Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 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 Marc Boldt on Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 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
Jack Burkman, Vancouver Council Member
Bill Ganley, Battle Ground Council Member
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director
Jennifer McDaniel, Washougal Alternate
Tom Mielke, Clark County Commissioner
Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner
Larry J. Smith, Vancouver Alternate
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT Regional Administrator
Rian Windsheimer, ODOT Alternate
Don Benton, Senator 17th District
Paul Harris, Representative 17th District
Jim Moeller, Representative 49th District
Board Members AbsentRex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
David Poucher, White Salmon Mayor
Melissa Smith, Camas Council Member
Jeanne Stewart, Vancouver Council Member
Jason Tell, ODOT Region One Manager
Jim Honeyford, Senator 15th District
Bruce Chandler, Representative 15th District
David Taylor, Representative 15th District
Tim Probst, Representative 17th District
Joe Zarelli, Senator 18th District
Ed Orcutt, Representative 18th District
Ann Rivers, Representative 18th District
Craig Pridemore, Senator 49th District
Sharon Wylie, Representative 49th District
Guests PresentKaty Belokonny, C-TRAN
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver
Peter Capell, Clark County
Lynn Costello, Citizen
Tiffany Couch, Citizen
Carolyn Crain, Citizen
Garrett Delano, Citizen
Eric Florip, The Columbian
Connie Jo Freeman, Washougal Council Member
Peter M. Geiger, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Chuck Green, C-TRAN
Jim Karlock, Citizen
Harry Kiick, Citizen
Mark Maggiora, Americans Building Community
Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Vancouver Neighborhood Alli.
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Jerry Oliver, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Ron Onslow, Ridgefield Mayor
Philip Parker, WA Transportation Commissioner
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Debbie Peterson, Citizen
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Lisa Rasmussen, C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Com.
Derya Ruggles, Citizen
Scott Sawyer, City of Battle Ground
Jeanne Stewart, Vancouver Council Member
Ted Stonecliffe, Columbia River Crossing
Axel Swanson, Clark County
Judy Tiffany, Citizen
Bill Turlay, Vancouver Council Member
Andy Tweet, Citizen
Hannah Tweet, Citizen
Margaret Tweet, Citizen
Stefano Viggiano, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Lynda Wilson, Citizen
Andrew Young, MacKay Sposito
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 AssistantII. Approval of May 1, 2012, Meeting Minutes
NANCY BAKER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MAY 1, 2012, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY TOM MIELKE AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Written citizen comment on the Fourth Plain Locally Preferred Alternative was received from Penny Ross and Madeleine von Laue, Chair of the Clark County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Both documents will be included with the permanent meeting record.
Jeanne Stewart, Vancouver City Council, said she wanted to testify as a minority position on the Bus Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative. Ms. Stewart said her option as directed by the City Council was to approve the LPA even though she is not willing to do that, so Larry Smith is her alternate for today for the RTC Board. This allows her an opportunity to testify. She said she is concerned about moving forward with the LPA for Bus Rapid Transit primarily because we are looking in the first phase of this at $7-10 million capital costs that are the local costs and an 80% federal ratio. She said the local share of the capital costs could be up to $33 million for the three phases. There would also be maintenance and operation costs on the second and third phases. Ms. Stewart said there has been no viable financial plan that has been presented as to how the local share of the costs will be paid. She said to continue to move forward with an LPA, to her is not financially responsible. They need to know what the plan is, how much the plan costs, what our share of the costs are, and an idea of how we will pay for it. Ms. Stewart said she thought proceeding with caution for postponing the LPA would be her advice.
Andy Tweet, Camas, said he made some bus observations over the last few weeks and rode the bus on two weekdays. Regarding the bicycles loading and unloading, he said the time is only about 15 to 20 seconds and if there is more than one rider, the second would not necessarily extend the stop time for the bus, because in the time to load or unload the bus, the bike rider can have their bike loaded. In a round trip on bus #4 on the Fourth Plain corridor, he said he saw only one time when a bike rider was denied ridership because there were already two bikes in the rack. Mr. Tweet said he felt that currently there is no need to expand the capacity of buses for bikes. An alternative is a bike rack for multiple bikes. Also, if they cannot board the bus, they can always just ride their bike to their destination.
