Good afternoon and welcome.
Calling to order the Regional
Transportation Council. October
6th, 2026. Let's start with the
roll call. Michelle Belkot
present. Sue Marshall here. Wil
Fuentes. Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
Present. Eric Paulson here.
Masa Eshki here. Troy McCoy
here. Asa Leckey. Present. Ron
Ihrig here. Randy Parker here.
Michael Southwick here. Larry
Keister here. Dean Reynolds.
Here. Ryan Windsheimer. Here.
Christine Lewis. And House and
Senate members of the 14th,
17th, 18th, 20th and 49th
districts. Okay. Thank you. Are
there any amendments to the
agenda? And if not, I'll
entertain a motion to approve
the agenda.
>> Move to approve the agenda
as presented. Paulson.
>> Second. Moved and seconded.
Thank you. All those in favor,
say I. I. I. Okay. Thank you
very much. Then moving on to
public comments, we have a
couple people who have signed
up in the room. And just a
reminder to limit your comments
to three minutes. So we'll
start with Bruce Barnes.
>> Good afternoon, chair and
board of directors here. My
name is Bruce Barnes for the
record. I want to talk about a
few things today. One I'd like
to ask that Wil Fuentes recuse
himself from this committee
because he's violated the
county charter. With him being
in charge of the fourth plan
forward and also taking money
from our county taxpayers, it's
a violation of county charter,
and I don't think he should be
in any position to be making
any recommendations or anything
on any board until that is
resolved. Secondly, I want to
talk about highway 504. It's
been four years since the road
washed out at Mount Saint
Helens. We used to have about
1.3 million visitors up there,
and now there's about 130,000.
And it's taken people's
recreation away, especially
mine and other people I know
that like to go up and hunt and
recreate and mountain bike and
everything else up there. And
not only that, but the
businesses have severely
suffered up there. When you
look at the businesses that
have gone out of business on
highway 504, it's a it's a huge
effect on a rural community.
Secondly, I want to talk about
highway 14 and the shape that
that highway is in. It is
destroyed and it's extremely
dangerous. I watched a Porsche
crash there three weeks ago.
Injury accident because the
road is just so rough. The
other thing I'd like to talk
about is the interstate bridge.
I don't know if you guys have
talked to any of the bicycle
associations about putting a
toll on the bicycles, going
across the new interstate
bridge, I'm sure you're going
to have some huge backlash for
bicyclists crossing the bridge
and being charged a toll fee. I
just I don't know how much more
money people can pay their
absorbed already property taxes,
fuel taxes, food. I mean, at
what point are we giving up 90%
of our income to build things
that most people don't want? So
I don't know. I just think that
we need to improve our roadways
first and foremost and make
them safer. And I guess that's
all I got for today. Thanks so
much.
>> Thank you. Next up is Carmen
de Leon.
>> Hello. So where's my timer?
Oh, there you go. Okay, so I'm
Carmen de Leon, also known as
mellow. And I think I've gone
over to prices with you already.
They claim to have secured 2
billion for the bridge. And
according to my little study
here, the Fremont Bridge in
today's money was 600 million
would be 600 million. The 205
bridge again, 600 million. Ross
Island Bridge, about 40 million.
I-5 bridge 13,000,000 billion.
So you know what is wrong with
the math here? You can make
three other bridges for a
quarter of the amount of money.
And yet they want to push this
billion dollar Uhl doesn't need
to be done because we've had
four now. Engineers say that
that bridge is sound. It does
not need to be demolished. So
in other words, why is it
historically registered if they
just want to tear it down and
they have enough money to make
other bridges, not to mention
expanding 205 and adding two
lanes on each side. Not only do
you have enough room on the
outside, but when you go into
between Salem and say, PDX, you
can actually add lanes on the
inside. So you're not buying
more property, you're just
adding lanes inward instead of
outward. So, and I don't think
that would cost in the billions
to go ahead and expand what is
already there without further
further purchasing. Let me see.
What else do I have? When we
went to the transportation
thing with all the legislators,
we did get cut short. All us
public just had three minutes,
but all the people with suits
and ties and appeared to be the
public that were paid
legislators and paid people
bidding for these contracts. Oh,
they they were allowed 15
minutes. But us public, we got
shut up and shut out the way
the city of Vancouver likes to
shut people out illegally. So
it appears that everybody's in
agreement when really they're
silencing all the naysayers,
because that way they look like
they're in control. When
actually the only people who
need to be in control are the
ones who feel out of control
and are weak and are bullies.
That's where it comes from.
That psychotic need to
micromanage is because in your
subconscious, somewhere, you
didn't have control. Now you
have to control everything,
even if you lie. So that's how
the the human consciousness
works. And unfortunately, these
people like to be spending
money. And like I've said now,
I waited for last. We could be
making 40 bucks a pop like the
Space Needle, when all we have
to do is make a tourist
attraction. Instead of picking
apart every parcel and digging
up all the holes, make money
off the land. I've been all
over the United States, and we
have the unique opportunity
here with these trees and with
our environment to make money
to compete with the Space
Needle. I've said it before we
can make our own Space Needle.
We need a giant tree, build a
tram to it, and charge 40 bucks
a. Pop and make money instead
of spending it. Man.
>> Is there anyone online? No
one online. Okay. That
concludes public comment.
Moving on to the consent agenda,
we have item A through J. Would
anyone like to pull any items
from the consent agenda? Yes.
Chair. Yes. Go ahead. Item C, D,
and j, C, d, j. For the
remaining items. I'll entertain
a motion to approve.
>> Move to approve. Paulson.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
Second McEnerny Ogle. Okay.
Moved and seconded. Thank you.
All those in favor say I I I I.
Okay, then let's move to item C.
Item C is the resolution to
hire James McNamara. First of
all, I would like to say Ted
Gathe has served remarkably
well in our legal counsel for
many, many years. Thank you,
Ted, for all of your great work.
Sorry to see you retire, but no,
you have some great
opportunities ahead of you, but
I believe James McNamara, as
noted, was the attorney for the
City of Vancouver for nine
years. I worked with him on the
Planning Commission and on
several different other boards
and commissions. He is an
excellent choice and we're
happy to support that choice.
Thank you for those comments.
Any other comments? Yes. Go
ahead.
>> I just wanted to add that I
had the good fortune of hiring
Jim for that position. He went
on to receive a gubernatorial
appointment to the Growth
Hearings Board. So he's had
experience at that level. And
then he returned to be the city
of Longview City attorney for a
number of years before finally
finishing a second term on the
Growth Hearings board. So I
think he's going to bring
excellent legal resources to
this body. And I couldn't be
more happy to be to see him as
my successor.
>> So thanks for those comments
and thanks for your service all
these years. Any other comments?
Okay, I'll entertain a motion
on item C, so move and McEnerny
Ogle. It's been moved. Thank
you. Is there a second?
>> Second. Michelle Belkot.
>> Thank you very much. Moved
and seconded. All those in
favor say I, I I motion carries.
Okay on to D. This is consent
agenda item D proposed
amendments to appendix D
unfunded planning activities.
