Below are the minutes for the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, held on Friday, March 18, 2005, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in the Training Room 679 (6th Floor), 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 Approval of Minutes
The meeting of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order on Friday, March 18, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in the Conference Room (6th Floor) at the Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street Vancouver, Washington. Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director served as Chair for the meeting. Those in attendance follow:
Sam Adams City of Battle Ground Jim Carothers City of Camas Mike Clark WSDOT Justin Clary City of Ridgefield Lynda David RTC Rebecca Eisiminger Port of Vancouver Richard Gamble Clark County Mark Harrington RTC Bob Hart RTC Shinwon Kim RTC Katherine Klockenteger WSDOT Dean Lookingbill RTC Mike Mabrey Clark County Thomas Picco ODOT Ed Pickering C-TRAN Matt Ransom City of Vancouver Sandi Roberts RTC Dale Robins RTC Debbie Elven-Snyder C-TRAN Bill Wright Clark County Phil Wuest City of Vancouver Dean Lookingbill, RTC asked for any changes or corrections to the February 18, 2005, meeting minutes.
BILL WRIGHT, CLARK COUNTY MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 18 2005 MINUTES AND JUSTIN CLARY, CITY OF RIDGEFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
II. 2005-2007 MTIP AMENDMENT #4: C-TRAN, Action
Dale, RTC reported that C-TRAN had received federal discretionary funding in both the 2003 and 2004 federal appropriation bills for three projects that were delayed. Dale said all three projects have previously been programmed in the MTIP but were mistakenly not carried forward into the 2005-2007 MTIP. C-TRAN is requesting an MTIP amendment to add these three projects back into the 2005-2007 MTIP.
Dale reviewed the projects, 1) The Vancouver Mall Transit Center project received $2.5 million of Section 5309 discretionary funds in the federal 2003 appropriation bill. However, the project was delayed due to negotiations with the mall management. This project will be amended into the 2005 element of the MTIP. 2) The Bus Replacement project received $2.9 million of Section 5309 discretionary funds in the federal 2004 appropriation bill. However, C-TRAN was only granted obligation authority in 2004 for a portion of the project, due to the delay in passing a new federal transportation reauthorization bill. This project will amend the remaining funds into the 2005 element of the MTIP. 3) The VAST ITS project received $1.4 million of Section 5208 discretionary funds in the federal 2004 appropriation bill. This project was delayed to 2005, and will be obligated with C-TRAN’s 2005 appropriation and CMAQ awards to complete the VAST ITS project.
Dale noted the letters from C-TRAN for the request to amend the 2005-2007 Transportation Improvement Program and the programming of the projects that were attached to the memorandum.
Ed Picking, C-TRAN pointed out that these are all on-going projects.
MIKE CLARK, WSDOT MADE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE RTC BOARD ADOPTION OF THE 2005-2007 MTIP AMENDMENT FOR C-TRAN AND MATT RANSOM, CITY OF VANCOUVER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ed Pickering gave an update of where C-TRAN stands. He said they have gone through the process to cut back the service in September 2005 and to enact a fare increase in May of this year. He said they want to bring back the service boundaries to something that is more urban than countywide. He said they had a committee that was made up of elected representatives from each of the cities and the three county commissioners. They came up with a proposal to develop a transit service boundary that includes the UGB’s of Vancouver, Camas, and Washougal and the city boundaries of Ridgefield, La Center, Battle Ground, and the Town of Yacolt in which they are all connected by roadways that C-TRAN would run a closed-door service.
Ed said there would be a public meeting March 29, 2005 at which point they will finalize their recommendation. The recommendations will have to be endorsed by the three county commissioners within 30 days and each city has 60 days to decide if they accept the proposals. Ed pointed out that by June they would know what the service boundary would look like. In June some personnel will be notified of lay-offs, and by September C-TRAN may see an erosion of service with lack of personnel.
