Below are the minutes for the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, held on Friday, April 18, 2003, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room East (6), at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street - Floor 4, Vancouver, Washington. The agenda for this meeting is also available.
I. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes
The meeting of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order on Friday, April 18, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Conference Room East (6) at Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street 6th Floor Vancouver, Washington. Dean Lookingbill, RTC Transportation Director, served as Chair for the meeting. Those in attendance follow:
Jim Carothers City of Camas Mike Clark WSDOT John Cullerton Metro Lynda David RTC Evan Dust Clark County Mark Harrington RTC Bob Hart RTC Kristin Hull Metro Dean Lookingbill RTC Ed Pickering C-TRAN Matt Ransom City of Vancouver Sandi Roberts RTC Dale Robins RTC Ellen Rogers Port of Ridgefield Brian Snodgrass City of Vancouver Bill Wright Clark County Phil Wuest City of Vancouver Dean Lookingbill asked for any changes or corrections to the March 21, 2003, Meeting Minutes.
MIKE CLARK, WSDOT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 21, 2003 MINUTES AND EVAN DUST, CLARK COUNTY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
II. Federal 2003 Transportation Appropriations MTIP Amendment #10, Action
Dale Robins, RTC presented the Federal 2003 Transportation Appropriations MTIP Amendment #10. He said in order for local jurisdictions to receive federal transportation funds, their projects must be listed in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP), which in turn becomes a part of the statewide State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Dale said the federal legislature has recently completed the Fiscal Year 2003 Transportation Appropriations Bill and added three projects totaling $8.6 million of federal dollars to our region. All three projects are currently in the MTIP and the requested amendment will only add additional dollars to the project. Dale said additional funding would be added to the MTIP for the following projects.
- Vancouver Mall Transit Center, $2.6 million in the Bus and Bus Facilities Program
- SE 1st Street Improvement, $3 million in the Interstate Maintenance Program
- Mill Plain Off Ramp to 112th Avenue, $3 million in the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program
Dale stated these projects would be programmed in the 2003 element of the 2002-2004 MTIP. Since this amendment does not add or remove projects from the MTIP, air quality conformity will not need to be redetermined. This amendment is found to be consistent with all state and federal requirements.
The proposed projects will amend the 2003 element of the MTIP. This amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, congestion management system, air quality conformity analysis, and is financially constrained.
PHIL WUEST, CITY OF VANCOUVER MADE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND RTC BOARD APPROVAL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL 2003 TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS MTIP WHICH WOULD PROVIDE $8.6 MILLION OF FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CLARK COUNTY REGION. ED PICKERING, C-TRAN SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APRROVED.
III. FY 2004 Unified Planning Work Program, Action
Lynda David, RTC presented the FY 2004 Unified Planning Work Program. She pointed out the draft copy of the FY2004 UPWP is attached to the memorandum. She said the UPWP also details the funding sources required to carry out the program and meet the major transportation policy issues of the upcoming year. The FY 2004 Work Program covers the period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
FHWA, FTA and WSDOT staff reviewed the draft UPWP document at the review meeting held on March 31, 2003. Lynda reminded RTAC members prior to the April 18th meeting they were asked to review the UPWP and check the work activities they anticipate that the MPO/RTPO should carry out during FY2004. To comply with federal transportation requirements [Metropolitan Planning Rule § 450.314], the UPWP mush describe “all metropolitan transportation and transportation-related air quality planning activities (including corridor and subarea studies) anticipated within the area during the next one or two period, regardless of funding sources or agencies conducting the activities”. Lynda said to meet these requirements; Section 4 of the FY 2004 contains a description of planning projects of regional significance, which local agencies anticipate they will carry out during FY 2004.
Lynda reviewed the draft UPWP Unified Planning Work Program and highlighted each section. She highlighted the timeline for completion, adoption and submittal of the FY2004 UPWP.
