Regional Transportation Council

0:00 [ Music ] [ Silence ] [ Laughter ] >> All right, good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the suddenly hot June. It is June 2nd, 2026, calling this regular RTC Board of Directors meeting to order. If we could have roll call, please. >> Michelle Belcott. >> Sue Marshall. >> Here. >> Will Fuentes. >> Here. >> Ann McEnerny-Ogle. >> Present. >> Eric Paulson. >> Here. >> Masa Eschke. >> Here. >> Troy McCoy.

1:00 >> Here. >> Asa Leckie. >> Here. >> Ron Ihrig. >> Here. >> Scott Patterson. >> Here. >> Devan Reck. >> Here. >> Temple Lentz. >> Here. >> Bill Eyal. >> Brian Wensheimer. >> Here. >> Christine Lewis. And House and Senate members of the 14th, 17th, 18th, 20th, and 49th districts. >> Thank you. That gives us a quorum. So this time I'd entertain a motion for approval of the board agenda. >> Ann McEnerny-Ogle. >> Thank you. >> We have approval of the agenda.

1:59 >> Second. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. What? Oh, yes. She had a question. Oh. >> We were competing for the session. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Councilor Belcott. You have your hand up. >> I just wanted to make sure that I was counted as present. I couldn't hear anything initially. >> Oh, yeah. Your mic's a little low, but yeah. We have you marked out as attending. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Motion on the floor and seconded for approval of board agenda as presented. Seeing no discussion. All in favor. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Carries unanimously. That'll move us on to the public comment portion of the afternoon. Sorry, it was a late evening last night. Do we have anybody online to testify? >> I think we do. There's a phone number, but I haven't been able to get them to identify.

2:58 >> Okay. >> Sharon Nasset did indicate she wanted to give comment tonight. >> Okay. Looks like she is online. Do we want to start there or do we want to start with in person? >> We can start her. >> Okay. >> You can go ahead. >> Sharon, you're unmuted if you want to make sure you unmute, and we will start your three minute timer. Sharon, if you can hear me, if you can unmute. We'll roll back to Sharon and we'll start with the in person, how's that? >> First in person I have in front of me, Douglas Tweet.

3:56 >> Douglas Tweet, Camas. So I sent this to you, you should have copies of it. It's got plots as usual with data. >> Douglas, please get close to the mic so we can hear. >> Okay. So we have a TriMet's history of over predicting light rail ridership. At the October 14, 2025 C-Tran board meeting, IBR executives were asked about forecasted versus actual ridership results for the light rail system of TriMet. The program administrator replied in a letter in December, he only discussed the green and orange line and he only talked about the opening year ridership saying nothing about ridership since then. Well, the ridership has been poor since then, which I will show. For the last few years, those two lines are about one-third of forecasts. Now in his letter, he talked about the TriMet green line, it was 2009 opening year, and the models were made with the RTDM model, similar to what IBR is using.

4:56 And he cites a 2014 report to Congress. 2009, the forecast was about 25,000 average weekday riders. The actual is just a little under, so not too bad. But what about since then, the IBR letter gave no information, so I found other sources. In 2020, Cascade Policy Institute sent a letter to the FTA about this problem, and more recent data I found on TriMet's website. So in 2020, the forecast for the green line was 33,000 average weekday riders, but the actual before COVID 2019 was 63% of that. And now it's dropped by another half, so it's about 33% of the forecast, one-third. In the December 10th letter, they also talked about the orange line, and it predicted 17,000. They only got about 11,000, 67%. But he said, "Oh, well, then we fixed the model, and then it worked." But that's kind of late, because you need to make forecasts, you need to predict years in advance to make forecasts. So it's a bad forecast.

5:55 More recently, it's worse, 2019, it only reached 12,000, and the last few years, it's 5,400, about, again, one-third of the forecast. And then lastly is the yellow line, which was not discussed in that letter, but that's extremely relevant, because that's what the IBR wants to connect Vancouver to at a cost of $3.5 billion. 2004, the forecast was about 14,000. The actual was a little under 85%, not too bad. The 2020 forecast was 18,000, but the actual was 13,000, 74% of the forecast pre-COVID. Since then, it's dropped down to about 8,200, about less than half of the 2020 forecast. So the conclusion is that TriMet with its models, which is used by the IBR for the FESES, always over-predict ridership, even for the opening year, and in the future, lately, it's been a half to a third of the forecast.

6:53 And they've got massive budget deficits, leading to ongoing cuts in service. TriMet's drowning in debt due to their own poor management planning, and they want to take Clark County down with them. Why on earth would RTC want to go into business with such a bankrupt partner? Thank you for wrapping that up, Mr. Tweet. Next up, Margaret Tweet. Let me interrupt, Jordan. I think we might need the volume turned up on the speakers a little bit. Is that something I'm supposed to do? Get close to the mic, if you can, just to make sure. How's that? Didn't we have to do this last time, too?

7:49 So maybe next time, this is the good one. Okay. Well, I'd like to remind you that in 2006, the CRC said there were 3,300 weekday bus trips over I-5 Bridge. But in 20 years, that number is now half. And yet, the IBR program, and many of you in this room, are promoting, in addition to the buses, light rail for $3.5 billion, at least, and that's one station in Oregon and two in Vancouver, which the Vancouver mayor says is unfair, but I think it's unfair to Oregon. At any rate, what brings me here is concern about statements made related to light rail.

8:44 At the April 21st C-TRAN meeting, IBR stated in a slide that talking about the capital investment grant for $1 billion, this competitive grant requires a light rail transit investment. And it states a similar requirement on the IBR website. Yet, at the capital investment grant's program overview at the federal FTA website, it turns out that bus rapid transit is eligible for funding. So light rail isn't required by the FTA, so that seems very confusing to the public. And I wonder how many of the project partners were told that light rail is required. This is still on your website today.

9:36 Now, in the CRC, they did actually do, in their DSEIS, they did a bus rapid transit instead of light rail, and according to Chris Strickler, he said, "At that time, cost was a factor." And I was surprised. Isn't cost still a factor? Why are we looking at $3.5 billion? The good news is here, the program continues to evaluate opportunities for cost savings a very good place to look is right here at the light rail. Eliminating light rail and sticking with our working bus service that is far more affordable would help to, you know, you could find $3.5 billion around in cost savings right there. Now, the project has gone up to $15.2 billion from $6 billion in the application to this grant program.

10:33 So that is more than double. But these, all of this money is based on unrealistic forecasts. And CIG grants are required to be justifiable. So for that number of people, it is not justified to have both light rail and buses, and I hope you'll look at the information that I send. Thank you. Thank you, Margaret. Okay. Next up, Khanh Tran. Sorry if I butchered that name. All right, everyone hear me okay? Good afternoon, members of the Regional Transportation Council. My name is Khanh Tran, and I serve as the Director of Policy and Programs for Identity

11:32 Clark County. I'm here today to express our organization's strong support for proceeding with the necessary amendments and actions needed to complete planning and advance the Interstate Bridge program. This project has been in discussion and development for more than 25 years. Today we find ourselves closer than ever to delivering a modern, resilient crossing for our region with nearly $6 billion in committed funding and updated federal record of decision expected soon. This I have to tell you is a significant milestone and one that reflects years of collaboration among local, regional, state, and federal partners. The bridge is a critical transportation link connecting Oregon and Washington, as we all know, supporting local commuters, freight mobility, regional mobility, and economic activity throughout Northwest, and frankly, throughout the whole West Coast. Replacing the bridge addresses longstanding challenges related to congestion, seismic

12:29 mobility, transit access, and active transportation connectivity. As we move into final planning, procurement, and construction, we encourage patients flexibility and a continued focus on problem solving. Projects of this scale inevitably evolve, and we should expect opportunities to refine elements of the program and improve outcomes along the way. What's important is maintaining momentum and remaining committed to the shared goal of delivering this once-in-a-generation investment. RDC has played a critical role throughout the planning and process, and we appreciate your continued leadership as the program transitions from planning into a reality. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Our caller, Sharon. To clarify, I think that might not have been the individual, but somebody had their hand raised. I don't know if... Okay. Can you identify yourself, please? Yes. Thank you, Chair. For the record, I am Sharon Naffet. I am with thirdrichnow.org.

