Below are the minutes for the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, held on Friday, April 21, 2006, 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, April 21, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in the Training 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:
Jan Bowers City of Vancouver Justin Clary City of Ridgefield Lynda David RTC Rebecca Eisiminger Port of Vancouver Mark Harrington RTC Bob Hart RTC Mark Herceg City of Battle Ground Shinwon Kim RTC Casey Liles WSDOT Dean Lookingbill RTC Mike Mabrey Clark County Steven Mathews WSDOT Kevin Miller WSDOT Ed Pickering C-TRAN Sandi Roberts RTC Dale Robins RTC Scott Sawyer City of Washougal Bryan Snodgrass City of Vancouver Dean Lookingbill, RTC, asked for any changes or corrections to the March 17, 2006, meeting minutes.
ED PICKERING, C-TRAN, MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 17, 2006, MINUTES AND MIKE MABREY, CLARK COUNTY, SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
II. 2006-2008 MTIP Amendment #5: WSDOT, Action
Dale Robins, RTC, presented 2006-2008 MTIP Amendment #5: WSDOT and said all regionally significant projects must be listed in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP), which in turn becomes a part of the statewide State Transportation Improvement Program.
WSDOT is requesting an MTIP amendment to add funds for the WSDOT share of an ODOT project to repair cracks in the I-5 Interstate Bridge Southbound structure stringers. This proposed amendment does not add a capacity project to the MTIP, but adds funding for the repair of the I-5 Interstate Bridge. This amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Congestion Management System, air quality conformity analysis, and is financially constrained. This will allow ODOT and WSDOT to maintain the Interstate Bridge.
Dale pointed out that regionally significant funded projects should be programmed in the MITP and STIP. Acton on this amendment will provide $99,000 in federal Interstate Maintenance funds and $1,000 of State funds for the repair of cracks in the stringers of the southbound Interstate Bridge. This is WSDOT share of the ODOT project.
JUSTIN CLARY, CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE RTC BOARD ADOPTION OF THE 2006-2008 MTIP AMENDMENT#5 FOR INCLUSION IN THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. SCOTT SAWYER, CITY OF WASHOUGAL, SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. High Capacity Transit Corridors Study, Discussion
Dale Robins, RTC, reported that in February, the RTC Board initiated the High Capacity Transit Corridors Study by amending RTC’s FY 2006 Unified Planning Work Program to include the project and directed staff to enter into a grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration to secure the $ 1.488 million FY 2005 Section 5309 New Starts grant. Dale said since the February RTC Board meeting, staff has worked with Federal Transit Administration to secure the grant award, participated in Federal Transit New Start Listening Session, met with C-TRAN’s Board, and other activities. Dale said the purpose of this agenda item is to get some feedback from RTAC members.
Dale said the regional transportation policy direction surrounding high capacity transit corridors and alternative high capacity transit modes has been an uncertain part of the regional transportation system in Clark County for the last 10 years. In February 1995, a ballot measure was presented to raise sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax for the locally funded portion of a project to construct a light rail line in the I-5 corridor up to 99th Street and its connection south across the Columbia River to Portland’s Interstate Avenue light rail line. The ballot measure was soundly defeated. Dale pointed out that following the 1995 vote, Clark County and the City of Vancouver appointed a Transportation Futures Committee and charged them with developing a set of regional transportation findings. Their bi-state findings included the following: 1) reduce the demand for new transportation facilities, and 2) make more effective use of the existing transportation facilities by analyzing the following strategies in order of preference: expand transit, HOV lanes, commuter rail, light rail, reversible lanes, widening I-5 general purpose lanes, and a ferry system. The opening of the I-5 HOV Pilot project in October of 2001 was one the products that resulted from the Transportation Futures Committee’s findings.
Dale noted the next major study in the development of high capacity transit corridors was the completion of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study in June 2002. The resulting Strategic Plan recommended a set of multi-modal improvements, including highway, transit, freight rail, and demand management for the I-5 corridor. The I-5 Partnership Plan recommendations also called for an HCT loop system in Clark County to provide mobility within Clark County and to Oregon. The I-5 Partnership Plan recommendations were incorporated into RTC’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan Strategic Plan Element in 2004. The Strategic Plan Element of the MTP as adopted in December of 2005 was modified to include all HCT modal options.
Dale said in February of 2003 and again in February of 2004, RTC requested federal six-year reauthorization high priority funding to conduct an I-5/I-205/SR-500 Transit loop analysis. RTC did not receive reauthorization funding, but as a part of the federal fiscal year 2005 annual appropriations process, did receive a Federal Transit Administration New Starts earmark.