The city of the cities of
Vancouver and Camas are happy
to see that there is a
unanimous recommendation to the
Board of Directors to amend
this and to add 200,000 to the
discretionary grant funds,
especially adding the North
East 18th Street East Extension
feasibility study. We believe
that this is an absolute must
for the future corridor and
right of way, so we are happy
to support this. Okay. Thank
you. Are there any further
comments on item D? If not,
I'll entertain a motion to
approve.
>> Move to approve. Paulson.
>> Thank you. Second moved and
seconded. Thank you. All those
in favor, say I, I motion
carries. Okay, then down to J.
This is one that we spoke about
before city of Vancouver. It's
a little sad that our 33rd
Street pedestrian Enhancement
project scored so lowly. In
looking at the scoring guide,
it appears that the scoring
criteria is for new sidewalks.
ET cetera. ET cetera. And not
changing existing corridors so
that they meet the new complete
streets criteria. So the City
of Vancouver will continue to
work with our TTC staff and
take a look at that scoring
guide, so that the idea of a
complete street is also part of
the new scoring guide. And I'd
be happy to move item J. Okay.
Are there any further comments?
Been moved. Is there a second?
Second moved and seconded. All
those in favor say I, I I
motion carries. Okay, moving on
to presentation transportation
improvement program. And Dale
Robbins is coming up to tell us
about that.
>> So I am filling in for
Jennifer today. First of all, I
would like to really thank
Julia from our ETC staff who
actually did all the
preparation of this document.
She put a lot of work into it
as we are trying to do some
cross training and letting
other staff learn how to do
things like this. Julie is our
newest employee at RTC. New
projects have been added to the
the documents since the
original draft went out for
public review. First of all, we
added three safety federal
Safety grant projects. Those
were selected in mid September
after our public involvement
started, and we have added
those into the document. They
include Vancouver's 112th
Avenue Safety Improvement
Campus, Northeast Third Avenue
Reconfiguration and Cowlitz
Indian Tribe safety
improvements on northwest 31st
Avenue. The Vancouver and
campus projects are a direct
result of the local road safety
plans that RTC funded last year.
Also, we. As we did our review,
we realized we had two other
projects that we missed Camas
Lake Road Transportation
Alternative Grant, which we
just awarded the grant from to.
And that was missed out. And
also the Transportation Future
project was also added. Long
standing project in our Unified
Planning Work program. So
basically, the transportation
improvement is a federal
requirement that we have to
prepare one. It's really a. We
also have a programing
guidebook that leads and guides
our process and all projects
that are in the transportation
improvement program must be
consistent with the regional
transportation plan. The
Transportation Improvement
Program is composed of
transportation projects that
address the regional
transportation system needs.
Within Clark County. The tip is
prepared annually and must be.
And we amend it quite
frequently during the year as
project changes occur only
regionally. Significant
projects that plan to be
obligated funds within the next
four years are included in the
tip. That's an important
distinction. So it's not a
programing. It is a programing
document. It's not an
expenditure document. So you
could obligate funds one year
and be spending them the next
year. And it would not show up
in the tip as often.
Construction projects often go
multiple years, for example.
This is the overall selection
process and how we do it. You
know, basically local agencies
determine what their priority
projects are and submit grant
applications to RTC. RTC has a
project review, and then we do
a. That's just to make sure
that the application is
completely filled out so that
we can do the evaluation. Then
we do an evaluation and select
projects. We have a public
comment period, and then the
board adopts the Transportation
Improvement program and the
document that you're hopefully
going to approve today begins
next year. So agencies starting
in January implement those
projects. The first two years
of the Transportation
Improvement program are
considered selected projects,
which means those projects in
either 2027 or 2028 would be
able to start moving forward in
January. We programing $5.1
billion in the transportation
improvement program that
includes 1.5 billion in federal
transportation funds. This
includes $42.8 million of RTC
board selected regional federal
grants. The Transportation
Improvement Program after your
adoption will then become part
of the State Transportation
Improvement Program, and
projects again can begin
implementation next year.
Projects listed in the Stip are
required. Are. Receive
authorization for use of
federal funds. It's a
requirement to be in the state
to be able to receive federal
funds. One of the things that
we need to know is that we are
currently at the end of the
Federal Transportation Funding
Act. It's expired. We have
currently a continuation, but
our understanding of the new
bill that will hopefully come
forward in the next short
period of time carbon reduction
program will no longer be
included. And because of that,
Washington State Department of
Transportation is not allowing
us to continue to program
carbon reduction programs that
weren't received prior to well,
it would be this year or
earlier. RTC has committed
funding to several projects
with carbon Reduction program,
and we have promised to keep
those projects whole. And in
order to do that, we did have
to as part of this
transportation improvement
program, move some projects to
CMac or SGDBG funding to make
sure that we could make our
commitments to those projects.
And that's part of the reason
why we didn't do a call for
projects for the whole program
this year. It was really
limited to the Transportation
alternative program. There are
still potentials and
opportunities for our policies
to to change over time as we
continue to do our
transportation program, and we
allow that process to guide us.
So hopefully, you saw the
actual document over on the
side or you have at your table.
We are looking for approval of
resolution ten dash 26-39,
which would adopt the 2027 to
2030 Transportation Improvement
Program.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any questions, comments? Chair,
I move the resolution. 1020 639
okay. Thank you for your motion.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
All those in favor say I. I.
Opposed no motion carries. Oh,
okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.
A couple comments just to
follow up to the tip report.
It's noted in the staff memo
that tomorrow our partners in
Skamania and Klickitat County,
the joint meeting is being held.
They are reviewing their tip
document. Adam FIS has prepared
it. And they're going to adopt
the reason why Skamania and
Klickitat adopt their tip.
Separate from Clark County is
because those two counties
administer the federal funds as
a lead agency. So under our MPO
designation, we're the lead
agency for Clark County, and
then Skamania and Klickitat
individually are lead agencies
over their funds, but we
support them through tip
development and project review
and so forth. And so that will
be an action of the board
tomorrow, which is why we
published their documents just
for public information purposes.
The second comment, this is
just a brief follow up to our
conversation last month about
the city of Washougal 32nd rail
Overcrossing project. And we
had a very extensive review of
their funding. And there was a
project delay exception that
was granted earlier in this
meeting, received an update
from the City administrator,
city manager at City of
Washougal, and he said that the
state contribution allocated
under the move ahead Washington
bill, it was originally $8
million. It's since then been
increased to. Let me get the
number correctly, 18 million.
So just since our last meeting,
there was additional funding
awarded through the MAW process.
How that occurred, I'm not
exactly sure, but other than to
say they continue to make
progress and pulling together
their funding program. And
since then also we had a
consultation review with
Washougal. We understand they
had a meeting with Washdot
Local Programs division, who's
the administrator of the
statewide funds. And we can't
report progress on the
discussions with Fra other than
to say other everybody is
meeting. We're making at least
the consultation coordination.
So we're hopeful. But I wanted
to report that because I know
the board's extremely
interested in the progress of
that project. That's a lot of
money, $10 million.
>> That's that's very good news.
Thanks for adding that. Okay.
We're moving on to several
discussion and information
items. 2026 coordinated public
transit, Human services,
transportation Plan for Clark,
Klickitat and Skamania counties.