Hannah Tweet, Camas, made some observations in riding bus #4 in the Fourth Plain corridor. She said at times, there were people standing, but it was for only a few stops, and it was never someone who had mobility issues or an elderly person. If someone got on the bus that needed the front area designated for those with needs, someone would move to stand at the back area, usually only having to stand for a few stops. Ms. Tweet referred to the lifts for wheelchairs or other wheeled objects. She said at one stop, there was a walker, a stroller, and a cart. Only the walker used the lift to get on, but the combination of those three only took about two minutes. People moved to make space to accommodate them all, with about five people moving to stand for a few stops.
Carolyn Crain, Vancouver, said in looking at the bus rapid transit, she wondered how we end up with Metro being our boss. She referred to a Memorandum of Understanding with RTC and Metro that was approved by the RTC Board May 1, 2012, and by Metro in April. The MOU referred to RTC and Metro and their compliance with regional transportation planning and the coordination of the two Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Ms. Crain said it upset her that this MOU was signed, and said that Metro should not be able to tell us what to do.
Harry Kiick, Vancouver, spoke to the bus rapid transit issue. He said he lived on the Fourth Plain corridor for 13 years, is a member of the C-TRAN Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Corridor Advisory Committee. Mr. Kiick said all the information that he has seen and been given show that the alternatives given to improve the Fourth Plain corridor with bus rapid transit in the long term is by far the best. The others options have some short term gain, but the long term, no gain at all. The bus rapid transit adds safety to the corridor and allows more people on the buses. He said the corridor has grown a great deal and will continue to grow. The BRT gives support to that growth. Mr. Kiick said he supports the BRT and hopes that the RTC Board will too.
Judy Tiffany, Vancouver, said she was on the C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Committee and the Corridor Advisory Committee, and she is a co-chair for the Fourth Plain Village Neighborhood Association. Ms. Tiffany said she supports the BRT. She said the safety benefits will enhance our community. Ms. Tiffany regularly uses the bus system on the Fourth Plain corridor. She said she has had to wait for three buses, because the buses are full and so many people are standing. The bus cannot fulfill the capacity need there, and bus rapid transit would be a better deal for us.
Lisa Rasmussen, Vancouver, is the current chair of the C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Committee. She wanted to clarify some issues. Ms. Rasmussen said the CCAC did not withdraw their support for the BRT. They are in full support of the BRT. Their concerns are with the fiscal numbers that have changed and possibly the percentage of the federal participation. She said she has been a member of the CCAC for three years. They have been given a lot of information and an opportunity to vote on a recommendation. Ms. Rasmussen said as a driver and a transit rider, having the BRT will enhance and bring more business to our area. It will make it easier to access both sides of the river, regardless of what happens with the bridge or light rail. She said as a rider of the Fourth Plain corridor bus, she has had several times when it is standing room only. The BRT will allow people to get out further to the Cascade Park area. Ms. Rasmussen said the CCAC fully supports the BRT and would like to see it move forward. They understand that the number crunching needs to take place.
Derya Ruggles, Vancouver, said she cares what happens in the Fourth Plain corridor. She belongs to the Maplewood neighborhood. She said many are deeply concerned with the state of Fourth Plain, but it has great potential to be re-vitalized. The BRT proposal is a worthy investment that will give us a flexible transportation foundation. Ms. Ruggles said they want the healthiest, most efficient, cost effective way to move people in all modes, whether walking, riding a bike, taking a bus, or driving a car. BRT increases mobility for corridor residents and shoppers and helps provide a balanced system that could actually reduce congestion in the corridor in the future. She said we need to create a place we can be proud of and start by adopting the BRT plan.
