Good afternoon everybody. It's May
5th 2026. I'm going to call
this regular RTC Board of
Directors meeting to order. If
we could start with Reule.
>> Michelle Belkot. Sue Marchel
here. Wolf Fuentes here.
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
>> Present.
>> Ty Stover.
>> Here.
>> Troy McCoy. Asa Lecce.
>> Present.
>> Ron Ihrig. Lehan Cavour
present. Devin.
>> Wreck here.
>> Temple Lentz here. Bill
Iyall. Brian Windsheimer.
>> Present.
>> Christine. Lewis.
>> Present.
>> And house and Senate members
of the 14th, 17th, 18th, 20th
and 49th districts.
Representative Wiley.
>> Present. Okay. Got it.
>> Okay, that completes our
roll call. We do have a quorum.
We're still having some sound
issues. We're not able to hear
the panelists. So we have
somebody working on that. So in
the meantime, we'll go ahead
and ask for thumbs up or thumbs
down for votes until we can get
through that just for board
approval agenda. Move to
citizen comments and try to get
it fixed before any board
business, if that's acceptable.
With that, I would entertain a
motion for board agenda.
>> Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
Seeing discussion. All in favor?
I any opposed. Thank you. That
will bring us to public
comments. We had nobody sign up
online. We do have three signed
up in person. First up Carmen.
>> Do you have to push a button?
>> Yeah. My name is Carmen de
Lehan, and I just wanted to let
you know that the Astoria
Bridge that is four miles long
is at the cost of 1.26 billion.
And the Golden Gate Bridge in
today's money would have been
built for 680, 670 million. Why
is this bridge coming at us
with over 16 billion? I got
between 14 billion and 16
billion. And here's my biggest
problem is that the city of
Vancouver is a mistake was that
they kept telling us it was 2
billion. Okay, 2 billion every
mile and a half of light rail
is a billion. Okay. We're
stupid. And now suddenly it's
16 to 14 billion. I'm sorry,
but you can be off by 1 or 2000,
maybe even 5000, but off by
over 10 billion. The city of
Vancouver is a big question
because they lie through their
teeth. I have the proof right
here in case you want to see it.
And I can also play you the
videos of the what's it called?
Absolute lies coming out of the
city of Vancouver in order to
silence anybody against this
project, because they're in
debt and they want to unlimited
Sherbeck of billions of dollars
to to repair their errors. I'm
talking $600,000 on
homelessness, laundry. You buy
that? Let me sell you some
swamp land in Florida, you know,
literally. Can I sell you a
bridge for 16 billion when the
Golden Gate Bridge and there's
a bridge back east, a four
miles long, 400 million. So why
is this bridge only two miles?
And that many more billions?
Because they want light rail.
When we have trains over there.
They even proved that. They
said that they were going to
accommodate 5000 people. And
oops, it was really only 900
round trip. That's 450 people
for not even 1 billion. You can
Uber them and their families
wherever they need to go for
the rest of their life, just so
a few people can go to their
grave saying, we left this
county in billions of dollars
of debt, which, by the way,
there's only five less than
500,000 people in Clark County,
and they're supposed to come up
with billions. And you're
saying, oh, we're going to get
billions for this bridge, but
then you're still going to have
to pay for it with tolls. This
amount of money can build three
other bridges. Camus wants a
bridge. Saint Helens wants a
bridge. And everybody I've
talked to mostly agree that we
need more bridges. So if you
want to save some of the
environment and actually the
Interstate bridge is nationally
registered as a historical
bridge, and they will be
contacting you because I'm
going to be contacting them
because that bridge does not
need to be torn down. Just
today in Clark County Council,
the engineer of bridges said
that it's still sound and like
the one lady said, if you want
to fix it because of the
earthquakes, why don't they fix
the other 20 bridges in
Portland first? Why just this
one? Because it's been proven
that if they don't fix the rose
quarter exit, the bottlenecks
just going to go further down.
So stop lying to everybody and
scrap that idea.
>> Thank you. Carmen. Margaret.
Tweet.
>> That was tweet.
>> I'm sorry I got Margaret.
You want Douglas to go first.
Go ahead. All right. That's
fine.
>> Thank you board Council, for
letting me come. Oh. Oh, is
that better? Yes. So I sent a
document that you should have.
I apologize, it's 18 pages.
It's compiled. It's about a
year and a half of research.
And then the last few weeks
with the new fscs is come out.
I spent a lot of time poring
through the documents, over
20,000 pages. I've not read all
of it, but I've got a number of
points here. But I want to
focus on something that I found
in the FS EIS last over the
last week or so that I was not
aware of, and that's the last
four pages. If you go to page
15, it's looking at the
congestion times and what the
effect of the bridge designs do.
So if you look at page figure
seven here, it's a table that I
compiled based on tables and
data in the FSEIS that was just
published a couple of weeks ago.
If you look at the southbound
direction 2019 existing
conditions, congestion,
currently three hours. This is
for 2019. And you see the
there's another column for the
preferred design. And the far
column on the right is the
design with two auxiliary lanes.
And you see the. In 2045, after
spending $1,617 billion,
congestion is getting a lot
worse. If the two auxiliary is
a little bit better. Look at
travel time, extensive
congestion. The two lane
actually reduces the congestion
lane distance from 3 to 1 now
northbound. So there's a little
improvement in southbound
northbound. There's a lot of
improvement goes from almost
nine hours. Now. The preferred
design no change really. The
two lanes drops down to six.
And then travel time goes from
35 minutes to 14. This is from
I405 in Portland all the way to
205 salmon Creek. Extensive
congestion ten miles down to
less than a mile with the two
auxiliary lanes. Okay, so now
they also have something called
a heat map. How much my time.
Okay. Next page. This is they
have this type of analysis.
Vertical axis is distance. This
is position from 205 Salmon
Creek to the upper left down to
Markham Bridge. And then this
is time from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m.
red is slow, so you can see in
the morning it's very, very
slow. Now go to the next page.
