Below are the minutes for the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, held on Friday, October 21, 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, October 21, 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:
Gail Bauhs Human Services Council Jim Carothers City of Camas Justin Clary City of Ridgefield Todd Coleman Port of Vancouver Lynda David RTC Becky Eisiminger Port of Vancouver Richard Gamble Clark County Mark Harrington RTC Bob Hart RTC Katherine Klockenteger WSDOT Dean Lookingbill RTC Thomas Picco ODOT Matt Ransom City of Vancouver Sandi Roberts RTC Dale Robins RTC Scott Sawyer City of Washougal Bryan Snodgrass City of Vancouver Robin Washington Clark County Michael Williams WSDOT Phil Wuest City of Vancouver Dean Lookingbill, RTC, asked for any changes or corrections to the September 16, 2005, meeting minutes.
PHIL WUEST, CITY OF VANCOUVER, MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 MINUTES, AND BECKY EISIMINGER, PORT OF VANCOUVER, SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
II. Port of Vancouver Gateway Project: Transportation Issues, Discussion
Todd Coleman, Port of Vancouver, distributed handouts titled “Economic Development & Conservation Plan”, an aerial photograph of the “Port of Vancouver Columbia Gateway Development Conceptual Southern & East / West Rail Alignment”, and a colored copy of the slide presentation.
Todd highlighted the Port of Vancouver’s Economic Development and Conservation Plan designed to provide a balanced approach to maximize economic and environmental benefits. The key elements of this Plan include: the Columbia Gateway, Rufener Property, Rail and Road Improvements, Partnerships and Funding, and Environmental Stewardship. Todd pointed out that included in the handout was a Conceptual Drawing of Alternatives and Effects of the Economic Development and Conservation Plan, Economic and Job-Creation Goals, and Environmental Impacts. Todd said the aerial map shows the Conceptual East Rail Alignment, Conceptual West Rail Alignment, and the Conceptual Southern Rail Alignment and the conceptual drawing sheet shows the proposed NW 26th Avenue Extension.
Todd referred to the slide show presentation. Todd reviewed the South Alignment alternate access option to the Port of Vancouver. This option used an underpass to cross BNSF’s Portland to Seattle main lines; the UHG access and yard configuration was modified. Multiple routes to Columbia Gateway facilities were created. Todd said they simulated the option to develop comparable statistics with previous simulations. The Network was broken into six sections including main lines through the yard, Vancouver Yard tracks, and Port of Vancouver trackage. Train counts and delays were analyzed.
Todd recapped previous conclusions: 1) Current Vancouver network, including Port of Vancouver, is capacity constrained under current peak traffic levels, and 2) Existing access to Port of Vancouver was not sufficient to handle Columbia Gateway traffic without impact to BNSF.
The NW Alternate Access allows more Port of Vancouver trains to utilize Bypass for access to the Port and reduces usage of single-track connections. This access reduced delay levels to near or below Base Case levels for all sections of the network but the areas of congestion for the NW Access was the North end of the Bypass, the crossover moves to/from the Port at Felida and the single track between CGP facilities and UHG.
The South Alignment Access Modifications is a route that accesses the Port via an underpass which eliminates “at-grade” crossings of BNSF’s Portland – Seattle main line for a majority of Port of Vancouver trains. Todd reported that findings of the analysis of the South Alignment Access included a reduced number and duration of delays compared with the Base Case and NW Access for the entire network and for the Port of Vancouver trackage. This access reduces accumulated delays around the North and South ends of the Bypass. Todd highlighted the charts relating to the South Alignment Access Findings. Todd said the reconfiguration of the Port of Vancouver trackage reduced conflict points and delays seen in previous networks. United Grain Harvest (UGH) tracks allowed trains to arrive/depart without doubling and access to the Port’s Gateway area was improved.
Todd said in conclusion that the South Alignment option appears to be the best alternate access to the Port that has been studied by model simulation and will benefit both the Port and BNSF/UP traffic in the Vancouver area. Results may be able to be improved with slight reconfiguration of crossovers at the east end of the alternate route, at the west end of United Harvest Grain (UHG) Yard. There is also potential for reducing delays around the 70s Yard by modifying UP’s access. MainlLine Management believes the railroads will strongly support the South Alignment over previously tested “at-grade” options.