Dean Lookingbill, RTC noted that the C-TRAN Board might allow a ballot measure seeking increased revenue prior to C-TRAN looking at reduction of service.
Sam Adams, City of Battle Ground, asked if the ballot measure didn’t pass, would Battle Ground continue to get some kind of service. Dean said they would implement a new service plan but use the old plan until the new plan was in place.
C-TRAN has been doing extensive studies on the Portland commuter bus routes and will be implementing a new fare for the commuter routes of $105 a month to downtown Portland.
III. FY 2006 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), Action
Lynda David, RTC explained that the FY 2006 Work Program covers the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 and provided draft copies of the FY 2006 UPWP. Lynda said prior to the March 18th meeting, RTAC members were asked to check the UPWP to ensure that it reflects the work activities they anticipate the MPO/RTPO should carry out during FY 2006.
Lynda said on February 14th RTC and Metro held Federal and State reviews of their respective UPWPs. There were comments made suggesting the inclusion of the state and federal emphasis areas into the UPWP each year and they have now been incorporated into the introduction section. Key transportation issues facing the region are also listed in the introduction. Lynda briefly discussed the organization of the UPWP document and its key elements.
Lynda reported that one of the key elements in FY 2006 is updated the Metropolitan Plan and also in FY 2006 we will continue to work with the state in updating the Washington Transportation Plan.
Lynda said perhaps the most interest to RTAC Members is Section 4, she asked RTAC members to review the “Key issues and planning activities for the WSDOT Southwest Region within the RTC’s region”. If there are any changes, notify her by Tuesday, March 22nd.
Lynda distributed updates from pages 37, 38 and 39 from the FY2006 Unified Planning Work Program. This listed the updates for C-TRAN, Regional Transportation Planning Studies, Transit System Development, Transit Demand Management, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), and Clark County has identified their planning studies.
Lynda said that she was seeking a motion from RTAC to recommend to the RTC Board the adoption of the FY 2006 UPWP that would go before the RTC Board on April 5th so the UPWP could be submitted to the state by the June 1st deadline. She then asked if there were any changes that should be made.
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver, will provide Lynda with a change for the city’s CTR section. There were some questions regarding inserting a heading for the Port of Vancouver so they could include their Gateway EIS. Matt said the city’s 26th Avenue project is a part of the Gateway EIS and the city and the port are working together.
PHIL WUEST, CITY OF VANCOUVER MADE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE RTC BOARD ADOPTION OF THE FY 2006 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) INCLUDING THE CHANGES TO THE CTR PROGRAM AND GATEWAY AND ED PICKERING, C-TRAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IV. Washington State Legislature Transportation Update: Regional Projects and Transportation Bills, Discussion
Dean Lookingbill, RTC reviewed the following Senate Bill Reports and the House of Representatives Bills.
- Senate Bill (SB6016) is providing local transportation funding options and its companion bill was (HB 1989).
- Senate Bill (SSB 5177) is an act relating to transportation benefit districts, the law governing transportation benefit districts is expanded and has revenue options.
- Senate Bill (SB 5164) The Department of Transportation (DOT) may impose mitigation or mitigation fees on development activities that create additional significant demand and need for improvements to highways of statewide significance (HSS) and related facilities or to state highways in an urban growth area (SHUGA).
- House Bill (HB1565) is concurrency strategies; this brought in multi-model performance standards and multiple modes of transportation with peak and non-peak hour capacity performance standards on locally owned transportation facilities. Dean said the proposed regional transportation approach of the plan must, for regional growth centers, address transportation concurrency strategies required by the GMA and include a measurement of vehicle of service for off-peak periods and total multimodal capacity of peak periods.