This is comparing the one
auxiliary lane design, the
preferred design with two
auxiliary lanes. And you see on
the right and you see it's a
little bit better. Okay.
Southbound gets a little bit
better if you have two
auxiliary lanes. But the big
kicker is if you go, which is
in keeping with the table I put
together, big kicker is if you
look at northbound, here's
northbound just backed up in
Portland, going north to
auxiliary lanes, almost nothing.
That's the huge improvement
with two auxiliary lanes. I was
just talking with someone from
the port, the background of the
port, and he says the port
needs an extra auxiliary lane
to further freight. And I
suggest dropping light rail and
spend the money on auxiliary
lanes and get something that
actually improve traffic.
>> Margaret. You're not.
>> Okay.
>> Good afternoon. Board. I'm
concerned about the inadequate
justification for 25 foot wide
bicycle and pedestrian path.
That's the equivalent of two
traffic lanes in the FSEIS.
We're reminded that there was
an count on October 19th, 2022,
that showed a total of 296
bicyclists and pedestrians
observed using the facility.
Then it goes on to say the air
quality was low during due to
extreme smoke. Therefore, the
October 2022 count was adjusted
inexplicably to 410 active
transport users. Based on a
literature review. And there's
also another note this likely
the smoke likely impacted
activity across the bridge, but
the degree of impact is unclear.
Very, very unclear. My question
is why weren't more counts done?
If this count is called an
average, how can you have an
average with a single count?
There was plenty of time to
collect actual data in the
study area monthly for multiple
years, which would include
smoking and nonsmoking days for
every month of the years, there
is a permanent traffic recorder
with sites that was supposed to
be collecting data. We learned
about it in the DSEIS. It said
that the permanent counts
displayed troughs and peaks,
and the peaks were unreliable,
but in the FESEIS, they
completely threw out the
permanent traffic recorder data
stating it was unusable. That's
a big change. So again, why
wasn't more money spent to
correct the traffic? Permanent
traffic recorders with actual
data instead of substituting
literature reviews and
convoluted justifications for
excessive allocations of space
to pedestrians and bicyclists,
I did get a count on the
traffic recorders from Odot
from 2024 that were never in
the D, s, EIS or the FSEIS.
Again, the data was there. It
tells us something all the
numbers in in the 2024 figures
are all lower than that.
October 19th, 2022 count. So it
does actually inform us. And it
should have been included for
the public to review. How can
we comment on something that is
not there permanent data that
was concealed from the public.
>> Thank thank you Margaret.
>> Thank you.
>> That concludes our public
comments portion of the meeting.
>> You might want to check the
audio again.
>> Can we get somebody on the
panel to give us a mic check
please? Councilmember Belkot,
I'll pick on you. Can you can
you just say something so see
if we can hear you.
>> Check, check, check.
>> Yes, I can hear you.
>> Know, we still can't hear
her.
>> Again.
>> We'll try it again.
>> Can you try again, please?
>> Yes. Can you hear me now?
>> No. If you have a favorite
book nearby, maybe you can read
us some passages. We'll be.
>> Hello? Hello. Hello? Nothing.
>> Yeah.
>> Who is that? Okay.
>> This is Ryan.
>> All right, we got Ryan.
Let's try. Counselor, can we
try you again?
>> Yeah. Can you hear me now?
>> Yeah. Woohoo! Technology is
awesome when it works. Thank
you so much for your patience.
>> No problem.
>> So is that.
>> Fixed in the consent that
signature. Okay. All right.
That brings us to the consent
agenda. Consent agenda items.
There was one mistake in the
packet that has been corrected.
The signature line is correct.
Now for resolution 52614. With
that, I would entertain a
motion or pulling of any item
that the board desires.
>> I move approval of the
consent agenda with that
correction.
>> Second motion has been made
and seconded. Any further
discussion? Seeing none. All in
favor. I any opposed? Passes
unanimously. That will bring us
straight to our discussion and
information items. We have a
guest presenter here on the
Interstate Bridge Replacement
program. Former member of the
RTC Cali. Thank you for joining
us. On the floor is yours.
>> You can just down down. Yep.
Down there. Okay.
>> Thanks so much for having us
here. I also have Frank green
with me. He's an assistant
program administrator. And yeah,
I appreciate seeing so many
familiar faces. And we'll give
you an update. I know this is
in queuing up a stiff agenda, a
stiff amendment agenda item
that we are seeking. So if we
can go to the first slide,
we'll also provide a cost
estimate update as a as a recap
here. So first and foremost the
program has been looking at
making improvements over five
miles to address six core
problems. This map shows those
identified improvements, and
the states are committed to
building out this five miles
over time. The. I would note
also that as we've had our cost
estimate come in, it's become
very additionally real. We
always anticipated delivering
this program through phasing,
but it's even more imperative
now to consider phasing as a
tool to bring the program
forward. Next slide. So
specifically, our cost estimate
update that was issued in March
did update our costs to a range
of 13.5 to $15.2 billion, with
a 70% likelihood of costs
coming in or below 14.4 billion.
It's basically a plan to figure
that we're using that is, the
federal government's preferred
Federal Highway Administration
preferred plan to figure. That
does comprise escalation, as
well as risk and a base cost
estimate. All three of those
pieces are part of that robust
estimate analysis, body of work.
And bringing that forward. The
previous estimate, as folks may
be familiar, was 5 to 7.5
billion, with a likely cost of
6 billion. Next slide. A key
component of the cost estimate
increases is the construction
industry trends that we've seen.
One, we've seen costs escalate
significantly. The two points
on this graph basically
demonstrate what the cost index
was in 2022 as we were
finishing the last estimate and
then where we are for this
estimate. So there's a couple
of things to note. One is that
the slope going into the 2022
estimate is much more moderate.
And so as you look forward or
you look backwards to look
forward, you have that sense of
history that's guiding a future.
So certainly escalation costs
were anticipated for certain,
but were not anticipated to be
so strongly increasing over
time. So we have had seen that
cost, that rate over time go up.
