Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 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 Jack Burkman on Tuesday, February 1, 2011, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center Sixth Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, 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
Bart Gernhart, WSDOT (Alternate)
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director
Tim Leavitt, Vancouver City Mayor
Tom Mielke, Clark County Commissioner
Ron Onslow, Cities North (Alternate)
Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
Dave Shoemaker, Washougal Council Member
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Board Members AbsentBill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
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
Paul Harris, Representative 17th District
Joe Zarelli, Senator 18th District
Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District
Ann Rivers, Representative 18th District
Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District
Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Jim Jacks, Representative 49th District
Guests PresentEd Barnes, Labor Council
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Pat Campbell, Vancouver Council Member
Molly Coston, Washougal Council Member
Jim Karlock, Citizen
Steve Madsen, BIA of Clark County
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Jerry Oliver, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Debbie Peterson, Citizen
Page Phillips, Senator Murray’s Office
Kimberly Pincheira, Senator Cantwell’s Office
Paul Riggs, Columbia Pacific Building Trades
Erik Robinson, The Columbian
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Scott Sawyer, City of Battle Ground
Ken Smelser, Citizen
Larry J. Smith, Vancouver Council Member
George Vartanian, Citizen
Bill Wright, Clark County
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOT
Staff PresentLynda 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 AssistantChair Burkman noted a change of the membership. He introduced Washougal Council Member Dave Shoemaker representing the cities of Washougal and Camas. All welcomed him.
II. Approval of January 4, 2011, Meeting Minutes
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 4, 2011, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEFF HAMM AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DAVE SHOEMAKER ABSTAINED.
III. Citizen Communications
Ed Barnes, Vancouver citizen, said as everyone knows, he has been attending the RTC meetings and saying that we need to get the Columbia River Crossing built with light rail and bike and pedestrian paths. Mr. Barnes noted a newspaper editorial article that said that we could have money opportunities for the bridge stated in the State of the Union speech. Mr. Barnes said another article that said there is a good possibility that earthquake fault line that runs through the West Hills could affect the I-5 Bridge and bring it down. He said the bridge is not safe, because it is too narrow and too congested. Mr. Barnes urged RTC Board Members to stand up and be counted. He thanked the Mayor of Vancouver for his openness about getting support for the bridge. Also, Commissioner Stuart for coming out and saying he is in favor of the bridge and light rail. Mr. Barnes said we need to let our Congressmen and Senators know, including newly elected Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. It is time that she steps up to the plate as well to get money that is necessary to start building this bridge. Unless this group comes to a consensus, it will not happen. Mr. Barnes also said that there are going to be some major changes at Metro that he likes. He said the Metro Council will be on the same page with the majority of the people who support the bridge. He urged them to get the request in for the money and to get the bridge built.
Sharon Nasset, Portland citizen, said to RTC as an oversight committee in relation to the CRC Sponsors Council, she has asked several times to have a subcommittee set up and have citizen comment. She said this is for other agencies who are not capable of hearing what is going on or who have issues that can be directed here for them to speak. Ms. Nasset said she has asked C TRAN to do the same. She said it will be three years in August since the CRC Task Force ended. That means no citizen comment since then. The Sponsors Agencies does not have a comment period. Ms. David said there have been problems with the 49th District and the 17th District not letting comment on light rail or the CRC project. Ms. Nasset said she has participated in every manner. She said she will not be bullied. She said to bring people together and not let them speak, it is bullying. They should be able to participate fully and democracy, and there are no channels for them to do it in, so they go to the different meetings. She said she knows this will have to be brought up again, because she knows about bullying.
Ken Smelser said he lives in Portland and works in Washington and crosses the bridge at least twice a day. He said he is concerned about the bridge, saying that it either has 390 cracks in it or holes that are connected to a lesser number of cracks. Mr. Smelser distributed copies of a photo of a hole that was drilled into the I-5 Bridge. He said most of the holes he saw were connected to cracks on a single basis. He said the holes he saw would be considered sheer cracks, at the end of the beam where it is connected. Mr. Smelser said the hole pictured would in reality be 3 inches in diameter. He said he talked to the men who were on the job when they drilled the holes. One of the dates was 2006. He said the first set of holes drilled was 360 to soft cracks. The last set of 30 holes was in the last two months. Mr. Smelser said there is an indication that if you have to drill 390 holes to stop the cracks, there may be a problem. Commissioner Stuart asked where the hole shown in the picture was in relation to the bridge. Mr. Smelser said the picture was taken under the east side of the bridge on the Washington side on the road that goes past the Inn at the Quay. Mr. Smelser said many of the holes are hidden, that you cannot see from land on the ground.
Jim Karlock, Portland citizen, said he wanted to address the issue of why you say driving is 25 cents a mile, when the AAA says it is 57 cents a mile. He distributed a handout with his information. Mr. Karlock said AAA paints three scenarios in their brochure, and he used the middle case; this is 57 cents per vehicle mile. He said recognize that nationally there are 1.59 people per vehicle, and that brings it to 37 cents per passenger mile. The AAA brochure bases their numbers on trading in a car every 5 years. That means the average car in their survey is 2.5 years old, but if you look at the federal data in the Transportation Data Book, you will find the average car on the US highway is 10.6 years old. With that adjustment in the cost of the depreciation and insurance, etc., this ends at about 25 cents per passenger mile. Mr. Karlock said that is the number he has been using for a couple years. He said another approach is to look at the data in the Transportation Data Book. They show the annual driving per person and the average cost per household, and using these, the number is 24 cents per passenger mile. Mr. Karlock said this shows that the average cost is about 25 cents per passenger mile, but they are a lot more than the cost of mass transit. He said in looking at the federal data, the average cost of bus transit in the 10 largest transit agencies in the country is 85 cents per passenger mile. That does not include construction of the right of way, because they generally don’t have to pay to use the roads. Mr. Karlock said when you include their capital costs, it is above $1 per passenger mile. He said if you look at the same numbers for light rail, it is 52 cents per passenger mile without capital costs. That is double the passenger per mile cost of the average car. Mr. Karlock said when the capital costs are added in, it is up to $1.39 per passenger mile. That is five or six times the cost of driving a car. He said the question is why are we building something that is many times more expensive than simply driving a car?