RTC FY 2004 Unified Planning Work Program Development
Date Meeting Action Friday, April 18 RTAC Recommend RTC Board adoption of FY 2004 UPWP Tuesday, May 6 RTC Board Adoption of FY 2004 UPWP By Thursday, May 30 Submit adopted FY 2004 UPWP to WSDOT Planning Office By Late June WSDOT to submit FTA funding application on behalf of MPO’s July 1, 2003 Approved FY 2004 UPWP takes effect Lynda said we have worked with Metro on their Unified Work Program and our draft of the UPWP and they have adopted both documents. The RTC Board will be asked on May 6th to update the Memorandum of Understanding between RTC and Metro to reflect the evolution of the Bi-State Committee.
PHIL WUEST, CITY OF VANCOUVER MADE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF RTC’S 2004 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP), CONTINUATION OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) FUNDING AGREEMENT, ENDORSEMENT OF METRO’S FY 2004 AND REVISION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN RTC AND METRO, EVAN DUST, CLARK COUNTY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IV. 2002 CMS Preliminary Findings and 2000 Census Place of Work Data, Discussion
Lynda David, RTC presented the 2002 CMS Preliminary Findings and 2000 Census Place of Work Data. Lynda pointed out the memorandum from the RTC Board was at the back of the RTAC memorandum, the Comprehensive Plan alternatives agenda item highlighted data relating to future jobs in Clark County, jobs-housing ratios and cross river travel implications. From transportation planning perspective, some of the most eagerly anticipated census data is the county-to-county worker flow data. This agenda item reports on the 2000 data that was released within the past month as well as comparisons with 1990. The county-to-county worker flow data is compiled from Census 2000 responses to the long-form sample questions on where people work.
Lynda said the purpose of this item is to summarize preliminary findings for the 2002 congestion management monitoring effort and report on the 2000 Census Place of Work data. Lynda reviewed the maps that illustrate the preliminary findings of the 2002 congestion management monitoring effort on the 2000 Census Place of Work.
As part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the RTC Board of Directors adopted the Congestion Management System (CMS) for the Clark County region in May of 1995. The CMS program has been continued from this point forward and provides valuable information on the performance of the transportation system. The objectives of the CMS are to provide a continuing analysis of
Transportation system congestion and thereby help protect the region’s investment and improve the future transportation system.
Lynda pointed out the 2002 Congestion Management Monitoring project continued the collection of baseline data and will result in the development of a 2002 Congestion Management Report. In addition, staff will make the report and transportation data available on the RTC Web site. The CMS network was changed in 2002 to add NW 78th Street west of I-5 and Padden Parkway east of SR-503.
Lynda highlighted the tables in the Memorandum:
- Table 1: Clark County Employed Labor Force and Commuting out of Clark County
- Table 2: Jobs in Clark County and Commuting into Clark County
- Table 3: Clark County Commuters: 1960 to 2000
- Table 4: Comparison of Clark County with Other Suburban Counties
Lynda said Clark County residents reported in 114 different counties and 9 different countries for work at the time of the year 2000 census. People from 91 different counties throughout the United Stated reported that they were working in Clark County at the time of the 2000 census. Lynda said 31.7% (51,813) of the Clark County labor force that is employed traveled to work in Oregon in 2000. Clark County saw the largest growth in employed labor force in the 1990s.
Dale Robins, RTC reported that we are continuing forward with our 2002 congestion management studies. Dale said the performance of the CMS corridors throughout 2002 was similar to previous years, and although the data elements are usually an one day snap-shop, some variation is to be expected. There were some significant differences between 2001; most of these differences can be attributed to road construction or road improvements. While the full report will provide all the details, here is a summary of some of the differences between the 2001 and 2002 Congestion Management Reports.
Dale reviewed the maps of the preliminary findings.