13:28 Yeah. One second, please. Okay. Yes. Could you start again? Your volume was low. Oh. Oh, I beg your pardon. I am Sharon Naffet. I am with thirdrichnow.org. Thank you very much, Chair, and representative of the members there. We are right now experiencing one of the largest transportation infrastructure projects that we are going to have not only for decades, but possibly this century. The bridge is in front of us. I have been involved since 2000. I was involved with alternatives accepted into the formal environmental impact statement for the I-5 partnership, the I-5 bridge influence area, and the Columbia River crossing.

14:22 I have sent you a package that I had sent to the Washington and Oregon transportation commissioners asking for the structural integrity and the seismic reports, the list of what needs to be repaired, and why we are not repairing it and we are replacing it. You know, the 1917 bridge was totally overhauled in 1958, and in 2005 they said the bridges had more than 60 years of life left. There are a lot of new people in this group and the other groups that don't seem to know that the I-5 trade and transportation partnership environmental impact statement, which I have sent you a full copy of the project and the statement showing what was recommended, said

15:18 a supplemental bridge unless the bridge needs to be replaced. It was the task force that the governor handpicked. Current mayor sat on it, she can tell you, that said we would love a new bridge and light rail loop that goes up and over to I-205 and back to the airport. At no time, I was sitting at that room, were we discussing removing the current bridges. I've also sent you links with the director of CRC, the original one, saying, no, we're looking at all kinds of bridges. These provide a full report of what is wrong, how much it costs to fix it, and why we are not fixing it when we are doing that to bridges that are older. The steel bridge, the Broadway bridge, and since both those bridges were renewed in 1958,

16:16 that means 12 bridges in Portland are older than these. When I have asked agencies, they're all shoving it around. They're standing up and saying, this is what's wrong, and it's number this, and it goes that long, and here's the cut, and that's the problem, and we can't fix it because of this. No, they all hide. We're going to lose hundreds of homes, historical properties, so they're going to have to move their schools. Thank you, Sharon. Have a sunny day. Yeah, I'm sorry, there's no clock on the phone, and thank you very much for coming back to me. Have a lovely day. All right, thank you, Sharon. I appreciate it. Yes, I understand it's hard to see at the time we're online. That concludes the public comments portion of the meeting. We'll now move on to our action items. First up is consent agenda. Board, what is your pleasure? I move approval of the consent agenda. And McInerney-Ogle's second.

17:10 Commissioner, you have your hand raised for a question on the consent agenda? Yeah, Commissioner Leckie, Committee of the County. Yeah, I just had a question. It seemed like some of the minutes were just -- they're not wholly accurate. And I don't think that's the fault of the people taking the minutes. I think with the hybrid format and the Zoom, it's kind of hard to get an accounting at the instant of votes. So just my suggestion that maybe we should be having roll call votes to help those with the records. I think we owe it to our constituents to keep accurate records of the minutes. So that's all I had. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. Anybody else? Yes. I just want to talk about the professional consulting agreement. First of all, I want to show my support for having on-call consultant. I experienced that it helps the process to go efficient and effective.

18:10 I have a question, RTC plays a big lead in providing traffic data for the whole region. Local agency use that. Do we have any program in place that the data that agency collect for their future development, for their growth, that comes to RTC to incorporate into their program? Thank you. Okay. So the question is when other agencies collect data, does RTC request that data and try to incorporate it in our data sets? The answer is yes, subject to an agency's willingness and consistency and delivering that to us. So when we've looked at our traffic count database over time, we have tried to collect that. People would send us PDFs other times they'd send us the actual raw data. And when we receive it, we update it in our portfolio.

19:08 In other instances, agencies don't send it to us. And so I think it's a matter of just consistency, I suppose. The other factor involved is both the state DOT and Clark County have a pretty active and independent counting program and they have their own data sets and online tools, GIS based for example. And we've looked recently and trying to link their data sets to ours. And there are some technical issues that might prevent that, but in summary, yes, we try to use other agencies data to try to pull it together so that we can have a comprehensive data set. Any further questions on the consent agenda? We have a motion in front of us. Seeing none. All in favor on the motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda as presented, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

20:04 Opposed? Okay. Passes unanimously. Thank you. This will bring us to our federal grant strategy. Jennifer? So good afternoon. I'm here to talk about another policy exception. So I think I mentioned at the last meeting that we had that it's unusual to have so many policy exceptions in a year, and unfortunately we're back with another one that we wanted to present to you tonight just for information and to get approval on that to move that forward. So just going over again, RTC has the responsibility of federal funding allocation.

21:02 We receive funding for the CMAQ program, STBG, and transportation alternatives, and then also the carbon reduction program. We have a responsibility to make sure that's spent and utilized in a fair and timely manner, and so that's outlined in our transportation program and guidebook, which we've covered quite a bit the first couple months of this year. And a lot of that is related to, and the discussion again tonight, is making sure that as an MPO we're meeting our obligation target for the year. And so since we met with you last, we've had another issue come up in terms of potentially not being able to meet our regional obligation target. So the policies related to the discussion tonight are 5.3, so the obligation of PE funds, and then 4.10. So we've talked about 4.10. That kind of gives us the flexibility to come to you with proposals for addressing potential shortfalls that we might have for meeting our obligation target.

21:58 And policy 5.8, that's related to preliminary engineering funds, so PE funds. So if an agency receives PE funds, they need to have it programmed and obligated by June of the year that it's programmed. There is no delay. So like we allow delays for construction and right-of-way, but there is no allowable delay for PE because technically you should be able to do it fairly easily. There shouldn't be any major roadblocks to obligating your PE funds. But unfortunately with the city of Washougal, they've run into quite a bit of a challenge with obligating some PE funds that they had for the 32nd overcrossing project. So this is just a quick snapshot again of what we've got programmed so far for this year. So kind of an update, Le Center and Richfield, their projects we know are in process. A couple of these are also in process, so we're getting closer. So when I was looking at it last week, we're about $1.5 million to $2 million close to meeting our target. So we're getting there, but we've had quite a few challenges this year, some delays with

22:58 different projects. And within just the last couple of weeks, we found out from the city of Washougal, so with their 32nd overcrossing project, they have to have their funds transferred to the Federal Railroad Administration. And so they didn't realize that they needed to do that in order to move the project forward because there's such a significant combination of federal discretionary funds in that project. So they didn't realize that. And when you have that transfer of funds, that can create a delay in terms of being able to access those funds and obligate those funds. And so it's similar to the situation with C-TRAN when they have funds like STBG or CMAQ funds. They have to get those transferred to FTA. So it's kind of a similar scenario, but they're more experienced with that, and they kind of build that into their timeline. Washougal unfortunately didn't realize that. And so there was the potential of them not being able to meet that obligation deadline by the end of June.