Debbie Peterson, Vancouver citizen, said that Don Wagner had said that the bridge was safe and the steel was thicker than what the specifications had called for. She asked how many modern day bridges could say that. Ms. Peterson said we have spent $150 million on the CRC study so far. She asked how many holes could be filled on the bridge, if they took that money and used it for repair of the bridge instead of studying it. She said possibly a new project. She said the study was poorly done, given that they had a design that was not built any where in the world to the size of the CRC bridge. She said the Japanese have built a similar bridge on a smaller scale, and they would have told them to not build the bridge because of safety issues. She said we have a $150 million study with a design that is faulty. She said the bridge that we have is viable and safe. Ms. Peterson said the CRC project is crummy. She said that we need to dump this project and get a project that solves the regional issue of congestion.
IV. Consent Agenda
- February Claims
- 2011-2014 MTIP Amendment: WSDOT I-5 Paving and Safety, Resolution 02-11-03
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA FEBRUARY CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 02-11-03. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY TIM LEAVITT AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Columbia River Crossing Technical Services Agreement, Resolution 02-11-04
Bob Hart said this resolution is a continuation of the technical services that RTC has been doing since 2006. Since the last technical services agreement was initiated in September 2009, the project has seen several milestones including scaling back the cost of the project, developing performance measures to monitor how the project meets its objectives, developing transit demand management strategies, and analysis of land use impacts of the CRC project. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled for completion by the middle of 2011 and will culminate in the record of decision at the same time. The record of decision is issued by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration and describes the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating negative effects.
As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Clark County, RTC is one of the signatory agencies for the FEIS. RTC must also include the EIS CRC project and financing plan into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in order for the project to be eligible for the receipt of federal funds.
RTC’s participation in the project under the previous agreements has consisted of the following activities: local agency liaison, day to day project development, the refinement of highway and transit project elements, transportation data, tolling analysis, and the travel demand model elements of the Clark County portion of the project. The next phase of the CRC project would be similar and would continue through the record of decision. At the January 21 Regional Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, members recommended approval of moving forward with the resolution, the scope, and the budget for the project.
Mr. Hart referred to page 2 of the resolution that outlined the key areas that RTC participates in the project. The Department of Transportation does not anticipate any new travel forecasting for the CRC project at this time. He said RTC’s role will mainly be review and input on the FEIS, and the financial plan, reviewing transportation planning, travel forecasts and analysis, and post 2030 model results. On the transit side, RTC will assist the project team on the review and development of required New Starts submittal for application into Final Design and responding to comments and requests from the Federal Transit Administration. The New Starts submittal needs to include what is currently in the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. This means that they need to include C-TRAN’s 20-Year Plan as well as the Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit. They will review the financial plan, along with documents on air quality, land use, traffic and transit elements of the FEIS. Mr. Hart said this scope of work is based on what they know now to complete the FEIS and ROD and the New Starts submittal. Additional work activities may be identified as a result of requests or recommendations of the Project Sponsors Council or the Bridge Expert Review Panel that could affect the need to do travel forecasting or the need to do additional tolling analysis for example. If additional work is needed, RTC will work with WSDOT to amend the scope and budget to reflect this change.
Mr. Hart said the resolution is consistent with RTC’s role and responsibilities as the MPO for Clark County, and it is also consistent with the strategic element of the adopted MTP, TIP, and the UPWP. The total budget for RTC’s participation in this phase of the Columbia River Crossing Project would not exceed $25,055 which is funded by resources from the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Staff is asking for adoption of Resolution 02-11-04 to authorize the Transportation Director to enter into an interlocal agreement with WSDOT for RTC participation and technical assistance in the CRC project.
Council Member Shoemaker asked what the impact would be if the resolution did not pass. Mr. Hart said they would not be assisting WSDOT on the CRC project with technical services. Mr. Shoemaker said his concern is that the CRC piece appears to him to be a politically oriented organization which is adding things to the project that are not helpful. However, after looking into the research that RTC staff does, he said it would be a good idea to support them to work with CRC. Mr. Shoemaker said those folks need help.
TIM LEAVITT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 02-11-04. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY NANCY BAKER.
Commissioner Mielke said they are into this project $150 million. This is a small amount that adds to it. He asked how much more was going to be put into it. He said personally, that they should cut the cord and cut the loss.
Chair Burkman said these are full cost recovery. These are WSDOT funds, not RTC funds. This is WSDOT hiring RTC services to use our data to incorporate into the plan.
Steve Stuart said he appreciated the comments by the Councilman as far as getting our information and having our staff working with CRC staff on this. He said as the final EIS is completed and the record of decision is issued by FHWA and FTA, for them to get input from RTC as the Metropolitan Planning Organization on the potential impacts to our community, positive and negative and try to frame it in a way that works for us makes perfect sense. They can use the help, and our staff do a great job from a Metropolitan Planning Organization standpoint of providing good detail on what we are doing, what we have been doing, and how all of our jurisdictions’ Plans are impacted. He said he is supportive of getting to that finale, to getting to a final EIS and the ROD completed and then see where it goes.
