Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 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 Molly Coston on Tuesday, June 1, 2010, at 4:05 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
Jack Burkman, Vancouver Council Member
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
Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Jim Jacks, Representative 49th District
Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Joe Zarelli, Senator18th District
Board Members Absent
Marc Boldt, Clark County Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
David Poucher, White Salmon Mayor
Jason Tell, ODOT Region One Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
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
Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District
Jaime Herrera, Representative 18th District
Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District
Dick Baker, Citizen
Ed Barnes, Labor Council
Ray Barney, Citizen
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Matthew Dudik, Clark County
Bart Gernhart, WSDOT
Lisa Ghormley, Citizen
Bart Hansen, Vancouver Council Member
Jim Karlock, Citizen
Dick Malin, Central Park NHA
Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Vancouver NHA
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Jerry Oliver, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Ron Onslow, Ridgefield City Mayor
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver
Steve Prastka, Citizen
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Troy Rayburn, Clark County
Erik Robinson, The Columbian
Scott Sawyer, City of Battle Ground
Jeanne Stewart, Vancouver Council Member
Marc Widing, Food Express Inc.
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOT
Lynda David, Senior Transportation Planner
Mark Harrington, Senior Transportation Planner
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff Assistant
II. Approval of May 4, 2010, Meeting Minutes
NANCY BAKER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MAY 4, 2010, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Marc Widing manages Food Express Inc. a trucking company in the Port of Vancouver. He said they have 42 to 43 full-time employees, and of those only two are Oregon residents, most of them live here as well as work in Vancouver and or Clark County. Mr. Widing said that being able to transport their loads up and down Fourth Plain is a very critical part of their operation. Mill Plain is not the best option for them. Mr. Widing said he wanted to share his concerns with the RTC Board so they are aware when they review this corridor that this affects a lot of employees and also a lot of other companies in the Port area.
Sharon Nasset, a Portland citizen, said she had spent the day attending the CRC Independent Expert Review Panel meeting at the Hilton. The time was spent with background information and review of what has taken place. Ms. Nasset said she planned to attend the Community Comment Session that evening at 7:00 p.m. She also thanked Commissioner Stuart for getting it broadcast by CVTV. Ms. Nasset said she is interested in this project because they have freight running through their neighborhood on arterials and it doesn’t work and it won’t for Vancouver. She said the answer is to put it on a viaduct freeway connecting Mill Plain at I-5 to the Port of Vancouver going south to the Port of Portland and going around Smith and Bybee Lakes.
Ed Barnes a Vancouver citizen distributed a resolution for support for the replacement of the existing Interstate 5 Bridges between Portland, Oregon and Southwest Washington. The resolution has been read at the 17th, 18th, and 49th Districts of the Democratic Central Committee and adopted unanimously in support of the current proposal for the replacement of the existing I-5 Bridges. Mr. Barnes said he thought that a lot of good work has been done in putting this project together with many, many hours and community outreach. He said now is the time to stop discussing it and build a bridge. Millions of dollars have been spent over the last 15 years with all of the studies. Mr. Barnes said both US Senators in Vancouver have said that if something is not done by the end of the year, it will be another eight to twelve years before we will get any funding for a bridge. Mr. Barnes said if we wait another eight to twelve years, we will not be able to go anywhere out of Vancouver or Portland from the I-5 Bridge. Mr. Barnes said it is very important to act on this. The resolution will be taken up on June 24 and 25 at the State Democratic Convention and voted on.
Jim Karlock, a Portland citizen, distributed a handout addressing livability and crimes related to light rail and the MAX line. Mr. Karlock said it has been said that light rail will increase our livability, but he asked if crime helps livability, because he said light rail has a proven record of doing that. Mr. Karlock noted several articles from the Oregonian dated from 1988 to 2007 that referred to security and crime issues on the MAX lines. He asked if that was what Vancouver wanted. Mr. Karlock also had a list of reported crimes from the Clackamas Town Center prior to the MAX line September 2008 to February 2009 compared to September 2009 to February 2010 after the new MAX line opened and noted the increase in reported crimes.
IV. Consent Agenda
- June Claims
JACK BURKMAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JUNE CLAIMS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program, Resolution 06-10-11
Chair Coston noted that this agenda item was presented at the last RTC Board meeting, and action was tabled in order to allow members further time to review the information.