23:54 So they have been working really quickly and having a lot of meetings with FRA and then also with WSDOT. And I'll kind of preface this conversation is that I talked with them earlier today, and it sounds like things are moving forward and that potentially FRA could get a letter. So we just need a letter of commitment or a letter of obligation of the funds from FRA to be able to know that those will be obligated by September. It may not be obligated by June, but as long as it's obligated by September, it will count in this federal fiscal year. And so they were saying that it sounded like from a meeting that they had with FRA this morning that we should be able to get a letter within the next week or so. So that's good news. But we still wanted to bring this to you tonight just to make sure that we have a backup in place in case something happens, because they've had some challenges with FRA. They've lost a lot of people, a lot of staff. It's been really difficult to coordinate with them.

24:48 So we went to RTAC on May 15th because we needed to submit changes for the STIP. The amendments to the STIP, the last day we had that available was May 15th. So we went to RTAC, presented this proposal to them. Obviously, if you're not supportive of it, we can pull it and not move forward with it. But what we presented to RTAC and what we're presenting to you tonight is this policy exception, is that if the city of Washougal for some reason is unable to obligate, so it's $1.25 million in STBG funds that they have for PE, if they're unable to obligate them by the end of June, then we would do a quick pivot. We already made -- so what we had to do was make the change in the STIP. The city of Vancouver would be ready to receive that $1.25 million in STBG funds for the 18th Street project. So we had to make that change in the STIP in order to be able for them to receive it, so it needed to be processed by June for them to be able to receive it.

25:47 We would give the city of Washougal as much time as possible, so it could be like that last week of June, because it really -- they just need to get the paperwork into WSDOT, and then that would say, you know, they've started the obligation process and get things moving forward. So we'd give them as much time as possible, and then the city -- they've been working with WSDOT and with all the changes for 18th Street, so they've got that going forward and moving forward, so they're in the place where they could obligate that really quickly. So we were just requesting that once we gave them the heads-up saying, hey, the city of Washougal can't obligate their PE funds in time, please go ahead and submit this paperwork. They've got all the paperwork and everything ready, so they're ready just to submit it to WSDOT. If that were the case, Washougal would lose the 1.25 million in PE funds, because, again, we don't have a policy for delay in 99 percent of the cases. There shouldn't be an issue with being able to obligate PE funds. So that's what we're bringing forward, is that a resolution approving, so it's conditional.

26:47 Again, conditional only if the city of Washougal is unable to obligate. If they are able to obligate, we would go in and make a stip correction and take that 1.25 million out. So that's no longer shown under the 18th Street project, so we would make that correction too. So there's no confusion or anything that could happen. Any questions on that at all? Thank you. Thanks for information. You actually address a lot of my question. So for my understanding of Washougal's struggle, is it related to permit that took longer, like NEPA permit or other? No, just they didn't realize. I think they thought originally that it wouldn't have to go under FRA. But I think because there's so many funds, and there are federal railroad funds associated with the project, the decision was made that it needed to go through FRA.

27:46 And so there's just a process that they need to go through in order to be able to start that. The staff doesn't, because there's somebody left the city of Washougal, their engineer, and so they haven't had somebody to replace him. And so they just weren't sure of what the process needed to be, unfortunately. And then with the budget cuts, it's been really difficult to try to coordinate with FRA. May I ask a second question? Get that mic closer to you, please. All right. And then the 1.25 million PE phase, does it go to PE phase for 18th Street or different phase of project? It would go for construction, thank you. Construction. I didn't clarify that. Yeah. So it would go into construction. And that would help to meet our regional obligation target. And that was the project that we would be submitting for our obligation target, is so we have $8 million that we have told the state that we would like to submit. If we meet our regional obligation target, we would submit $8 million for 18th Street

28:46 to help our construction of that project. Okay. So the policy, let us do that from PE phase, goes to PE phase? Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions? Well, I'd like to commend the team on, first of all, having this policy in place and bringing this policy. I know that we have timing issues when it comes to federal funds and being flexible. Yeah. And utilizing those dollars locally first is appreciated. So thank you for the work on this. I know wading through the regulations is not easy. So seen and appreciated. Thank you. Board, I'd entertain a motion if you're so inclined for resolution 62623. So moved. Second. Cowlitz. I have a motion and a second.

29:46 Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. And now we'll move on to Matt for our next item. Okay. Board of directors, I'd like to present just a brief staff report on this action item. It is a proposed resolution stating a policy preference for the phasing of the interstate bridge replacement program light rail element at the main meeting of the board. This was introduced under other business from the board. The board had a discussion and moved it forward for full consideration this evening because this isn't policy of the board. It's more of a position or a stated preference as I would characterize it. Staff did not do an analysis of the proposed and so my report this evening is really going

30:45 to mirror what's presented in the staff report and then open it up for conversation. So to begin with, the north star or the guiding principle for the board and the policy established by the board was adopted in a modified locally preferred alternative for the I-5 bridge replacement program EIS process and that characterizes the board's desire to improve a multi-mile section of I-5 including replacing the I-5 bridges over the Columbia River, adding high capacity transit in the mode of light rail, adding active transportation facilities, expanding commuter bus services and connecting services that C-TRAN provides cross river and assorted other series of improvements and you see that characterized here in that image. That's essentially the locally preferred alternative. Since that time, a supplemental final environmental impact statement has been published by the

31:43 program and is under review by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations. At this point, it's expected that a recorded decision which would be the federal decision approving the project environmental review work would be issued this summer. This spring, the program presented an updated cost estimate and in conjunction with that, they proposed a multi-phased implementation sequence and it's characterized in a couple of different ways but for the purposes of this resolution, let me refer to this slide right here. It is proposed by the program and the governors of both states. A core set of projects is proposed to be constructed and that's listed here on the left. That includes replacing the Columbia River bridges, adding the approaches, SR14, et cetera, including construction of light rail, guideway and facilities from the expo center which is the current terminus in Oregon to a station proposed it's referred to as waterfront station.

32:42 There is currently a funded phase of work which is the action that the board just approved programming funds and those funded phase of work include replacing the bridges, the approaches, et cetera, and design for transit. The core set of projects does not include funding for transit construction but the funded phase includes design for that transit element all leading to a series of applications that need to be made to the federal transit administration to secure the funding and as the board has previously seen the finance program for the project, it assumes a projected billion dollar grant from the federal transit administration under their capital improvement grant program. So anyway, to characterize what's proposed, the core set of projects is what is to be built but the current funding provides resources to build a certain portion and then design the light rail piece as proposed.

33:42 It is the board's interest to express a state of preference which is the design of the next series of activities for light rail that that design incorporate design up to Evergreen Boulevard referred to as Library Square Evergreen Boulevard and that funding contingent that the project and the partners try to secure funding to build to that destination point. So in summary, this is not setting new policy but I think it is expressing a preference of the board that the next body of work include design of light rail to a certain terminus and then ultimately garnering the funds which is the work in front of us. That concludes my report and take any questions the board might have. Thank you. Matt, just one item.

34:39 You said this is the set of projects that are going to be constructed and referring to the larger core set of projects. It's the intention of the project and the states and I think this group to construct the whole thing. It's not limited to the core set of projects and it's certainly not limited to the funded phase but I just want to make that clear that the rest of it we intend to also deliver. That's what we're trying to do. So I will be asking for a roll call vote on this for boards aware of that. There's no need to call for that but we do have IVR staff in the room and I look for any questions or a motion if there's no questions.