And obviously the slope going
into this 2020 526 estimate
that we finalized in March was
much more steep. And that's
informing cost estimates and
how they've increased. So we've
seen that 58% increase across
the industry. I would also note
that there are there's key
specialty work in what we're
talking about here, heavy
marine activities and other
things. And so the estimates in
some of those specialty areas
have actually been seen to be
higher than these increases
that we're seeing on this
national average level. Next
slide. So as we think about
phasing the program internal to
the project, we were trying to
figure out how to bring forward
sort of key benefits. We've
always known that we needed to
start at the river critical.
There is the opportunity to
build a seismically resilient
structure, to add an auxiliary
lane, to add shoulders, all of
those things which the bridges
don't have currently really in
any measurable way. So we
identified this core set of
projects that you'll see here
on the slide. This includes a
replacement bridge over the
river with a shared use path,
and also the width for light
rail built into that contract.
There are connections into I-5,
Hayden Island and SR 14 so that
folks can use that bridge as
it's built. The active traffic
can use it. There's also the
removal of the Columbia River
bridge that's identified in
this core set of projects. So
making sure that we meet permit
requirements and remove that
bridge. And then what you see
in orange is the extension and
anticipated operational light
rail that would extend from
Expo Station, where it ends
currently. Today, it has to
grade separate at Marine Drive.
There needs to be a bridge over
the North Portland Harbor to
carry that transit onto Hayden
Island. There's structure along
Hayden Island and a station on
Hayden Island that needs to be
designed and constructed, need
to connect it into the bridge.
And then on the Washington side,
this anticipates we have two
stations identified in
Washington over time. This
identifies going to the
waterfront station first so
that you need to connect to the
bridge and then also build that
waterfront station. Other
components that are built into
this estimate. There is
pre-completion tolling in this
cost estimate. So that's the
gantries and all of the
equipment, but also the launch
activities for having
Pre-completion begin as we
start construction of the
bridge itself. The cost for
this was 7.65 billion. That was
a cost that was issued in March.
We do look to update that over
time. Specifically within that,
since 7.65 billion is above the
5.45 billion we had identified
as we were bringing out the
cost estimate. There's
additionally the question of
how do you really get started?
So the step one is that very
first step, which is replacing
the bridges, connecting them
into I-5. Hayden Island, SR 14.
Also the Pre-completion tolling.
And then there's design for
transit that's included in this
estimate that was also issued
in March. That is necessary to
complete and continue the
capital investment grant
program process. So this body
of work was estimated to be
$5.9 billion. Since that time
in March, we identified as we
brought out cost estimates that
we had some work to do. One, we
have added bridge demolition
into those costs up front. So
we are reserving funds that we
have available now to be able
to demolish the bridge that's
required by federal partners to
meet those permitting
requirements. We've built those
costs in. Additionally, we've
identified cost savings
significantly through combining
packages. So originally we had
anticipated delivering the
bridge, the connections to I-5,
and then the connections at
Hayden Island and SR 14 as
separate construction packages.
We've combined those into one,
which provides opportunities in
the efficiency for management.
There's also risk and
opportunity in not managing the
interface of those contracts,
and also efficiencies in toll
equipment placement that we're
anticipating to realize. Out of
that, there were some risk
reductions and adjustments to
risk assumptions that went into
that. So that created a net
savings. And finally, then
there's an update to total
available funding. Specifically,
we were working with the
Treasury Office in Washington
and also the Odot Finance
Office to update our toll
estimate, projected toll
revenues that could come to the
program. Those activities, I
would also note about the
tolling one that is based on
toll rates that have been
discussed and recommended for
analysis in the level three
Traffic and Revenue study by
the transportation commissions
of both Oregon and Washington.
So it's based on a rate that
has been publicly discussed,
and that work is ongoing with
the transportation commissions.
Those activities allowed us to
close the gap. So the next
slide will show what that what
that looks like. So as I've
noted, we have the bridge, the
connections and the removal of
the Columbia River bridge
existing. That's there. Now,
this does also include
pre-completion tolling and then
also has that transit design
item built in that does do
transit design for the entire
alignment of light rail. The
total cost, as now estimated
for this to be $5.68 billion.
Next slide. So the update to
our funding. Folks have seen
this many times before. The
real primary change is the
projected total funding amount,
but we do have the $2.1 billion
identified through Mega and the
Bridge Investment Program grant.
Those are federal dollars a
billion each from Oregon and
Washington, some previous state
funding and a projected total
funding amount, which used to
be 1.25 billion, has been
updated to a projected 1.5
billion. That's validated
through, again, the Treasury
Office and Odot finance. And
they're independent analysts,
so independently verified by
both of those parties. There's
also noted on here. So
basically in context of the
Stip conversation. Conversation
we're having here. What's
really critical to recognize is
that we at this moment are
working to program funds that
are committed and match those
to costs that we would
anticipate having. We cannot
start to commit funds that are
not yet are not yet in hand. So
what you see below the black
line here is the capital
investment grant and the
billion dollars we're targeting
from the federal government
there, and then also additional
funds through connecting
Washington that were identified
have been identified for Mill
Plain, and then the
Reconnecting Communities pilot
grant that the program and the
city partnered on an
application for. Specifically
to the MTP amendments that we
are here to talk about the core
set of projects that I've
talked through. This is just to
help you track what things,
which pieces are where. So as
I've noted, we have all of
these components that are
listed in that core set of
projects. Step one is basically
how we had first spoken about
what we might move forward,
which does not include bridge
removal. And it also has those
separated packages. What we're
talking about now, and what
will be in the MTP amendment is
a combined package. So you're
seeing that combination of the
first four items here, the
inclusion of Pre-completion
tolling, transit design and
bridge removal specific to the
Stip bridge removal is out
several years, and so it does
not fit within the Stip horizon
that you will be considering.
So just to note that we're
programing, those funds are
going to be set aside and held
and not programed at this time,
because they don't fit into the
four year horizon for the Stip.
So specifically at the June
meeting, there will be this
request for the MTP amendment.