Commissioner Boldt asked who the owner of the EIS was. Dean Lookingbill said it is both Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Commissioner Boldt asked if we happened to not like the EIS, does that keep us from appealing the EIS. Mr. Lookingbill said he would need to ask legal counsel.
THE MOTION PASSES WITH ONE NO VOTE BY COMMISSIONER MIELKE AND ONE ABSTAIN BY BART GERNHART.
VI. FY 2012 Federal Transportation Appropriation Project Requests
Dale Robins said this is a request for RTC Board action on the regional list of Fiscal Year 2012 federal transportation appropriation projects. Mr. Robins said although there is some uncertainty if there will even be a call for FY 2012 federal appropriation projects, it is prudent for our region to go ahead and prepare in case there is a call for projects. RTC Board approval would allow jurisdictions to respond quickly if there is a call for projects.
RTC initiated the process in November 2010 with discussion at the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), and discussion has continued over the last several months. At the January RTC Board meeting, a draft list of projects was distributed to RTC Board members, which is very similar to the current list. Minor changes were made to the list. One substantial change was to the Port of Vancouver project, which lowered their request from $5 million to $4 million.
Mr. Robins referred to the list of projects on page two of the Memorandum included in the meeting packet. The list of 15 projects totaling $31.27 million for appropriation requests. The projects are not listed in priority order but listed in alphabetical order by jurisdiction. Requests are from City of Battle Ground, C-TRAN, City of Camas, Clark County, Klickitat County, Port of Vancouver, City of Ridgefield, Skamania County, and City of Vancouver. Mr. Robins briefed Board Members on the projects at the January meeting.
Mr. Robins said the request is for RTC Board action to support the regionally recommended list of federal FY 2012 appropriation project requests.
PAUL PEARCE MOVED TO APPROVE SUPPORT OF THE REGIONALLY RECOMMENDED LIST OF 15 PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FY 2012 APPROPRIATION PROJECT REQUESTS. MARC BOLDT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Dave Shoemaker said he was looking at two Camas projects on the list, both involve bicycle lanes. The first one is on the (West) Slough Bridge. He said he was a cyclist himself, and the idea of crossing the Slough Bridge with or without bicycle lanes appears to him as a safety issue. He said he doesn’t like putting bicyclists next to 55 miles per hour traffic. He said he didn’t like putting them next to 25 miles per hour traffic. Mr. Shoemaker said as a cyclist, it concerns him.
Mr. Shoemaker noted that the 38th Avenue to SE 20th Street project is going to be three lanes with bicycle lanes. He said he thought a better use of that space is four lanes. He said if it is put in as three lanes with bicycle lanes, at some point it will be easily converted to four lanes, if restriped. He said he thought the crowding with the usage, data would support it at some point. Mr. Shoemaker said he raised the issue with Dean Lookingbill earlier in the day of the background in terms of bicycle usage on these thoroughfares. He said there is some data, and Dean has indicated that he will get that to him. Mr. Shoemaker said he was concerned about moving the project forward without that data. At the present time, he said he is having trouble supporting this based on 1) his safety concerns and 2) the lack of a data on bicycle usage. Mr. Shoemaker said his third concern is that this is going to be supported by funding in earmarks. He said he didn’t think that earmarks are appropriate. He said going through the transportation planning process is. That concerns him.
Bart Gernhart said the Camas SR-14 Slough Bridge project proposes adding two extra lanes to the existing structure. Currently, there are only two lanes and very narrow shoulders. The primary purpose is to add the two extra lanes; in addition to that there would be a median barrier down the center with wide shoulders. The shoulders would be able to collect disabled vehicles and also allow cyclists. The shoulders would not change by eliminating cyclists. All State highways that have shoulders wider than three feet cyclists are allowed on. Their primary purpose is not for bicyclists, it is for traveling public, emergency vehicles, and law officers.
Commissioner Mielke asked if in the name of safety if there was a possibility of putting a Jersey barrier between the vehicle traffic and the bicycle lanes in that tight area.
Mr. Gernhart said conceptually, you can, but this is an existing bridge that they are retrofitting, so they can only widen so much. They are widening it as much as they can, but there is not adequate width to provide anther median barrier for separation of through traffic and cyclists and provide an area where a disabled vehicle can pull off. Mr. Gernhart clarified that a project on the bridge later this year will take the existing two lanes and doing a little widening of the deck to add three feet on each side and putting a median barrier down separating the one eastbound lane and one westbound lane. The Slough Bridge project on the list is an unfunded project that adds two extra lanes for westbound lanes. The existing two lanes would both become eastbound.
Paul Pearce said that would take any bike lanes. He said he would like bike lanes all the way down SR-14 through Skamania County. He said they hold several world class biking events. He said he would like to see facilities put in for that. Mr. Pearce said he was a police officer in Camas for 30 years. He said it is time they do something on Lady Island, especially with that bridge. He said he has seen many accidents on the bridge. It goes from a four lane highway to suddenly two lanes, and people forget and continue to drive in the oncoming lane. There are also strong winds across the bridge that catches people. Mr. Pearce noted that an appropriation and an earmark are two different things. He said if you have a transportation package with specific projects and they are appropriated and there is a road on it, that is an appropriation. When there is a bill that goes through to fund aerospace research and there is a bridge to nowhere attached to it, that’s an earmark. These projects are about appropriation requests for specific projects that each of our organizations have identified as important transportation projects. He agreed if they were attached to an aerospace bill with earmarks, they shouldn’t be allowed, but if they are attached to a transportation bill, he said he wants his listed.