35:32 Chair, I move to approve resolution number 06-26-24. I have a motion and a second. Yes, sir. Thanks. Sorry, I just want to, since we're now talking about discussion on the actual motion, I just wanted to express the state's desire to see light rail move forward all the way to Evergreen. There's lots of things I want to see move forward including Marine Drive, including many other pieces of the project and I appreciate that this body considering this, thinking about it and with an understanding that we're going to continue to look for ways to value engineer the project and find partners to continue to seek funding for additional phases

36:28 and I think if we can all come together and do that, we can get more of this project done. Thank you. So representing City of Camas and Washougal, I want to say, first I want to say we are in support of I-5 bridge replacement and we want to be a partner in that. However, the light railroad does not really add any benefit for our community and for that, I want to make a motion to amend the resolution to exclude small cities from financial obligations of the light railroad capital and operational responsibility. Thank you. If I have a second. Commissioner Leckie, I second. Okay. Any comments on the amendment?

37:27 Is this germane to the resolution in front of us? Well, it's germane to it and it has a second, so the first roll call vote of this body should be on the amendment to the resolution. Yeah, understood the process. Any questions about the amendment in front of the board? Seeing none, we will open the roll call vote for the amendment. If you could please restate the motion and get close to that mic, please. I make the motion to exclude the small cities from financial obligation of capital and operational cost of light railroad. Okay. That is the motion in front of us. If we could have a roll call vote, please. Michelle Belcott. Aye. Will Fuentes. Nay. Sue Marshall.

38:26 No. Ann McEnerny-Ogle. No. Eric Paulson. Nay. Mahsa Eski. Yes. Troy McCoy. Aye. Asa Leckie. Aye. Ron Ihrig. Aye. Devin Reck. No. Scott Patterson. No. Temple Lenz. No. Bill Eyal. No. Ryan Winsheimer.

39:26 Abstain. Christine Lewis. Abstain. I show the motion failing. I show the motion failing seven to six with two abstentions. That moves us back to the main motion on the floor, which is approval of the resolution in front of us, 62624. Do we have any further discussion on this? Yes. Thank you, Chair. With regard to the amendment, just to say that I think it's an interesting proposition. I don't know that this resolution is the place for that discussion. With regard to now, the resolution in front of us, for the Port of Vancouver, as well as the other two ports that we represent here, our interests in the IBR project continue

40:25 to be freight mobility workforce and a system that works. We have concerns that an incomplete system for transit, especially one with good intentions but no clear plan for how to get to completion, will have a negative impact on other points in the chain, especially Mill Plain, which is a lifeline for our high, wide, and heavy freight routes. We're also invested in access for the area's workforce, and more and more employers are reporting that their employees want reliable multimodal access to their jobs. We're interested in the transit stop location that best offers access to this workforce. As three ports together, we previously passed a resolution that frames our interest in effective high-capacity transit. This language was adopted in recognition that some jurisdictions in Clark County do view light rail unfavorably, although they do still want to see this project advance. During discussion, we agreed that the proposed resolution is not a vote for or against light rail, but about advocating for the most advantageously positioned station.

41:22 So we support that and hope that it will have the effect of IBR letting us know when and how they will advance the plan to ensure that we can achieve the goal. Thank you. And I should share that my vote is informed by all four cities have weighed in on the battleground vote. It's not just battlegrounds vote. It's battleground, Ridgefield, Lissena, and Yakima. With that, any further questions? We'll head to the roll call vote on the main motion in front of us, which is resolution 62624. Michelle Belcott. No. Sue Marshall. Yes. Will Fuentes. Yes. Ann McEnerny-Ogle. Yes. Eric Paulsen. Aye. Masa Eshki. No. Troy McCoy. No.

42:22 Asa Leckie. No. Ron Eyrig. No. Scott Patterson. Yes. Deb Rieger. Yes. Van Buren. Yes. Agree. No. Dennis Rieger. No. Devin Rick. Yes. Temple Lintz. Yes. Bill Eyal. Yes. Ryan Winsheimer. Yes. Christine Lewis. Yes. I show the motion passing 10 to 5. Okay. With that, thank you all for the robust conversation. Yes. Sorry. My apologies. That's okay. I make a motion to reconsider a previous vote and ask legal counsel on the procedures.

43:19 We would like to consider a previous vote that was made this evening. Well, that is possible. The board so chooses. You can reconsider an action taken by the board. The motion is to reconsider consent agenda item C. This was the 2026, 2029 transportation improvement program. The amendments submitted by RTAC, the last bullet at the bottom of the blue page. If you'll pull up blue document C. The last bullet is the I-5 Columbia River

44:14 Bridge replacement transit design, a new project to advance post-NEPA transit design for the light rail transit elements north and south of the Columbia River Bridge replacement total programmed for project $50 million. This is the fourth project on the step that is the $50 million design for 60% that will be asking TriMet to design north and south elements. We would like instead of elements north and south for it to read for the light rail transit from Expo to Library Square of the Columbia River Bridge replacement.

45:14 So instead of just elements north and south for it to say for the light rail transit from Expo to Library Square, again, this is a $50 million project to TriMet to design the transit. They will start in 2027 using $50 million, only to the 60%, it's at 30% now. As we look at this as an opportunity to reinforce what we just passed with action item 6.

46:12 >> I was on the prevailing side of the vote. I understand that a second would be needed. >> Let's go ahead and start with discussion. We'll have a roll call vote on this as well. So just a question, my question is about the amendment, not about whether or not we are taking it up and just wanting to make sure that I'm talking about the right thing. So I'm curious what impact making this change would have on funding eligibility, just the process and motion and the timelines that we have. >> I would hand that off to our executive director.

47:06 >> So the question is, should this be amended, what is the impact? We've looked at this and let me just wait. >> Point of order, sorry, motion to reconsider would be reconsidering the entire consent agenda. That's what we voted on, right? >> True, the reconsideration. >> It would be taking back the vote on all of the consent items. So we should probably do that first, right? >> You're correct, there was a vote, a unanimous vote on the acceptance of the consent agenda as a whole. So I think we do need to go back and undo that step in order to consider a specific item on that consent agenda. >> So we need to take a vote on a reconsideration before we have discussion, is that? >> Yes. >> Okay, my apologies. With that, we will go ahead and start a roll call vote on reconsideration of the consent agenda.

48:05 >> Chair, excuse me, I have a point of information. >> Sure, please go ahead. >> Yeah, where's this information that the mayor just spoke of on our packet? I'm having a hard time finding what she was delineating out. >> It's the subject is 2026-2029 transportation improvement programs/amendments. It's action consent agenda item C resolution 626-21. And if you go to that page, it's the very bottom bullet point on the first page. >> So this is, we're re-actioning an item in the consent agenda, is that correct? >> We're going to repeal the approval of the consent agenda so that we can reconsider the consent agenda amendment. >> Yes, we're repealing the approval, unanimous approval of the consent agenda in order to go back and look at a specific consent agenda item.

49:01 >> So how I see this going is if the board so desires to rescind approval of the consent agenda, we would then discuss amending the consent agenda. So that is the intent of reconsidering consent agenda. Do I have that correct? >> Then also wouldn't we need another motion to amend the current agenda also? >> We're going to reconsider first. Legal is telling me we need to reconsider and take a vote on that motion first. Once we do that, or rescind the vote, I'm sorry, once we do that, then we can discuss the amendment. >> Correct? >> That's correct. >> All right, legal confirms. Everybody clear? Okay, let's start, roll call vote, please. >> Sue Marshall. >> Yes. >> Michelle Belcott. >> Yes. >> Will Fuentes. >> Yes. >> Anne McEnerny-Ogle. >> Yes. >> Eric Paulson. >> Aye.