Dale said the purpose of the High Capacity Transit Corridors Study is to identify a set of high capacity transit polices that would balance the land use goals, transit priorities, and regional transportation system needs to guide the development of the region’s high capacity transit element. The study would result in the identification of the most promising high capacity transit corridors and modes in order to increase the level of transit service and use in Clark County.
Dale pointed out that one of the first tasks, once the process is underway, would be to develop the HCT study’s detailed scope of work in coordination with local partner agencies and with the expertise of an HCT consultant team. To be consistent with Federal Transit Administration guidelines, the study process would be framed around the following questions: 1) What are the feasible corridors for HCT in Clark County?, 2) What are the transportation problems in the corridors?, 3) What are their underlying causes?, 4) What are the options for addressing the problems?, and 5) What are the costs; the benefits?
RTC is seeking consultants to assist in conducting the HCT Study. Dale said the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for High Capacity Transit Corridors Study was published April 10, 2006, and Qualifications are due May 1, 2006. The RFQ requests that proposing consultant teams will need a wide range of expertise and resources. Dale said given the characteristics of the HCT Corridors Study, several key consultant qualifications rise to the surface and these include the following: 1) up to date expertise in the Federal Transit New Starts process including large and small starts, 2) prior HCT project expertise that is comparable to the scope of the proposed HCT study, 3) technical and strategic knowledge for how to carry out a comprehensive analysis to work through a process that would determine the most feasible set of HCT Corridors, and 4) demonstrate expertise for carrying out a public involvement program. Dale reviewed the set of criteria listed in the memorandum that will be used to rank the consultant proposals. 1) Capabilities of Consultant Project Team [50 Points], 2) Proposed Project Approach [40 points], 3) Quality of Proposal and References [10 points].
Dale said that consultant interviews are scheduled for May 12. The consultant recommendation is expected to be proposed to the RTC Board at the June 6 meeting. The public elements of the study process are planned for a September “kick off” and the overall study is expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete. Dale announced he had sent out an e-mail regarding a New Starts Workshop to be held on April 26, 2006 in the Elections Conference Room. Dean said he was excited about having a true regional transit discussion on what High Capacity Transit options may be and will be available to this community.
Dale noted the Federal Transit Administration under Section 5309 New Starts has appropriated, $1.488 million in federal fiscal year 2005 for the I-5/I-205/SR-500 Transit Loop. A local matching ratio of 20%, $372,000, is required. Clark County has already identified $150,000 that they would provide for local match. The C-TRAN Board and City of Vancouver are currently considering local match for the study. Dean gave updates on local match. RTC has formally requested, via Thayer Rorabaugh, $111,000 from the City of Vancouver. Dean pointed out that the C-TRAN Board is willing to put some local match into the project. Dean said staff would brief the Port of Vancouver and hopes that they will contribute to this project. Dean said we would be working on the work scope and decision making in the next few months.
IV. Columbia River Crossing Project - Update, Discussion
Bob Hart, RTC, presented an update on the Columbia River Crossing Project and provided a list of transit and river-crossing components being analyzed for the Step A screening process. Bob reviewed the Open Houses, which were held on April 12th and 13th, one at Hudson Bay High School and the other at Jantzen Beach. They were well attended with 90 to 100 people at each. The comments included they didn’t want another lift-span which they felt would cause more congestion. The public understood, they have to pay for a project somehow and that tolling was somewhat expected. The public was in agreement with the need for some type of bus service or light rail.
Bob reviewed the transportation component Step A screening process and said the transportation improvement ideas have been put into eight component categories. They consist of: transit, river crossing, roadways north, roadways south, bicycle, pedestrian, freight, and TSM/TDM. There were a total of 23 river crossing components and 14 transit components that went through the Step A screening process. The other component categories were not evaluated, as their performance would critically depend upon how they were integrated with promising transit and river crossing improvements. They will be packaged with the transit and river crossing components that make it all the way through the Step A screening process.
Bob said Step A is a pass/fail process in which transit and river crossing components are screened against questions derived from the Problem Definition. Components were compared to the No Build condition to determine if they offered improvements. The six questions are: (Does the Component): 1) Increase vehicular capacity or decrease vehicular demand within the Bridge Influence Area?, 2) Improve transit performance within the Bridge Influence Area?, 3) Improve freight mobility within the Bridge Influence Area?, 4) Improve safety and decrease vulnerability to incidents within the Bridge Influence Area?, 5) Improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility within the Bridge Influence Area?, and 6) Reduce seismic risk of the I-5 Columbia River crossing? Bob highlighted the Table “Transit Components Step A Results” and Table 2 “River Crossing Component Step A Results”.