Todd said they hope to complete the NEPA process by June 2007, and at that time they will know if the South or the Northwest alignment will be preferred. Todd noted that the Port hopes to start construction in 2008 – 2010, which is a very aggressive schedule.
Dale Robins, RTC, asked if there was a cost estimate for each alignment. Todd said the details and cost calculations are still being made for the south alignment. The Northwest alignment was around $55 million and the Northeast was at $70 million. Lynda David, RTC, said she would reflect this planning process in in the MTP update. Becky Eisminger, Port of Vancouver, commented that MainLine Management, Inc. was used as consultant because they are staffed by former Burlington Northern Santa Fe employees, and the model they used is recognized by BNSF and Union Pacific. Dean Lookingbill, RTC, said that the Port may wish to keep RTAC informed as a preferred alternative is selected. This group could make a recommendation to forward any projects to the RTC Board of Directors.
III. MTP Update: Framework, System Improvements, Finance Plan and Strategic Plan, Discussion
Lynda David, RTC, distributed two handouts at the meeting “MTP Update 2005: Finance Plan Overview and Assumptions” and “The Strategic Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)”. Lynda David said that earlier in 2005, both RTAC and the RTC Board spent time discussing the framework for the MTP. It was acknowledged that the starting point of a Plan update should be articulation of key policies and goals to guide the Plan and shape its priorities. Lynda pointed out that in March 2005, the RTC Board reviewed the MTP Goals and Policies, and at the Board’s October meeting, a re-draft of Chapter 1 of the Plan was shared with the Board. Lynda referred to the attached draft of Chapter 1 and explained this draft incorporates revisions made to the MTP Goals and Policies, earlier in 2005. Lynda said by federal law, the MTP is required to be multi-modal and financially feasible. The MTP also needs to maintain consistency with state and local plans. State transportation policy is guided by Washington’s Transportation Plan (WTP), which is currently being updated. The county-wide transportation planning polices from Chapter 5’s Transportation Element of the Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan will be included in an Appendix to the MTP. Local policy has emphasized investment in the transportation system to support economic development and growth in the number of family wage jobs. Transportation project and strategies recommended in the MTP update should strike a balance to result in a transportation system that adequately and efficiently serves Clark County residents and businesses within the constraints of forecast revenue availability.
Lynda reviewed Chapter 1, and said the Framework and Purpose of the MTP is described on page 1 preceding the list of the MTP’s Goals. The Framework states that the transportation system is a component required to support the land uses defined in local Comprehensive Growth Management Plans. Lynda emphasized the MTP’s Purpose is to identify a future regional transportation system that provides mobility and access. The MTP is also one of the reports needed to fulfill federal requirements for continued receipt of federal transportation funding to this region. Lynda reviewed the re-drafted MTP Chapter 1 and highlighted some of the elements including the MTP’s vision, purpose, goals, scope, statutory requirements and decision-making involved in development of the MTP for Clark County. Lynda reviewed the Framework and Vision and said the development of the transportation system is one component required to support the land uses defined in local Comprehensive Growth Management Plans. The MTP is a collective effort to address the development of a regional transportation system that will help to achieve the land use vision presented in the local comprehensive plans, to facilitate planned economic growth and help sustain the region’s quality of life. Lynda reported the MTP identifies future regional transportation system needs and outlines transportation plans and improvements necessary to maintain mobility within and through the region as well as accessibility to land uses within the region. Lynda highlighted the MTP Goals, and said the MTP a long-range plan that outlines how transportation system and services will provide for the mobility and accessibility of people and freight within and through the region. Chapter 1 also acknowledges the passage of the federal Transportation Reauthorization Act, SAFETEA-LU. The state’s update, now underway, to Washington’s Transportation Plan is also described in Chapter 1. Lynda noted the Clark County Transportation Policies would be placed in the Appendix to the MTP.
Lynda next asked RTAC members to review the draft list of projects to be identified in the MTP. These projects will be listed in Appendix A of the document. She explained that the list includes both MTP Designated Regional Transportation System projects and local projects. Projects in italics are local transportation system.
Lynda handed out the “MTP Update 2005: Finance Plan Overview and Assumptions”. Lynda reviewed by saying the Federal rules require that the MTP be “fiscally constrained” meaning that there must be a reasonable expectation that revenues will be available to provide for the estimated costs of implementing the 25-year list of projects contained in the MTP and to support the operations and maintenance of the multimodal transportation system. The MTP Finance Plan focuses on the Designated Regional Transportation System.