Mayor Leavitt asked Mr. Gernhart regarding the Slough Bridge if it was coordinated with Camas Public Works or Transportation Department. Mr. Gernhart said yes, that it had. In addition to that, they had been to Camas City Council several times explaining the project, as well as to Washougal City Council and the Port of Camas Washougal. They had brought a change to the project to RTC a couple years ago due to cost escalation. They downsized the project from the four lanes that they wanted to build, down to a two lane bridge with wider shoulders. At this point in time, they have the present project. The future project will add a few extra lanes, extra girders and widen all the way down through the slough.
Commissioner Stuart asked where the requests came from for all of the projects on the list. Mr. Lookingbill said the requests came from each of the partner agencies. Commissioner Stuart said the Camas project is more than just Camas. Mr. Gernhart said the project listed on the list is Camas making the request and WSDOT supporting the project. It was cut from a previous project that had to be modified. Commissioner Stuart asked Mr. Shoemaker as the representative for Camas and Washougal if he had talked with the City of Camas about his concerns with the two projects.
Mr. Shoemaker said he had not. He said he had just received the information the previous week and not had a chance to talk with them about it. Mr. Shoemaker said they sent him to the meeting to take care of their interests, and he said he would do that. Commissioner Stuart said he appreciated that. Mr. Shoemaker said that does not necessarily mean he would vote for this, but he said he had their best interest at heart. He said if they feel that he does not, he said he was sure that they will remove him.
Mayor Leavitt said the point is that Mr. Shoemaker is asking questions about Camas projects, and he is the representative for Camas and Washougal. Mayor Leavitt said it is a bit disconcerting to some on the Board that these are projects being requested by Camas, and if Camas doesn’t want them on the list, then maybe we should take them off and shift some of the requests to other agencies.
Mr. Shoemaker said no doubt that there is a great deal of support for these projects, and he said he is not worried that a no vote on his part would cause it to fail. He has checked on this. He said he thought it was appropriate to register concerns.
Chair Burkman asked Mr. Shoemaker as a representative of Camas and Washougal, if he was requesting that these projects be removed. Mr. Shoemaker said no, not at all.
Commissioner Mielke said a lot of times we support a project, but what we picture it to look like isn’t what it looks like in the end. He said he could use the SR-502 (Battle Ground) Interchange as an example. It is not a cloverleaf that you expect it to be.
Bart Gernhart said the Camas City Administrator has contacted him twice in the last month asking for his support and a letter of support for the city for the project. He said the details of the project were characterized on several occasions. The issue of bike lanes and the shoulders that can be used for bike lanes, whether or not the cyclist decides that is where they want to cross. This was communicated to City Council.
Mr. Shoemaker pointed out that there are a lot more safer options for crossing through that area than going across that bridge.
THE MOTION IS APPROVED WITH TWO NO VOTES OF TOM MIELKE AND DAVE SHOEMAKER.
VII. 2011 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Development Process, Policy Framework and Demographic Forecast
Lynda David referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet. Continuing the 2011 MTP update, she would briefly review the MTP’s development process introduced at January’s Board meeting. She would also review the existing policy framework. Mark Harrington would then provide data and information on the 2035 demographic forecast that supports the MTP.
Ms. David said the Metropolitan Transportation Plan is the long-range, 20 plus year plan for the region’s transportation system. The Plan is required by federal laws as a condition for receipt of federal transportation funding to this region and is also a requirement of state law. The Plan must be regularly updated, must be multi-modal, fiscally constrained, and must maintain consistency between federal, state, and local plans.
Ms. David said at last month’s meeting, she provided some detail of the Plan elements that will need particular attention in this year’s MTP update as well as a tentative timeline for consideration of these elements. She referred to page 2 of the memorandum. Listed is a summary timeline showing that in the early part of 2011, they will focus on the growth forecast and allocation and the policy framework. Throughout the months of 2011, they will deal with the Plan elements, modes, project financing, and community communication. They are driving toward adoption of the Plan in December of 2011 to meet the Federal update requirements.
Some of the key elements that will need attention include changing demographics and lifestyles, system preservation and maintenance and the cost of doing so, as well as safety. They will also be touching on transportation system management and operations. Active Transportation and freight mobility will need to be incorporated into the Plan. Then, overall transportation system needs, project and transportation strategies will need to be identified. An updated financial Plan will address updated forecast revenue projections and cost estimates.
Ms. David said their first consideration is the MTP’s vision and policies as these should guide the Plan update. As currently stated in the MTP, its purpose is to address regional transportation system development to achieve the land use vision presented in local comprehensive plans, support economic growth, and sustain the region’s quality of life. Ms. David said it has been four years since they last reviewed these overriding principles for the Plan, and they would like to hear the Board’s views on whether they are still applicable or should be reconsidered.
The current Metropolitan Plan’s policies say that the Plan’s Vision is to maintain and improve the transportation system to: 1) support economic development, 2) ensure safe mobility in and through the region, 3) provide safe accessibility, 4) select cost-effective solutions, 5) minimize and mitigate environmental impacts, 6) maintain or improve air quality, 7) preserve community values, and 8) sustain neighborhood structure.
Mark Harrington said the new 2011 MTP will have a horizon year of 2035, which requires a development of a new forecast for population and employment out to 2035. The current 2007 MTP uses a 2030 forecast year with a population of 639,000 people and 284,000 jobs. The demographic forecast is important as a key input for the regional travel forecasting model, influencing the number of trips on the future regional transportation system and geographic distribution of those trips. The travel forecast is utilized in accessing future transportation needs as well as the transportation project development process.