The Task Force will discuss the role of TSM/TDM strategies and their potential impact on the performance of the components. Bob said staff will also review the recommendations for each component and provide additional information about individual components that may be needed or requested by the Task Force in order to decide on the set of components to pass through Step A. Subsequent to that meeting, the Project Team will begin to assemble the components into a range of alternatives that will be evaluated in detail during the summer and fall of 2006. There was RTAC discussion regarding air traffic and clearance for the bridge and lift-span.
Bob said at the CRC Task Force Meeting on April 26th, the CRC Project Team would introduce the approach for how to assemble the components into the set of alternative packages that will be analyzed this summer and fall. The Task Force, at their meeting on May 17th, will present the Draft alternative packages for initial review. The evaluation criteria will be used to compare and contrast each alternative.
Bob said the ideas from each of the eight component categories are combined to form project alternatives. The principles used to form the alternatives include: 1) All components that pass Step A will be considered for inclusion in one or more alternatives, 2) Alternatives should be organized by theme – what is (are) the key feature(s)?, 3) Alternatives should represent a full range of potential transportation solutions, within the limits of the components that have passed Step A, 4) Complementary components should be packaged together, 5) Alternatives should be structured to identify strengths and weaknesses of individual components, and 6) Well-performing components may be re-packaged with other alternatives for the DEIS.
Bob highlighted the table “Example Alternative Packages” and said it illustrates how the list of components will be used to develop three alternatives that will be proposed for evaluation. They include the No-Build and TSM alternatives as well as a “super-TDM and arterial” alternative. Dean summed up by saying the design packages should be developed by fall.
V. Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act 2006 (ESSB 6566), Discussion
Jan Bowers is the Commute Trip Reduction Administrator from City of Vancouver and was introduced to RTAC members. Lynda David, RTC, said at the March meeting, RTAC members were provided with a brief overview of ESSB 6566, an update to the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law, recently passed by the 2006 Washington State Legislature. Lynda said this month’s meeting, RTC staff will report on work that is underway to implement the provisions of the CTR law.
The 2006 Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act: 1) Modifies the scope of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program to focus on urban growth areas with the most congested state highways, 2) Creates a new CTR Board with expanded duties, 3) Allows local jurisdictions to create Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTECs) to obtain funding and feasibility in implementing programs, and 4) Expands the role of the Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) in CTR planning.
Lynda distributed copies of a Power Point presentation entitled “Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act”. Lynda highlighted each slide for RTAC members as follows: 1) Today: Counties in the CTR program, 2) How is the program performing?, 3) Public Vanpools operating in Washington, January 2003 to October 2005, 4) Changes made to the CTR law in 2006, 5) Urban Growth Areas in the CTR program (a preliminary determination includes Vancouver, Camas and Washougal Urban Growth Areas in Clark County), 6) How the legislature changed the law, 7) Two-Tiered Approach, A Base that Works and New Centers Approach to Improve Performance], 8) How the legislature changed the law, 9) Implementing the program changes, 10) Local, regional, and state planning and implementation – Who needs to do what?, 11) Who needs to do what?, CTR Board & WSDOT, 12) Implementation timeline, (draft guidance released July 2006, WSDOT gives planning funds, up to $750,000 in FY 2007, to local jurisdictions and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) for CTR planning in August 2006, local jurisdictions and RTPOs develop CTR plans in a collaborative process; local jurisdictions may choose to designate Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTECs), August 2006 to April 2007, CTR Board approves local and regional plans and develops funding allocation for 2007-2009, February 2007 to June 2007, and local jurisdictions implement plans, update ordinances, and educate employers on the program changes, July 2007 and beyond. Lynda commented that this is an aggressive timeline to meet. For more information or to be involved in rules development, contact: Keith Cotton, WSDOT at 360.705.7910, cotton@wsdot.wa.gov. Lynda said CTR Efficiency Act implementation materials are available at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/TDM/taskforce/tfmaterials.cfm#program.
Jan Bowers said the CTR Board has the responsibility to figure out funding allocations for the different areas. Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver, is currently a member of the CTR Task Force and is communicating with the Governor’s office and Washington Department of Transportation that he is interested to continue as a member of the CTR Board. Jan reported that there is a lot of interest in participation as a CTR Board member and the participation is heavily weighted toward Puget Sound membership. The CTR Board will be the decision makers regarding funding distributions for the CTR program.
Lynda and Jan said they had begun to participate in weekly meetings of the CTR Implementation Work Group. The Group is currently working on rules for CTR program implementation that will be included in Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Lynda reported that the Group had noted the unique challenges for our region because a lot of Clark County residents commute to work in Oregon. There will be some flexibility in the CTR program with establishment of Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTECs) to look at trip reduction based on place of residence rather than place of work.
