Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, July 6, 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, July 6, 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
Marc Boldt, Clark County Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Jack Burkman, Vancouver Council Member
Molly Coston, Washougal Council Member
Bill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
Jeanne Harris, Vancouver Council Member
Tom Mielke, Clark County Commissioner
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
Jim Jacks, Representative 49th District
Board Members AbsentJeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director
Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
David Poucher, White Salmon 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 Moeller, Representative 49th District
Guests PresentEd Barnes, Labor Council
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Peter Capell, Clark County
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield
Matthew Dudik, Clark County
Bart Gernhart, WSDOT
Mark Herceg, City of Battle Ground
Scott Horenstein, Identity Clark County
Connie Kratovil, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Casey Liles, Columbia River Crossing
Lisa Lowe, Identity Clark County
Steve Madsen, BIA, CCAR
Jim Maul, Ridgefield Welcome Center
Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Vancouver NHA
Tamara McLane, Citizen
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Kimberly Pincheira, Senator Cantwell’s Office
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Mark Turpel, Metro
George Vartanian, Clark County Planning Commission
Susan Wilson, Clark County
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOT
Staff PresentMark Harrington, Senior Transportation Planner
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Administrative/Staff AssistantII. Approval of June 1, 2010, Meeting Minutes
NANCY BAKER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 1, 2010, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY STEVE STUART AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Scott Horenstein of Vancouver is currently Chair of the Board for Identity Clark County. Mr. Horenstein said he wanted to emphasize the regional importance of the Columbia River Crossing project and the fact that all of the multi counties that are affected need to work together. He said Identity Clark County’s new campaign effort is “Portland-Vancouver USA Land Here, Live Here.” Mr. Horenstein said it is critical that we work together as a region economically, for transportation, and for safety. He said safety sometimes gets overlooked. The I-5 bridges are old and antiquated, and the mechanics of it if it were to go down would have a tremendous affect. It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be done cooperatively among all in this region.
Ed Barnes of Vancouver distributed copies of a resolution. The resolution was passed unanimously by members of the 17th, 18th, and 49th Legislative Districts Democratic Central Committee on June 26th. The resolution is for the replacement of the existing Interstate 5 Bridges between Portland, Oregon and Southwest Washington. Mr. Barnes said this shows that folks on the Washington side support the Columbia River Crossing and he hoped that all involved could work to complete the project. He said this is the most important project for everyone, for jobs, and for economic development for our community.
Sharon Nasset of Portland asked for a formal letter from the RTC Board stating whether a six-lane freeway attached to I-5 that crossed over from the Port of Vancouver into the Port of Portland was studied by the CRC. She would like this to go to the Vancouver City Council so it is clear that this six-lane crossing was not studied. Ms. Nasset gave credit to Commissioner Stuart for his participation on the Project Sponsors Council. She said at the last meeting she saw social engineering and civil engineering. The federal government pays for civil engineering, and good social engineering comes out of good civil engineering and good land use. Ms. Nasset said they are artificially trying to make it smaller and fewer bridges instead of doing the math of what we need for our civic needs. She said we need infrastructure out to the Ports and industrial areas. It is the least expensive and can be done now. Ms. Nasset said she would like the letter in the form of a motion.
Tamara McLane of Hayden Island said there were a few citizens on Hayden Island that were not aware of a third bridge possibility. She said she attended the CRC Project Sponsors Council meeting to give public testimony on this and said Henry Hewitt stopped her and said the third bridge had already been studied. She said she had never heard of a third bridge study, and also said that she received a piece of paper with Steve Stuart’s name on it that said no. She said she would like an explanation on this so she can take the information back to the others on the Island that are for a third bridge and ready to look into it. She said she believes in a third bridge and thinks it would work. Dean Lookingbill offered to work with Ms. McLane to show what RTC has done in that regard to provide the information. Steve Stuart said that he would be happy to talk with her after the meeting to clarify as well.