Lynda said that in Chapter 4 a redraft of the financial plan would reflect adopted programs of the SAFETEA-LU (the safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users). Lynda said it is not yet known what will come to Washington State for each category of funding. These descriptors will reflect a nationwide level of funding.
Lynda noted the accomplishments since the last MTP as part of the Financial Plan Chapter 4 of the MTP. In the past 3 years alone, 2003-2005, over $227 million of regional highway system projects have been constructed in Clark County. In the 3 years, 2000 to 2002, $178 million of regional highway system projects were constructed in Clark County. Lynda said if this trend were to continue, the region could anticipate over $1.89 billion in funding for regional highway capital projects over the next 25 years. Since the 2002 MTP update, the Clark County region has secured over $25 million in federal funds specifically dedicated to this region, over $211 million in state Nickel package funding, over $18 million in federal transit funding, and over $48 million in state Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding. In 2005, the state legislature enacted an increase in gas tax and identified projects to be funded with this additional revenue. The 2005 Funding Package provides $244 million for projects in Clark County to make highways safer and keep traffic moving.
Lynda stated, in 1999 the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) was repealed resulting in reduction of funding for transit service. C-TRAN was faced with a 40% revenue reduction (about $12 million annually). In September 2005, voters in Clark County approved an increase in the sales tax rate of two-tenths of a percent, which should raise about $9.4 million annually for C-TRAN service. She said in August 2005, the City of Vancouver voted to increase sales tax by two-tenths of a percent, which will raise about $4.2 million a year for transportation.
Lynda pointed out the data on which to base the Finance Plan is from the past decade from WSDOT Economics Branch as well as MTP project cost estimates by WSDOT, local agencies and jurisdictions. Lynda said the level of transit service in 2030 assumes maintenance of the five-tenths of a percent sales tax, or equivalent funding, to help provide for the cost of transit service. The financial impacts for transportation projects identified in the MTP as a result of the vote on Initiative 912 will be addressed in the 2006 MTP update.
Lynda said the revenues for transportation system development are available from federal, state, local and private sources. She reviewed the Capital costs of the proposed improvements to the Designated Regional Transportation System saying that it is estimated to cost $1.863 billion (in 2005 dollars). The cost reflects the multi-modal system and covers ITS (Intelligent Transportation System), TDM, (Transportation Demand Management), and TSM, Transportation System Management improvements.
Lynda remarked the gas tax is the prime revenue source for transportation system improvements. However, there are some major problems relating to this revenue source: gas tax is a flat tax that does not keep pace with inflation, and more fuel efficient vehicles result in a decrease in gas tax revenues generated. Lynda also explained that Clark County collects more in transportation taxes and fees than it receives back in transportation revenues. From 1984 to 2003, the Clark County region contributed $1.278312 billion in transportation taxes and fees and has received back $948.129 million to use in funding transportation system improvements or in operating the transportation system. This amounts to a 74 cents return on each dollar contributed. As a significant urban area in Washington State, this region can expect to continue as a ‘donor’ region but if the ratio of contributions to distributions changes in Clark County’s favor, this could have a significant impact on the ability to fund transportation system improvements in this region. Lynda pointed out that WSDOT forecasts that Clark County is likely to contribute $1.327256 billion in transportation taxes and fees from 2004 to 2013 with a return to the County of $862.738 million; a 65 cents return on every dollar contributed. Lynda is still working on cost estimates and forecasting of funding and which needs to be in place for Clark County.
Lynda said given the analysis of data relating to funding of transportation operations, maintenance and system improvements, the MTP for Clark County is “financially constrained”. There is a need for additional transportation system improvement beyond the improvements addressed in the “financially constrained” MTP. Some of the additional need is addressed in the Strategic MTP in Appendix B of the Plan.