Lynda David provided a brief recap of the Unified Planning Work Program. The UPWP is a federally-required document that describes transportation planning activities anticipated for the region in the next fiscal year. Each year, RTC, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for this region, is granted Federal Highway Administration PL dollars as well as Federal Transit Administration planning funds to carry out the required metropolitan transportation planning process, and also the funds received from the state that covers Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat counties as part of the Regional Transportation Planning Organization duties. Fiscal Year 2011 covers the year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011. The Unified Planning Work Program completes the grant cycle that began with the Board’s adoption of the RTC’s calendar budget in December 2009.
The UPWP needs to reflect transportation planning emphasis areas identified at federal and state levels. These are described within the document itself as well as in the Resolution. As in previous years, the UPWP has four sections. The first three sections describe work elements that are a part of RTC’s work, and the fourth section describes significant regional transportation planning activities anticipated by WSDOT, C-TRAN, and local jurisdictions and agencies.
The FY 2011 UPWP was reviewed and endorsed by RTC’s Regional Transportation Advisory Committee at its April RTAC meeting. The program was also reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, WSDOT, and bi-state partners at meetings held at both RTC and Metro on February 24th. The Metro Council took action to adopt its UPWP and endorse RTC’s UPWP at an April 15 meeting.
Ms. David said action was tabled at last month’s meeting in order for members to further look through Metro’s UPWP. It is very similar to RTC’s with the first few sections describing work elements that Metro leads. Of particular interest to RTC Board members may be the Bi-State Coordination work element on page 50 of Metro’s work program. The final section of Metro’s UPWP includes ODOT, TriMet, and Metro area jurisdictions transportation planning work elements.
Ms. David referred to the presentation slide with the RTC Board action. The request is to adopt RTC’s Fiscal Year 2011 UPWP, to continue the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Local funding Agreement that helps to provide local match for the federal funds, (This $104,500 amount has not changed since RTC was established in 1992.), and endorse Metro’s FY 2011 UPWP. This action is required because in the federal view, we are part of a bi-state region and need reciprocal action to endorse each others programs. Adoption will also mean that the Transportation Director is authorized to file applications for federal funding, to execute grant agreements, and to file any assurances or required documentation relating to the FY 2011 UPWP.
Commissioner Mielke said at the last meeting he was concerned of the number of people who had read the documents, which was why he tabled the action. He said he is surprised at the number of years that they reach. He said he is also surprised that there is no one from the SW Clean Air agency on this Board, and he felt they play a big part. Commissioner Mielke said he had a hard time with a lot of the things that he read in the document, but for the interest of moving forward at this time he would support it. He said he thinks both documents need to be scrutinized more in the future.
JACK BURKMAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FY 2011 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM, RESOLUTION 06-10-11. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VI. Congestion Management Process: 2009 Monitoring Report, Resolution 06-10-12
Dale Robins said that RTC is also required by federal regulations to develop and implement a Congestion Management Process. The Congestion Management Process is designed as an information tool. The full report provides a tremendous amount of data, which is intended to provide an understanding of the transportation system’s operating conditions and deficiencies. Mr. Robins would provide an overview of changes from last year’s report, a brief overview of data contained in the full report, and conclude by covering key data and findings shown in the Summary Report.
The congestion management system includes 31 regionally significant corridors. In the 2009 report, 192nd Avenue corridor was added to the system, and the SR-502 corridor was modified to reflect the new I-5/SR-502 interchange. Also in 2009, they further delineated the corridor travel speed ranges on the maps contained on pages 24 and 25 to provide additional clarity. They also developed the Summary Report. This is new to the process and is intended as a tool to summarize key data and findings.
Mr. Robins referred to the full report distributed to RTC Board Members. Chapter 1 provides background information on the congestion management process. Chapter 2 provides system monitoring data. This section includes description of data elements, trends between 2000 and 2009, and areas of concern. Data elements include vehicle volumes, corridor capacity ratio, corridor travel speed, speed as percent of speed limit, intersection delay, automobile occupancy, truck percentages, transit seat capacity used, transit seats as percentage of lane capacity, highest volume intersections, Columbia River bridge volumes, transit system ridership, and park and ride capacity. Chapter 3 contains maps that display the data elements along regional corridors. This section also includes generalized land use map and bicycle and pedestrian suitability maps. Chapter 4 contains a summary of regional planning efforts, potential strategies, and a summary of strategies that are planned or programmed. The report concludes with appendices that provide detailed information on peak directional data for both AM and PM periods on each of the individual corridors.