Lynn Costello, Vancouver, expressed her concerns with the cost benefit of the BRT. She said she would not like us to emulate Seattle or Portland, but learn from their mistakes. She encouraged them to wait until they get the answers that they need rather than just accepting the projections that they want.
Lynda Wilson, Vancouver, said she is opposed to the BRT. She said no one can say what it will cost, how it will be paid for, or who will be paying for it. It should not go forward without answers to these questions. Ms. Wilson questioned the future numbers used for travel times and population growth and did not think it was accurate.
Garrett Delano, Vancouver, said he was representing David Madore who could not attend the meeting. He said he felt the need to oppose the BRT project. With our local economy burdened by high taxes and businesses struggling, this is not the time to spend more on a nonessential project. He said a better focus would be to lighten the tax burden on local businesses so they can provide local jobs. We should focus on efficiently using the resources we have.
Margaret Tweet, Camas, said she could not believe some of the claims of the BRT and looked into it. Her observations were on the #4 and #44 buses in the Fourth Plain Corridor. Ms. Tweet noted the travel times. She said she was interested in the number of wheelchair users, and the counts she was given were from an automated count of the lift device. Ms. Tweet said in her observations, no one in a wheelchair or scooter was denied access to the bus, and felt the times necessary for boarding were not accurate. She urged them to get accurate data before making a decision.
Sharon Nasset, Portland, referred to the BRT and the Locally Preferred Alternative. She said she has heard many say the numbers do not add up, and there are many questions. Ms. Nasset said there is not a reason to choose a Locally Preferred Alternative today. She said she has attended many of the meetings related to the BRT and said they can get many of the improvements with an enhanced bus system without going to BRT.
Mark Maggiora, Vancouver, is founder and director of a community development corporation called Americans Building Community. He said they are devoted to revitalizing the Fourth Plain corridor within the context of Vancouver’s Subarea Plan, and said his comments are the same that he gave to the City of Vancouver on the Locally Preferred Alternative. Mr. Maggiora spoke in support of the LPA recommendations and stated the project would be the most significant infrastructure investment in the corridor in years.
Jim Karlock, Portland, provided a handout of his comments, and spoke in opposition to the project, stating the problems with the bus system in the corridor can be achieved by other means than BRT.
Connie Jo Freeman, Washougal City Council and C-TRAN Board Member, provided a copy of her comments and said she felt Bus Rapid Transit is not for this time and a Locally Preferred Alternative should be Transportation System Management. She expressed concern of financing, and said a November ballot measure must be approved by the voters to allow any financing for BRT.
Debbie Peterson, Vancouver, spoke in opposition to the project, stating the current system serves the corridor adequately referring to travel times and lift times. She asked that the vote be postponed until they can look at the proper projections. Ms. Peterson also said ODOT should not vote on this, and Jeff Hamm should excuse himself and not vote.
Tiffany Couch, Vancouver, provided a handout and expressed concern about the lack of financing data for the BRT project and questioned whether C-TRAN’s ridership projections could be met based on the agency’s 2030 plan. Ms. Couch said Board Members should not pass the LPA until numbers that can support it are provided.
IV. Consent Agenda
- June Claims
- 2012-2015 MTIP Amendment: Camas Friberg/Strunk Street and Goodwin Road Project, Resolution 06-12-10
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA JUNE CLAIMS AND RESOLUTION 06-12-10. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DON WAGNER.
Chair Boldt thanked the Legislators for working to get funding for the Camas Friberg/Strunk Street and Goodwin Road project. It is a key project to the Camas area.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Locally Preferred Alternative C-TRAN Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project, Resolution 06-12-11
Dale Robins, RTC, served on the Project Management Team for C-TRAN’s Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project. Mr. Robins referred to the Staff Report and Resolution included in the meeting packet. At the May 1, 2012, meeting, RTC Board members were presented with the details of C-TRAN’s Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project Alternatives Analysis. Today’s requested action includes the adoption of a locally preferred alternative for the Fourth Plain Improvement Project.