Lisa Lowe of Vancouver said she was representing the Columbia River Crossing Coalition. She wanted to remind all that we are one economic region. It is not about Vancouver, Clark County, and it is not about Portland. It is about the entire Portland-Vancouver USA region. Ms. Lowe said that finishing the CRC project is vital to all businesses on both sides of the river. She said she is a member of a law firm that has offices on both sides of the river, and said that they recognize that they are not successful if their clients are not successful. It is very important that this region be able to attract new business. With the delays on the bridge at this point, we are going to have a lot harder time in competing with other parts of the area where goods can come in and go out in a much quicker and fluid manner than what is happening today. Ms. Lowe asked that members remember this. She said the biggest economic engine that we have today is the Columbia River Crossing project.
IV. Consent Agenda
- July Claims
- 2010-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement program Amendment: WSDOT Ramp Paving, Resolution 07-10-13
BILL GANLEY MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JULY CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 07-10-13. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEANNE HARRIS AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. 2010-2012 Transportation Enhancement Selection, Resolution 07-10-14
Dale Robins said in order to be eligible for Transportation Enhancement funding, a project must include at least one of the 12 qualifying activities and relate to the surface transportation system. These would include items such as bike and pedestrian facilities, scenic or historic sites, and landscaping.
The state has changed the way that the Transportation Enhancement projects are selected. Currently, the RTPO are selecting and programming projects. Previously, when projects were selected in 2006, the RTPO prioritized the projects and sent that prioritized list of projects to a statewide committee that selected projects.
RTC as the RTPO is responsible for selecting the Enhancement Projects for Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat counties. The RTPO region was allocated almost $2.5 million for FY 2010-2012. This allocation has been sub-allocated by population to each of the three counties. All public agencies and non-profit organizations can apply, but each project must be administered by a Certification Acceptance agency. There is no local match required. Applications were due June 8, 2010. Eleven applications were received; eight were from Clark County and three were from Skamania and Klickitat Counties. Mr. Robins highlighted the full list of projects.
SR-501 Ridgefield Welcome Center. This project will construct a welcome center with a scenic viewpoint of the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge in downtown Ridgefield. The total project cost is $1,081,521 with an enhancement request of $783,521.
Carty Unit Pedestrian Bridge-Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. The total project cost is $2,800,000 with an enhancement request of $1,200,000.
Evergreen Highway Trail. This City of Vancouver project will build the second phase of the Evergreen Trail from Ellsworth Road to Weber Arboretum. The total project cost is $925,000 with an enhancement request of $925,000.
2010 School Sidewalk Projects. This Clark County project will construct 1,075 linear feet of sidewalks along NE 72nd Avenue and 172nd Avenue to improve pedestrian access to schools. The total project cost is $305,000 with an enhancement request of $285,000.
2010 Sidewalk Enhancement Projects. This Clark County project will construct 1,075 linear feet of sidewalk along 94th Street and 72nd Avenue to improve access to schools. No right-of-way is needed. The total project cost is $305,000 with an enhancement request of $290,000.
Chelatchie Prairie Railroad Trail. This Clark County project will construct a 2.6 mile, 10-foot shared use trail from BG Fairgrounds Park to Battle Ground Lake State Park. The total project cost is $2,920,000 with an enhancement request of $850,000.
Clark County Historical Museum Railroad Exhibit Project. The total project cost is $549,700 with an enhancement request of $474,700.
Vancouver Land Bridge Irrigation System Rehabilitation. This project will repair the Land Bridge self-sustaining rain water collection system which is beginning to fail. The total project cost is $210,000 with an enhancement request of $210,000.
The Skamania and Klickitat County projects include:
Columbia Hills State Park-Crawford Oaks Trailhead. This work will be completed with the State Park’s trailhead/parking improvements. The total project cost is $37,500 with an enhancement request of $37,500.
Centerville Hwy-Lyle Path. This project will construct a pedestrian facility to improve pedestrian access to a school. The total project cost is $745,000, with an enhancement request of $109,000.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Skamania County Transit. The total project cost is $69,000, with an enhancement request of $59,000.