We will be requesting to amend
the 24 to 27 MTP that you have
to increase funding for IBR
from the 322 million previously
obligated to five point about
5.3 billion, for a total
increase of just under $5
billion. The amendment of the
Stip and the MTP does meet
federal requirements to issue
both a record of decision and
to secure obligation of grant
funds. I would just note very
plainly we have gotten the
final supplemental
environmental impact statement
out on the street, which is
amazing. And very specifically,
the federal government needs to
have the MTP and the Stip
amendment process complete and
approved through the federal
government before they will
issue the record of decision.
That is our activity to advance
to construction. That is the
approval. We can't move to
construction without that.
Additionally, beyond that, and
I'll probably say this again,
but the federal money that we
have there is 546 million of
the Bridge Investment Program
grant funds that will expire at
the end of September if we do
not obligate them by this time.
So just to note that we are
working this process now. It's
very time sensitive. Really
appreciate your partnership in
this and also looking to make
sure that we get every dollar
that the federal government has
committed to this program and
are able to apply it here. So
there are specific to the line
items. Just cover those briefly
for the amendment. There is an
increase of funding to the
bridge replacement overarching
Stip line item. There is
increasing funding to the
bridge, the pre completion toll
project, and then the addition
of two new projects. We're
adding a new Columbia River
bridge or Columbia River
Interstate bridge line item
that covers program management
moving forward. And then also
that transit design item. So
those are new items. So a
couple of ones that have
increased funding and a couple
of new items for the Stip. So
just to be very plain about the
funds that we were actually
programing. So because we have
set the bridge removal out
because it falls outside of
this time period, we will be
programing 5.29 billion of the
5.5.7 billion that we have
identified as available. So
that's reserving the bridge
removal costs for the future so
that we can continue to
demonstrate that we have the
financial capacity to take
those bridges out when it is
when we are able, which means
once traffic is fully
transferred over to the new
bridges and is using them. Next
slide. So I covered this a
little bit, but I'll hit it
again because it's very
important. The time sensitivity
of this is really critical. We
are working with RTC, with
Oregon Metro and with Oregon
Transportation Commission to
complete Mtep and Stip
amendments, looking to have
those all complete by July 1st.
Again, as I noted, we don't get
the amended record of decision
without those activities, so
it's very critical also then
that once we have the record of
decision that unlocks certain
federal review of our grant
obligation agreement amendments
that we are working on, that is,
again, to obligate funds, which
is necessary to actually start
construction. We need to have
those obligated funds to
actually continue with the
procurement process. So as
noted here, you have all funds
in place. Then you can release
the request for proposals. And
that will lead ultimately to
construction. So very excited
about the opportunity for
construction for these bridges.
We've been talking about it for
a very long time. I know, and
you all play an important part
in that. So I'll take questions
if we have them.
>> I'll open the floor for
questions.
>> I'll start out. Could you go
over what all will be included
in phase two? And and if I'm
understanding correctly,
there's no there's not funding
for phase two.
>> So I would say there will be
multiple phases. So there's
sort of phase. There's right
now we have we have. All right.
So I would say that we have the
core set, which which I would
identify as the state's first
priority and working through
the program improvements, the
very first step of that. So we
have step one of the core, and
step one of the core is that
bridge, the connections, the
shared use path that's
connected and bridge removal.
So that's step one, the
completing the light rail is
then the finalizing the core.
And then beyond that, we
actually need to have rich
conversations because it won't
be that the other stuff all
falls neatly into a phase two.
There will probably be multiple
phases, and that will be
informed based on discussions
around sequencing of priorities
and preferences. So if there
are opportunities to separate
things out and people have
higher priorities or lower
priorities, we can certainly
talk about that. The other
thing is the availability of
funding, which will inform that.
One other note I would say is,
as we're getting into this
detail, we get to this level of
detail and people are wondering
about like, well, how do you do
this piece? Right? This next
piece? There are places where
there are dependencies in this
work. And so we see that in
Oregon around the design that
exists for Marine Drive on
Hayden Island and a local
access bridge, those have a
certain sequence that they have
to fall within. And there are
other dependencies. So I think
it's really going to depend on
that work to identify funding
and then figure out priorities
with with our partners.
>> Okay. Just to follow up to
make sure I understand this,
that finalizing light rail is
part of the core.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> Yes. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Just checking because
the sound went out for a little
bit, so I wasn't sure if if it
was working or not. What rate
of tolling is the analysis
based on.
>> So there are four rates that
the Transportation Commission's
identified. And I don't have
the chart in front of me here
that I can show you what. I can
tell you that they are ordered
one, two, three, four.
Basically, if you look at any
chart, they're in the same
order every single time. It is
number two, as they fall from
the top of the page to the
bottom of the page, those first
three rates one through one,
two, and three, have different
policies, but were all
identified to sort of generate
a similar amount of revenue.
And we would call them the
lower group of rates. The
fourth, the fourth rate that
has been identified by the
Transportation Commission for
study, was sort of exploring
whether or not there might be
additional revenues needed. And
so there is a fourth rate that
is a little bit higher. But
this rate was from those three
that are roughly comparable
from projected toll revenue and
reflect an array of policy
decisions that will be made by
the transportation commissions.
>> Pahlka where are those rates
available? Because you
mentioned because I'm writing
notes one, two, three, and four.
>> Sure. So I would say we can
certainly get a link out to
this group. So folks have
access to that. They are there
in a variety of places, but we
can get you a link so that you
have access.
>> Thank you so much. I
appreciate that. Sure.
>> Okay. Commissioner Ayisha.
>> Yeah, thank you. With the
cost increases, is the toll
rates going to stay at where
they are currently discussed,
or are those toll rates
anticipated to increase? And
also, are those toll rates what
you just what you commented on
earlier, those publicly
available that's only available
to the public?