Update and Adams already raring
to go there.
>> Thank you. You mentioned
I'll be discussing the 2026
Coordinated Public Transit
Human Services Transportation
plan for Klickitat, Skamania,
and Clark County. I. I think I
can shave a few minutes off the
presentation by just referring
to it as the HSP. So when I do
just know that I'm talking
about the CPG, HSP, we're
bringing this to you today as a
discussion item, an opportunity
to unpack the draft plan. I'll
be returning in November,
seeking your endorsement on the
plan itself, including in your
meeting packet. Is the draft
HSP, which has been updated to
reflect comments received
during the 30 day public
comment period. We received
about 60 comments from
stakeholders, public agencies
and the document that you have
in your packet is reflective of
that. I hope to cover key
elements of the document in my
presentation today and answer
any questions that you might
have. We wanted to start the
presentation by highlighting
the grant opportunity that the
Human Services Plan, the Hsrp,
unlocks. The consolidated Grant
program is a biennial statewide
program that supports planning,
bus procurement, operation and
maintenance costs associated
with public transportation
programs. Since C-TRAN receives
FTA or Federal Transit
Administration funding directly,
the consolidated grant program
supports smaller operations
such as Mount Adams Transit and
Klickitat County. Skamania
Transit and Nia County, as well
as Community in motion in all
three counties, the Washington
State DOT manages the
Consolidated Grants program and
is responsible for distributing
state and federal funds through
this program. It gets its name
because it is a consolidation
of various federal and state
transit funds. 20% of the funds,
for example, come from the
Climate Commitment Act. 70% are
coming from federal sources. To
be eligible to receive these
funds, applicants are required
to participate in the HSP
planning process with their
local TPO, and a project must
be clearly defined and
identified in that region's HSP,
which. I'll turn to you now. I
will be talking about the
Consolidated Grants program
just a bit at the end as well.
So federal and state
transportation regulation
requires the update and
development of a HSP about
every four years for Clark,
Klickitat and counties. The
plan seeks to address the
transportation needs of those
with mobility challenges and
special transportation needs,
including elderly youth, people
with disabilities, low income
populations, and and rural
residents without access to
transportation. Target
populations are. We generally
refer to these groups as our
target populations, and I'll be
referring to them in this
presentation as that the first
HSP for this region was
developed in 2007, and the plan
has been updated. As I say,
every every four years. The
most recent plan and our
current copy is the 2022
addition. And now we're working
on the 2026. So the FTA, the
Federal Transit Administration
provides guidance on what Hsps
must include. Wasch Dot takes
this guidance and provides
detailed instructions for
developing the plan. Each
planning cycle. Wasch Dot
establishes required elements
that must be included in the
plan and for this update, Wasch
Dot has instructed us to
include seven required elements
which I've included on this
slide. The four core FTA
requirements are circled on
this slide as well. Just to
give you a sense of where some
of these requirements are
coming from, I'll pause on the
slide for a few minutes as I
work through the different
elements and talk about how
we've we've achieved them.
Roughly speaking, though, each
element you can find as a
chapter in this. In this plan,
you may notice that there are
more than seven chapters. It's
because Washdot has provided us
with additional opportunities
beyond the seven elements that
we can consider in developing a
strong human services
transportation plan. So we've
taken those opportunities and
sought to achieve them as well.
So I'll start with the
stakeholder and public
engagement, because there are
keys to the success of of a
successful HSP engaging the
appropriate organizations and
individuals. And the planning
efforts is critical to
identifying the needs of the
target populations and the
needs of the community and the
region. Identifying the formal
the informal transportation
services available, and
identifying solutions to fill
any transportation gaps that we
may find. RTC conducted
outreach to people with
disabilities, seniors, low
income people, and other
special population special
needs populations, and the
outreach also included regional
tribes and representatives from
public, private and nonprofit
providers. Outreach was
completed through survey, in
person and online and in person,
and primarily through some
meetings. I'll talk about the
survey in the next slide, but I
just want to mention that in
terms of committees, we staff
at RTC work closely with the
Accessible Transportation
Coalition initiative, the Clark
County Commission on Aging,
C-TRAN Community Advisory
Committee, and the others RTC
led committees such as Regional
Transportation Advisory
Committee and the
Transportation Policy Committee,
Klickitat and Skamania. So
regional context, which is
number four, element number
four is explored in chapters
two and three. Chapter two
provides an overview of the
three county region and the
common origin destinations,
which is a requirement by Wasch
dot chapter three details the
number and characteristics of
people in the region who have
special transportation needs,
or may be at greater risk of
experiencing transportation
barriers. The analysis is
centered around the target
populations I mentioned, and
various figures, maps and data
are presented for Clark,
Klickitat and Skamania counties
and where available, the cities
within them. Residents in this
region often travel through
each other's jurisdictions. And
because of this, and I think
it's new to this update,
wherever possible, we've
combined Klickitat, Skamania
and Clark counties to look at
the different elements I just
talked about in the different
demographics across the three
counties. Service assessment is
found in chapter five and
broken up by county. The
section is supported by transit
agencies who provided us with
information on the services
they offer. Additional
providers were identified and
included in this update.
Expanding the understanding of
available services and
transportation needs. The
chapter details the different
transportation service
providers and their days and
hours of operation. The next
chapter. Chapter six Service
Gap Assessment tackles element
six. The chapter examines unmet
transportation needs across the
region. The analysis addresses
the demand for service not only
in transit disadvantaged
populations, but also among
population. The general
population, which you can find
on pages 71 to 77. It
identifies the transportation
options that must be maintained,
expanded and improved across
the three counties. The major
unmet needs are listed. Going
back to the beginning of my
presentation, the needs
identified are essential to
receiving consolidated grant
funding. So it's very important
to us to be working closely
with the providers and the
folks that are applying for
this grant funding to make sure
that the projects are
identified clearly so they can
unlock that funding. The final
element, which is to address
service gaps and regional
priorities, are considered in
the plans. Next two chapters.
The strategies are informed by
the transportation needs and
gaps identified throughout the
plan, and are intended to guide
coordination and efforts to
coordinate local agencies,
transportation providers and
community partners. They
include, but aren't limited to,
maintaining on demand service
bus barns in in the gorge
region, emergency management,
travel trainers, mobility
managers, etc. it's. We try to
have a broad tent to make sure
that over the next four years,
when folks are applying for
consolidated grant funding,
this document is still relevant.
Both this biennium and next.
Based on these strategies,
local agencies cooperatively
develop projects to meet
transportation needs identified
in the previous chapters and
informed by earlier elements.
In addition to these required
elements, we have also sought
to achieve some of the optional
elements provided by Wasch dot
through ongoing coordination
opportunities. I just want to
highlight the Transportation
Needs survey, which we
completed this past summer. As
part of the engagement process.