Mr. Robins said RTC formed an evaluation team of three RTC staff members to evaluate and rank proposed Transportation Enhancement projects based on regional criteria. RTAC reviewed the evaluation and has recommended the following projects for funding: Vancouver Evergreen Highway Trail, $925,000; Clark County Sidewalk Enhancement Projects, $290,000; Clark County School Sidewalk Projects, $285,000; Ridgefield Welcome Center, $783,000; and the remaining $44,000 to the Clark County Chelatchie Prairie Railroad Trail. Mr. Robins said that since the Chelatchie project already has federal money, it is easy to accommodate that. In Skamania County, the Pedestrian/Bike Connection to Transit was funded at $59,000, and in Klickitat County, the Lyle Path was funded at $109,000.
Mr. Robins said the action is to select and program $2,495,000 in Transportation Enhancement funds for seven projects. The proposed projects would be amended into the 2010-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 07-10-14. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JACK BURKMAN.
Steve Stuart said there is always more good projects than we have funds available. He said the list of projects that RTAC has suggested hits some of the highest priorities for safety, sidewalk enhancements, safe sidewalks to schools, and the work at the Ridgefield Welcome Center that is greatly needed. Commissioner Stuart said we always hope for more to be available, but he feels that RTAC did a good job in their selection of projects to be funded.
Marc Boldt questioned the Vancouver Land Bridge irrigation failure. Mr. Robins said they did not get funding through these Enhancement Funds so the improvement would have to come from another source. He said the proposed project request was to change the type of irrigation. Currently, a system of cisterns is used and these are failing. They would like to go to a regular irrigation system.
Tom Mielke said that he understood that these were transportation dollars. He said he has mixed emotions to vote for these dollars to be spent on these projects when there is a major shortfall in healthcare and the lack of state and federal dollars going locally to provide healthcare. He said he understands that the money cannot be turned around and sent back, but said the Board needs to take a good look at where these funds are spent.
Jack Burkman said he understands Commissioner Mielke’s concern of how federal money is allocated out. In this case it is designated specifically for non-roadway improvements which have some aspects of health, access for those who don’t move around in vehicles. He said he specifically appreciates the process that RTAC uses by setting the criteria first and then scoring the projects against that. That way it is not the favorite project; it is which project meets the goals and initiatives that were set out early. Mr. Burkman asked when the scoring process was last updated. Mr. Robins said that was just updated this year. RTAC discussed criteria to begin the whole process. Mr. Burkman said the current criteria is even better, and he appreciated that. He said he felt these were very solid projects and wished more projects could be funded.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VI. Transportation System Management and Operations Project Update
Bob Hart noted the memorandum included in the meeting packet along with a matrix that was distributed. Mr. Hart said he provided the RTC Board with a Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) project update in May, and the TSMO vision was discussed. The vision states that TSMO promotes more efficient and cost effective use of the existing transportation system, providing increased accessibility, reliability, and safety for freight and people. This is a guide in their planning process. The TSMO Steering Committee has identified TSMO strategies, developed draft performance measures, and is currently conducting an initial TSMO corridor evaluation with the objective of identifying TSMO corridors for the region. This effort will result in a set of transportation corridors where TSMO strategies have the best potential to improve transportation performance and make the corridors operate more effectively.
The TSMO project objective is to improve system efficiency and performance without adding new roadway capacity, implement lower cost operational and multimodal strategies that are regionally coordinated between agencies and better utilize the existing facilities, and improve the cost effectiveness without major capital investment.
The purpose of the TSMO corridor evaluation is to identify those corridors that have the best potential to improve performance and make the corridors operate effectively. As part of that process, they have developed a set of criteria. A TSMO corridor candidate would have congestion, delay, peak period volume, and speed ratio of speed compared to posted speeds. There is also some differential between the strategies that are applicable to the freeways versus the arterials.
They looked at over 30 strategies as listed on the matrix. Mr. Hart said they also developed performance measures to assess the effectiveness of those strategies. The types of strategies that work well are different for freeways versus arterials. Strategies such as active traffic management, incident management, and traveler information are more effective on freeways, while signalization improvement, transit management, and access management are most applicable to arterials.