Mr. Robins then referred to the Summary Report, which was attached to the resolution included in the meeting packet. He reviewed some of the key data elements beginning on page 2. The data is presented into two different geographies. The first three data element maps are by corridors. Corridors are usually one mile or longer in length. The last two data elements are by segments, which are a portion of the road between two major intersections.
The first data element highlights the eight highest Volume to Capacity Corridors. The volume to capacity ratio provides an indication of how well the transportation facility carries the existing traffic volumes; the higher the ratio, the worse the traffic congestion. The highest volume to capacity corridors include 18th Street, SR-14, I-5, I-205, SR-503, Fourth Plain, and SR-500.
The second element highlights the eight lowest travel speed corridors. This is purely a ranking of average travel speed within a corridor. The significance of a lower speed is that it reduces the number of vehicles a regional travel corridor can carry. The lowest speed corridors are along Andresen, Fourth Plain, Mill Plain, Burton, and 137th Avenue.
The third data element highlights the eight lowest percentage of travel speed compared to posted speed limit corridors. A travel speed lower than 60% of the posted speed limit is below average and is an indication of delay. The lowest speed percentage corridors are along SR-500, I-5, Andresen, Mill Plain, SR-503, Fourth Plain, 78th Street, and Highway 99. Mr. Robins noted that I-5 and SR-500 conditions occur in the AM peak period. Generally, conditions are worse in PM peak periods, but there are a few exceptions.
The fourth data element switches to segments, which do a better job of identifying hot spot locations. This data element highlights the volume to capacity segments. There are a lot of similarities to corridor volume to capacity issues, but there are differences. One that really stands out is the 134th Street segment over I-5 and I-205. The overall corridor from Bliss Road to NE 50th Avenue operates very well, but the segment over the freeways is very congested. The highest volume to capacity segments include 18th Street, NE 134th Street, SR-14, SR-502, SR-503, Fourth Plain, and I-5.
The fifth data element highlights the eight lowest speed percentage segments. When looking at speed percentage by segments, to the most part, it correlates to intersection delay with the exception of the I-5 corridor, which occurs as part of the I-5 bridge morning backup. These segments have multiple signals in close proximity or are very busy intersections with long signal cycles.
Mr. Robins said the Congestion Management Process findings have four parts. First, we need to preserve the existing system (roads, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian). Second, we need to improve performance; this can be done through the operations and management strategies such as TSMO and VAST. Third, where possible we need to shift trips to other modes like transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and TDM strategies such as carpool or vanpool. Fourth, we need to add auto capacity at key bottlenecks.
Mr. Robins said that the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) has reviewed the 2009 Monitoring Report at their May meeting and have recommended it for RTC Board approval. The action before the RTC Board is the adoption of Resolution 06-10-12, which is an endorsement of the findings of the Congestion Management Process: 2009 Monitoring Report.
Commissioner Stuart questioned the integration of transportation and land use on this. He said a lot is talked about congestion management and several corridors are commercial or residential or segments that are commercial or residential. He said the County is trying to better match their transportation system with the land uses that need it. For example, do commercial businesses really want traffic going by faster or would they be better served to have lower speeds. Access management becomes an issue for businesses where access is taken away from the business, such as interchange improvements that widen or put in a median and it kills the businesses. Commissioner Stuart said he would like to see more work to figure out what road system best supports the land uses. How can we better support businesses with a road system instead of just looking at volume to capacity or the traditional measures? This also includes residents; a residential neighborhood most likely does not want high speeds. It is not always about speeding traffic up. Commissioner Stuart said he would like better integration.
TOM MIELKE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS: 2009 MONITORING REPORT, RESOLUTION 06-10-12. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VII. Columbia River Crossing: Recap of Process to Date and FEIS Schedule
Dean Lookingbill said the Columbia River Crossing project is moving toward the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The targeted timeframe is the end of the year. Mr. Lookingbill said he would provide a recap of the decisions to date and to begin the process of preparing the Board for their review of the final FEIS.