50:01 >> Masa Eschke. >> Yes. >> Troy McCoy. >> Yes. >> Asa Leckie. >> No. >> Ron Ihrig. >> No. >> Scott Patterson. >> Yes. >> Devon Reck. >> No. >> Temple Williams. >> No. >> Bill Ayl. >> Yes. >> Brian Winsheimer. >> No. >> Christine Lewis. >> Yes. >> I have the motion passing five, or 10 to five, I'm sorry. We will now -- >> Do we go directly back to consent agenda to discuss this item currently? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda items A, B, and D. >> Second.

51:00 >> Okay. The motion on the floor is consent agenda and has been seconded for approval to consent agendas item A, B, and D. I almost said it. Thank you. Sorry. >> It was a late night. Any discussion on that? This does not include the proposed amended consent item for those that aren't clear on that. Yes, commissioner. >> Yeah. I had a question. So is this adding 50 more -- is this costing 50 million more dollars? I was kind of confused on that. >> What's in front of the board right now is just approval of the consent agenda items that are not under -- are not be considered for amending. >> Got it. Clear. >> Okay. I don't think we need a roll call vote on this. So I will ask for approval of consent agenda items A, B, and D. All in favor, please say aye.

51:59 >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Okay. Now, individually considering consent agenda item C. >> Do we need to make a motion to -- yeah. Thank you, mayor. >> Chair. Anne McEnerny-Ogle. I move to amend the resolution 062621, which amends the 2026-2029 improvement program. This is the last bulleted item on page 1 of the blue section. This is

52:48 consent agenda item C. This refers to a recommended amendment for the $50 million that would be given to TriMet for the transit design. As the document reads now, I-5 Columbia River Bridge replacement transit design. New project to advance post-NEPA design -- transit design for the light rail transit, elements north and south of the Columbia River Bridge replacement. Middle program for project 50,000,001,000. The amendment is to replace four words, element

53:39 north and south, to read from expo to library square. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Now, this board -- >> Let's get a second. >> Agenda item -- yes, thank you. A second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Agenda item 6, expo to library square is at 30% now. The $50 million will be given to TriMet to design transit at 60%. We feel adding that six and a half blocks

54:30 to library square can be kept within the timeline and within the $50 million. >> Clarifying question for the person making the motion. The question was posed, does this involve any additional financial commitment on a part of RTC? Is that the intention of the motion? >> No. It is not intended to add additional funds. >> So it's strictly to align this motion with the motion that we subsequently made, stating that our preference is that the rail alignment be extended all the way to library square. Therefore, this commitment to the design portion of the project would similarly state that our preference is that the design an alignment from expo to library square. Is that correct? >> Correct.

55:29 >> Thank you. Okay. Could we hear that online? Okay. Thank you. I'll take it back to our executive director for explanation. >> Okay. I think I remember the question. Can I go back to the question that was posed because I do have information to share with the board that I think you need to understand before you resolve this proposal? >> Could we restate the question, maybe? >> Happily. My question is what impact would this have on timing funding and moving forward to meet our deadlines? >> Yeah. So the question is what is this -- if the board entertained this motion, what's the impact? There will be an impact. I'll invite IBR program to describe the impact in terms of fund obligation. Let me describe procedural issue that the board needs to be

56:26 aware of. This tip record is WSDOT's tip record. It is theirs alone and solely. So should the board want to amend the tip record, the procedure would be to not approve any of it, kick it back to WSDOT for their reconsideration of the record itself. The record -- I see two substantive issues in the motion proposed. And this isn't speaking about the intent of the motion. This is about the actual process. The two substantive issues are, as I say, WSDOT would need to assess the financial viability of the proposed. And so I can't make a determination to the board today whether or not what is proposed is financially viable. The tip itself has to be a fiscally constrained document. So they would need to do an analysis of fiscal constraint based on amended language. I don't want to suppose what that might be. Second,

57:21 the process for the tip amendment is it would have to restart a process. So it would need to go back to RTAC. It would need to be resubmitted into the Washington STIP database. And they need to approve the record because it's not ours. They actually submit the record. We just process it through and validate -- and again, I want to reinforce this for the board's benefit -- validate that the board approves it. So the board has approval authority, but there's some mechanics involved in what you're proposing. And I think the mechanics are substantively very important at this moment. So it would restart the process, and WSDOT would have to consider it and do a fiscal constraint analysis. Relative to the timeliness of the amendment itself, there are some other factors that the board may want to consider. I know

58:18 Carly Francis and Frank Green are here to talk about what those factors might be schedule-wise. So I guess on two points, the schedule concern and then also just financial analysis. One to note, we are targeting right now and had it restated back to us from the federal government that we are on target to have a record of decision issued on July 1st. So we are working towards that timeline that is structured in context with the dialogues with the MPOs. So the last vote is by Metro Council on the 23rd of June. So targeting to have all of these pieces come together. As I've mentioned before to this body, the record of decision is essential and unlocks additional review with the federal government of the grant amendment agreements that we are working on with them. Those are the activities that once signed obligate the funds from the federal government, that $2.1 billion, the $546 million of which

59:18 would expire at the end of September if we don't complete those obligations. So that's very critical, and it's critical to reserve enough time with them to review those other activities. There are certain levels of that review that just simply will not get unlocked until we have the record of decision. From a financial impact perspective, we do not have the funds to support the design beyond Waterfront to Evergreen. We definitely want to get there, but I would just note that it is a stacked activity and design activity after you get away from Waterfront. The light rail alignment is aligned over I-5 in that section. So to advance design for that, we need to have a reasonable body of funds available for design for the highway and for the transit components in that section. To be very clear about that tiered relationship between transit and the highway there, we have very limited

1:00:18 right-of-way. So the plan right now, which we have not adjusted in estimating costs and folks may want to explore differences of and we're open to having that dialogue. We are planning to shift the highway over to the east so that we can build a wall on the east side and on the west side. We will need to then shift traffic back and start setting girders. We have to remove girders from inactive traffic lanes now to put up the transit bridge and then similarly we need to set new transit bridge supports once that roadway has come back across. So it's a design activity both for the highway in that section which includes design of walls, the transit bridge itself and other pieces. Right now we have $5.68 billion worth of costs identified and we have $5.69 billion worth of available funds. It's

1:01:13 very little wiggle room and so just definitely want to get to Evergreen. There's not the funds to support that at this time. Certainly a more robust financial analysis could be conducted but there are timing and financial concerns. Commissioner? >> Yeah, thank you. There's a lot of information coming out. Honestly, I would move to table this until July's meeting, until it gives the public and taxpayers to review the large amount of information that's being discussed. I mean, we're barely tracking it in this room ourselves and I think we owe it to the taxpayer to have some input and say on this also. Thank you. Mayor?