I say engagement. I think we
did engagement in a variety of
ways to inform and engage
people on on this planning
effort, but also to hear and
understand what the needs are
of of Clark, Klickitat and
Skamania County residents. So
we worked pretty hard to get
this out. And we received 244
responses. You'll find all of
those responses in appendix B
of the plan. We tried to
summarize them throughout the
plan. A lot of what we heard
was an incredible gratitude for
the services that are available
for the people that are helping
people get to where they need
to go. With the travel trailers,
especially getting a lot of
shout outs for the great work
that they do in terms of needs,
a lot of requests for expanded
service, expanded hours in the
day, and especially in the
gorge region. The addition of
weekend service. As well. On
the last point, an improved
first mile, last mile
connection. So you can think
about the first mile, last mile
connection as if you're riding
the bus. It's the distance
between where the bus stops and
where you're trying to get to,
whether it's home or work or
shopping or errands. That can
be a huge barrier for a lot of
folks that are taking the bus
or would take the bus. So
understanding and easing the
barrier that that might pose is
something that we, we
considered in this plan. I just
want to mention that the.
Survey was available in in hard
copy, in English and in Spanish
online. I know it says in
English and Spanish online, you
could translate it to to any
language, which is a common
feedback we received from some
of the committees. We. We
brought this to. So this is the
timeline. As I mentioned, I'll
be back in November to seek
your endorsement. This would
meet the December 1st deadline
that Washdot has set for us,
and that will then flow into
the consolidated grants process.
We're already working to
assemble a review committee
that is, you know, well,
reflective of of the region. So
we're looking for folks from
across the region to, to join
this effort and help us review
the different documents. But
we'll be coming back. Myself or
Jennifer will be coming back in
the next few months to talk
more about the consolidated
grant process and come back in
January, likely January 2027,
to seek your endorsement for
the for the consolidated grant
project rankings. So we're yeah,
I would say near the end of
this project with you in your
packet is a, you know, a pretty
far along draft. It reflects
all of the comments we received
during the during the comment
period. We'll be going to Artak
later this month. And due to
the Tpcs tomorrow to seek their
endorsement before returning in
November for for yours as well.
Happy to answer any questions
right now.
>> Great. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions anyone
online? Okay. Just to note that
this needs to be submitted to
Wasch dot December 1st and that
this will be an action item
next month. Okay. Thanks very
much.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Moving on to Vancouver
area smart Trek, otherwise
known as vast. And Dale Robbins
will be presenting again.
>> If I could refer everyone to
the yellow memo. Attached to
that is the Transportation
System Management and Operation
plan. Let me begin really by
explaining a little bit about
what vast or Vancouver area
smart Trek is. It's really a
partnership between local
agencies that's been managed by
RTC since 2001. The local
partners are Washington State
Department of Transportation,
Clark County, Vancouver, Camas
and C-TRAN. And basically,
these agencies are working
together to enhance the
transportation, the existing
transportation network and
improve safety without adding
road capacity. One of the key
plans for this program is
really the Transportation
System Management and
Operations Plan, which is
attached. I am proud of that
document. It's only 23 pages
long. When was the last time
you saw a planner write
something that short? I'm sorry,
but it's straight to the point
to help also better understand
the vast program. I just want
to kind of highlight some of
the key strategies that we use
for that. That includes traffic
incident management, traffic
signal coordination, traveler
information managed lanes,
weather management, freight and
transit management. It's
basically trying to get the
existing system to work at its
optimal. The plan update
discusses why this matters and
outlines goals, aligns agency
staffing roles and integration,
and prioritizes specific
strategies. Rather than relying
solely on standalone technology,
good transportation system
management and operations
implement implementation
requires leadership, buy in and
a clear vision. It requires
becoming part of an
institutional practice that
leads to well coordinated, on
the ground implement
implementation that optimizes
safety, efficiency, reliability
of the existing transportation
system. The 2026 update to the
plan reflects how practices
have evolved, creating a more
holistic approach is no longer
just about technology. It's
about integrating technology
and operations within an agency.
The plan also establishes
attainable near medium and long
term priorities. This slide is
a little hard to read, but this
is the near term. Strategies.
Those that are in the brown box
are the ones that were really
concentrating with our vast
committees on working on the
other ones. A lot of them are
actually being implemented by
local agencies on their own. I
just want to highlight a couple
of them. One of the things that
really we have identified is
the need to really develop a
fiber renewal, resiliency and
asset plan, just like we have
asset plans for pavement
bridges and everything else
about when do we need to
replace and maintain those
things. We really need to
develop a resiliency plan on
how to maintain the equipment
that we have out in the field.
And so that's one of the things
that we're working on and hope
to have done next year. Also,
we need to maintain a shared
understanding of purpose, roles,
and expectations. One of the
things that we have developed
is we have a draft charter that
we have developed really
circulating amongst agencies
and getting their input. It's I
think we're at the final stage.
We're ready for moving forward
with signatures, but that's
really to help agencies all
work together and to have a
common cause as we move forward.
Another thing is training
ladder. We did we went out and
really found all the various
training that's out there. So
whether it's a signal tech,
city engineer, a planner, we
identified classes that are
available, often free online.
Some are paid in person that
staff can go to to learn how to
really integrate this within
their agency. And the last
thing I wanted to really
highlight was the we really
don't currently have standards
for the region. City of
Vancouver might have certain
technology that they use. The
county has different technology.
Washington State Department of
Transportation has their own
technology. One of the things
that we need to discuss is
really about should we maintain
common equipment, there are
potentially a cost savings
associated with doing such a
thing, and also expectation of
the driving public that can be
improved if we have common
standards that we use. So
that's really my update on the
plan. I'd be glad to answer any
questions.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Dale. Are there any questions?
Anyone online? I don't see any.
And this one will be back to us
in November for approval.
>> No, no, no action on this.
This is just a.
>> Plan. In November.
>> We don't don't need an
action.
>> Okay.
>> But my notes are.
>> All right. Thanks very much
for the presentation.
>> I'm doing the next one too.
>> Oh, there's a next one. Oh,
okay. That's that's the one.
There might be action in
November. Okay. I'm new at this.
>> All right. Next I'd like to
introduce the vast 25 year
program report. Hopefully you
have a copy of that. If not,
they're available over there on
the table to the side. RTC
develops an annual report on
the vast program. But this year
we are celebrating 25 years of
the regional partnership of the
vast program and have developed
this 25 year folio, which is
attached to the salmon colored
memo in your packet. Over the
past 25 years, this
collaborative collaboration has
helped advance the regional
transportation system through
shared communication,
transportation data archiving,
implementation of intelligent
transportation system, and
improved transportation
operations. This slide shows
some of the key figures
associated with the vast
program. There's a variety of
them. The one that probably
will catch your attention is
the upper middle one. And
really, the difference in the
cost of installing fiber and
sharing fiber amongst local
agencies is saving key agencies
over $100,000 per month,
compared to what private fiber
would cost them. So this is
really a beneficial program to
all the regional partners in
the region. Also, within the
folio, we kind of have a time
graphic that outlines key
milestones of the program.
There's a lot of significant
things that occurred over the
time that you can look into and
see, I'm not going to go
through all of them. And then
on the second page, I'd like to
highlight a quote from RTC
retired program manager, who
really managed this program for
the first two decades, and
that's from Bob Hart. He said
the most important factors for
success of the program are
agency partnerships,
cooperative projects, staying
active, and a shared vision for
the future. Really, this
program is really based on
cooperative working
relationships amongst those
agencies. This is our key
stakeholders that are involved
in the process. I would note
that we are holding our annual
vast committee meeting later
this month in October. We have
invited all the public works
people and network people from
the local agencies to
participate in that meeting.