- Corridor Congestion Ratio 2002 PM Peak Hour
- 2002 CMS Corridors
- Speed as Percent of Speed Limit 2002 PM Peak Two Hours
- Corridor Travel Speed 2002 PM Peak Two Hours
- Average Vehicle Occupancy Rate 2002 PM Peak Two Hours
There was discussion of including notes regarding construction impacts on the data and information on intersection congestion that is obscured by the nature of the corridor-based analysis.
V. GMA LOS Standards – Roles and Requirements, Discussion
Lynda presented the GMA LOS Standards – Roles and Requirements. Lynda said one of the key issues that the transportation element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan must address is Level of Service (LOS). The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that local jurisdictions planning under the GMA adopt LOS standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes.
Lynda said we need some discussion of the transit route level of service. Does this refer to the roads used by the transit system, the bus running along the route, or is it level of service expectation of transit service that is provided along certain routes. We need to look at these definitions and issues.
Lynda referred to the Table 1 in the Memorandum and she highlighted the Transportation Facilities, Concurrency and LOS.
Facility Level of Service* Concurrency State
(Highways Statewide Significance) (HSS)LOS set by state in consultation with locals.
State has final authority to establish LOS on HSS).Concurrency requirements of GMA do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance (except in Island County). Regional
State Highways and FerriesLOS set through a coordinated process (RTPO) with state, region, and local input. Concurrency requirements (as amended in 1998) does not address state-owned transportation facilities other than HSS. Local
Transportation SystemLOS identified and set by locals through the local (GMA) planning process. Concurrency required under GMA for local transportation facilities. * Level of service or alternative transportation performance
measures as identified in RCW 47.80.023The state has the requirements set for level of service for the highways and statewide significance, which are I-5, I-205, SR-14 and SR-501 to the Port. SR-500 is not included but is part of the national highway system.
Lynda reviewed the GMA Plans: Transportation Element Checklist. The source is Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD). She highlighted the required Elements/Consistency and those addressing LOS and Concurrency.
- Regionally coordinated LOS standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system; LOS for highways of state-wide significance; LOS of other state highways consistent with the regional transportation plan.
- Identification of specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities and services that are below an established LOS standard.
- Policy for transportation concurrency
Lynda pointed out Level of Service from the excerpt from Chapter 3 MTP for Clark County (December 2002). She highlighted the Level of Service Standards on Highways of Statewide Significance and Highways of Regional Significance. The challenge will be to maintain established LOS standards with limited funding.
Dean Lookingbill said we understand a series of alternatives are being looked at and a preferred alternative still has to be developed and set of issues transcends all of that and is a lengthy process. Dean asked if need a small working technical group from each jurisdiction to talk about level of service.
Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver, said that he would like to look to the MTP for LOS for the regional system and the transit system.
Evan Dust, Clark County said we need in this process is the role of C-TRAN. What will transit service look like given the preferred alternative land use?
Ed Pickering, C-TRAN, said that given C-TRAN’s funding outlook that the county should not expect the addition of much more service, but an increase in the utilization of existing service.
VI. Obligation of Federal Funds: Project Status Report, Discussion
Dale Robins, RTC presented the Obligation of Federal Funds. He said as a region, we have discussed the importance of moving forward with the obligation of regional federal funds. With 2003 being the final year of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), it is essential to meet our obligation levels as soon as possible. TEA-21 funding will be available until the State reaches obligation levels, which could happen any day. To meet our regional obligation levels the region would need to obligate an additional 173,761 of STP dollars and 1,140, 413 of CMAQ dollars.
Dale highlighted the TEA-21 obligation spreadsheet for STP, DMAQ, Section 5307 & 5309, STP Competitive, and Transportation Enhancement. Approximately $14.1 million in federal regional transportation funds are programmed in year 2003. Of the total regional dollars programmed in 2003, $4,629,000 has been obligated as of the end of March, $2, 813,298 remain to be obligated this year, and $6,609,567 will be delayed to 2004.
Dale said that state would not hit obligation levels at the state level until late summer or fall.