Dean reported that after presenting the MTP Update to the RTC Board, they were most interested in the list of projects, and focused on this list because it is a product of the capital facilities plans and then those projects on the highway side that address some kind of capacity need. Lynda distributed “The Strategic Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)” and said in the December 2002 MTP, there were four projects and/or planning concepts identified and they were A) a supplemental or replacement river crossing to the Interstate 5 Columbia River Bridge, B) the I-5/I-205/SR-500 Federal Transit New Start Alternatives Analysis, C) the I-5 North Discovery Corridor between Salmon Creek and La Center and D) Port of Vancouver Industrial lands Access from the North. Lynda pointed out that since 2002 and the amended MTP in 2003, planning has progressed. A proposal to include the following in the 2005 MTP’s Strategic Plan section was discussed: 1) Continuation of the CRC Study (to include analysis of improved access from SR-500 to I-5 north), 2) HCT Corridors, 3) Improved Access to the Port of Vancouver, and 4) Regional Transportation System: Future Needs which may include a corridor linking Battle Ground and Ridgefield (239th Street), and improvement to 72nd Avenue north.
IV. 2004-2006 Transportation Enhancement Prioritization, Action
Dale Robins, RTC, presented the 2004-2006 Transportation Enhancement Prioritization. He said there are twelve types of Enhancement projects that can be selected and these include pedestrian, bicycle improvements, safety and education for bicyclists and pedestrians, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic historical sites, scenic highways, landscaping, and historic preservation.
Dale pointed out that within the State, $42 million is available for the 2004-2006 Transportation Enhancement Program. Of the statewide total, 80% of the funding is distributed to the Regional Transportation Planning Organization’s (RTPO’s) based on population, and 20% ($8.4 million) is decided on by the statewide committee. Based on this RTPO’s three county (Clark, Skamania and Klickitat) population, our funding target is $2,248,000. Dale explained that each RTPO must provide to WSDOT a prioritized list of Transportation Enhancement projects equal to their target allocation, plus up to five additional projects. Projects that cross multiple RTPO regions can be submitted directly to WSDOT. Both RTPO submittals and statewide project applications are due to WSDOT on November 1, 2005.
Dale said the Statewide Enhancement Advisory Committee would first decide which statewide projects from multiple RTPO regions should be funded. Then regional priority projects will be selected. Additional statewide funding will then be used to select projects below the RTPO funding allocation, based on the discretion of the statewide committee.
Dale said RTC formed a regional evaluation team to evaluate proposed Transportation Enhancement projects submitted to RTC. Two RTC staff and a citizen used the regional transportation enhancement criteria to evaluate each project submitted within this region. The 2004-2006 Transportation Enhancement Priority projects for this region: 1) Confluence Land Bride, 2) Downtown Washougal Improvement, 3) Bike Vancouver Program, 4) Lyle-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility, 5) Salmon Falls Park and Ride, 6) Chelatchie Prairie Railroad/Trail Plan, and 7) SR-501 Scenic Viewpoint. RTC staff recommended two funding selection options for RTAC discussion. Both options would allow all seven projects to be submitted to WSDOT and to advance the Confluence project for statewide funding. There was RTAC discussion on the two options outlined in the RTAC Memo and a third option was proposed.
SCOTT SAWYER, CITY OF WASHOUGAL, MADE THE MOTION TO CREATE OPTION THREE TO ASSIGN THE BIKE VANCOUVER PROJECT MONEY TO THE NUMBER ONE PROJECT, THE CONFLUENCE LAND BRIDGE, THEREBY SHIFTING THE BIKE VANCOUVER PROGRAM DOWN TO THE NUMBER #5 POSITION AND MOVING THE LYLE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN AND SALMON FALLS PARK & RIDE PROJECTS UP TO THE #3 AND #4 POSITIONS. THIS OPTION IS TO BE FORWARDED AS RTAC’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE RTC BOARD FOR THEIR ADOPTION. JIM CAROTHERS, CITY OF CAMAS, SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
V. Other Business
A. RTAC Members
B. RTC Staff
i. Columbia River Crossing, Scope of Work
Dean distributed copies advertising the “Columbia River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement Agency Scoping Meeting” to be held on Friday, November 21 at the Hilton, Vancouver. Dean said RTC is involved with this project and participates in regular meetings. Regular reports can be provided to RTAC on project progress.
ii. TIB Project Selection – November 17th and 18th at the Vancouver Hilton
The TIB is due to meet in Vancouver on November 17th and 18th. A report on TIB project selection can be provided at the November RTAC meeting.
Dean also said that use of the federal earmarked funding for HCT corridor planning is part of RTC’s draft Work Program for 2006 and will be brought before the RTC Board at the November meeting.
Dale Robins introduced Gail Bauhs of the Human Service Council and was welcomed by RTAC members.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. The next meeting will be Monday, November 21, 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.
       
|