Mr. Robins recalled that in December 2010, the Clark County High Capacity Transit Study along with designating Fourth Plain as the first priority corridor were amended into the long-range transportation system plan. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that prior to C TRAN proceeding into the next phase of project development, the MPO Board, which is the RTC Board, must adopt a Locally Preferred Alternative and subsequently amend the project into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Action today would fulfill the first requirement, and staff would return in the August or September RTC Board meeting to amend the project into the MTP.
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), as defined by the FTA includes a general description of mode, termini, and alignment. It broadly describes the recommended project and allows C TRAN to focus their future efforts toward the final design of the LPA. As with other projects, further project refinement and design is anticipated as the project moves forward in the project development phase. Substantial details that will be resolved during the project development phase include final alignment into Vancouver Mall, how to link from downtown Vancouver to Oregon, final station location and design elements, the finance plan, and other BRT and infrastructure improvements. Next steps include finalizing the financial plan and submitting a Small Starts application this fall.
Mr. Robins summarized the Locally Preferred Alternative noting that a full description of the LPA was included in the staff report and resolution. The transit mode is bus rapid transit in mixed traffic. The project termini is downtown Vancouver to the Westfield Vancouver Mall. The alignment is the Columbia River Crossing LRT route in downtown Vancouver, and then travels north on Fort Vancouver Way and east on Fourth Plain to the Vancouver Mall.
The requested action includes adoption of Resolution 06-12-11 which endorses the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project including mode, termini, and alignment.
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN Director of Development and Public Affairs, clarified what a Locally Preferred Alternative was and was not. He said they are not asking for permission to move forward and spend $40-$55 million to go build a BRT project. The LPA is about defining what the project looks like and some of the components that Mr. Robins highlighted. Following the FTA Small Starts process, which is a very rigid process not unlike the process that the CRC has and is going through in terms of being specific cost effective criteria, is what is happening with this project.
Mr. Patterson recalled at the last RTC Board meeting, a more detailed presentation was provided on the findings of the alternatives. The alternatives evaluated included two different Bus Rapid Transit alternatives both operating in mixed traffic, either curbside or median stations. There was a Transportation System Management alternative, enhancing existing bus service along the corridor. They also evaluated the No Build alternative per the FTA process. These alternatives went through a detailed round of modeling using the regional model by RTC and assisted by others. The model was approved by the Federal Transit Administration as part of this process. Mr. Patterson provided a summary of the extensive project outreach on the Fourth Plain Transit Improvement Project.
The project’s Corridor Advisory Committee recommended a Bus Rapid Transit mode operating primarily in mixed traffic. The termini are between downtown Vancouver east to the vicinity of NE 121st Avenue, with potential for future extensions to 162nd Avenus. The alignment will follow the future CRC LRT guideway in downtown Vancouver; McLoughlin, Fort Vancouver Way, Fourth Plain to the mall.
The Project Management Team recommended an LPA that was shared with City Council and was the same as the Corridor Advisory Committee recommendation with one notable change. The only difference compared to the CAC recommendation is the initial eastern terminus. The Project Management Team recommended ending at the Vancouver Mall transit center instead of going to the 121st Avenue area. They wanted the most cost effective project they could have for this first phase. The Vancouver City Council approved the LPA that the Project Management Team recommended on May 21.
Mr. Patterson said BRT could be operated to the Mall at or below the existing bus service costs. He highlighted other key points for why the BRT alternative was selected.
The capital cost estimates for the Van Mall terminus reflect $40-$55 million, a local match of $8-$11 million, and up to 80% eligible for federal Small Starts funding. The TSM alternative is $8-$12 million and is not eligible for federal Small Starts funding.
The LPA recommendation will go for review/action by C-TRAN Board at their June 12 meeting. They will complete the updated C-TRAN finance plan this summer. September is when the application for project funding from FTA is due. Completion of the environmental analysis is expected by early 2013 and project development later in 2013. Opportunities will continue for public and Citizen Advisory Committee involvement.
Chair Boldt said there were many questions during citizen comment. He asked just what the RTC Board was being asked to take action on.