1:02:08 >> Yes, certainly. Thank you. The stack design and the limited right of way is not an option that the City of Vancouver has asked IBR to consider. There is a second option that we have looked at that would allow the opportunity to happen faster and cheaper and earlier. Unfortunately, there is no money right now for transit and IBR has completely separated transit from the bridge. So the first contract that will go out is the bridge and the roadway. That onramp, offramp, that is one contract. The second contract is this project for the

1:03:02 design of transit and it's not happening until next year. So the design of transit starting next year does not impact the plan now to impact the July 1st rod and that particular design. As we look at this opportunity, if the design for transit to library square is not in any document, it will not happen. And right now, library square is not in this first phase. 30% design, 60% design, 100% design. So the City of Vancouver would like the opportunity

1:03:56 to work with TriMet or any other agency to design that 30% to library square and that should be in writing because it is not there now. Again, I just want to reinforce, if the board chooses to amend this language, you really need to kick it out and bring it back. And the record itself is the programming document that WSDOT has submitted. So it's sort of binary in that respect. I think the policy position as the board adopted is clear and I will carry that forward I think on behalf of the agency as a partner that the program needs to get there. But the record itself,

1:04:51 given the time sensitivity associated with the TIP approval, is something that I would offer to the board from my opinion shouldn't be kicked forward. It needs to be addressed today. That's the best advice I could give the board from my perspective. The policy position is clear. And if I may, the cost estimate that we prepared was based on the design going, you know, that we had up to this point in the project, excuse me. And there is the opportunity to explore alternate alignments, but we were costing out what was, you know, in design and what we had available at the time of, you know, that we've been discussing for a while. Mostly to note that we, there is space and time to have the conversation. I know that does not provide the confidence that the mayor is looking for in the process. There is the space and

1:05:51 time to have a conversation about alternate alignments. We've talked about discussing that with partners in the fall. There is a way to execute a contract to reserve the opportunity to look at design from Waterfront to Evergreen as an option to add on to a contract even though we don't have the funds now. If the funds come along, we can add that on. There are ways to build this into the process going forward. The work with the federal government right now and the time sensitivity of it is significant. It is important to just understand that and recognize the funding that's at risk and also the fact that there's just, there's not wiggle room in what we have based on the design now and what it would take to support design looking from Waterfront to Evergreen. Brian. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm clearly because I want to make sure I heard what you said. There is an opportunity within

1:06:51 the contract to potentially have some options that would then look at alternative alignments. Yes. But you can't move forward with an amendment to the TIP that describes scope that is not financially constrained. Yes, that is a concern. So, the important thing here is to make sure that, and you can't, if you don't program the TIP right now because we have timelines that we need to follow and if amendments are made, it would trigger other amendments that would then delay and we would be putting our BIP grant at risk. There are concerns with the BIP grant, especially the $546 million that expires. And yes, the language was written with the recognition that we needed to expand the concept over time. So, the language as submitted for the TIP is permissive, allowing that exploration of an extent of transit as

1:07:47 identified by the modified locally preferred alternative, but to allow that to evolve over time. Putting a specific end point on it of Library Square would imply that we have, we are funding it with funds to be able to design to Library Square and that is not what we have and it would not be a reflection of what we are able to fund at this time. And I get my last, is there anything that stops if additional funding becomes available at some point in the future that we could amend the TIP amendment to say we want to go further? Absolutely, that's totally possible. We do anticipate on a program of this size and scale that we will be coming back for TIP amendments every year. Because I heard a desire from this group that we voted to make sure that we are interested in continuing the light rail on and I am, but I am not interested in something that

1:08:42 puts our BIP grant at risk. I am not interested in something that is going to delay this process, put the BIP grant at risk, and then when I heard there is definitely opportunities to continue to consider that, that there is definitely an opportunity to, in the contract, even with the constrained funding, build in a consideration that we could look forward to additional or different designs potentially that is, that's an option. So I just want to make sure I understood it, thank you. Mayor? Then if IBR would like to put that contract language in front of us, then the City of Vancouver would be happy to consider it, but it is not there. Can you explain to me which contract language? The, a future TIP amendment, is that what you're speaking of? As, there is nothing in language right now

1:09:38 written on paper that says the IBR will contract for the design from light rail from waterfront to the library. Understood, thank you. That is the only thing that is there right now is that they will contract, and it's in this language, from Expo to the waterfront. The City does not have any confidence in language unless it's in writing, and there is nothing in writing, and that is why they are putting forward this particular amendment because this is the only thing that would even say the words Library Square. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah, I would just note that there is no ability right now to put something in contract where

1:10:33 there's not money to support it, so that kind of a mechanism is not viable at this time. The intention is to look at alignments and have that conversation in the fall, and to, I think again, we can reserve the space within TriMet Contracting to sort of add that as an option as we are working with them to contract out design to waterfront. There is a space in contracting to sort of note that you can tack on something that you don't have, you can sort of have it as an option. When funding becomes available, you can add this as a component. That is what we are sort of able to do within the funds that we have. For those of us that don't live in the transportation world, and I'm thinking that more and more every day, is the TIP, the Transportation Improvement Program, the TIP, is that essentially the budget for the funded program? Is that, when you say program the TIP, you're talking

1:11:32 about funding the TIP, constructing the plan inside the TIP. Yes. So if it's not inside the TIP and you don't have funds for it, if you don't have funds for it, therefore it's not inside the TIP? We are programming funds into the TIP to support the activities as they are described. But you wouldn't put anything into the TIP that wasn't funded? Is that why you have an amendment later? That's correct. The TIP is a fiscally constrained plan, and so you need the funds in hand or ready to be in hand, committed to be able to put it into the TIP. Okay. That helps me. And then to the mayor's point, where does the other language, the more, let's talk from the 30,000 foot level to the City of Vancouver's concerns, where is the language, is that the locally preferred alternative? Is that essentially the language and that's it? Or is there something more

1:12:28 concrete and actionable, for lack of a better word? So the modified locally preferred alternative does identify light rail and it does identify the extent. And so that is the primary statement of that as an intention. And that's your north star essentially? Absolutely. That's where we're going. I'm just trying to clear this up for me, so I apologize. So yes, Temple. I really appreciate where the City of Vancouver is trying to go here and that we can have good intentions, but more security that we will move in a certain direction is desired.

1:13:17 I have big concerns about sending the TIP back and the procedural snags that may deliver. And I think that there could be a lot of jeopardy that we don't even right now understand, which is a reason that I am having trouble getting to supporting this amendment. I'm curious, IBR, if there is any, I understand what you're saying too about contract language and we're not there yet in fall. Are there ways we can, you can, make the City of Vancouver and other stakeholders more confident that this work will be explored? I mean, I think that the most that I can do is sort of put in writing of what I've verbalized, which is noting that people are interested in looking at different alignments. I think

1:14:16 everyone, as we've expressed, value engineering, looking for lowest cost opportunities is important. We costed out the design that we have at this time. And so the idea of, and I think everyone's interested in, what is the lowest, you know, what is the most cost effective way, least disruptive way to get to Evergreen? And so that is my sense of what we would talk about in the fall is like what are those opportunities to maybe do that at a lower cost or, you know, sort of decoupling highway from transit so that it's maybe easier depending on what that looks like? There are, you know, concerns, as you noted, about inconsistencies within the TIP across. So we have the Oregon Transportation Commission has adopted the TIP as written. As you see the language here, there's concerns that there could be delay. Inconsistencies

1:15:10 across those documents is not good. It's problematic. And there's the concerns about jeopardizing grant funding and just having challenges in delivering the core program. Thank you. This is really good discussion. And it came as a surprise to me that as one of the core set of projects extending to Evergreen was not included. And it makes me wonder how closely you are working with the City of Vancouver on the alignments or options to make it as cost effective as possible. Because I don't know if it came as a surprise to the City of Vancouver as well. So I would just want to encourage working more closely with the