Mr. Hart displayed a TSMO graphic illustration. It showed that for incident management and emergency management, a better coordinated program can reduce delay, result in quicker clearance time, and have less delay due to the accident. Publishing current travel times, predicted travel times in vehicle systems, mobile devices, arrival time bus information are all a part of traveler information. Transit signal priority is something that can improve transit reliability and speed by giving transit buses additional green time at intersections to get through the intersection rather than stopped at the light. Mr. Hart said that C-TRAN has a pilot project that they are currently working on for a transit signal priority in the Mill Plain corridor late this year or early next year. Also, Washington will begin an active traffic management project in the I-5 corridor from Boeing Field to downtown Seattle beginning in August.
Traveler information can work on arterials, but most of the information that is available now for traffic cameras, speeds, incident notification, and traffic flow maps are all on the freeway system. On the arterial system, signalization improvements for both the city and county have done a lot over the last four or five years to improve their signal systems. They now have the ability and are expanding their ability to be able to look at traffic conditions in real time from their desk top to change timing plans so they can be more responsive to the conditions as they change in the field. Transit management is a strategy that complements traditional operational improvements and can also improve arterial corridor performance.
Mr. Hart referred to the distributed matrix with the 30 strategies broken down by categories: regional management and operations; roadway management and operations; transit management and operations; freight management and operations; and traveler information. They also have eleven performance measures to collect information to assess the strategy effectiveness. The effectiveness of strategies also depends on the type of facility. Some of the strategies are foundation such as signal operations and transit management. These are things that they are currently doing and plan to continue and get better. Other items they are not currently doing but are an important part of the system in the future include transit signal priority and active traffic management. Mr. Hart said one of their next steps is to map these strategies toward individual corridors to see what their focus should be in that regard.
Bill Ganley said in their six-year transportation plan for the state, they talked about the need to upgrade the signalization of the computers because they are old. He said he has heard this from a number of people in Clark County and the city and state. He asked the efficiency of what the signals are working at. He said when it comes down to it, the citizens are more concerned with the traffic signals. Mr. Ganley said they receive many complaints about signals. Mr. Hart said that is a common concern throughout. He said nationally, the grade on signalization for a corridor for signals gets about a “D” grade. Mr. Ganley said he would like to hear a report on the status of our traffic signals. He said it may be something that we could work with the legislators to get some money to help with our traffic control systems. Mr. Hart said over the last couple years, Clark County has upgraded a lot of their controllers. It is now easier for them to monitor how they are operating and can then change the signal timing plans.
Commissioner Mielke said they receive complaints about signals as well. He asked if they are working with the cities, state, and county to coordinate. He said there must be some standardization of traffic timing and synchronization, and questioned the impact of transit priority and police, fire, and ambulance priority to the system timings and how many cycles it took to return to standard. Mr. Hart said they work very hard at that. With the TSMO project, they hope to get better at how the city, county, and state coordinate on their signal systems. Mr. Hart said that there is an advantage in that both the city and county have the same central signal system software so they can talk to each other better. RTC is now working with the state to be able to share the signal systems between all the agencies. Mr. Hart said having transit signal priority on a corridor like Mill Plain is a key concern. We all want to make sure that it is done in a way that does not sacrifice corridor performance for vehicles using that corridor.
Commissioner Mielke questioned an emergency vehicle on Fourth Plain and the amount of time it would take for the system to return to being in sync. Mr. Hart said that generally it takes a signal cycle to return to normal, sometimes two cycles depending on the level of traffic on the corridor.
Jeanne Harris said she had met with a company six weeks ago that creates something that goes in the street that replaces the loops and is able to manage the signals better and to also track and measure traffic and some GPS. Mr. Hart said there are a couple things. There is a lot of new work in Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth readers and controllers are placed at intersections along a corridor, which can follow the cell phones and GPS in cars. The data can be used to track travel times between different points. That is not something being done locally. He said it is something of interest especially arterial travel times.