In developing a new 2035 forecast and allocation, RTC is utilizing current population and employment forecasts produced by the State of Washington and considering region-wide econometric assumptions developed by Metro. RTC is working closely with its member jurisdictions to develop the new regional forecast and geographic allocation. The guiding principles for that include: maintain consistency with adopted GMA plans, incorporate official OFM projections, consider long-term industry employment projections from ESD, account for the impacts of the recent economic recession, consider region-wide econometric assumptions developed by Metro, and use the adopted MTP 2030 forecast and allocation as the starting point.
Mr. Harrington said in developing a range for the 2035 population forecast, it is helpful to consider the historical population growth of the county. Mr. Harrington displayed a graph with the population growth in Clark County between 1980 and 2010, including the 5-year change in population and growth rate. During the 1990’s, the county grew the fastest, with annual growth rates exceeding 3.5% and adding over 10,000 new residents per year. Beginning in 2000, the county’s rate of growth has moderated. During the past decade, the county has added about 9,000 residents a year and averaged an annual growth rate of around 2%. Mr. Harrington displayed a second graph with a more detailed look at Clark County growth in the past 5 years. The impact of the current economic recession on recent population growth is clearly evident. Beginning in 2008, the annual growth rate dropped below 2% and fell to just above 1% by 2010. Between 2009 and 2010, the county population grew only by 4,400 people for a total population of 435,600.
Looking forward to how Clark County will grow between now and 2035, RTC staff has considered the population forecast developed for the September 2007 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Clark County and 2007 state OFM county-level population forecast. Mr. Harrington referred to page 6 of the memo. It shows the current GMA population forecast that was grown out to the year 2030 for the 2007 MTP. The population forecast for the current county GMA plan is based on a 2024 horizon year and assumed a 2.0% annual growth rate. The first six years were assumed to grow at a faster 2.2% annual rate that slowed to 1.9% for the final fourteen years. The 2007 MTP used a 1.5% annual growth rate to grow the 2024 GMA population out to the year 2030, which put the population for the county at about 640,000 people. For 2035, they took the 1.5% annual growth rate and extended it out another five years to reach 689,133 persons as one potential target.
Mr. Harrington also looked at OFM forecast of “medium” and “high” projections. The latest state OFM county-level forecast was developed in 2007. While OFM produces a state-wide population forecast on an annual basis, county-level forecasts are produced only periodically. The next county-level OFM forecast is not scheduled to be published until 2012.
Chair Burkman asked how the economic recession shows up in the economic forecasting. Mr. Harrington said in the GMA/MTP forecast, it does not show up, because it was taking the existing forecast and growing it out. He said in looking at the OFM forecast from 2007, it is a bit pre recession, but it gives a base to look to some of the numbers. The OFM “medium” projection from 2007 for 2010 matches closely with the official estimate, which is a tie point. The OFM “high” at 1.5% is 726,472 persons. The OFM “Medium” at 1.1% is 612,548 persons.
RTC staff in conjunction with RTAC members produced an initial 2035 projection for Clark County. It uses a 1.75% growth from 2010 to 2035 to reach a population of 674,670. Mr. Harrington said this forecast is slightly above the “medium” projection from OFM, it is below the “high” and starting from 2010 it takes into account the initial dip from the economic downturn.
Mr. Harrington asked for any questions or comments about the population forecasts.
Commissioner Mielke said this population growth is based on OFM. He said he had been given some information on growth and where it is coming from and where it is going. He said it is based on vehicle licensing. He questioned how accurate this would be given the different comparisons. Mr. Harrington said OFM does take into account the in migration and the out migration. That is one thing that licensing does not track. You miss the out migration people. It shows who is coming in, but it does not reflect how many people are leaving the county, and it does not account for births or deaths, which OFM does account for. Mr. Harrington said in early February, they can check the 2010 Census to check against OFM’s official estimate for 2010. He said his experience with OFM’s estimates have shown that they do a very good job at the county-level estimates for populations as well as forecasts.
Commissioner Stuart said OFM does set a range. He said he would be interested in the 2010 Census information before we made any determination of moving forward. He said that would tell us age and family information, and a better clue of what we will look like based on where we are. He said there is a lot of talk about the aging population in Clark County and that we are going to have a greater percentage of aging population. The Census should start telling us that, as well as the number of young families and children born. Within this range that OFM is giving us, we can look at where we are headed before we make a determination of which scenario makes sense. Mark Harrington said with the OFM forecast, they do forecasts of age trends as well. It shows 20% of the population is 65 or older. The 2007 forecast at the county level and the 2010 forecast for the state had minor differences.
Chair Burkman said this will be worked on throughout the year. He asked when the Census data comes out. Mr. Harrington said the Census data will start to come out in February. He said they would like to come back to the Board in March to establish countywide totals for population and employment and move forward with an allocation of that across the county to use the data in transportation forecasts.
Rex Burkholder said he is glad they have worked out the coordination between the Metro forecasting and the Clark County forecasting. Mr. Burkholder said this shows a 15% spread. He asked what the practical implications of a range like were in terms of the work that RTC is doing in trying to forecast traffic, development, etc. Mr. Harrington said as the number gets larger, the number of trips on the system gets larger. It depends more on where the development is being forecast to occur. The number of 674,670 for 2035 is about 35,000 more persons than they assume for 2030. It is not a significant departure from what they have been looking at previously. He said a range of 100,000 is quite significant. He said a range that wide has some impacts. Mr. Harrington said in tracking OFM over the past decade and where they forecast, and for Clark County “medium” has been close. Mr. Lookingbill said they do need to get to some initial forecast so they can continue the travel forecasting process.