- Senate Bill (SB 5513) is restructuring of certain transportation agencies. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the Senate, and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. The Secretary assumes authority previously directed to the Washington Transportation Commission to propose the WSDOT agency budget and to authorize departmental request legislation. The Washington Transportation Commission retains certain authority, including statewide transportation planning, bonds issuance, and serving as the state’s tolling authority and setting ferry fares, and sharing responsibility for project selection and funding. Additionally, the Commission receives an expanded role as a public forum for transportation policy development. The Transportation Policy Institute (TPI) is established within the Washington Transportation Commission, to conduct research, prepare studies, and periodically submit recommendations to the Legislature regarding transportation policy issues of statewide significance. The LTC is dissolved.
- The House Bill (2124) is increasing state participation in public transportation service and planning. This Bill creates the Office of Transit Mobility in the Department of Transportation. The Regional Mobility Steering Committee is created to distribute federal funds. The Office will be subject to review by the Transportation performance Audit Board (TPAB). The Office of Transit Mobility is given the responsibility to review local and regional plans to ensure the efficient integration of multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional planning. The appointees include two representatives of transit agencies, from an urban and a rural area; one representative from port districts; one representative of non-motorized transportation interest; one representative from a regional transportation planning organization; two representatives of counties, from large and small population counties; and two representatives from cities, from large and small population cities. The Regional Mobility Steering Committee will distribute federal surface transportation program funds made available under the successor act to TEA-21.
- Senate Bill (SB5139) is an act relating to highway and bridge tolling authority. The statutory language relating to the approval of toll roads is clarified to indicate that the State Transportation Commission as the state toll authority imposes tolls and authorizes construction of toll roads.
- The House Bill (HB 1064) goal is improving government performance and accountability. This creates a Citizen Oversight Board to develop assessments and grading systems for state agencies. This authorizes the State Auditor, in collaboration with the Board, to develop and implement a plan for performance audits of state government. This directs the state agencies to implement quality management programs. The Citizen Oversight Board must establish and conduct an annual assessment and performance-grading program of all state agencies on a phased-in schedule.
- The House Bill (HB 1541) is enacting the Transportation Innovative Partnerships Act. This authorizes a new public-private partnership law for transportation projects. The state or local governments are eligible to participate and available for all modes of transportation. The transportation projects must be publicly financed.
- The House bill (SHB 1969) is an act relating to modifying goals for the planning, operation, and performance of and investment in the state transportation system. The Legislature’s intent is expanded to include an expectation that the budget submitted for the Department of Transportation will identify performance levels funded by the budget. The summary of the Substitute Bill is the priority goals for public investments in transportation are replaced. The goals include: maintaining the existing system, managing the existing system and investing in the system.
- The House Bill (HB 1970) is improving government management, accountability, and performance. The state agencies are required to develop and implement a management, accountability, and performance system. Managers and staff at all levels must be involved and training must be provided.
- The House Bill (HB 1989) is providing local transportation funding options. This bill authorizes a county, city or town to impose up to a twenty-dollar annual vehicle fee. This authorizes a county, city or town to impose a scale weight fee. A county may levy twenty percent of the state’s fuel tax rate with voter approval. This also authorizes a city or town to create a street utility service area.
The “RTC Region Transportation Projects New State Revenue Package” was distributed to the RTAC members. Dean said after talking to Representative Deb Wallace, she said she would like to see a list of projects for a revenue package. Dean gave a brief summary of some of the projects.
Dean asked each jurisdiction what their number one and two project choices would be.
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver will notify RTC with the changes on cost estimates on (NW 26th Avenue – Port of Vancouver/BNSF North Rail Access) and the break down for all SR-500 improvements individually.
V. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update 2030 Land Use Forecast, Discussion
Distributed to the RTAC members were the “GMA Growth Allocation and Transportation Analysis Framework”.
Mark Harrington presented the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update: 2030 Land Use and said RTAC members had recommended to the RTC Board a horizon year of 2030 to meet the federal requirements for at least a 20-year planning period and to support major transportation planning studies ongoing in the region such as I-5 Columbia River Crossing, the I-205 Environmental Assessment, and the SR-14 corridor study. Mark stated at the February and March RTC Board meetings, the RTC Board of Directors discussed the horizon year of the MTP update and concurred with the RTAC’s recommendation of a 2030 horizon year.