Hopefully we can eventually we
we see this program being
expanded out to Washougal
Battleground Ridgefield. And so
we want to make sure that
they're aware of the program at
least once a year, bring them
in and have them participate
with that. With that, I am
completed. Glad to answer
questions.
>> Are there any questions? Oh,
we have some comments from the
director.
>> All right. Thank you, Madam
Chair, and I apologize about my
Scrivener Notes.
>> Oh no.
>> It's yeah. So I when I asked
the Dale, who's currently
leading the program and in the
team to just really provide a
25 year reflection, I had
forgotten about some of the
very monumental and noteworthy
activities of the program. So
just again, big picture context
here is many MPOs don't run
their or it's or whatever kind
of programs. It's the
obligation under federal law is
that the MPO prepares the plan.
And that's one of the mandated
plans that the MPO is obligated
to produce. Beyond that, then
agencies go off and do whatever
they choose to do. Some regions
have a coordinating committee
that's hosted maybe by the
county, or maybe by the city,
or maybe by the Department of
Transportation. And we chose
within this region, not 25
years ago, but roughly 25 years
ago, that RTC being the neutral
party around the table. We
don't own any equipment. We
don't operate the system that
we may be a good convener of
this conversation. And what you
see is that the program, over
the course of 25 years has
maintained the minimum. So we
produce the plan updates, we
evaluate the different
documents. For example, there's
one referred to here as an
architecture plan. The
architecture plan is, you know,
where's the fiber going to go
and how is it going to go and
how are people going to share
it? Sort of like literally some
plans in a building referred to
as an architecture, there are
other mandated components. And
so as RTC being the convener, I
think the question and it's
always nice to reflect is, is
the convening been productive?
Have we achieved anything out
of it? And so when I look at
this 25 year report, I would
probably surmise, yeah, we've
done some pretty really good
projects. We've fulfilled the
obligation of convening. We
have commissioned special
studies. A few listed here that
I'll refer to resulted in
things in the field. We
commissioned and convened the
bus on bus, on shoulder,
feasibility study. And those of
you that were around then may
recall there was some
controversy even at the time.
Why would we want to run the
busses on the shoulder? And
then the converse is, well, the
shoulders are you might as well
run the bus on it. So we
brought in some national
experts from Minnesota, had a
community conversation, as we
should in partnership to try to
figure out should we do this?
And then piloted the first
project on SR 14. It's since
expanded on I-5, etc. and
coincidentally, at the time, we
brought Oregon Department of
Transportation and Tri-met into
the conversation. When we
concluded that work, they said,
well, we're not ready yet. But
now if you go to Odot, they've
authorized a test pilots on the
205 bridge. Then for
Wilsonville Smart. And I even
see on 205 they've deployed. So
sometimes, you know, we're
leading. And that's a good
example of RTC leading an
initiative and a group process.
Another that you have heard
reports on and you'll see a
final report next year is the
Regional Signal Timing pilot
program. It's being hosted
under the umbrella of vast. So
vast is in some regard, the
steering committee, the
advisory committee, but vast.
Not all partners have signals
that that are affected by it.
And so, again, having this
technical group convene,
working on signal management,
C-TRAN at the table, working on
transit signal priority is the
right host for that. So without
belaboring the point, when I
look at the work here, and
there's the the thing that has
the chronology of all the
different activities, I'm left
with the conclusion, which is I
think it's a good initiative.
So we have to do it. So we do.
And then the question is, is a
fulfilling more than we just
minimally have to do. And I
think the answer is probably
yes. And then as this plan lays
out, as it was reported, what
more can we do? And so I just
wrap up the 25 year assessment
saying, I think this is a good
forum. I think RTC, unless
somebody says otherwise, is an
appropriate convener. We do
take some regional SB DSTBG
dollars and use those to fund
the program. So it covers
consulting fees because we
we're not experts in traffic
signal and technology. And so
we bring in consultants. Our
current consultant is named
citizen engineers are very
qualified, been with the
program. Some of their staff
have been with the program
since 2001. So we have the
benefit of just the longevity
of some of their technical
consulting expertise through
their personnel. But I think we
continue, and I think these
next steps that Dale identified
in the plan, creating that
charter part of it is people
forget. So I happen to remember
these things because I
coincidentally was a Vancouver
employee in 2001. So I know how
this started. But when I'm gone
or other people are gone to
have that charter for
continuity, why are we here?
What are we trying to
accomplish? I think that's what
we're trying to do. You don't
see this a lot, but I think
this is a good moment to just
sit and say, I think it's I
think the program is running
pretty well right now, and we
look for those new
opportunities of studies that
we don't know we should be
doing, but that we should
probably take up. And I think
we have the capacity to do it.
So those are my comments. Thank
you.
>> Great. Thank you. Any other
comments or questions? I agree
with you. It's good to look
back and remember what's gone
on. Okay. Next up is resiliency
assessment plan, Clark County
Regional draft. And Judith is
here to present. Welcome.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon.
So last April we brought to you
an amended regional Emergency
transportation Routes network
map and introduced the
Resiliency Assessment Plan.
Tonight, I am going to walk
through what we learned through
that process. And then next
month I will return to ask for
you to consider adopting this
plan. So let's start by asking
or telling you why this work
matters. A reliable
transportation system is
something we often take for
granted. It connects people to
jobs and services, supports
businesses and freight, and
help our community function
every day. But that reliability
cannot be can be disrupted by a
wide variety of events, from
earthquakes, landslides and
severe weather to
infrastructure failures and
other emergencies. We cannot
predict exactly when or where
the next disruption will occur.
What we can do is to make the
transportation system better,
prepare to handle those
disruptions, recover more
quickly, and adapt to as
conditions change. So that's
the purpose of Rtc's Resiliency
Assessment Plan. The plan takes
a regional look at
transportation resiliency and
ask, where are we most at risk
and what can we do about it? It
builds on the emergency
>> Management and
transportation planning work
that is already happening in
the county, but takes a more
proactive approach. So rather
than waiting for a disruption
and then figuring out how to
respond, the goal is to
identify opportunities now
through planning, maintenance,
and investment that can make
the system more resilient over
time. So I am. Importantly,
this is a regional effort.
Transportation doesn't stop at
jurisdictional boundaries. So
resiliency planning shouldn't
either. Stakeholders input was
a key part of this process from
beginning to end. We had every
city in Clark County, the
county. We had C-TRAN. Wasch
dot Uhl the Corissa. We also
had the PUD and the Regional
Wastewater District
participated through this event.
We had three main rounds of
engagement and each one helped
the work. In the first round,
stakeholders helped us develop
and refine the regional
emergency transportation routes.
Local knowledge helped us make
sure that the routes reflected
the needs and priority of Clark
County. The second round
focused on how we will assess
risks. We share our approach
with stakeholders and their
feedback led to changes in both
the scoring approach and the
importance we place on the
different routes. Then in July,
we brought the results back to
the stakeholders along with the
draft strategies and
performance measures. That
feedback helped shape the
recommendations in this
document included in the
meeting materials. So
stakeholders engagement wasn't
just a check the box exercise,
it directly influenced the
routes, the assessment and
ultimately the recommendations.