The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project is defined as: The Interstate 5 CRC project is a multimodal project focused on improving safety, reducing congestion, and increasing mobility of motorists, freight, transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians along a 5-mile section of the I-5 corridor connecting Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Lookingbill said in looking at old studies in the archives, we have been looking at various Columbia River crossings for a very long time. The document “Portland Vancouver Corridor Columbia River Crossing December 1980” in a report to the 1980 Legislature stated this information. Prior to 1917, there was a steam ferry. The first bridge opened in February 14, 1917. The first bridge study listed was the Interstate Bridge Study in 1941. A feasibility study was done in 1951. The purpose of that study was to help provide answers to the congestion of vehicular traffic on the existing Interstate Bridge and provide alternatives for present and future traffic between the two centers. The opening of the Washington Freeway was 1955 followed by the completion of the second Interstate Bridge in 1958. In 1971 and 1972, there were the Rivergate freeway studies. In 1977 and 1979 there was a Washington legislative study. In 1979, a Federal Highways Feasibilities Study was done. Another State Legislative study was done in 1979 and 1980, and a Bi-State Study in 1980 and 1981. The I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge opened in 1982.
Mr. Lookingbill said in looking back on these studies, they all recognize the same underlying issue and that is the accessibility between the two job producing metropolitan areas. All of the river crossing studies that he has seen come to the same conclusion. No matter what you do for a new river crossing on either side of I-5, it really doesn’t fundamentally relieve the amount of congestion in the I-5 corridor.
Mr. Lookingbill said the most recent series of Columbia River Crossing studies began in 2001 with the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership. The Washington and Oregon Governors appointed a Bi-State Task Force. They issued their Strategic Plan on June 18, 2002. The memorandum included in the meeting packet listed their recommendations.
Beginning in February 2005 and ending in June 2008, a 39-member Task Force was appointed by the two Governors. They identified a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The committee concluded that a replacement bridge and light rail transit should be the two main capital elements of the LPA. Their process included the following steps: development and screening of alternatives, development of evaluation criteria, narrowing of components, packaging the most promising components into alternatives, and refining alternatives for evaluation in the Draft EIS.
Following the Task Force’s recommended LPA, the following six agencies took action in June-July 2008 to approve the CRC Locally Preferred Alternative: Vancouver, Portland, C-TRAN, TriMet, RTC, and Metro. All six agencies approved a replacement bridge as the preferred river crossing and light rail transit as the preferred high capacity transit mode. The three Washington jurisdictions also agreed that Clark College was the preferred northern terminus of the light rail extension.
The RTC Board approved their CRC Locally Preferred Alternative, Resolution 07-08-10 at their July 22, 2008, meeting. The RTC Board supported an LPA that included the following: an I-5 replacement bridge with three through lanes in each direction with up to two to three additional auxiliary lanes, light rail transit as the high capacity transit mode, and Clark College as the terminus.
Mr. Lookingbill said the current CRC project activities are centered on a review of the draft CRC project design. The review is being carried out throughout a collaborative effort of the Project Sponsors Council and the Integrated Project Staff committee. In addition, the Governors of Washington and Oregon have called together an Independent Expert Review Panel (IRP). They were in town a few weeks ago and are in town today and tomorrow. Their focus this time is to look at the NEPA process. The panel’s work will provide independent review and assessment of the project implementation plan, review and assessment of the financial plan, review and evaluate key objectives and performance measures used to guide decisions on the project and its operation after construction, and report its findings to the Governors by July 30, 2010.
The Project Sponsors Council and the project staff committee are jointly working through alternative design plans for the full project. Their focus is on the design for the Columbia River Bridge, Hayden Island, and Marine Drive. This collaborative work is targeted for completion by the end of July 2010 as well.
Mr. Lookingbill highlighted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are the lead federal agencies for the CRC FEIS. Both agencies must ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is properly conducted and completed, including the publication of an FEIS, before they provide funding or approval to construct the project. After the NEPA process is complete, FTA and FHWA will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) that will identify the selected preferred alternative. By signing the ROD, the FTA and FHWA are affirming that federal regulations have been met, thereby allowing the project to proceed with property acquisitions and final design of the selected alternative.