Mark said a significant step in developing an MTP with a 2030 horizon year will be the development of a 2030 regional travel demand forecast. RTC’s regional travel demand model uses a regional forecast of households and employment as major input into the travel forecasting process and will require a 2030 land use allocation. Mark pointed out at the March RTC Board meeting, RTC staff proposed to stay consistent with regional population and employment growth policies established during the county’s comprehensive planning process and grow the county’s total population and employment out to 2030 using the same growth assumptions as were used in the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. He said the RTC Board directed staff to move forward and work with county and local jurisdiction staff to develop a 2030 land use allocation for use in the regional travel demand forecast model. Mark said Clark County staff, in coordination with local jurisdiction staff has recently completed a 2023 land use allocation based on the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan that was adopted in September of 2004. Mark pointed out this 2023 land use allocation will form the base from which the county’s population and employment are grown another seven years to 2030.
Mark reviewed the development of the countywide 2023 GMA household and employment allocation and the population and employment figures associated with each step in the process. He presented two possible 2030 forecasts for population and employment using the population and employment growth policies established under the county’s GMA process. The difference in the two forecasts was the base from which the forecast was made, end of year 2003 and the 2023 GMA TAZ allocation. RTC, County and City of Vancouver staff favored forecasting from the 2023 GMA TAZ allocation, as travel modeling results of the 2023 TAZ allocation and the 2030 TAZ allocation should be the result of seven years of population and employment growth. Mark suggested that the allocation of the 2023 to 2030 growth increment should use the proportional growth of population and employment for UGAs between the year 2000 TAZ allocation and 2023 GMA allocation as a starting point. Local jurisdictions would be responsible for final allocation to TAZs within their UGAs. Mark said that he has already scheduled a meeting with all local jurisdiction land use planning staff to work out the details for allocating the 2023 to 2030 growth and encouraged RTAC members to follow-up with their land-use planning staff on the importance of this effort.
Dean said what he was looking for from this group is the methodology that this seems to make sense to do the GMA and land use process.
Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver said the city was comfortable on the 2030 totals for allocation and said using 2000 to 2023 proportional growth by UGA would be a good place to start the discussion for allocation of the 2023 to 2030 growth increment.
Becky Eisiminger, Port of Vancouver asked how the Casino in La Center would affect the 2030 numbers. Dean respond that currently the discussion of the casino is only beginning, and there is not something concrete to put into the forecast; however, we will have a good future base upon which we can show the impacts of proposed casino development as that process moves forward.
VI. Other Business
Katherine Klockenteger, WSDOT distributed to the RTAC members “WTP Phase 2 Work Plan” and said this was handed out from the Commission Meeting. Katherine said they would have four work shops in April and finish up the last two in May. She said they plan to have this completed by December 2005. Katherine will e-mail Dean all the dates for the Commission meetings.
A. RTAC Members
B. RTC Staff
Dean distributed to RTAC Members “High Priority Projects March 2005” which is a list of federal reauthorization and appropriations lists that made it through the House of Representatives and still needs to go through the Senate. There are a number of high priority earmarks and they go by Congressional districts, and this summarizes what Oregon and Washington has listed.
Mark reminded RTAC members on March 24th there would be a Land Use Allocation meeting regarding the 2030 forecast from the 2023 TAZ allocation and all jurisdictions are invited. Hopefully the 2023 model run will be finished by April 15th and available for use.
Dean noted at the next RTC Board Meeting, April 5th they will be focusing on North County issues, the May meeting they will do an East County focus, and possibly a transit focus, the June RTC Board Meeting, they will take a look at the central Vancouver.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. The next meeting will be Friday April 15, 2005.
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.
       
|