Before we go into the risk
assessment, let's quickly
revisit the regional emergency
transportation routes or RET
R's, because they provide a
foundation for this work.
RETRSR priority roadways that
when we that we want to be able
to assess quickly and also
clear quickly following a major
emergency or disaster. The
writers were originally
identified through Metro's
regional project in 2021, which
looked across five counties,
including Clark. Here in Clark
County, RTC worked with local
stakeholders to review those
routes and make sure that they
make sense from a local
perspective. That process
resulted in several changes. We
added routes based on local
knowledge, critical
infrastructure and information
from the Clark County Hazardous
Mitigation Plan. We also
adjusted the priority tiers for
some routes that were
specifically important for
regional connections or access
to critical facilities. And for
this plan, the RETR network
gave us the where the network
of roads we are evaluating for
resiliency. So once we knew
which roads we were looking at,
the next question was how do we
identify where the biggest
resiliency challenges are? We
started by looking at the
hazards that can affect
transportation in Clark County,
and the ways those hazards
could disrupt the RETR network.
When the. Then we then develop
a consistent way to look at all
the routes and compare them.
The assessment ultimately comes
down to two questions. The
first, how vulnerable is the
route? In other words, how
likely is it to be affected by
a hazard. And how critical is
the route? If the road was
disrupted, how significant
would be the impact on the
transportation system? So those
two questions are important
because they tell us different
things. A road might be
important to the transportation
system, but relatively unlikely
to be damaged. Another road
might be highly exposed to
hazards but have other routes
available if it is disrupted.
So by looking at both, we get a
more complete picture of where
resiliency efforts might be
most valuable. And that's
really the purpose of this
assessment to help us focus
attention on the corridors
where resiliency improvements
could make the biggest
difference. Let's start with
vulnerability. Here we are
asking, where are our roads
more susceptible to disruption?
We look at things like exposure
to hazards, characteristics of
the road and the condition of
bridges. The map on the screen
shows the resulting
vulnerability scores across the
r e, t r network. One thing you
will notice is that some of the
higher vulnerability areas are
in the rural parts of the
county, and that's largely
because some of those areas
have greater exposures to
natural hazards. For example,
areas near rivers or in forest
terrains where landslides might
be a concern. And it is also
important to note that state,
the state routes are not
included here because Washdot
is looking at those facilities
separately through their own
resiliency planning. But we are
working closely with Washdot to
help evaluate and coordinate
the r, e, t, r systems and
priority. So the main takeaways
for this map is that it shows
us where the RETR network is
more susceptible to disruption.
The second piece is criticality.
Here the question is if the
road was disrupted, how much
would it matter? We look at
factors as the RETR priority
tier traffic volumes, where
there were alternative routes
and what we heard from
stakeholders. Those factors
help us understand which roads
are especially important for
things like regional
connections, access to services,
freight and everyday travel.
You can see that many of the
higher criticality scores are
in the urban areas, where roads
serve larger populations and
more activity. But there are
also important roller corridors.
Washougal River road is one
example. Part of what makes it
critical is that there are not
many viable alternatives. If
the road was disrupted. And
that is an important
distinction. Vulnerability
tells us where disruption is
more likely to happen.
Criticality tells how much it
mattered. If it does. Now we
can bring those two pieces
together. This map shows the
overall risk results from the
RETR network. The orange and
the red represent corridors
where vulnerability and
criticality come together to
produce higher overall risk.
And one of the things that
stand out is that these
corridors are not limited to
the urban core. We see higher
risk locations in both urban
and rural parts of the county.
And that is important because
different parts of the
transportation system face
different resiliency challenges.
So corridors might be highly
exposed to hazards and others
might be critical because they
are few alternative. And some
have both characteristics. The
plan goes one step further by
identifying the highest scoring
routes and explaining what is
driven driving the risk. And
that gives regional partners a
starting point to ask, where
should we focus our attention
and investment? This slide on
the screen shows ten out of the
20 risk scoring routes within
the RETR network. You can see
the full list on table two in
the plan. These corridors are
the highest priorities for
additional evaluation. Has
resiliency improvements are
incorporated into
transportation planning,
capital programing, and asset
management activities. These
rankings provide a planning
level prioritization and should
not be interpreted as absolute
measures of risk. But
identifying risks is not the
end goal of this plan. The real
question is what do we do about
it? The risk assessment
provides the foundation for the
recommendations of the plan.
The plan brings together the
assessment findings, priority
actions and potential
performance measures that can
help regional and local
agencies incorporate resiliency
into their ongoing work. The
recommendations are focused on
practical opportunities to
reduce risk, improve
transportation system
performance, provide redundancy
where needed, and make the
network better able to
withstand and recover from
disruptions. This slide
simplifies table three in the
plan and presents recommended
implementation actions that RTC
and its partner agencies can
consider when updating plans,
such as the Regional
Transportation plan, the
Transportation System plan,
capital improvement programs,
climate action elements or
plans, etc. And that's the
really the shift that we are
trying to make from reacting to
disruptions to preparing for
them. The plan gives regional
partners a framework for making
resiliency part of everyday
transportation, planning and
investment decisions, not
something we only think about
after a major event occurs. So
if we step back the story
straightforward. We started
with the need to make our
transportation system more
resilient. We identified the
RETR network as the focus of
the assessment. Then we look at
both vulnerability and
criticality to understand where
disruptions could have the
greatest consequences. And now
the plan takes those findings
and turn them into actions. I'm
happy to answer any questions
regarding the resiliency plan.
>> Great. Thank you for that
report. Are there any questions
comments? Yes, please go ahead.
>> Thank you. I do have a
question. Larry keister, I see
that Washougal River road is
one of the key concerns. You
identified. That State Route 14
is managed by Wasch Dot is
there a relationship or working
together with Washdot? Because
Washougal River road empties
onto SR 14, SR 14 to the west.
We've got the camera Slough
Bridge, which is a major
concern to our community.
>> Yeah, Washdot is undergoing
a similar process right now
statewide, and all the routes
and the maps that are in blue,
which is our state routes, they
are providing a similar tier.
So they will have tier one,
tier two, tier three. It's just
that they are in the midst of
that process right now.
>> Other questions? Yes. Go
ahead.
>> Thanks for the information.
>> So my.
>> Question is, when you were
looking at the network of.
>> The transportation networks.
How did the airports not just
PDX all airports, we have come
and play to.
>> Determine the level of
resiliency or the options we
have. Yeah, I don't think that
I can't remember and I
apologize for that. So I will
have to get back to you. But I
don't remember if that was one
of the vulnerability factors.
What we look the proximity of
airports. I know we extensively
look at the proximity of where
the Public works offices were,
where the C-TRAN had their
busses, where the hospitals
were, where maintenance could
access materials to do some of
the recovery work. So there
were key elements talking about
water. Where were the main
water lines that we have to,
you know, get those those
corridors up and running right
away. But I have to check and
remember about the airports.
Apologize for that. Thank you.