Dale referred to the tables on the attached pages. The highlighted Surface Transportation Program (STP) ones are obligated, Battle Ground, SR-502 Gateway Corridor (CN) and Clark County, NE 199th St., SR-5-3 to 142nd Avenue (CN). Section 5307 & 5309 (Transit Operating & Capital), C-TRAN projects are Transit Enhancement (TR) and Preventative Maintenance (TR).
VII. Locally Preferred Alternative for the South Corridor Project, Discussion
Richard Brandman, Metro, presented Locally Preferred Alternative for the South Corridor Project. He reviewed some things that are happening regarding transportation finance in the Metro area. There is a recommendation for a multi-model transportation funding package that includes 190 million dollars for the freeway system, 80 million dollars for off system road projects and sidewalks and 250 million dollars for light rail (LRT). He said their council has accepted this recommendation and due to the need to satisfy the double majority requirement the funding ballot would most likely go to the voters in November 2004 or 2006.
Richard Brandman reviewed the current LRT system. The current South Corridor recommendation is an outgrowth of the original South/North process that called for the light rail to come from Clackamas County through Milwaukie SE Portland downtown Portland north Portland and then into Vancouver. When that project started in the 1990’s hope and desire to do that as one integrated project. When financing issues arose first in Vancouver and then in Oregon the whole structure of that project got changed and what resulted in the Interstate MAX Project being the only segment that went to construction. Actually the Federal Government was ready to sign the whole thing. The result of only the Interstate MAX going forward as light rail led us to ask what are we were going to do on the south corridor and that led us to an extensive public process that concluded that we were not going to pursue light rail in those corridors and that we were going to pursue a non-LRT transit option. The study went on for year and a half. The studied options that included a busway from downtown Portland – Milwaukie -Clackamas, river transit, commuter rail, HOV lane to Portland to Clackamas. At the end of the year the community said we don’t like any of those options.
Milwaukie said they were ready for light rail after they got further into the study and Metro said initially said no. The Milwaukie Mayor, City Councilors and neighborhood Collation organized a 14 point letter, why and how they wanted light rail. They came to Metro and presented it to a couple of councilors and the deputy office. The LRT option did come back into the study.
He gave an overview of SDEIS. The following six alternatives were studied in the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS):
- No Build
- Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
- Busway
- Milwaukie Light Rail (LRT)
- I-205 Light Rail (LRT)
- Combined Light Rail (Milwaukie and I-205
Richard said the recommendations are for two phased projects. First, a LRT line from I-205 light rail from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center and a second line from downtown Portland to Milwaukie.
Richard said we had a hearing at our council and the Milwaukie residents showed a change of attitude. The Milwaukie residents wished they could have been the first LRT line be built. He said they let Milwaukie determine how light rail would work and serve Milwaukie and make a great difference in the process.
The I-205 segment was selected as the first phase because it had the highest ridership numbers and the much of the required right-of way already exist along I-205. There was some concern that this may not be the time to move forward with large capital projects given the state of the economy, but it was concluded that investing in transportation infrastructure would be good for the economy and create 7000 construction jobs. There is yet additional work to be done. The new downtown alignment needs an EIS completed. More work needs to be done for the Federal Transit Administration, as well as the production of a final EIS for the entire project. The goal is to construct the I-205 portion from 2006 to 2009 and the Milwaukie phase between 2009 and 2012.
VIII. Other Business
A. RTAC Members
Dean Lookingbill reminded RTAC Members that Senator Murray will be here April 24th 5:15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. at the Mill Plain connector.
B. RTC Staff
MTIP Kick Off: Dale said the MTIP is schedule for Thursday, April 24th 11 a.m. 4th floor conference room. Will be talking about criteria, the schedule and the process. We have to have it adopted by October 14th, 2003.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. The next meeting will be Friday, May 15th, 2003.
For More Information Contact:
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Floor 4
Vancouver, Washington 98660Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-397-6132
E-mail: info@rtc.wa.govServed by C-TRAN Route 3.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.
       
|