Mr. Harrington moved to employment forecast. He displayed a 2035 employment forecast range. Each 2035 figure was developed by growing the County’s 2005 employment by the growth rate of each forecast type: the current GMA/MTP forecast for employment, a draft version of Metroscope for Clark County, and the Washington ESD forecast for employment. Mr. Harrington said the development of a 2035 employment forecast for Clark County brings with it an uncertain set of factors including: the present economic recession, an aging labor force, structural changes to industry trends, market demand, and land availability/suitability. RTC does not produce its own econometric forecasts; staff relies upon forecasts produced by the state, regional econometric forecasts produced by Metro, and employment projections used in the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Clark County. The 2007 MTP used the assumptions used from the county Comprehensive Growth Management Plan to estimate a 2030 employment projection of 283,875. Based on the state’s Employment Security Department figure of 123,352 for 2005, the employment growth rate for this forecast is 3.9% per year, and extended out five years to 2035 reaches 341,054 jobs.
The state Employment Security Department develops employment projections state-wide and for twelve Workforce Development Areas (WDA) within the state. The latest projections were published in 2010 and have a horizon year of 2018. Taking into account the employment growth in other counties also included within Clark County’s WDA, the 2018 forecast for Clark County employment is about 158,300. This represents a 1.9% annual growth rate from 2005, and extended out to 2035 reaches 220,752 jobs.
A Metro-developed 2009 regional econometric forecast of population and employment for 7-county Portland-Beaverton-Vancouver PMSA provides an employment projection with horizon year of 2040 at 5-year increments. Using Metroscope, Metro’s land use model, a draft estimate of Clark County’s 2030 employment of about 238,000 has been developed. The corresponding annual growth rate for this employment projection is about 2.67%, giving 274,800 jobs at 2035.
Mr. Harrington said they have a range of numbers for the forecast. They are still talking with member jurisdictions, as well as. He asked for any comments or questions.
Chair Burkman asked how the range was going to be narrowed down. Mr. Harrington said it is a wide range, and they are working through that process. Mr. Lookingbill said staff wanted to keep the Board informed on the process as it takes place. He said they are working with member jurisdiction staff. They are working on the county-wide basis, but also looking at the GMA Plans. Looking at the Plans and understanding where development has been occurring, and getting each jurisdiction’s feedback. The employment forecast is more of a policy call. When they narrow that range, in speaking with those staff, they can speak to how that fits within the adopted GMA plans.
Commissioner Stuart said the first step would be to use the GMA adopted Plans that were adopted in 2007, much as the population forecasts. He said to go out to the end of the Comp Plan, because that land has already been allocated and assigned for jobs. He said as a Regional Transportation Planning Organization, one of the most important things that we can do is make sure the infrastructure is planned for to support those jobs. He said from a planning perspective, his first request would be to use the Comp Plan as a starting point. Mr. Lookingbill said in doing that, they are working with individual jurisdiction staff.
Mayor Leavitt asked if the employment forecast range that Commissioner Stuart was speaking of was the option of the GMA/MTP analysis. Commissioner Stuart said for most of it. He said the GMA/MTP as he understood it takes the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and extends it out to 2030. This takes it out another five years, and one of the alternatives in that is to just extend out those same assumptions. That may be one option on the employment side as well, to simply carry forward the growth rate assumptions for employment and carry them out five more years.
Mayor Leavitt said he is not in a position to indicate where we should land at this point for assumptions, but he said we should be striving for a very aggressive employment base in our community. If we choose a higher growth rate, that sets the bar. We are all aware that we have a fairly large imbalance in jobs to housing ratio in our community. He said it is a time for us as a region to coalesce around infrastructure investment in those corridors and areas that we know will create the best bang for our buck when it comes to creating jobs. The I-5 corridor, the discovery Corridor, the Port of Vancouver, 192nd Avenue area, and points further north toward Duluth and Battle Ground, as well as the Ridgefield Junction. Mayor Leavitt said we have got to create more jobs in this community for those who live here. He said he would push for as aggressive position as they can take, outside of assuming some certain percentages.
Jeff Hamm said wouldn’t we want to take some time to at least during the first part of the year, to the extent that data is available, to research what the effects of the recession are on both population and employment. Recognizing that we do want to be aggressive, but we also want to be realistic as well. He said wouldn’t we want to have the opportunity to press a reset button if we get information that indicates that there is going to be a change in the trends.
Chair Burkman said what he is hearing is that this is really a combination of forecasts and policy. If we want to assertively drive more jobs, it is putting infrastructure in, maybe we would want to stay with the policies in place, even acknowledging that there was a recession, or some tuning. He said he would be hesitant to make a large change in that, because it would be self fulfilling. Mr. Burkman said you can forecast small, smaller jobs and that is what we get.
Commissioner Stuart said his point was that just keeping that analysis, the land is already in the boundaries up to 2024. Most of it is already in the boundaries and there are assumptions that go with that for a number of jobs per acre based on different types of employment and number of people per acre given different types of land uses. Those have already been built and assigned into maps. He said he would be hesitant to do anything that would be resetting anything associated with what has already been done. It is more about after the Comp Plan cycle, then what to do and how does it affect and growth rates to expect.
Mark Harrington said as next steps, they would return to the RTC Board in March to confirm county-wide 2035 population and employment forecast. They will continue discussion of regional transportation vision and policy framework.
Dave Shoemaker asked what the penalties were for having a too optimistic or too pestimistic forecast. He said if we over estimate, what is the penalty. Dean Lookingbill said this is what we will use in our Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035. We want to make sure we have consistency with land use plans. Generally speaking, you can oversize a facility and somewhere in the future not build that large of facility, but if you undersize a facility, you might find a constraint. Remember, we are a fairly developed urban area, so it is not quite that simple. We do want to not always err on the high side, but being cognizant of where that may put unrealistic growth assumptions in corridors that are already established.
