authorize a toll project, but the Commission sets the toll rate.
Tom Mielke said this bridge is quite a bit more expensive that the Narrows Bridge. He asked if there was a time frame that they will charge. Mr. Anderson said some of these decisions have not been made yet, but he said the Boards and the Councils in their resolution of supporting the project, some of the Boards and Councils have these tolls to go on and stay on. Mr. Wagner said that the bonds will be back over a 30-year period time. The issue of how long the toll is left on is a political decision. Mr. Wagner also clarified that there was not that much of a difference in the price of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the I-5 Columbia River Crossing Bridge. He said in the I-5 project we are paying for the bridge and five miles of Interstate with seven interchanges. That was not part of the Tacoma Narrows, which came in just under $1 billion. Mr. Mielke said that construction is part of the whole project. Mr. Wagner said the concept at this point is that the entire project would be paid for by some financing piece which has not been developed yet. Mr. Mielke said his fear is that they compare this dollar with the Narrows dollar whether it includes five miles or not, it is still part of that financing project. If it is five times more than the Narrows Bridge, can we assume in the same 30 years that we attain 5 times more in the tolls? Mr. Anderson said that depended on the amount of Federal and State money they get and how much would be toll bond repayment. Steve Stuart said they have also heard there is a threshold where by you do not go past it, where you cannot get more money out of tolls. If there were fewer federal and state dollars, then there would be fewer interchanges that we would be doing, because there would be fewer dollars overall. Mr. Mielke said when the project is completed, we would be paying for the whole project, the bridge and the five miles and the interchanges. He said his concern is financing that kind of money. He said his fear is that they assume it is five times more in that 30 year timeframe.
Steve Stuart said his expectation in going into the Preference Survey, is that the scenarios that they are looking at will run the gamut from some jurisdictions’ preference to toll everything forever at a high rate to the other end that is toll nothing ever for no rate, to having scenarios that not only look at the ends of the spectrum but others in the middle as well. This is to get a true sense of where people are and what they are willing to pay and what they get. Tom Mielke said he didn’t think no toll was an option. That what he has heard is that if it is to be built, it will have to have tolls. Mr. Mielke asked if they would know what the cost per trip would be before construction was started. Don Wagner said he didn’t think they would know specifically what the tolls would be until construction starts. The tolls were not actually set on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge until a few months prior to the opening of the structure. The finance plan will have come together. We will have an understanding of the ranges, but the specific toll itself will not be known until purchasing right of way or construction is started. Ron Anderson said even things like bond rates impact the amount of tolls and the bond market changes consistently. Steve Stuart said there will be more discussion on this topic at the Project Sponsors Council. He said when people are asked to make a decision and a decision on light rail as a possible component of the CRC project before construction begins, if they don’t have an idea of how much a toll might be, it makes it more difficult to talk with them of the pluses and minuses of the project. He said they will need more discussion of how they can get more information upfront as far as what the tolls might be. Mr. Wagner said they would have an idea of what tolls might be. He said he didn’t think they would know the exact amount. They will know the cost of the project, but there are so many variables. Jeff Hamm asked if it was safe to say that we will know before construction begins what the financial gap that is going to filled by the tolls will be, like a range and how much the tolls are set to realize that amount of revenue might be may vary somewhat. Don Wagner said that was correct. They will know the cost of the project, and should have a better understanding of how the other dollars will flow. This project is rather unique for Mega Projects in the State of Washington. The other projects had cash and they were trying to figure out how tolls would fill the gap. This project they are still waiting to see where the first funding comes from. We don’t know that answer yet, and he said they are not likely to know all of those answers for a few years until reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill. They will know the cost of the project; it is the gap and how many years that gap is going to be paid for that is in question. There is also the management issue. If they are going to be using management of the system, that is a whole conversation that has not been had in either of the communities.