Dean said that we should ask ourselves what this program means to the region and how it would be defined here and around the state? Jan said she had asked the Implementation Work Group how they planned to measure success. At the present time, trips are measured in the traditional way. She said in this region we need to reach out to the commuters traveling south. The committee will review and research changes in measurement because funding will depend on performance. Lynda commented that we should look into additional funding that the state legislature has made available for the vanpool program. Lynda also said that updates on the CTR program would be provided at future RTAC meetings.
VI. I-205 to NE 112th Avenue Northbound Off-Ramp, Discussion
Casey Liles and Kevin Miller of WSDOT were introduced to RTAC members, and they gave a presentation on the I-205 to NE 112th Avenue Northbound Off-Ramp. Kevin has been working out of the WSDOT Kelso office and will be assisting Casey with this project in Vancouver. Kevin distributed an aerial photo showing the NE 112th Avenue Connector Project which is a Phase I improvement. The aerial photo showed I-205 from the Mill Plain Interchange to north of NE 9th Street. Kevin said last Monday the City of Vancouver adopted the revised scope of work for the 112th Connector that would enable the consultant to resume activities. Kevin and Casey explained that WSDOT and the City of Vancouver had been working on how phases of I-205 improvement would work. $58 million in state Partnership funding is available for Phase II. Phase II will provide improvements including ramps to 18th Street. Kevin pointed out that the current 112th Avenue Northbound Off-Ramp project is indicated in blue on the aerial photo. The Phase I improvement now includes an additional structure to provide a braided on-ramp from Mill Plain to I-205. The original estimate prior to the second bridge structure was in the order of $10 million. This will be revised, and it will be around $15 million to accommodate the two structures. Casey further explained that after the Partnership funding and gas tax vote, WSDOT went back to the drawing board to look at how one project would affect the second. Rather than impacting the public more than once WSDOT looked at how to construct the two structures at one time. Dean pointed out that the 112th Connector would help traffic on Mill Plain and Chkalov. Casey said Phase II would focus on the 18th to Burton segment and then the segment from SR-14 to Mill Plain would need to be addressed. Casey said the construction of Phase II is scheduled for about 2011. Dean said it would be helpful to return to RTAC to explain the various phases for I-205 corridor improvement.
VII. Other Business
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield, said there is a new traffic signal on Pioneer Street due to wet weather. WSDOT has it set up for one-lane with a signal until it is repaired, which will take approximately a month and half.
A. RTAC Members
B. RTC Staff
2005 Congestion Monitoring Report is now available. Dale offered RTAC members a copy of the final 2005 “Congestion Monitoring Report”. He said the RTC Board commented that the TIP criteria should be revised to increasingly consider this report in the project selection process.
Dean Lookingbill and Lynda David spoke of the Transportation Corridor Visioning Process and its proposed scope of work. Dean drew attention to the map of potential future corridors. Lynda said the Visioning work began when Mayor Idsinga of Battle Ground came to the RTC Board of Directors March meeting and asked why the MTP does not include new corridors such as a corridor from Battle Ground to the Camas/Washougal area. Commissioner Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver, and Clark County Commissioner Morris initiated the idea of having a “Transportation Vision Group”. The “Transportation Vision Group” is made up of Don Wagner (WSDOT), Helen Gerde (City of Camas), Arch Miller (Port of Vancouver), John Idsinga (City of Battle Ground), Steve Stuart (Clark County), and Dean Lookingbill and Lynda David (RTC). The Group has met twice and said the Vision plan should answer the question “How do we get around in our own community in the longer-term, 50 year future?” The Plan should also look at how corridors connect with Oregon. An overview of the proposed workscope was provided. The Visioning Group has directed that we should look at providing connections between growth hubs and growth points. The Group also said that this 50 year projection should be based on current GMA assumptions projected out 50 years into the future. Commissioner Stuart commented at a meeting of the Visioning Group that this should be our base line for future planning. Dean said that it may help start a community conversation on urban form. Dean said that we would need the help of all regional partners to complete this study as we will need to address both land use and transportation. Trips are made to connect activities.Bob Hart, RTC distributed the agenda for “Moving Down the Road to Cleaner Air: Vancouver/Portland, Diesel Emissions Reductions Funding Forum”. The forum will be May 9, at Washington State Department of Transportation, Southwest Region, in Room 302. Dean commented that diesel retrofit programs are eligible to use CMAQ funds but this would have implications for other programs that use CMAQ.
Dale said over the next few weeks, Metro will be holding workshops on ITS and Congestion Monitoring. April 25, from 2-4 p.m., there will be a workshop on the Future of Traveler Information, April 27th a workshop on Congestion Management, on May 4 FHWA training on Using the Regional ITS Architecture as a Planning Tool, and on May 15-16 FHWA Training Analysis Methods and Tools for Planning and Operations. All workshops will be held at Metro and are free.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. The next meeting will be Friday, May 19, 2006.
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.
       
|