Bart Gernhart asked if we oversize, over estimate how many people will be living here and working here, will that then have the potential to show that we’ll have failure in the transportation system unduly so, and that we have to make improvements to that transportation system in the out years unduly so. Mr. Lookingbill said that is many years out. The concurrency requirements that actually put any constraint on development are six years, so, the answer is no, not in that long-term. An important part is the distribution and density of development.
Bart Gernhart said they used 20-year projections in designing the Salmon Creek Interchange. He said they do know when projected out, it was really challenging trying to upsize and it keeps costing more and more money to upsize. He said sometimes they see that it is too aggressive.
Commissioner Mielke said along those lines, in looking at the forecast from 2007 to 2010, our economy is not giving us a lot of hope for two years. That is going to slow this process down. He said under the Growth Management Act, in order to plan it, we have to be able to finance it. It is more complicated than saying that we have so many people moving here, we have to be able to financially afford that infrastructure that is needed. He said it is complicated.
VIII. Transportation System Management and Operations Draft Plan
Bob Hart referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet. Mr. Hart noted that the RTC Board received an update on the development of the TSMO Plan at the November 2010 meeting which focused on the TSMO network and review of the corridors being considered for the selection of a pilot corridor for implementation. The TSMO Plan is essentially complete, with a couple chapters that they are still working on. A pilot corridor has been selected, and preliminary improvement strategies for the pilot corridor have been identified.
Mr. Hart said there were several questions at the November Board meeting regarding the map of the TSMO network, the connection between corridors, and the function/meaning of the TSMO corridor definitions. Mr. Hart said TSMO included things like technology based real-time operations management strategies such as signal integration, travel information, incident management, and can include things like access management and channelization as well. Mr. Hart noted the TSMO Network Map was attached to the memorandum. It consists of limited-access roadways, and principal and major arterials throughout urbanized Clark County where TSMO strategies are likely to be effective given the traffic delay and operational characteristics of the facilities. Criteria used to identify those include: v/c ratio, travel speed, existence of transit, and existing or planned ITS Critical operations sub-corridors are facilities with the highest need. Mr. Hart said the main change to the map since November is that they connected the Mill Plain corridor and the Andresen corridor. Mill Plain to the west and Andresen to the south to become a single critical sub-corridor, primarily because it provided a good logical link to the two major arterials in considering and coordinating operational strategies.
Mr. Hart noted the Pilot Corridor shown on the map in orange on Mill Plain and 164th Avenue. The TSMO Steering Committee members selected the Mill/Plain/164th corridor as the pilot project because it was the most ready to implement. The purpose of the Pilot Project is to demonstrate the benefits of applying TSMO strategies to a corridor in Clark County. Mr. Hart said they will evaluate data with before and after analysis. This could include things such as traffic counts, travel times, intersection delay, and others.
Mr. Hart said they began with three candidate corridors: Highway 99 from Main Street to 99th Street, Andresen Road from 18th Street to I-205, and Mill Plain Blvd. They selected Mill Plain Boulevard primarily because it was more ready to go. It already has fiber and communications infrastructure, signal controllers have been upgraded, and most of the corridor has detection for performance measurement.
A Pilot Project Workshop with affected agency partners was held on January 19 to determine project objectives, review signal technology, and identify appropriate systems or improvements for the corridor. After reviewing the full corridor characteristics and conditions, the workshop attendees determined that the pilot project should focus on the west end of the corridor from 104th Avenue to Hearthwood. Operational problems on west Mill plain identified at the workshop include: peak period saturated conditions, high off ramp volumes and through movement from the freeway improvement on Mill Plain especially southbound off ramps from I 205 and Mill Plain east. In addition, there are a high number of preemption calls because of a fire station east of I-205 and SWMC west of I-205. Also, incidents on I-205 affect volumes on Mill Plain. There is also spillover of off ramp traffic onto I-205. There is limited capacity on the structure over I-205 and inability to expand.
At the conclusion of the workshop, the participants agreed to include adaptive signal control as the key component of the pilot project. Adaptive signal systems can modify timing plans at intersections in real time to respond to changes in traffic conditions as they occur. With the Pilot Project, they hope to accomplish balancing throughput travel time and reliability along with ramp usage on I-205. They hope to reduce delay in shoulders of peak period and reduce delay during off-peak, weekends, and special events; have faster recovery from preemption calls; respond quickly to I-205 incidents to maintain Mill Plain operations; and improve the balance of Mill Plain through movement with freeway off-ramp volumes.
Dave Shoemaker asked on any project like this, if the evaluation plan is based on the goals that the project has set out. Mr. Hart said yes. They have their pilot selected, their objectives defined, and they need to craft their evaluation plan around those things. Mr. Shoemaker said he would like to see both the objectives and the evaluation plan when they are complete. Mr. Hart agreed.
Jeff Hamm said the Mill Plain Corridor is a C-TRAN transit and TSP VAST corridor and asked how that integrated with the Pilot project. He said for example, is transit travel times one of the objectives, measures that will be tracked. (Mr. Hart said yes.) And if so, that project does not extend onto 164th, to what extent is the TSP project part of the Pilot. Mr. Hart said it is a minimal part of the plan. When speaking of adaptive control, there are a couple systems that are available to them. They have to include their investigation to say to make them compatible so that the adaptor is compatible with TSP. Mr. Hart said they would like to do a much larger corridor, but they are constrained by their budget. They do want to measure transit travel times. Mr. Hamm asked if that meant they would parse out transit travel times on the section that does have TSP from that that does not. Mr. Hart said their intent is that even though the pilot is shorter than the whole corridor discussed, they want to gather information along the full corridor so they understand the relationship between what they are trying to accomplish and measure it before for the whole corridor, and then measure it after by segment.