Scott Patterson said following RTC’s action, the LPA will go to the C-TRAN Board. The Locally Preferred Alternative action defines the bus rapid transit operating in mixed traffic along the Fourth Plain corridor is something that we want to take to the next level of design. That means staff will work with FTA to submit the application to enter project development and move to the next level of design. It is not a commitment for funding.
Steve Stuart asked if action was taken by the RTC Board today, to put the BRT in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), is there further action by the RTC Board at the federal level. Mr. Lookingbill said today’s action relates only to the LPA and does not include amending the MTP. That subsequent action would take place in August or September after the project is further defined in the federal application. The second federal requirement would be after funding is established; the project must then be programmed in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.
Paul Pearce said the LPA has been recommended by the CAC and approved by the City of Vancouver. He asked why RTC was taking action before the C-TRAN Board. Mr. Lookingbill said it was a timing issue. Action would allow this to move forward recognizing that the C-TRAN Board will still have the final say. It will not be amended in the MTP until C TRAN has approved. Scott Patterson said from C-TRAN’s perspective, action would also allow them to know that their local partners are in agreement when it goes before the C-TRAN Board.
Larry Smith asked the expectations and time line for the Expert Review Panel. Scott Patterson said the Expert Review Panel has had a series of meetings over the last few months. They are in the process of beginning to draft their final report. Based on the current schedule, they will complete their report by the end of June and be released to the Governor, the Secretary of Transportation, the C-TRAN Board, and the Regional Policy Committee. At this point, it is expected to be verbally presented to the July C-TRAN Board meeting.
Don Benton asked for clarification on the action that the Corridor Advisory Committee took and if that action was before or after the City of Vancouver’s endorsement of the project. Scott Patterson clarified that there were two different committees. The Corridor Advisory Committee, which is businesses, residents, and riders along the corridor, were the first to endorse the LPA in May. There is also the C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Committee, which is a long-standing committee that deals with multiple C-TRAN issues, not just this project. They met last week and had a presentation on the LPA. At the end of their action, they voted to not move forward with the LPA for a variety of reasons. The Corridor Advisory was first to endorse, followed by City Council endorsement, and the C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Committee voted to not move forward. Lisa Rasmussen, Chair of the C-TRAN Citizen Advisory Committee clarified that they voted to not make a recommendation at this time until they could have more information on the cost.
Senator Benton said they had referred to BRT following along the light rail guideways. He said since it is not final that we will have light rail in Clark County, it would appear that this proposal adopts the position that it is a decision and questioned the costs and assumptions of light rail in this project. Scott Patterson said the issue of light rail is that they know one of the primary destinations for the route #4 riders is downtown Vancouver. Recognizing what they are faced with in terms of future traffic conditions in downtown Vancouver, the partnership, with the project, City staff, and C-TRAN, they wanted to make sure they had good bus service to the heart of downtown Vancouver. They saw one of the opportunities to do that would be to utilize the light rail guideway. It does make some assumptions, but if the CRC project or light rail project were to not go forward, this project does have independent utility. They would still be looking at a project to go into downtown Vancouver. FTA has directed them to treat the project as if it is going to be there, because they do have a light rail decision. Jeff Hamm said this project is not going to be putting funds into the construction of those light rail stations. This project could be on the ground and operating quite some time before the CRC project light rail happens. Chuck Green, C-TRAN BRT Project Manager said because of the interim period between when BRT opens and when light rail would open, they still need to operate BRT in downtown Vancouver.
Jack Burkman said it was stated that the Locally Preferred Alternative occurs when you have about 5% of the design complete. He asked what level of financial analysis does FTA expect when an LPA is submitted. Scott Patterson introduced Stefano Viggiano with the project consultant team. Mr. Patterson said FTA has a very specific set of criteria in terms of how you calculate your capital cost estimates as well as your operations and maintenance. Mr. Burkman said they have a rigorous process and you have to put the numbers into their formulas. Mr. Patterson said yes, and they have the opportunity to review them, and if they have questions, they have to ultimately approve what they provide to them or they will not allow the Alternatives Analysis to be complete or move to the next phase. Mr. Burkman asked if the information that is before us meet their requirements. Mr. Patterson yes that it does.