Steve Stuart said his role on the Project Sponsors Council is RTC’s representative. He said one representative from the Project Sponsors Council from Oregon and one from Washington will be at each of the Listening Sessions to not speak, but to listen to what people are saying. The idea of having one from each side is because there are differing opinions based on the state that you live in and based on the area that you like in and how you use the bridge. There is a need to have each on either side to better understand each other. Chair Stuart said they would see that Board members had a list of the upcoming meetings so anyone could attend.
VI. $1.5 Billion TIGER Discretionary Grants: Candidate Projects
Dean Lookingbill referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet. He said the $1.5 Billion TIGER Discretionary grant is the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. This discretionary grant program provides an opportunity to fund additional projects in our region as a result of the Economic Stimulus Bill. In March the Board selected projects to be funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA). The list of projects totaled $9.19 million in highway projects and $5.8 million in transit projects. The TIGER grant is a national competitive transportation funding program contained within the AARA.
The US DOT has just recently published the notice of funding availability and solicitation of applications from eligible applicants. The final TIGER program rules and criteria will be published on June 17, 2009. Funding under this program will be awarded to state and local governments. Eligible projects include but are not limited to capital investments in highway or bridge projects, public transportation infrastructure, passenger and freight rail transportation projects, and port infrastructure projects.
The selection criteria includes a considerable amount of detail but in brief, the first two criteria are “primary” while the last two are “secondary” in terms of evaluating candidate projects: long-term outcomes; job creation and economic stimulus; innovation; and partnership.
The eligible TIGER grants range from $20 million up to $300 million, with certain exceptions for projects less than $20 million. Not more than 20 percent of the funds may be awarded to projects in a single state. Mr. Lookingbill said for Washington State this would be about $260 to $280 million.
Applications are due by September 15, 2009. Project recipients will be announced no later than February 17, 2010. Projects are expected to be completed on or before February 17, 2012.
Mr. Lookingbill offered for discussion possible project ideas. The Port of Vancouver is considering sending in an application for their West Vancouver Freight Access Rail project.
Todd Coleman with the Port of Vancouver highlighted their project. Mr. Coleman thanked the RTC Board for their support for the AARA funds in the first go around. He said those first funds of $2.5 million will actually go into construction in September 2009. He said thanks to those funds and the fact that that project is going to be under construction and the fact that they acquired some property; they have been very successful in keeping business at the Port. He said a lot of other Ports have seen a decrease in man hours. He said they are actually holding stable on man hours, and that is due in part to this project. The project will have some lead tracks that will give them access for freight rail for unit trains, trains with 110 rail cars. It will really increase efficiencies for them. They are looking at the TIGER funds because the West Vancouver Freight Access Rail Project overall is about a $137 million project. The project has national significance in that they currently cross over the main rail line, which is the main connection between the west coast and up into Canada and also eastbound over to Chicago. With the increased capacity due to this project, they would see about an increase in capacity at 2025 as compared to 2005 through the rail network system. This would be positive impacts for the Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Port of Kalama, Port of Longview, Port of Vancouver, and Port of Portland, and also up over into Chicago and down into Houston. They would also see a major increase in their own port’s capacity to handle the long unit-rail trains. He said they have about 600 acres of development that they can do in the near term. The rail access project is currently scheduled to be completed in 2017. If they were to be successful in getting the TIGER funds, they could advance those projects forward, and then start to coordinate their timing with the projects with the Vancouver Bypass WSDOT project as well as the City of Vancouver transportation projects at the waterfront. This would allow those projects to all come together. If they could do that, it would increase those capacities much sooner than 2017. He said there are about 1,900 construction jobs that they are looking at as it relates to the project and about 3,000 to 4,000 long term jobs associated with the property development.
Mayor Pollard said the City is very supportive of the Port’s project. He said the City believes they may have a project that fits the requirements of the TIGER grants in all four of the criteria areas. He said it is a 600 acre infrastructure project in Section 30 in east Vancouver. This is an opportunity to do the necessary infrastructure that is needed. If it meets the criteria, it could be completed before 2012. This would create long-term jobs and economic development in that part of the community. Mayor Pollard said he hopes that RTC staff will work with Thayer and City staff on the application. This is a first look and will come before the City Council for approval at some point in time.