>> Yes, absolutely. They are
publicly available. They've
also been discussed in public
facing forums of the Oregon and
Washington Transportation
Commissions and a bi state toll
subcommittee. So absolutely
available publicly. Again,
we'll send a link out. So folks
have access to that. With
respect to the question about
whether or not toll rates will
increase one, I think all of
the toll rates that are
identified by the
Transportation Commission have
a policy assumption that there
would be some inflation
increase of them, either
annually or every other year,
so that they keep up with the
cost of doing business
generally. The other piece I
would note is that what we have
built into the estimate at this
time, one is a more
conservative expectation about
inflation. And this is a pretty
significant update of numbers.
So I think part of the answer
is we've done our very best to
do a good cost estimate for
what these things are going to
cost. And so we look to have
the tolls, you know, sort of
help support that. So at this
point, I don't see a huge need
for that. And also it is an
active discussion and
management point over time.
What we have right now in the
estimate is a highly educated
and many people involved guess
at what those numbers will be.
And as we get a contractor on
board and we identify what
those costs will actually be in
a negotiated contract, we will
have additional information.
And so I think it's I would
just note it's an active
management dialog over time.
And we've done our very best to
incorporate risk. And also
those a more a higher rate of
inflation into the estimates so
that we do our best job to get
a solid number that can be
anticipated to achieve over
time.
>> Thank you. And can I ask a
follow up question?
>> Absolutely.
>> So right now there's a
significant amount. There's
been an increase on highway 14
in Skamania County on
commercial traffic that diverts
from 84 because it's got a
higher tax rate than 14. So as
tolls materialize on I-5, is
there any anticipation that
commercial traffic is going to
divert down 14 and on on that
two lane highway, and then
cross the bridge of the gods to
avoid that tolling, because
that that could also put more
undue pressure on. 14 that's
it's already stretched and it's,
it's in horrible condition
right now as it is. Thank you.
>> Sure. The work that we are
doing tries to understand where
there may be diversion and
where it's driven to. I am
familiar with how narrow and
windy and unfit for trucks SR
14 can be. So I absolutely hear
that comment and concern. I
think with respect to diversion,
the other thing that we see is.
Recognizing that, and this is a
little bit less relevant to SR
14 to SR 14, but I think the
construct still holds that
trucks are really trying to
find a path of least resistance
with respect to time. And so
that's very material. So that
cost of a toll will always be
measured against sort of their
cost of travel and that energy
activity that they're doing. So
I just would note that I think
there's a lot of mediating
mediating factors there for
folks to consider, but we do
try to understand what that
diversion will be.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks for the information.
Just want to follow up about
the recommended design on one
auxiliary lane. And it shows
that the southbound still have
traffic congestion. How do we
address that?
>> So one, I know that active
management is always a tool in
the Dot's tool belt. And I
think what the final
environmental impact statement
identified was that there was
significant improvement with
the provision of one auxiliary
lane, and also that there's a
management of other impacts
that you see in trying to just
negotiate a decent balance of
impacts and benefits. So that's
where that recommendation for
one auxiliary lane came from.
And I think the dialog I know
already southwest region and
Oregon dot region one have rich
dialog about how we manage
those facilities. There's
active traffic management
already on them. So I think
using those and other tools
going forward to try to
understand what those new
traffic patterns are and how to
best manage them, will also be
a component.
>> Okay, I'll go back to light
rail. Sure. So the evergreen
station was assumed to be the
terminus of light rail. And and
that assumption was included in
the preferred alternative. That
was the analysis. And that was
all subject to the EIS.
>> That's correct.
>> Does removing that. Well I
I'd like to better understand
how that decision was made. And
does removing it change
anything about the assumptions.
You know, because I think
there's an assumption that
ending it so that it connects
with C-tran would would make it
more successful.
>> Yeah. So I would note that
the intention is to get to
evergreen. The question of when
is the, is the question that we
have ahead of us. So there's
been we have not removed
Evergreen Station from the
plans. It is part of the
environmental document, and the
intention is to get there over
time. As I was mentioning,
there are dependencies between
the work that we have. And so
what we have, as identified in
coordination with our partner
agencies on the program, was a
highway aligned transit
extension from waterfront up to
evergreen, specifically, in the
narrow amount of space that we
have there to build that, you
actually need to build a wall
on the east side of the highway,
shimmy everything up against
that sort of build everything
kind of to one side so that
then you can build a wall on
the west side. That west side
wall actually supports the
bridge for a section that would
be the light rail bridge. So
that west wall is one side of
supports for that transit
extension. There will be a
collector distributor lane
underneath that collector
distributor is. So ox lanes are
those ones that run right next
to the highway collector.
Distributor lanes are ones that
are sort of separated off. So
along I 205 and the stark area,
that area that's a collector
distributor. You see some other
places around that have those.
So there would actually be a
collector distributor, highway
traffic underneath that light
rail. And so you need to build
that all in a sequence. And so
recognizing the funds that we
had to work with, we needed to
basically look to strip as much
out of, of what we were doing
and still provide a independent
utility product, right? So we
have to have something that is
usable, which is why we're
making sure that the bridge is
then connected into I-5 and
connected to SR 14 and Hayden
Island. So that's really
critical for moving those
highway fund dollars forward.
So recognizing where we were at
with funding, we were just
trying to figure out one, how
to make sure we were
maintaining those sort of core
activities, replacing the
bridge, extending light rail
into Washington, making sure
there was a bike PED component
there, all of those pieces. So
trying to make sure that we
built the bridge, right?
Because without building the
bridge, right, you never get
light rail to Vancouver. So
it's not there's a lot of
there's a lot of minimization
in the first steps. That is not
my favorite and not anybody's
favorite. And our intention is
to go further than that over
time. But we really needed to
find a way to move the project
forward. I think in the dialog
with governor's offices, as we
were bringing out the cost
estimates, there was a heavy
focus on starting the project
because the cheapest bridge
that you can build is the one
you start building today.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
>> Any further questions?
Comments? Okay. I just have one
quick one. So I'm assuming with
the funded phase not including
light rail, that essentially
then is there going to be some
sort, are we going to use that
light rail lane for busses or
what is the what's the thought
process? Because if you're not
going to have trains running
across, what's it going to be
used for? Or is it going to be
used?