The co-lead agencies for the CRC project include WSDOT, ODOT, C-TRAN, and TriMet. The co-lead agencies together with the cities of Vancouver and Portland, RTC, and Metro comprise the local agencies that are sponsoring this project. Each of these sponsoring agencies will be responsible for approving all or part of the project that will be built.
Mr. Lookingbill said by the end of July, they plan to have the IRP’s report to the Governors. The goal is to have a project design that is agreed to by the sponsoring agencies. The federal FEIS process would move forward to issue the FEIS for review. This is a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 60 days. RTC is a signatory agency to the FEIS. Before the EIS is issued, the RTC Board would be asked to take action on the signing of the FEIS.
Commissioner Mielke said in 1997 as a State Legislator, he said they filled the Portland train station with ODOT and WSDOT and legislators from both states. They were looking at the I-5 corridor and the Columbia River Crossing. Commissioner Mielke said after a long meeting in the afternoon, it became the conclusion that the corridor was full, and we needed to look for another corridor. He said he is amazed that a room full of elected officials that come to a conclusion that it is not recorded in the history and not taken forward. He said he thought it was important to bring this up, and at that time in 1997 they recognized the corridor was getting full. He said he didn’t think there was a corridor in Portland that wasn’t full, and he didn’t think this bridge would solve Portland’s problems.
VIII. Clark County Freight Mobility Study Update
Lynda David referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet and noted the full copy of Technical Memoranda 4 B at the table for Members. She provided an update on the Clark County Freight Mobility Study. The goals of the study are to address key elements of freight movement and to answer the question of why is freight and goods movement important to Clark County’s economy and employment. This study has provided the opportunity for us to address freight transportation in Clark County, which to date has not received as much attention as the auto, transit, and active transportation modes. However, Ms. David said with the Freight Study effort, they have been able to compile data and information on freight transportation relevant to Clark County and can use this as baseline information that they can revisit periodically to provide update. The intent is to include a more robust section on freight transportation in the 2011 Metropolitan Transportation Plan update.
Ms. David said in April she first brought a draft of the Recommended Actions resulting from the Clark County Freight Mobility Study to the Board. At that meeting, there were a number of questions and comments that staff has been following up on. Also, a decision was made to slow the process so that they can take time for outreach efforts. Dean had informed the Board at last month’s meeting of the updated timeline.
Ms. David said the 10 freight mobility strategies that she went through in some detail at the April meeting have been slightly modified after review by the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) as well as others in the community to make the points clearer. An example is Strategy 8 is re-worded as “Land use and transportation coordination: protect viability of industrial lands.” The point that was being made by some of the freight business community members is that the viability of that land has to be protected because some of the industrial lands in Clark County are in use 24 hours a day, especially during busy times. Freight transportation businesses are concerned that these lands are buffered from residential lands for these reasons. Strategy 9 is now re-worded to “Manage access to the Port of Vancouver, west Vancouver, the Port of Ridgefield, Port of Camas/Washougal, and other industrial areas”, acknowledging there are three Ports to which access must be managed as well as industrial lands throughout the County.
The map showing freight corridors has been re-drafted following comments received from the Board and members of RTAC. The re-drafted map now has the La Center interchange area, because there are industrial lands surrounding the interchange. SR-502 is now included because though it currently has low truck volumes, it is a designated National Highway System facility. The railroad system is now included (BNSF mainline and the Chelatchie Prairie or Clark County Shoreline Rail). The marine navigation channel is included and oversize load routes (including the current route for the very largest of loads that require diversion from Mill Plain to Washington Street to access the freeway system because of low-hanging signals and high road crown on a short segment of Mill Plain). These oversize load routes are highlighted on the re-drafted map rather than shown as an inset. Also, the legend includes a description of how RTC defined the regional freight corridors: they are segments of road designated as National Highway System or Highways of Statewide Significance or carry more that 600 medium and heavy duty trucks per day.