Mr. Hart said they are currently identifying TSMO corridors. In September, the TSMO project will finish the corridor analysis, map strategies, and draft the regional TSMO plan. In October, they plan to select a pilot corridor for implementation, and complete the TSMO Plan in December.
VII. Columbia River Crossing: Recap of Locally Preferred Alternative Phase 1
Dean Lookingbill provided a slide presentation for this agenda item. He said the purpose is to provide the Board with a recap of the Locally Preferred Alternative Phase 1. The Phase 1 design is the current CRC project design and builds off the LPA adopted in July of 2008. Mr. Lookingbill said in providing a recap, he thought it would be useful to start the review with the RTC Board’s July 2008 LPA recommendation, and from there move to a brief overview of the highway design benefits of the LPA Phase 1 over the No-Build option.
Mr. Lookingbill distributed copies of RTC’s July 2008 LPA Resolution 07-08-10. The core elements of the LPA include: I-5 Replacement Bridge, 3 through lanes, 2 auxiliary lanes to be determined, and BIA reconstructed intersections; light rail transit; and Clark College terminus, Washington-Broadway couplet, and 2-way on McLoughlin. The issues listed as still to be addressed include the following: A multimodal project: highway, transit, freight, demand management, and bike/pedestrian element. There was support to create a Project Oversight Committee. The Bi-State Committee was to evaluate other bottlenecks in the I-5 corridor. Costs for design and construction of the I-5 Bridge are to be shared equally. Interchange costs to be paid by respective state. HCT capital, operation and maintenance shared proportionately by the length of the corridor. A detailed finance plan is to be developed. Tolling was discussed as a possible revenue source. Included with this was a process to educate the public on potential tolls similar to the SR-520 process. Also, the cost of tolls to funding the local share of construction costs and only after federal and state revenue exhausted. The financing of the HCT operations to be submitted to impacted C-TRAN voters. The CRC design is to reflect sustainability, cost efficiency, and context sensitivity.
Commissioner Mielke said we know who the players are, but we still don’t know how we will fund it. He said it looks like we are buying it, but we don’t know what we are buying. He asked the purpose of the resolution. Mr. Lookingbill said this resolution was the previous action the RTC Board took in July 2008.
Mr. Lookingbill provided a map of the project area with a graphic illustration of the highway and transit project. He said one of the primary benefits of the proposed highway design is safety, and provided a slide that illustrates the crash rates reported in the Washington portion of the project between 2002 and 2006. The southbound crashes in Washington happened almost three times the frequency of the northbound crashes. Mr. Lookingbill noted the location of the highest crash sites. Again, safety is one of the primary drivers behind the number of auxiliary lanes and the 10 versus 12 lane discussion is about the auxiliary lanes not the number of through travel lanes.
The next graphic provided a illustration of the travel patterns that have provided one of the key pieces of data leading to the design of the five-mile CRC project within the Bridge Influence Area (BIA). This segment of I-5 connects and distributes traffic to and from a number of key roadways. Only 25 percent of the southbound morning peak traffic (6:00-10:00 a.m.) across the bridge travels through the entire project area. 75 percent enters and/or exits within the project area. During the afternoon peak, only 32 percent of the northbound traffic across the bridge consists of through traffic. The other 68 percent enters and/or exits within the project area. The right sizing of the auxiliary lanes is key to addressing the on/off access to downtown Vancouver, the Ports, and Hayden Island and is a key element of this design. It can be argued that one of the most important benefits of the project is the improved access to/from I-5 and thereby supporting the development of downtown Vancouver, the Ports, North Portland, etc.
Mr. Lookingbill said from a daily hours of traffic congestion perspective, the LPA Phase 1 project is considerably better than the No-Build option. The Phase 1 CRC project would have from 0 to 2 hours of congestion in the PM peak period as compared to almost 8 hours in the No-Build option. The morning AM is slightly more congested, and the Phase 1 project would have 3.5 hours of congestion as compared to the No-Build’s 7.25 hours of congestion.