>> So I think that, you know,
at this moment, the idea is
what can we do to figure out
how to deliver the program as
anticipated? So the reality is
there was always a time gap
between when the bridge is open
to traffic and when light rail
would be active and running on
it, because you have to build
that entire, you have to build
all of the bed for transit to
be on before you can put track
and systems on it, before you
can test it. And so what we did
not have apologies was sort of
a schedule slide. So we're
targeting the start of
construction in 2028. And that
would be a 6 to 7 year horizon.
So 2034 2035 targeting the full
funding grant agreement in 2030.
So that is that billion dollars
from the capital investment
grant program from the Federal
Transit Administration. That
begins your start point for for
construction on all of those
activities for transit. And
that targets transit being up
and operational in 2036. And so
I just would note that there's
some time to work on that
problem. And also, as we engage
with the design builder, you
know, maybe there are things to
explore, but also recognizing
that popping traffic out into
that space and popping them
back in, especially, especially
given that the roadbed, that
bridge bed that you're building
for highway versus for transit
is actually fundamentally
different because you're going
to place different activities
on it. So there's some nuance
there. So certainly there may
be ways to think about it, if
that is anticipated to be an
extended period. Right now
we're targeting to get the work
done.
>> Thank you. Anybody else? All
right. Temple.
>> Thank you Carly. I'm glad I
don't have your job. Thinking
about with the first funded
phase, there's several things
like interchanges and on off
ramps, like the C Street,
things that aren't going to be
built that will come will all
just hold together, that they
will come. But there's a long
time until some of them will
come. Is there work being done
or will work be done to model
what those impacts will be?
Trying to navigate this new
build with the old connections
and potential traffic issues or
other impacts, so that we can
plan for how that gets
mitigated.
>> So one, I would note that
the C Street and City Street
ramps that are currently part
of SR 14, yes, they're not in
that first step body of work.
And I think there's at least
some information in the final
supplemental environmental
impact statement around
construction impacts, because
we anticipated those being
closed for many years just
associated with the
construction. So that's one
component of it. I think the
other thing is there may be
places where we need to just
look and consider, what does
this look like for more of a
long term perspective, and just
understand that a little better
in partnership with the members
of our executive steering group
and others. So we are not we
are a little bit nose to the
grindstone right now. On
finalizing the environmental
impact statement and working
towards this financial deadline
at the end of September. But
also we anticipate dialog both,
you know, before and and likely
with the progressive design
build contractor, because there
may be some opportunities to
understand what those impacts
are and work with them to also
understand and mitigate them.
So it's a conversation that we
need to make sure we have.
>> Okay, well, I don't see any
more questions. Once again,
thanks for coming. It's always
informative, if not confusing
at times, but trust the process
and let's get a bridge built.
>> We're always happy to answer
questions. We will get the link
to toll rates out and just
appreciate your partnership in
a tip amendment next month. So
thank you.
>> Thank you Carly. Next up, we
have a discussion items on safe
streets and roads for all I
don't know who's presenting
that.
>> Yes. Thank you so much for
your time tonight. Included in
your meeting packet is some
high, high level overview of
what I'm going to be discussing
is a information item hoping to
provide you with some
information about the safe
streets and Roads for all grant
that we are pursuing across the
region. The Sefrin. I'll be
referring to it as SS4A should
be familiar to many people
around this table. In 2023, RTC
was successful in applying for
a $300,000 planning grant to
pursue a safety action plan for
Clark County. As a part of this
work, we had tasks associated
with developing implementation
grants. In 2024, we pursued a
similar model of application
and were successful in
receiving another $300,000 to
develop safety action planning
work in Skamania and Klickitat
counties as well. These are the
two plans I have on the screen
right now. You probably are
more familiar with the Clark
County Safety Action Plan, and
that is because we are in the
final steps of completing the
safety action plan for Skamania,
the Gorge Safety Action plan is
we're calling it. So I'll be
back here in June and July to
provide more information about
that. Tonight, though, I'll
just be talking about the
notice for funding for the
implementation grant, this this
year. So on March 28th, a
notice for funding was released
by the federal government for
the final phase of this one $1
billion allocation, a majority
of which is going to be
allocated for implementation
grants. The the projects that
are identified that I'll be
talking about tonight were
identified in those two safety
action plans. And because of
the short turnaround time, we
were given 60 days from the
notice of funding opportunity.
We'll be working towards
submitting those applications
before the May 26th deadline. I
apologize for the short
turnaround. That's just the
nature of the of the Nofo this
year. We were anticipating it
would be a little earlier than
last year, and we were
anticipating it would be quite
short, but we weren't
anticipating it would be this
early and this short. I'll,
I'll also say, well, I'll get
to it in a second. So the the
first application I'm going to
discuss is coming out of the
Gorge Safety Action Plan over
the last year. And as I say,
I'll be talking about this more
next month. We have been
working with local agencies,
including. Fire and Safety and
Ambulance and other EMS
agencies to develop a safety
action plan. Core to this work
was identifying the high injury
network across Klickitat and
Skamania, and within that
network, identifying projects
that have the highest and best
case for improving safety. One
of those projects that emerged
is a great candidate was the
wind River Road Improvement
Project that has come before
this board for improvements in
the past. This would be
extending some of the safety
improvements north of the
Carson downtown core to
separate pedestrians and a lot
of freight traffic that moves
through the region. We have
estimated that this project
will cost about $5 million, and
Skamania County has committed
to providing the matching funds,
which is about 20% of the of
the project. On this slide,
I've included a map of the
Clark County SS4, a application
for for for grant funding in
the previous year for the
implementation grant funding,
Clark County or RTC, was a part
of a coalition of agency
partners that submitted roughly
$25 million grant application
request for planning,
implementation and
demonstration activities.