1:16:07 City of Vancouver. And I can appreciate wanting to have as firm a commitment that ultimately this will extend to Evergreen. It is absolutely our intention to get it to Evergreen. And I think there is value in trying to see if we can knit it back together. And it's really a function of advancing at this moment within the funds that we have. Thank you. I guess the last thing I'd add is I was a yes on strongly supporting it. I'm still a yes on strongly supporting it. I'm still a strong supporter. I still think we should be encouraging the project and both DOTs and the transit agencies to be getting to Evergreen. I firmly believe that. As the Director from the Port of Vancouver mentioned though, I do know what's going on in the transportation piece of this and the programming piece and

1:17:03 what's required. And that is an absolute no in this because I need to get this tip amendment approved in order to get the federal funds that otherwise would go away. I want to be able to move forward with as much of the project as I can. And if there's opportunities to do more, I'm certainly open to that. And I certainly would support that. And I am going to be the first one to raise my hand and say, let's go get more funding and do more. I'm happy to join in that. But voting to not program this as is written is a very big risk. Thank you, Bill. Yeah, I really like what the mayor is saying, but unfortunately I think it does risk the funding. And so I think it's something to look back and go back to the original motion at this point in time. Understood. However, the motion on the floor is the amendment of the consent agenda item

1:18:00 C. So yes, Mr. Paulson. Thank you, Chair. Interim Administrator Francis, I get that right? Yes. Thank you. When you last appeared before the Vancouver City Council, one of your strong talking points was, which I agree with, was that we need to build what we can build with the funds that we have available. I think that's the cornerstone that I think we all can agree to. What you're hearing, not just now from the city of Vancouver, but from broader constituencies is that while we share that objective, we also have strong preferences and high priorities around some of the things that unfortunately have fallen out of scope

1:18:55 the way that this has been scoped. And so I would just echo Chair Marshall's comments. Whatever assurances that you can give, be it in writing or otherwise, to the city of Vancouver in particular, but also to this growing body of constituencies that share our interest, that we will engage in good faith around these intentions that we're talking about. And that conversations will occur in the fall having to do with alternative alignments that could, from a cost engineering perspective, be less expensive and result in a design contract that would be more affordable and might be more attainable in the short term, possibly even within the time frame that this contract contemplates, which is not to begin until

1:19:51 next year. Those are the kinds of things that we are looking for, and I'm using that, not just the city of Vancouver, but broader. I won't be supporting this motion principally because of the reasons that have been already articulated. I think supporting this motion puts at risk some of the funding that we must have in order to build what we can build today, and I firmly believe that if we don't build what we can build today, it will never be less expensive than it is now. Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, let's do a roll call vote, and this is on amendment to consent agenda item C, eliminating elements north and south, replacing it from expo to library square. So this is the amended

1:20:47 consent agenda item C. Roll call vote, please. Sorry. Did you have a question, Bill? No. Okay. So are we clear on the vote? All right. Roll call vote, please.

1:21:09 >> Do you have a question? >> Do you have a question?

1:21:59 >> Yes. >> Okay. I have the motion failing. 12 to 2 with one abstention. >> Chair, I move approval of consent agenda item C as originally presented. >> Second. >> Motion on the floor is approval of consent agenda item C with no changes. I don't see a need for a roll call vote on this. I'll be asking for a voice vote unless somebody has an issue with that. Seeing none, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Okay. Back to our rather scheduled programming. Where are we at? I've lost my

1:22:53 place in my line. Okay. Discussion items. Thank you. Regional signal timing plans, pilot program. >> Directors, I'd like to introduce this topic in presenting virtually as Judith Perez Keniston. Directors, we presented this pilot project in a few instances when we were conceiving of the idea. I think when we brought forward some different parameters in a proposed agreement that we entered into with a series of agencies, and just to refresh the board's memory, the pilot program was envisioned as a let's try this using some carbon reduction funding, which was a special tranche of funds allocated as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law or IIJA as some might refer to it as. And the carbon reduction program was a form of funding that RTC administers. The first tranche

1:23:47 of funds went to, I think, the City of Vancouver project on Southeast 34th Street received an allocation, RTC's pilot program that we're going to present this evening. And then there was a third project that I don't recall. But in any event, the envisioned idea here was what if we took the CRP funds, carbon reduction program, and allocated it to our high congestion corridors, those identified in the congestion management process that we report each year to the board. And let's try signal timing. Signal timing with the intention that let's measure benefits to motorists and cyclists around four primary categories that you'll hear reported this evening, safety, delay, and two other, carbon emission reduction. And maybe there's some benefit that we can derive that affects a lot of people, benefits a lot of people. And so let's pilot this. We folded the pilot program under our fast

1:24:44 Vancouver area smart program initiative. And we've had a series of corridors timed. And Judith is here to present the first batch of the pilot program, a series of corridors that we've timed. And you'll see just a list of performance outcomes. So Judith, the floor is yours. Thank you, Matt. Thank you for the background. Next slide, please. So as Matt said, RTC is increasing CRP or carbon reduction program funds for this pilot signal timing optimization program. The signal timing optimization is a proven low cost TSMO strategy. So TSMO or transportation systems management and operations are strategies that help traffic move more smoothly by cutting down on unnecessary stops and delays. So since most trips go through

1:25:39 multiple intersections, even small improvements, individual signals can add up to noticeable benefits across the whole system. So the main goals of the projects were pretty straightforward. We wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We wanted to improve traffic flows, reduce congestion and enhance roadway safety. One unique feature of this pilot that I wanted to point out is the development of a voluntary participation agreement. So this agreement outlined the agency's responsibilities, RTC and also the local agencies we were working with. RTC entered onto MOU with WSDOT and an agreement with the city of Vancouver for the seven pilot projects that I'm going to showcase tonight. And through those agreements, the agency is committed to maintain the updated signal timing plans for at least three years,

1:26:35 given the investments that we were making for this pilot project. Next slide, please. So we selected seven non-freeway corridors through RTC's congestion management process for the signal timing improvements project. They are key regional routes where we expect that signal optimization will provide the biggest overall benefit. The corridors were selected through a data driven screening process that look at things like traffic volumes, specifically during peak hours, travel time per mile, which helps measure congestion, average speed compared to posted speed limits, corridor capacity index, transit ridership and safety performance, including crash data and crashes per mile. So because the CRP program focuses heavily on emission reductions, the corridors with high traffic volumes and slower

1:27:33 operation speeds were prioritized. And for each corridor selected, all seven corridors, the project team developed a detailed technical report and also a flyer that summarizes the key improvements and results. And these materials are available on the project web page and also the flyers were included in your meeting materials. Next slide, please. So overall, the updated signal timing plans produce measurable benefits across all seven corridors. Over the next few flights, I'm going to walk you through some of the highlights from each corridor. And let's start with SR 503 North Corridor. And that one goes from 119 to 244 in battleground. We saw travel time savings during the afternoon peak period,

1:28:26 especially northbound on SR 503 and eastbound on SR 502. We also saw some weekend improvements westbound on SR 502. And overall, the corridor stops were reduced by 13%. Next slide, please. The SR 503 South Corridor segment has a different operating pattern than the north segment. And this is mainly due to land use context. It's a little bit more urban in nature. And this corridor segment goes from northeast four-plane boulevard, also known as SR 500, to 119. So overall, stops were reduced by 6%. And we observed travel time improvements northbound during weekdays, or weekends, I should say, sorry, and southbound during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. And the southbound peak period improvements were