In terms of travel time savings, the average time savings per auto trip in the peak period over the No-Build is 11.5 minutes in 2010, 12 minutes in 2030, and 17.2 minutes in 2040. The average time savings per auto trip in peak over No-Build expressed in 2009 dollars is $2.85 in 2020, $2.94 in 2030, and $4.22 in 2040. The average time savings per driver per one-way trip is $3.37 in 2020 and $4.85 in 2040. The average annual savings per commuter in 2020 is $1,685 and $2,425 in 2040.
Commissioner Mielke said he had seen some numbers presented by Dr. Steve Citron, and wondered if they were comparable. Mr. Lookingbill said there have been a number different calculations performed. The full report contains all of the calculations. Commissioner Mielke said Dr. Citron testified that his numbers were correct. Commissioner Stuart said that when Dr. Citron testified, he was looking to the daily southbound congestion; he speaks to the southbound congestion and not the northbound. He accepts the premise that the northbound congestion is alleviated with the locally preferred alternative. He speaks to congestion southbound and how it is increased congestion from existing congestion to now. Also, with the LPA, he judges speed differently. The CRC project staff has judged congestion by travel speeds of 35 mph or less. Dr. Citron was looking at it from a different stand point. He was judging it from travel speeds of 9 mph.
Commissioner Boldt asked if the value of time was $18.00 per hour and where that number came from. Mr. Lookingbill said yes, that was correct. It is a national average. Commissioner Boldt questioned if it is equated to a tolling study. Commissioner Stuart asked for the break down of the $18.00.
Mr. Lookingbill displayed the Vancouver light rail transit alignment. The LRT alignment crosses the bridge and lands between 5th and 6th Streets. Northbound will turn on 7th and continue on Broadway with a station between 9th and Evergreen. Continuing north, there is another station between 15th and 16th Streets, turn on 17th Street to a terminus and park and ride at Clark College. Returning southbound, two-way on 17th Street dropping south on Washington, a station between 16th and 15th Streets with a park and ride facility continuing south with a park and ride between 5th and 6th Streets station.
Mr. Lookingbill introduced Casey Liles, Columbia River Crossing Highway Engineering Manager. Mr. Liles walked members through the key elements of the Phase 1 design. He said as Dean had mentioned the high accidents and close spacing between three interchanges in Washington and about the same in Oregon, they are trying to address safety. Beginning on I-5 at the north end at SR-500, high volumes are going onto I-5 from SR-500, and southbound traffic on I-5 is trying to get off at Fourth Plain or off at Mill Plain, so there is a significant amount of traffic weaving in that area. With the project, traffic from SR-500 will not be able to exit at Fourth Plain, which will reduce the weave in this area. There are also several other tools they can use: an add/drop lane or auxiliary lane, a braided ramp, or a collector distributor ramp. They will use these throughout the project. One other tool to use is ramp metering. To improve flow on I-5, Mill Plain, for example, will be reconstructed as a single point urban interchange (SPUI). Mr. Liles highlighted each interchange northbound and southbound noting the type of facility that would be used to best serve the traffic flow. There are five lanes across the bridge with three general-purpose through lanes plus two auxiliary lanes.
Rex Burkholder said he was on the Steering Committee, and to get a sense of the flow, he asked if the 10 lanes would achieve the same outcomes as they would have seen with the 12 lanes, which was the original design. The goal was for safety, to make it less confusing, and to help traffic flow.
Mr. Liles said there is only a slight difference in the southbound congestion, where in 2030, it goes from 3 hours of congestion with the 12 lanes to 3.5 hours of congestion with the 10 lanes. There is not a lot of difference in 20 years. It really does go back to the safety issues through the interchanges and the auxiliary lanes used to facilitate the safety. It is not adding capacity north or south of the river, but they are adding tolls and light rail which increases the mode split for vehicles. It is less about time savings and more about safety on and off.