Tom Mielke said he doesn’t understand how we can come up with dollars and figures when we don’t know what we are going to build or if we will build it. He said he didn’t see the problem we were solving when we have an 8-10 minute savings. Commissioner Mielke said the Expert Review Panel is not done yet, and there is no design. He said it feels like they are “putting the cart before the horse” and moving too quickly without details worked out.
TOM MIELKE MOVED TO POSTPONE RTC ACTION OF THIS RESOLUTION UNTIL THE FINANCIAL PLAN IS MORE DEFINED. STEVE STUART SECONDED THE MOTION.
Steve Stuart said he spoke in favor of the motion, not because BRT isn’t the right solution. He said the system plan has been thoughtful, thorough, and fully vetted with a broad range of constituents. Commissioner Stuart said he thought the need has been thoroughly analyzed, and the design in the LPA offers good potential for a corridor that desperately needs it; an area of highest ridership for C-TRAN. This is not new. In 2008, the High Capacity Transit Corridor Study that was done identified Fourth Plain as the number one highest priority for enhanced transit services. It also defined within the 2030 timeframe, nowhere other than the downtown Vancouver area was going to have the ridership numbers, the balance of cost and benefit, to support light rail. The only solution for enhanced transit that made sense and it worked in Fourth Plain and on Highway 99 as a secondary corridor was enhanced bus service, specifically bus rapid transit. We have been on this path for quite a while. Commissioner Stuart said he supported the motion because of the finance plan. The LPA requires feasibility to be integrated into our Metropolitan Transportation Plan. He said he cannot deem it to be feasible until there is a finance plan. Commissioner Stuart said he thought they did have a plan; they were looking at a sales tax increase of one-tenth of one percent, half of which would go for BRT. More recently, that has been determined to not be the chosen way of proceeding. There may be alternatives that don’t require a tax increase, but the C-TRAN Board has not had an opportunity to look at those or to know whether or not they work. He said he understands that a couple of them require very significant policy shifts from the C-TRAN Board. Commissioner Stuart said until C-TRAN as a Board has had that conversation about the policy shifts being appropriate, he did not think the RTC Board could put it on the MTP. He said in 2008 they approved an LPA for the CRC with contingencies. One of the contingencies did identify a vote. Four years later we are still arguing if we are even going to have a vote. Commissioner Stuart said he could not move forward in good conscience on another LPA with a contingency.
Chair Boldt asked if the motion to be postponed is to a date uncertain. Commissioner Mielke said it would have to be to a date uncertain, because they do not have a date the financial plan comes forward.
Jeff Hamm said he will abstain from the vote since the C-TRAN Board has not taken action. He said the LPA is a manner of winnowing down the concept in terms of its alignment, terminus, and mode. He said they need that information to reach the point to have a better cost estimate and can look at the revenues that they may be able to work with to make it happen. Mr. Hamm asked if it would be sufficient to at least permit the LPA to be approved for further development to take place at this point and hold off on the MTP amendment. Mr. Lookingbill clarified that the resolution for action today is not requesting for the MTP to be amended.
Commissioner Mielke said there is still a motion on the floor.
Paul Pearce spoke in favor of the motion. He said he would like to see the C-TRAN Board take action first and does not necessarily need a financial plan down to the dollar. Commissioner Pearce said he would like to know if the C-TRAN Board is in favor of the project first.
Jack Burkman said he found the conversation challenging. Vancouver City Council has passed a resolution which is identical to the action requested to the RTC Board. He said his understanding is the action that was requested and taken at City Council was the piece that is to be forwarded to the FTA to move the process along. Specifically, it is the transit mode, project termini, and the alignment. There are financial analyses that are plugged into that, but adopting this resolution did not say there is a fully flushed out financial analysis that moves it forward. There is an agreement on the direction that it is to go. The mode is to be bus rapid transit in mixed traffic, on a particular route, and particular alignment. There is a lot of unknown, but that is to come back, but this was required to get into the federal process to line up for funding. He said he is confused as to the level of financial analysis that is truly needed at this point. This motion speaks to a high level. He appreciated what Mr. Hamm had said.