Molly Coston said that they hope that RTC would consider the SR-14 Widening project that is to start next year. This would move most of those components from two to four lanes and eliminate an intersection or traffic light in Camas, which is a goal of a State Route to remove traffic lights. As costs have increased, the west Slough Bridge is going to remain a two lane bridge, and she said that widening that to four lanes is an essential component of the project success. She said she believed the project meets the criteria, and would like to see it considered.
Jeff Hamm said that C-TRAN has no projects of $20 million or more that can be done by 2012, so they are not considering an application.
Chair Stuart suggested that RTC staff work with individual jurisdictions and put out the request to jurisdictions for potentially eligible projects for the TIGER funds and bring that back to the RTC Board for discussion with an actual project list. The applications are not due until September. The word needs to get out early to jurisdictions, and then bring it back to the Board for consideration of support.
VII. Other Business
From the Board
From the Director
Dean Lookingbill referred to the handout of Executive Order 09-05, Washington’s Leadership on Climate Change. Mr. Lookingbill noted section 2b that would directly affect RTC. The Puget Sound Regional Council, Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, and Thurston Regional Planning Council are to work cooperatively to develop and adopt regional transportation plans that address reducing greenhouse gases and achieving benchmarks that have been identified statewide, along with strategies in their Transportation Plans on how they would do that. Mr. Lookingbill said these are activities that we do, but depending on how this gets interpreted and how it may be stated in statute, it may set new policy foundations for how we go about doing the Regional Plans. Mr. Lookingbill this is something that jurisdictions’ staff will be working on, and RTC will be working with partners around the state as to just what this means.
Tom Mielke said he assumed that the survey that is to be done will provide the information needed for this. Mr. Lookingbill said the Household survey will help due to a better information base. The greenhouse strategy will be decisions for what actions are needed to be done in the realm of a transportation system and what improvements you choose and how those help achieve reductions of greenhouse gases. The survey will help with the information side, but it will not make the decisions as to what goes in the Plan. Those will be policy decisions. Tom Mielke asked if we had to identify the greenhouse gasses that we have before we start. Mr. Lookingbill said that information is available. He said the State of Oregon says that in the transportation sector statewide that it contributes about 30 percent of the greenhouse related gases. He said that the State of Washington is a little higher. Mr. Lookingbill said they can run the air quality models for our region to test different strategies. There are statewide goals that are set, but it is all not clear as to how we meet all of the mandates.
Rex Burkholder said they are under the same in a recent transportation bill. The Portland Metro area is given similar requirements by their legislature. They have been doing some work, and said this is a good place to work together. They have developed a greenhouse gas inventory based on their modeling and also a greenhouse gas calculation tool. He said they can actually look and compare a road project versus another road project versus a transit project versus a land use decision and ask what greenhouse gasses would be emitted by those choices. Mr. Burkholder said they are doing many of the same things in Oregon. He said since we are in the same air shed, we should be sharing. He said there is a lot of opportunity to learn from each other and how to understand the implications of those decisions.
Don Wagner said they will be coming to the RTC Board with another amendment to the STIP. He said with the good bids on the federal Stimulus Package, another one of their projects is being advanced for construction this summer. This is another paving job on I-5. Mr. Wagner said their bids have been coming in low this year. They are about $32 million under the engineers’ estimates already; this is allowing them to move more projects.
Mr. Lookingbill noted the CRC Project Sponsors Council meets on June 5 at 10 a.m. at ODOT. The C-TRAN Board meets June 9 at 5:30 p.m. at C-TRAN. JPACT meets June 11 at 7:30 a.m. at Metro, and the Bi-State Coordination Committee would meet on June 18 at 5:00 p.m. at Metro.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at 4 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 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.
       
|