Bill Ganley asked if this includes meter ramps southbound and also asked what a braided ramp was. Mr. Liles said a braided ramp is where two movements (car A and car B) come across at the same level today and want to be in the opposite lanes or car A to go straight and car B to be in the other lane. Instead of being at the same level, one of lanes would be brought up, a bridge over the top of the other. Don Wagner said an example is the new 112th Avenue onramp at I 205. Mr. Liles said there will be no metered ramps at SR-500; Mill Plain will be metered, and possibly SR-14.
Commissioner Mielke asked how many lanes they will have on I-5 at SR-500 to accommodate the weave and merge. Mr. Liles said the number of lanes north and south of the project is 3 through lanes. As you go through the project it increases and decreases. Typically, the number used is at the bridge or in the middle of the river, 5 lanes, which is 3 through lanes in each direction and 2 auxiliary lanes in each direction. Commissioner Mielke said that is what is at SR-500 now. Mr. Liles said that was correct, but that 2 of those lanes get off at Mill Plain and there are no more auxiliary lanes.
Commissioner Mielke said he did not see any difference in the northbound travel lanes from what it is today. Mr. Liles said that the difference is that you exit the freeway to a lane to mix with the SR-14 traffic. You exit the freeway before you start to mix those turns. Mr. Wagner said in the LPA Phase 1 design, there are 5 lanes on the bridge northbound, rather than the 3 lanes there today. The outside 3rd lane today has the option for SR-14 or City Center. That would still be an option lane, but it would be the 5th lane. The 5th would drop at Mill Plain, and the 4th lane would drop at SR-500.
Jeanne Harris questioned the 2 auxiliary southbound traffic lanes. Mr. Liles said the loop from SR-14 headed south and the downtown traffic merge together and then merge onto the bridge. Ms. Harris said the difference of the 5 versus 6 lanes is that the 6th lane was a separate auxiliary lane that went to Hayden Island and they didn’t have to merge into one lane to only have 5. Mr. Liles said that was correct. Ms. Harris said she thought the further north the interchange is on Hayden, the more important it is to have that additional auxiliary lane. She said she didn’t understand the performance measures, and would like to see a simplified version between the 5 and 6 lanes. Mr. Liles said the two ramps come together in both scenarios on their own ramp and merge together on the bridge. In the 6 lane scenario, they still do the same thing, but they get the add/drop lane over to Hayden Island where it is dropped. Ms. Harris said that gives them more time to make that merge.
Jack Burkman asked if that was a safety difference, the 5 versus the 6 in the southbound. Mr. Liles said this is an area that will have a bit more congestion. There may be a bit more congestion around the loop, not necessarily in I-5 as much.
Jeanne Harris questioned if the impact of the 3 auxiliary lanes versus 2 auxiliary lanes was making it more efficient and safer versus anything north of that. Mr. Liles said there was another way to describe the benefit of having the 3rd lane. If it is put in as an auxiliary lane to Hayden Island, you gain that efficiency in going across the bridge and the safety in that area. It doesn’t have that much implication behind it, and it does have implication on SR-14 as you approach the loop. Don Wagner said they had some accident information about the difference between the 10 lanes versus 12 lanes. Mr. Liles said that is about 200 accidents versus 240 accidents.
Commissioner Mielke asked how he would get from the Hilton to I-5 northbound. Mr. Liles said you would travel up Columbia, Main, or Washington to Mill Plain; similar to today.
Bill Ganley said it is hard to see the lane configurations on the map. He would like to see a larger version of the map. Mr. Lookingbill said they do have a large display version of the map. He said prior to the LPA decision, RTC had hosted luncheon workshops on the CRC project. He said the map is good to see hands on and offered to set up a workshop to display the map and to provide an opportunity for questions.
Commissioner Mielke asked what the plan is for Hayden Island. Mr. Lookingbill said that discussion is in process. They hope to have a plan by the end of the month. He said they can bring that design back to the Board.
Jeanne Harris said it seems to her that we are moving down a path on the 10 lane, and she feels it is being driven more on the staff level than it is on the policy maker level. She is concerned about that, because she doesn’t believe that we should be taking 6 lanes off the table right now. She said in talking about congestion and safety, it is important to continue to talk about that additional auxiliary lane, especially if that interchange is further north on Hayden Island.