What I suggest is maybe you
take a look at it as an element,
because airports we have in
Vancouver, chemists, they are
the source for first responders
to come to our region and
provide us with the services.
Yeah. No, that that makes sense.
Yes. Thank you.
>> There are several smaller
airports throughout the county
as well. I had a question. I
wonder, did you collaborate
with emergency first responders?
I'm thinking of the fire
districts.
>> We do not. As part of this
effort, we know that Corissa
works with with them, but we do
not. So our you know, it was
from the cities. It was
maintenance staff and it was
public works staff. But we did
not work with the firefighters
and.
>> Right. Well, they might have
some good information because
they're the ones that are
traveling on these roads and
the shape that they're on. I
know that number two on your
list here, the Rock Creek 152nd
Lucia Falls Road. There's not a
lot of people out there, but
there is a whole lot of people
that go out there to recreate.
And I know em. North County EMS
district. There was a
particular bridge. I'm not
quite sure what waterbody it
was over that. If that went out,
then it would really mean hours
of additional travel. So I'd
encourage you to reach out to
them and see if they have some
opinions.
>> So, so as part of our
efforts, like I say, we did not
work with emergency responders,
but as part of Metro's Boger
effort, when we work with Metro
to develop the regional
emergency transportation routes
and then later on develop the
tiers, they extensively reach
out to emergency personnel
throughout the all five
counties. So I know that they
got input into developing
prioritizing those networks.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
>> Any other comments or
questions? I don't see any.
Okay. Thank you very much,
Judith. Now we're on to other
business. Anything from the
board? Nothing from the board.
How about the executive
director?
>> Okay. Directors. I have a
few updates to listed here, and
then I'll add a few to begin
with, under the purple memo is
Annual report for our Unified
Planning work program. So I'll
set the stage by saying with
the up P that's developed and
the figures are calculated
based on a fiscal year, and it
follows the state fiscal year
beginning July 1st to then June
30th each year. Under our
obligation to Wasch Dot and
then Federal Highway
Administration and FTA, we have
to publish an annual report
documenting what we completed
the prior year as it relates to
the activities slated to be
completed as part of the work
program, and also an
expenditure summary within the
report. You'll see just very
detailed listing of those
activities that were
accomplished. Other activities
that are in progress, and then
how much we expended. There's
also a comparison of what we
predicted we would expend
versus what we actually
expended. I would just caution
to say what we predicted to
spend, and this is usually the
case is inflated upwards. We
program and generally estimate
that we're going to spend much
more than we do. And I think
that's just a function of how
RTC budgets, because the moneys
that we have available just
continue to roll forward. If
they're not expended. So
notable accomplishments
identified in the memo that
I'll just review for you. You
heard one report just now about
the resilience assessment plan.
That was a major work element
identified in the 26 up LUP. We
completed the Gorge Safety
Action plan, another major work
element, and then the regional
Active Transportation Plan,
which you've heard about in
prior reports. That was a major
body of work. Others are just
ongoing activities. You heard
about the vast program, our
Regional Traffic modeling and
data program. I think we're
making significant progress
across the board, achieving the
goals that we lay out in the
work program. And so you see
the details reported entertain
any questions if anybody had
any. Okay. The next activity is
one of awareness and disclosure.
So each year, RTC, in
partnership with Identity Clark
County, helps prepare a unified
legislative policy statement as
referred to as the Clark County
Transportation Alliance. I am
now in the process with
identity Clark County of
providing technical inputs for
the publication of what would
be the 2020 legislative
statement. And just for
reference, I'll hold it up so
that people can see it. This is
the 2026 Legislative Session
statement, generally endorsed
by dozens of agencies,
including agencies in the state
of Oregon. And this is serves a
couple purposes. One, this
becomes a big umbrella from
which agencies can say, yes,
this is a regional priority. So
it never usurps what an agency
is doing individually. And I
know each of you has
legislative priority statements
that you should and do develop
at your affected agencies. And
so this is like the big
umbrella, so that when I have
conversations or when you have
conversations with state or
federal members of the
legislature or Congress that
you could say, and this is also
not only my priority, but it's
also an express regional
priority. So it serves that
purpose. Another purpose it
serves is for all of us to sit
around the table and to see
collectively what a clear set
of priorities are. So some of
the priorities are projects,
and there's a list of projects,
as there has been in past years.
There will be this year a list
of priority projects. Generally
a project or two from each
agency within Clark County, and
those typically fall into the
category of large investments
that may take multiple years or
significant amount of funding
to achieve, and something that
you might be advocating for in
Congress or at the state
legislature. I would say
probably mostly this is used
with the state legislature, but
certainly also with members of
Congress. And and then in
addition to project list, there
are typically targeted
priorities. They may be
expressed as a policy idea,
like we want more money for
operations and maintenance writ
large. You know, the
legislature should commit more
money for O&M. We see this
summer with the amount of
paving that Washed-out did, and
local agencies have done the
pavement management and driving
on good flat pavement is valued
by our community and it helps
maintain the assets. And so
you'll see statements like this
is in years past, there's been
generally an individual call
out and discussion of the
interstate bridge replacement
program. That will continue to
be this year because of just
the significance, both in a bi
state sense, but also in a
national sense. And it really
garners that level of attention
that we continue to prioritize
that that is a significant
initiative here within Clark
County. And so beyond my
contributions, when I say my
RTC contributions from the
technical standpoint, identity,
Clark County leads the outreach.
And so they go out and collect
the signatures and the
endorsements. I suspect many of
your agencies will have this in
front of you soon for
endorsement. Just a reminder,
it's a big tent statement.
There may be individual words
or ideas here that you may not
uniformly agree with, but is it
the idea that we're pushing
together as a region to
accomplish the general goals?
And again, I think sometimes
people get caught up in a word
choice here or there within the
statement, but the idea is to
have it be a bigger tent,
espousing what we would all
generally agree are the
regional priorities. There's a
government affairs roundtable.
And so this is when it's
debuted, it's in it's in sort
of literal development today.
And this week, next Tuesday.
And most of your legislative
government affairs staff attend
this. But any any member of the
board certainly could attend as
well. It's debuted as part of
the identity Clark County
convened Governmental Affairs
Roundtable. That meeting,
scheduled for next Tuesday,
October 13th at 1 p.m. And if
you want a specific invitation
to attend, I can send that to
your honor. President of ITC
can send it to you. So just
wanted to make the board aware
that it's in development. It's
going to be debuted next week.
The board will see a draft
version of this in November
endorsement. Typically in
December. We usually endorse
after other agencies have
endorsed it. So in process, but
I it's a good tool. And then
the last thing I would say in
terms of use, I use it when I
receive a request for an
endorsement letter to make
comment at a public hearing
within the legislative public
hearing process, I might write
a letter of endorsement
advocating for a series of
projects I typically Keip RTC's
comments in a regional context.