As for outreach efforts, RTC staff presented the draft recommended freight transportation strategies to the Three Ports Meeting held at the Port of Camas-Washougal and to the Vancouver Freight Alliance. Dean Lookingbill attended the May 6th Shumway neighborhood meeting, and Lynda David presented draft recommendations to the May 27th Carter Park neighborhood meeting. Ms. David has spoken to an Arnada neighborhood representative about making a June presentation to the group and will be contacting the Hough neighborhood with concerns about Fourth Plain. In addition, RTC staff will present to the July 12th Neighborhood Associations Council of Clark County and to the Vancouver Neighborhood Traffic Safety Alliance in the fall. They will also include the study as part of their usual outreach efforts during the summer, which includes the Clark County Fair. Ms. David said they will continue the outreach efforts through the fall, will return to the Board with the Freight Study in September, and anticipate requesting RTC Board adoption of the Freight Study in October.
Commissioner Stuart said during the work that goes on this summer, he would like to see integration of land use and transportation, not just coordinating and recognizing, but actually respecting and supporting existing uses and the planned uses from the different jurisdiction partners. Commissioner Stuart said there are two things that come up when dealing with this, compatibility and incompatibility. Those two pieces need to be dealt with. Just because truck traffic happens to be going along a specific route now, 1) doesn’t mean that jurisdictions are anticipating or want it to go there long-term or 2) that it is appropriate for it to go there long-term and still be able to accomplish the ends that they seek. He said the Downtown Revitalization Plan is a good example of what needs to be integrated into this study. The downtown stretching up to the Uptown and how that is integrated into the Port’s long-term plan for the Columbia Gateway. Commissioner Stuart asked how we are going to deal with incompatibilities between land use and traffic stating it is easier to deal with it now in the planning process than it would be later on when expectations are set. Commissioner Stuart said his request over this process would be to work with the jurisdictional partners, begin a planning process that respects and supports the existing and future land uses. He said a lot more work needs to go into this.
Ms. David said the 2011 Metropolitan Transportation Plan update will see a lot more of the theme of how to coordinate and integrate land use and transportation. It is not an easy subject, but it really does need to be addressed.
Commissioner Mielke said when the outreach work and meetings take place, he would like to have some type of report back as to what the atmosphere and feelings of the people and community were.
Commissioner Baker said since this issue came up at the last RTC Board meeting, she has spent a lot of time and heard a lot about it. She said she wanted to point out that this is vital to the Port of Vancouver. Fourth Plain has been a truck route and has up to 1200 trucks a day on that route. She said she understands the view of the people who live there. The majority of the Port of Vancouver truck traffic goes on Mill Plain, except there are some that can’t use that route. The Port is not the only area that generates truck traffic in Vancouver, and for some, it is better for them to go Fourth Plain. Our challenge now is to move freight from one place to another. There hasn’t been anything established at this point as far as routes are concerned. That is one of the things that she began to hear after the last meeting. She said people thought things were being set in stone and that is not the case at all. She said we all need to work together. She said she is quite passionate about making sure that the Port of Vancouver is able to provide jobs for this community. The Port does not do services, does not build roads, or do police or fire, but the Port can provide jobs that pay for those services. So the Board needs to figure out how to provide Port support as well.
Jeanne Harris said that she agreed with everything that was said so far. She said it is important that we respect the integrity of our neighborhoods. She looks forward to this public outreach, and she said to know that there are several different alternatives that we can look at and make sure that we are clearly identifying alternatives and putting those on the table.
IX. Other Business
From the Board
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted C-TRAN Board of Directors meets on Tuesday, June 8, at 5:30 p.m. at C-TRAN, and they will be taking action to adopt their 2030 Plan. JPACT meets June 10, at Metro at 7:30 a.m., and Metro will be taking action to adopt their Regional Transportation Plan. It is a 2035 Plan, and a plan that has been in process for two years. The CRC Project Sponsors Council meets from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 11 at WSDOT and June 25 at ODOT. Mr. Lookingbill said there is a lot of work happening around the design of the project. The CRC Independent Expert Review Panel meets June 1 & 2 and 17 & 18.
The August RTC Board Meeting is cancelled. The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, at 4 p.m.
STEVE STUART MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660
Public Service Center served by C-TRAN Route 3.
Officers' Row served by C-TRAN Route 32.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.