Jack Burkman asked what the cost difference was between the 10 or 12 lanes if it is just the length that we are describing. Mr. Liles said that is about $30 to $50 million. Jeanne Harris said relative to $3.2 billion, that is nothing, especially with the increased safety it provides. She said she is not ready to say no to 6 lanes yet. She would like to see the comparison of the 5 versus 6 lanes. Steve Stuart said there was a one page summary of the 8, 10, or 12 lane comparison. Steve Stuart said the capacity to demand and the actual accident differences were 2030 numbers.
VIII. Other Business
From the Board
Jeanne Harris said the Bylaws Subcommittee just met prior to RTC’s meeting. They are looking at bringing back a proposal for alternates for voting members. Conversation is centered around ensuring that there is quorum. She said also as Bill Ganley had said, if someone is ill or needs to be gone, it is helpful to know that there is going to be an alternate and know that there is a quorum.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill introduced Bart Gernhart, WSDOT Acting Regional Administrator, to provide an update on the I-205 Bridge Joint Replacement project. Mr. Gernhart said WSDOT does not own or operate the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge nor do they own or operate the I-5 Interstate Bridge. ODOT is currently doing construction on expansion joint repair on the northbound travel lanes. This next weekend will be the last closures northbound and they will start striping for the southbound work. July 23, 24, 25, and 26 will be the first weekend that will have closures southbound. He noted the backups that have occurred with the northbound closures, and said those similar backups will happen with the southbound lanes as well. These will backup in Vancouver on the Mill Plain interchange, etc.
Mr. Gernhart said along with that, they are fortunate to receive some ARRA money and some state money to fund the paving on SR-14 from I-5 to 164th Avenue. This paving will start in mid August. They plan do the paving for the most part at night. They will not take a lane except at night. That should alleviate some problems.
Mr. Gernhart said a positive note is that Delta Park is now open during daylight hours, a third through lane southbound. That should help with the congestion when the I-205 southbound is reduced to two lanes on the weekends. WSDOT is working with ODOT and ODOT is working with a contractor. They will be working every other weekend.
Commissioner Mielke asked why they could not do the southbound work at night. Mr. Gernhart said they are doing that. They are taking out the expansion joints, and when pouring back concrete they cannot let any traffic travel across that until it cures, and it cannot cure in a couple hours. They are doing all that they can do to minimize the closures. When they pave it with the asphalt, they can do that at night. The concrete requires more curing time, which cannot be done over night.
Commissioner Stuart said he understood that the I-205 Bridge was not up to the highest seismic level and asked if this joint replacement would take it up to that level. Mr. Wagner said those are not the joints that are being replaced. Those are different joints.
Don Wagner said there have been two and a half to three hour delays on northbound I-205 on Saturday afternoons. He said for the City of Vancouver, when the people start shifting over since it is such a short distance, there will be a lot more traffic on I-5 and I-5 will also back up. The overflow will be trying to get around in Vancouver to jump forward. He said it could be very tough.
Mr. Gernhart said they will not be doing work on SR-14 on the weekends that work is being done on the I-205 bridge so as to not make matters worse.
Dean Lookingbill said JPACT meets Thursday, July 8 at Metro at 7:30 a.m., and C-TRAN meets on Tuesday, July 13 at 5:30 p.m. The CRC Independent Expert Review Panel meets on July 7 and 8 at Clark College, and the Project Sponsors Council meets on Friday, July 16 at 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at ODOT.
Mr. Lookingbill said RTC is planning a workshop to follow up on the National Governors Association on a New Approach to Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning, Friday, July 30, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. An e-mail with more information and an agenda will be sent.
The Washington Transportation Commission Listening Session on the draft Washington State Transportation Plan is scheduled for September 9, 2010, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at WSDOT in Vancouver. More information will also be sent out.
The August meeting is cancelled. The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 4 p.m.
BILL GANLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY TOM MIELKE AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 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.
       
|