Unfortunately, we weren't
successful with that grant
request. In subsequent meetings
with FWA, we were told that the
projects were great and
unfortunately, the demand was
just too high, and this project
was one of many that didn't
receive funding. So on this
table, this shows the projects
that are going to be a part of
the package that we're
submitting this year for Clark
County. We're continuing to
work. As I say, the Nofo was
released less than a month ago,
so we're continuing to work
closely with agencies to
understand what their
priorities are and if they can
meet the match requirements. As
I said earlier, there's a 20%
match. So for a grant that
could be anywhere between $2.5
million to $25 million, it's a
substantial match requirement.
So at this time, Camas, Clark
County, Vancouver and Center
are able to participate. And
we're still waiting to hear
back from a struggle which is
identified on this slide. In
terms of next steps, we are
working to finalize the Gorge
Action Plan safety action plan.
That's a requirement of of this
application. And we're working
diligently to to meet the
deadline, as they say, will be
submitting a package for Clark
County, which includes a
variety of, of, of
transportation improvement
projects that improve
measurably safety across the
region and supporting Skamania
County as they submit their
safety action plan, their
implementation grant, sorry,
application. That's my last
slide. I hope to answer any
questions you might have.
>> Yeah, I have one. Are these
all going to be on one
application or are we
supporting as RTC individual
applications of higher dollar
amounts.
>> So the two projects. So no
they will not be one
application. The Skamania
application will be coming from
them directly or the Clark
County package of applications.
I can go back two slides to
show this. We will be
submitting this as a package
consistent with how we had
submitted them previously.
>> If a municipality wishes to
do their own application with
RTC, be able to support that
application.
>> Correct. And I believe Clark
County is submitting an
application independent of of
this application in this final
round. And we are definitely
supportive of that. We are
happy to provide any letters of
support to the county or to any
other agency that's looking to
submit applications, either for
implementation, grant funding
or for the other two grant
opportunities, which include
planning and demonstration.
>> Thank you. Anybody else?
>> Counselor Stover, Vancouver.
So you said Clark County is
going to implement or submit
separately. Is that the project
listed here? Or there's an
additional project that they're
planning on submitting
separately?
>> I might have to defer to
Jennifer, who's been leading
the discussion in Clark County.
I've been sort of focused on
Clark and Skamania County.
Sorry to pull you up, Jennifer.
I thought I was giving Jennifer
the night off. I'm sorry. I'm
trying to remember what you had
said.
>> I'm just.
>> So the question was, so
Clark County is going to submit
a separate application for. I
think it's safe routes to
school. So it's under the
planning program. And this is
an implementation grant. So
capital improvements. Yeah.
>> Any further questions. Okay.
Thank you so much. That will
take us to the other business
portion of the meeting from the
board. We have one thing on the
agenda. City of Vancouver
resolution. I think that will
be mayor and.
>> Thank you very much.
Directors in your pocket. You
have a letter that was
transmitted to Matt. It points
out that the City of Vancouver
on April 13th unanimously
passed a formal opposition to
the scaled back IBR plans that
would terminate the LRT at the
waterfront. We support
extending the line to Library
Square at the station, and that
the waterfront stop is
insufficient and abandons years
of coordinated land use and all
of the work that C-tran has
been working on in that network
of transportation planning. As
we look at it, we believe there
is an option later this fall
with the design builder to take
a look at a different approach
of getting light rail, not over
the asphalt, but onto the dirt
that is parallel to that line.
And we would like the designers
to take a look at that
opportunity, but we need to
have that. The pressure, if you
would, on the IBR, to know that
the different signatories on
this document on the modified
LPA want to see light rail at
the terminal, not 90ft, ten
inches up in the air,
straddling a stop over the BNSF
with four elevators. We're not
planning to build park and
rides at the bottom of those
elevators. C-tran was not
planning to bring the busses
down to the waterfront. As we
have looked at this project for
eight and a half years, we have
based land use and network
planning on a terminus at
Library Square, and so we pass
a resolution. We. Matt, do you
have an accompanying resolution
over there?
>> Directors. I've reviewed the
Vancouver resolution and have
drafted a smaller version. I
don't have copies here around
the table I. We could display a
copy online if the board would
wish to entertain at least
review. I'll give you a
characterization. It's briefer
or shorter. Just getting to the
essence of, I think, the
statement that could be made,
which is consistent with the
statement as as expressed in
the Vancouver resolution,
strongly suggesting that the
core phase, initial phase,
however it's described
described here as core phase
LRT extension, make it to
Evergreen Boulevard. So this is
certainly subject to the
board's debate. But a version,
I think, just more scaled down
than what Vancouver adopted.
>> So after we've had a chance
to take a look at this, this is
not an action item for this
evening. I will be making a
motion that the RTC Board of
Directors add a formal review,
discussion and action item of
the IBR LRT alignment to the
June 2026 regular meeting
agenda and that the discussions
shall specifically reaffirm
this Board of Directors
previously approved approval of
the LRT terminus at Library
Square and was integrated into
our 2022 modified locally
preferred alternative. You'll
notice the first part of that
says that we absolutely remain
committed as a supporter for
the IBR program. We want this
to move forward. The whereases
that follow are specific to RTC
and the work that they have
done, and if you could go to
the end of that, it's the.
Therefore, be it resolved that
the RTC Board of Directors
strongly recommends that the
core phase of LRT extend beyond
the planned waterfront station
and connect with C trans
existing and planned bus system
at a multimodal hub by
Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square. So I'd be happy
to answer any questions.
>> Any questions? Yeah, I'm
seeing Commissioner Asa. Yep.
>> Yeah. Is this already
included in current funding, or
would this require additional
funding? And where would that
funding come from? Would the
city fund that or would
regional transportation dollars
fund that? Thank you.
>> And at this point, we're not
identifying the funding. We
would like the design option to
be explored.
>> And who pays for the design
option. Thank you.
>> The entire bridge project
moves forward. They will be
hiring. A company to design the
bridge and all of the light
rail and all of the on and off
ramps. This would be a part of
that design requirement.
>> So currently it's not in the
current cost estimate. Is that
correct?
>> It is part of the current
cost estimate.
>> Okay. That clarifies it.
Thank you.
>> Tum.