Steve Stuart said speaking to the high level of this. He said $8-$13 million capital cost, depending on what percentage actually comes from the federal government or not. There has been no analysis from C-TRAN Board and no analysis that is finalized from the ERP as to how they will get that, which is a significant component of whether you are going to approve a Locally Preferred Alternative is whether you can even buy it. Commissioner Stuart said you at least have to have a basic funding alternative figured out, and that is a C-TRAN Board question that’s got to be figured out.
Scott Patterson said they are planning at the Regional Policy Committee meeting the following week to provide a draft system finance plan as part of the Expert Review Panel process. It does identify the one-tenth of one percent additional sales tax. That is part of the overall C-TRAN System Finance Plan. It is not specific to the BRT project.
CHAIR BOLDT SAID THERE IS A MOTION TO DELAY THE LPA DECISION UNTIL THEY COME BACK WITH A PLAN FROM C-TRAN. THE MOTION PASSES 7 TO 3. BAKER, BOLDT, GANLEY, MCDANIEL, MIELKE, PEARCE, AND STUART VOTED YES. BURKMAN, SMITH, AND WAGNER VOTED NO. JEFF HAMM AND RIAN WINDSHEIMER ABSTAINED.
Senator Benton pointed out that he and Representative Moeller did not vote on the motion because the RCW does not authorize Legislative members to vote. The law allows them to make and second motions, but does not allow them to vote.
Dean Lookingbill noted the next two agenda items and the time remaining prior to the County Commissioners’ meeting. He said the items could be carried over to the next meeting, and they could finish the meeting with Other Business.
VI. 10-Year Transportation Priorities Project and Revenue Updates
VII. New Transportation Reauthorization Bill: Meeting with Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler
VIII. Other Business
From the Board
Rian Windsheimer with ODOT said construction season is underway. He said they have a lot of construction going on and provided a map of projects going on in Northwest Oregon. These are also listed on their Website. Mr. Windsheimer also provided a handout with information on the N/NE Quadrant and I-5 Broadway/Weidler Plans. This relates to the area around the Rose Quarter in Portland. ODOT in partnership with the City of Portland have been looking at how to improve that section of I-5. It adds an auxiliary lane in each direction, rebuilds a number of bridges, and relocates a number of ramps to make the area much safer and operate more reliably and efficiently. This plan is also listed on their Website.
Don Wagner said there will be major changes to St. John’s/SR-500 this weekend. They will be closing SR-500 Friday night, and when it reopens, St. John’s will be going over SR-500 on the new half of the bridge. Only the east side of St. John’s will have access to SR-500. They will immediately start building the west half of the structure, taking about four months. Mr. Wagner said they are ahead of schedule on the project. They gave incentives on the project, and the contractor plans to take advantage of that.
Mr. Wagner said the first phase of the SR-502 corridor project from Battle Ground to I-5 is in the process of being awarded. They have great local contractors that gave them great bids. The first phase is relocating utilities and the wetland issues followed by the second phase hopefully next year.
Chair Boldt said originally, the July meeting agenda was light, but the C-TRAN LPA may make a difference. The July meeting is on the 3rd. He questioned postponing agenda items until August and cancelling the July meeting. It was decided to wait until the C-TRAN meeting took place to see the outcome. They would hold the July 3 date for RTC, but that may cancel depending on C-TRAN action. Mr. Lookingbill would contact Board members of that decision.
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted C-TRAN Regional Policy Committee meets at 4:30 p.m. and Board of Directors at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, at Fisher’s Landing. JPACT meets Thursday, June 14, 2012, at Metro at 7:30 a.m.
The July 3 RTC Board meeting may be cancelled; if so, the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, at 4 p.m. (The July 3 meeting was later cancelled.)
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.
       
|