I generally don't advocate for
a specific project, although a
specific project, for example,
like the Kamea Bridge, that's a
very specific project. In years
past, I've helped develop
legislative language and a
proposal for funding the cost
estimate update. So I will get
involved on behalf of RTC as
long as it fits within the
umbrella. And I think that's
how I use it, just to guide my
input, because I generally
don't tell you every day that
I'm up in the legislature or
communicating. So if as long as
it's under that big umbrella, I
feel like I have the consent of
this board to, to lean in the
direction of getting these
projects funded or support
different ideas. Certainly any,
any, any questions. But you'll
see this in future meetings.
>> Any questions at this time.
>> And then I have a couple
other comments.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> I saw Director Windsheimer
had his hand up.
>> I have a comment I'd like to
make at the end, so please
continue. Matt.
>> Okay. Thank you. Just a
couple of other updates in
terms of activities, just to
keep you apprized of where I
might be out and about don't
often do this, but I think this
month there's been a lot of
outward bound activity within
the last two weeks. We've held
a couple of tours of staff. I
wanted to extend appreciation
to the Port of Vancouver. They
were very gracious in offering
a customized tour to RTC staff
of their port facilities. Two
weeks ago, Commissioner Temple
Lentz obviously helped arrange
that and was part of it. CEO
Juliana Marler also had the
benefit of Jim Hager, one of
the principal project managers
and and soon to be director of
engineering Greg Westrand. They
were all on the the little
shuttle bus together. We drove
around and saw the port
facilities. And I think
candidly, having done that tour
before, it was great to see
that, to have access to those
officials so that we could
learn more about that facility
and how important it is to
Vancouver, the region, the
state, the nation. Candidly,
and I think it's a good timing
also because we're about ready
to kick off our freight study,
phase two of this body of work,
and that'll commence within the
next month or two. I think next
month we'll probably share or
maybe transmit a scope of work
in terms of that. And I think
later this week or next week,
we're convening the the
advisory committee to get that
body of work going. So far,
it's important. And again,
thank you to the Port of
Vancouver for committing the
time and resources. I said I
would pay for gas, but I guess
they're going to pick up.
They're going to pick up the
tab. Also, as staff, we drove
around Clark County because we
have some team members that
maybe aren't familiar with all
parts of Clark County, which
took a little half day tour,
see facilities, talk about
projects, projects that we've
completed and RTC's self-funded,
but also projects that we need.
I should mention that when we
stopped in Ridgefield, we went
all the way down to the
downtown of the new port
development area that they're
planning and got out to, to see
a viewpoint. And the mayor of
Ridgefield happened to be
walking by, and it's just sort
of fun. We talked, said hi. He
said, are you here for this
event? And I said, no, it's a
different event. We're on a
we're on a tour. So, you know,
I love getting out and seeing
these people. And it was fun
just to bump into the mayor of
Ridgefield at on that morning.
But we survived the weather and
everybody survived my driving.
So that was that was good. I
mentioned this because we we're
wanting to ground ourselves as
a team and what's happening in
the community. So if any, if
any of you have a suggestion
for tour hosting or learning a
deeper dive into a project or
initiative, we're open to that
because I think it's important
that we put boots on the ground.
Also went out to Goldendale,
ran into Director and
Commissioner Ron Ihrig at a
meeting. This is in relation to
participating in some regional
briefings within the last
couple of months. And and there
will be more in the future of
the update to the Regional
Economic Development Strategy
within the gorge. This is the
multi-state multi county
economic development strategy
that is being convened and
coordinated by the Mid-columbia
Economic Development District
out of The Dalles.
Coincidentally, we partner with
Mchd through our Gorge
TransLink Alliance, and they're
an applicant under the
consolidated Grant program,
which you heard about earlier.
So it's good to get out there.
Goldendale is a beautiful
community. We were at the
Observatory. It's really a
pretty cool place. We weren't
there at night, but the
facility itself was really nice
and updated. And I mentioned
that because I'm also involved
in the regional economic
development strategy update for
the Portland metropolitan area
through the Greater Portland,
Inc. and I'm trying to figure
out when to bring to the board
some briefings on these two
economic development strategies.
And I know it's not mainstream
to what we do, but I'm
participating in the committee
structures within those two
plans. And I think it's
important because the linkage
between economic development,
our future prosperity and
transportation infrastructure
is key. So if you want that
briefing sooner than later, I'm
happy to try to figure it out.
But I'm always looking at the
time, and we don't have a lot
of time on the agenda. So I
mentioned that just I wish
there was an opportunity that I
could figure out how to get
this into the conversation here.
I'll wrap up by saying, I
received an email earlier today
from I.B. our interim
administrator, Carly Francis,
with a few updates on I.B. I
figured I'd pass them along to
you. Earlier this year, the
board program funds, which were
federal funds committed to the
IB program. I heard in this
email today that some of those
funds were obligated and
committed by the Federal
Highway Administration. I
suspect the future tranches of
those funds will be released as
cash is needed. So that was
good. The activity of the board
and our Tip amendments this
spring achieved the goal, which
is to get the federal agencies
to start to commit the the big
grant monies that they had
committed previously. So that
was a good report. The second
was they're out for a review of
requesting consultants to
propose to actually build the
bridge. And I think earlier
this week or no, it was late
last week was the cutoff for
the initial submittal of
qualification statements. And
we heard from interim
administrator that they did
have a response and that
they're going to go into the
next phase. So my assessment of
that is somebody wants to build
this bridge. They had a
response to the statement.
Advertisement. And so they'll
go through their process of due
diligence to try to figure out
if that's the contractor they
want to proceed with. But all
to say the project is moving
forward. So notable actual
activity underway and as it
relates to progress. So I'll
conclude my report there and
say the November meeting,
because it's election Day, the
plan is to have a shorter
meeting. We'll try to keep the
agenda. A lot of it, the
reports that you saw tonight
that are coming back in
November will be placed on
consent. If you have questions
about the plans or the work
products, please let us know
beforehand. Or they can be
pulled from consent. If you
have questions. And the primary
topic to discuss next month is
because everybody is wrapping
up or wrapped up or imminently
wrapping up, or to be wrapped
up their comprehensive planning
process. We then start our
update to the regional plan.
We're updating the regional
plans within each of the
counties. Clark. Skamania.
Klickitat. Next month is our
initial briefing of the board
on the work products leading up
to a plan amendment adoption
next March. Tomorrow, Adam is
within Skamania and Klickitat
counties at their TPC meetings,
delivering them a report on the
draft update. Ideas for the
Skamania Klickitat RTP, so
we'll try to keep it brief next
month. Just given the the other
events of that evening. But
that's the look ahead for what
we're seeing. Thank you.
>> Great. Ryan, did you have
something.
>> I did thank you. I just
wanted to let everyone know
because I know it's been
affecting any of your visits.
Down to my neck of the woods,
that the Rose quarter project
has been progressing very well.
We're we're feeling very
confident that we will either
meet or beat our opening
deadline. And so I wanted you
guys all to know that and. And
just give you some
encouragement that it's going
to hopefully get done soon. And
I also want to just offer a
thank you to everyone who's
changed their commuting habits
and allowing people to work
from home and other things that
have really helped make this
whole project manageable. So
thank you.
>> Great. Thank you for those
comments. I'm glad things are
proceeding as quickly as
possible. Okay, so our next
meeting will be November 3rd,
and we've completed our agenda.
Without objection. This meeting
is adjourned