>> I have a just a clarifying
question to make sure that I'm
reading seeing the right thing.
So this is recommending not to
adjust the. The first funding
package that we're talking
about. Like there's the core
set of programs. And then
there's the part of that that
we have the money for that is
being put forward. So this is
proposing add this, explore
this for the core package, not
necessarily impacting that
first funding set.
>> I believe the answer to your
question is yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Taisia Vancouver, to wanting
to bring back to the action
item being requested tonight is
is only whether to add this as
a agenda item to the June
meeting, correct? Yeah. So
plenty of opportunity over the
next 30 ish days for lots of
clarification to happen. Lots
of these background questions
to be addressed so that
directors are prepared to have
a full discussion in June.
>> Correct. The procedures for
putting an item on the RTC
agenda requires any one of us
to bring it the month before.
Bring the motion to the Board
of Directors. The Board of
Directors would vote to put
that on the next month's agenda.
So the only motion tonight is,
as I stated, is to add a formal
review, discussion and action
item of the IBR LRT alignment
to the June 2026 regular agenda
meeting.
>> I just want to acknowledge
Cami's position. As you saw
resolution last year, Lizeth
resolution 25-001. Chemist does
not support the light rail to
be added to I-5 bridge due to
its high capital cost and low
ridership, so chemists will not
support whether extension to
waterfront or to evergreen.
>> I just have a process
question as far as whether this
fits within maybe the purview
of a resolution or a letter, or
what's the and maybe it's a
legal question that we can
pursue in between the meetings.
And it doesn't actually have to
be decided here of what's the
best package to put this in for,
for our, our purview and the
intent of the words on the, on
the screen. So I would just ask
maybe some, maybe legal can I
don't know the answer to that
question.
>> Yeah. I think the most
appropriate format would be a
resolution. A letter, of course
is an option as well. But I
think a formal resolution has
more weight to it than a simple
letter. I would also point out
that according to our rules of
procedure, which we just
recently adopted, as the mayor
pointed out, it takes a motion
and a second and then a vote of
this body to move this forward
to the June meeting.
>> Yeah. Right now we're just
allowing discussions before I'm
sure there'll be a motion.
>> I just want to question Mike.
>> Mike.
>> I just had a more of a
question. Maybe it's a
discussion over the next 30
days, but I've talked about the
timing and the significance of
it. And if this would, how this
might affect that. So that'd be
kind of my question.
>> You're wanting more
information on if this would
potentially delay or impact
from the IR team. Okay. I see
another question from ASA.
>> Or no. I put my hand down.
So.
>> Oh, who is that? I'm sorry,
my Eyesight's.
>> That's Ryan.
>> Ryan I'm sorry. Ryan.
>> That's okay. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Thanks for noticing my hand.
Sorry. My my name on there is
too small for everybody. Thank
you mayor for for sharing
what's going on with the city.
And, and obviously there's a
strong desire to see light rail
completed. And I, I share that
I of course want to see the
complete project done. And I
think that that's the stated
position of, of Odot and, and
myself. I mean, this is
something that I think we all
want to see is transit connect
people where they need to be
and, and try to connect, you
know, to the, to the modal
station, but to the points I
heard some others say, just,
just if we are moving something
like this forward in the. I'd
just like us to make sure we're
considering what's been
mentioned, which is. The core
set of projects currently
matches the current set of
funding, and slowing that down
is putting, you know, billions
of dollars at risk. So stating
a desire I think is, you know,
could be an appropriate thing
if the that's the will of the
board as long as we're not
impacting the timing and moving
forward of this, this current
amendment, that's and I look,
I'm open to some further
discussions as this this
conversation progresses next
month.
>> Yeah. And can we scroll down
to to the bottom sentence? Go
ahead.
>> Ty chair. I want to move to
bring this forward for
discussion at the June meeting.
>> Second.
>> Motion and a second. And I
think the Ryan, to your point,
the strongly recommends maybe a
important caveat to that. Any
further discussion before we go
to a vote to add this to the
June agenda? All in favor.
>> I, I.
>> Any opposed.
>> Opposed.
>> Motion carries. It will be
added to the June agenda. It'll
take us to the executive
Director report. Unless there's
anything else from the board
that's on the agenda. No. Okay.
>> Just a request. If that
draft could be emailed to us
soon so we can share it with
our organizations.
>> The IVR presentation to
please.
>> I have a request. Also, if
we could be sure the IVR folks
are here. If there's any
questions that we have when we
discuss this at our next
meeting. Our June meeting.
>> They'll be here for the tips
or the.
>> Yeah, we requested the IVR
team be available the June
meeting to support the Tip
amendment and any questions
that would arise. All right,
directors, just one report. I'm
pleased to announce that we
completed our financial audit
and performance audit, which is
our recurring review with the
State Auditor's office. This
morning, the chair and I met
with the State Auditor's office.
We received their verbal report,
which is the performance audit
and financial statement audit
of RTC was. Approved with an
unmodified opinion. The
unmodified opinion represents
the highest opinion of accuracy
and and they had no comments.
So I'd just like to express my
gratitude to the RTC team,
including support staff such as
Shann, our external accountant,
Comptroller and another support
staff and the RTC team as a
whole. It's a small team
working together. As I
mentioned last month, we don't
have a proper procurement
office. We don't have a finance
office. That's sort of me in a
sense. And so it is difficult
to manage all the regulations
and requirements. But given a
small team, I think I'm happy
to report the completion of
this audit as unmodified
opinion. It'll be published in
the State Auditor's report and
online filing system on
Thursday. I'll share a copy
with the board, but transmitted
to you this morning was a copy
of their report, which is not
final, but it'll be final as of
Thursday. So that's my report.
Thank you.
>> And I would also
congratulate the RTC team on
that. I know our city has a
previous role as a state
auditor, and she gets clean
audits as well. But it is not
easy. So job well done with
that, the next RC t RTC Board
of Directors meeting is Tuesday,
June 2nd, 2026 at 4 p.m. This
meeting is adjourned. Thank you.