Mr. Hart noted the TSMO Vision Statement which provided the framework for the development on the TSMO Plan. The TSMO Plan will complement the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and comprise the management and operations element of the MTP. It will also be incorporated into the 2011 MTP update.
Mr. Hart referred to the TSMO Draft Plan Summary included in the meeting packet. Page four of the Summary lists the TSMO strategies by category. In addition, they have done some work to map those strategies to the network itself. The performance measures are listed on page five which also supports the sharing of real-time and archived data to measure their system and performance. Page nine refers to the 10-Year Project Implementation Plan. This is important because they are mapping their strategies to the network, and what comes out of that is the 10-year project implementation plan. The guidance contained in the plan is a valuable guideline for future project-level planning and design for ITS implementation.
Mr. Hart said action is requested for RTC Board concurrence on the TSMO Pilot Project and any feedback on the TSMO Plan Summary. The goal is to come back in the spring with a request to obligate federal funds for the Pilot Project, with a full report for adoption by the Board this summer.
Commissioner Mielke asked the cost for this phase of the project. Mr. Hart said for the Pilot Project, they have funding set aside for a total of $640,000 of federal funding. Some of that are High Priority funds that they already have, some are CMAQ funds that are programmed in the MTIP already, and some are local match. Commissioner Mielke asked which routes were included. Mr. Hart said this is for the Pilot project and the adaptive control on the west end of Mill Plain, along with the means to collect data on that corridor and the before and after analysis. Commissioner Mielke said Clark County is putting some of this in place now, and asked if it will be tied into the Pilot project. Mr. Hart said the Pilot Project is separate, but ultimately, as the system is built out, it will have the capability of data collection throughout the system, including Clark County, Highway 99, 99th Street, and 78th Street. The data archive is their tool to gather data from the field throughout the County and have it available for planners and decision makers.
Chair Burkman said the request before the Board is to designate the Mill Plain Boulevard from Lieser Road east to 164th Avenue and south on 164th to SR-14 for the Pilot Corridor with the focus on the west end of the corridor from 104th Avenue to Hearthwood for the Pilot Project implementation.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PILOT PROJECT AS STATED BY CHAIR BURKMAN. NANCY BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION.
It was clarified that the Pilot Project implementation is from 104th Avenue east to Hearthwood.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IX. Other Business
From the Board
Commissioner Mielke said he would like to ask the Board to allow Council Member Shoemaker to consult with Camas and Washougal and allow him to come back and re-designate changes or acceptance of those projects on Highway 14. Chair Burkman said we have a list of projects. Commissioner Mielke said he knows that they voted and approved the list, but he said the question was about the design of the project. Chair Burkman said they have approved a list of 15 projects, and asked Commissioner Mielke if he was asking to bring those projects back to this body. Commissioner Mielke said he is asking to have Camas and Washougal to come back and allow or suggest a redesign of the Camas/Washougal projects on Highway 14. Chair Burkman said his understanding of this process is to approve this list so it can go before a federal delegation with a request for if there is an opportunity. This would delay that moving forward. Commissioner Mielke said he did not want to delay the request, but to change the design still moving forward. Chair Burkman said what he was asking was that the motion that was passed to move this forward not be honored, that different action be taken. Commissioner said no, to move the projects forward, but allow changes from Camas Washougal. Chair Burkman said that would mean those projects would be different from the projects that were approved on the list.
Chair Burkman said the NW 38th Avenue to SE 20th Street project states it includes bicycle lanes. He said he had heard a concern about the bicycle lanes. The outcome is that if the bicycle lanes were removed from this project, it would be a different project and we would be moving forward with it. That would be in violation of the motion that occurred. The motion was to move forward. Chair Burkman said it is perfectly reasonable for Council Member Shoemaker to bring back any questions or concerns that would fit within the definition that is described, but meanwhile, because it was approved by this body, the document with list of projects will advance to our Federal delegation as is. Commissioner Mielke said that hard line sets a precedent to stop motion from going forward when there are problems with what is proposed. Chair Burkman said the option is to ask one of the members who voted in majority to bring this back to this body for reconsideration and remove those two projects until a later date. Commissioner Mielke said he didn’t think the question was that far. He said he doesn’t see a design or blueprint. He said it is a proposal. There is no money, and a wish list going forward. He said he is just taking consideration of that area. Chair Burkman said he appreciated that consideration. He said he is referencing the project that states bicycle lanes in the description in the document that was approved. To remove that would take a different motion by this body.
Bart Gernhart said the Camas project on SR-14 doesn’t say anything about bicycle lanes. They are not proposing to build bike lanes, but the shoulders allow cyclists to use if they choose. Steve Stuart said that project could be addressed by Council Member Shoemaker with Camas and Washougal. Chair Burkman agreed that would be in line with the wording that is in the document.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill distributed a handout of information on the Columbia River Crossing including a project overview, a response from ODOT regarding the report by Joseph Cortright for Plaid Pantry, and a letter on the Biological Opinion that was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Mr. Lookingbill said staff is working with FHWA and WSDOT on a FHWA Sponsored Scenario Planning Workshop. He said he would report back at the March meeting. There continues to be good support from Federal Highways in developing the workshop. They are looking at a date of either April 28 or April 29.
Mr. Lookingbill noted C-TRAN meets on Tuesday, February 8 at 5:30 p.m. and JPACT meets on Thursday, February 10, at Metro at 7:30 a.m. The next CRC Project Sponsors Council will be held on Friday, February 18, 2011, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at ODOT.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 4 p.m.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. TOM MIELKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 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.
       
|