1:29:23 especially strong, as you can see on my slide, by 23% in the afternoon and 25% in the morning. And WSDOT was very happy with that. Next slide, please. The next corridor segment is the Mill Plain Boulevard East. And that segment covers the area from 104 just east of I-205 to 192. And this corridor segment shows improvements westbound during both the p.m. peak and the midday periods. And overall, the corridor stops were reduced by 6%. Next slide, please. Okay, so moving on to the next corridor segment, the Northeast Four-Plane Boulevard East includes one of our most congested intersections in the region. And this corridor extends from

1:30:16 117, which is SR 500, to 162nd Avenue. And overall, the stops were reduced by 7%. And we can say that the biggest improvements were westbound during the afternoon peak period, and although we saw measurable improvements during the westbound a.m. peak as well. And if we move to the next slide, and let's talk about Northeast 18th Street corridor. And there the overall stops were reduced by 11%. And this corridor covered the area between I-205 and 167th Avenue. The travel time improvements were a little less noticeable because the timing adjustments along the corridor were fairly minor. And most of the operational benefits were concentrated at two of this corridor's key intersections, which were

1:31:10 Northeast 18th Street and 136th Avenue, and also Northeast 18th Street and 112th Avenue intersections. So that's where we did the most work along this corridor. Okay, so now we're moving up east to 162nd and 164th, and we're going to look at the north corridor segment first. And this corridor segment extends from Mill Plain all the way to 78th Street, which is just north of Four Plain. The segment had the largest reduction in stops overall, with a 20% decrease. And the most significant improvements, as you can see on the slide, were southbound during the morning peak and northbound during the PM peak. And if we move south to the next slide, we can look at the 164 south. And this

1:32:07 corridor had the smallest overall reductions in stops at about 4%. It's just a congested corridor segment. The segment extends from SR 14 in the south all the way to Southeast 6th Avenue, which is just north of Mill Plain to the north. And my apologies that the map on this slide does not show the true extent of this corridor. The most significant improvement occurred northbound during the PM peak period. And interesting, we also saw some improvements southbound during the weekends. And next slide, please. Overall, the results show that signal timing optimization is a very effective local strategy for improving mobility, reducing emissions and improving operating conditions. That supports roadway safety across the Clark County region. As I mentioned earlier, the project focused on corridors where updated

1:33:04 timing plans could provide the greatest operational benefit. And a few takeaways from this study. Signal retiming is sufficient and cost effective if it can produce meaningful savings in travel time, fuel consumption and driver costs. It can also improve roadway safety by reducing stop and go traffic. And then if you can move it to the next slide, please. So overall, the pilot study was successful. Stops were reduced and travel times improved across all corridors just, you know, to different degrees, right? So RTC decided to move forward with the Phase 2 effort. The goals for Phase 2 are basically the same. We would like to improve mobility, enhance safety, improve air quality throughout the Clark County urban area. The main difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the methodology being used. So in Phase

1:34:01 1, engineers relied on synchro-based software analysis to develop the updated timing plans. In Phase 2, the project team is using flow analytics software to support the signal retiming process. And we're going to be back in the fall and compare how effective the two methodologies are and tell you everything we learned under Phase 2. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have regarding this pilot project. Thank you for information. This process just excited me. So I really appreciate the program. Are there other corridors that you have in the list for future analysis? Yeah, we came up with about 18 corridors, just rank all the major congested corridors

1:35:00 that are identified in our congestion management program. And they work throughout the county. I mean, there was the bulk of it is in the city of Vancouver, but there was a couple like Highway 99 in Clark County. We just ran out of funding. So we had to prioritize in the top seven. And that is something that we're hoping that after we come back and talk about Phase 2, perhaps like Matt said, we can continue the conversation of extending this program and continue it and amplifying it throughout the county. I appreciate it. Follow-up question, 192nd Avenue, can that be included in your list if we can add a wish list? Yeah, we can look at that. I can't remember from the top of my head whether the CMP identifies 192nd, but we will look at it and start definitely, you know, if it's in there. That would be great. I appreciate it.

1:36:00 Thank you for the report. I just want to say the results are incredible, especially considering the pesky Battleground City Council, with help from WSDOT, lowered the speed limits on 502. And yet we still had better traffic flow. So that's amazing results. Thank you for that report. Director is just one amendment, so I think we'll probably report Phase 2 in January, February timeframe. And the intention is, because this is a pilot program, is to really take stock. My vision is we report the Phase 1 and Phase 2 work. We've set aside money in future years to continue this, but I think there is a decision point, which is do we want to continue this? And part of the taking stock is do agencies like it? Do they accept it? I feel like we need to have a panel report from some of our local traffic engineers, state traffic engineer, to give their take on it. While we see good results, I'd like to hear what they are seeing and do they value this program? Because if they don't value

1:36:56 this program, maybe it was a pilot and we just, you know, waved goodbye. But I'm seeing, as Judith reports, some very positive outcomes. It's a way to leverage regional resources for actual benefit that affects a lot of people. So, so far so good, but there is a decision point I think in the future whether this pilot continues. I want to say I think these results are great. Really happy to see all of the assorted reductions. I have a, I have a, it's kind of a dumb question, but I'm curious about, you know, I'll back up. I think that this, the fact that this is successful is fantastic. And a successful pilot, that after you do it, the result is why weren't we doing this all the time, shows that it was a successful pilot, which is fantastic. So my question isn't why weren't we already

1:37:50 doing this, but I'm hoping that someone more technical than I am could talk about why this is something that needed a study and additional technology. What is it about the way that lights are put in and traffic does or doesn't flow that requires us to go through these pilot projects to learn how to make things more efficient? I'm just kind of curious about those mechanics. Maybe that's something we can bring back for phase two in that discussion? I have an answer, but we'll save it for phase two. I mean, the simple answer is agencies have 50 things to do and $30 to do it with, right? Just as a metaphor. And what we see we saw as a gap every year when we'd report the CMP data and you would see it time and again, signal timing, signal timing, signal timing. We've talked with our vast partners

1:38:47 like, hey, are you doing signal timing? No, we don't have enough money. And so this really is in some ways a regional allocation to say, well, let's see if we could backfill this. And the regional nature of it using RTC resources, again, the board's committed those, is to then look at it as opposed to agency specific. Let's look at it more sort of within these broader corridors. And it's not a statement of negativity to whether it's the department or local agency staff, it's just resources are very constrained. So this was an opportunity to sort of fill a void. Fantastic. I have a small follow up. Sorry, Troy. After the pilot, is this something that for the jurisdictions that appreciate these changes in their corridors, can it continue or is additional funding needed for that coordination that you've discovered to continue? And that's part of, I think, the question that we need to really self assess and as

1:39:43 a group assess, which is, is it worth the allocation of regional funds? In this case, we've committed 50,000 a year going forward. It turns out that the color of money that carbon reduction program probably is going to go away with reauthorization. So we might have to freeze that and come up with a new color of money, maybe SBG or CMAQ funds. But I think the question for the board would be, do we want to commit resources to just get these corridors, you know, the high priority corridors over the edge? If that's what gets agencies and we can do it as a regional partnership, that could be a win, win, win. Everybody wins. The traveling public wins, the agencies get some resources to do the timing. But the question is, is it worth it? And I think we need to be, you know, really retrospective about that. So what I'm hearing is we'll bring some costs with the phase two so that the board can evaluate that. Can I ask a follow up question? Sorry. So after the study is done, who is in charge

1:40:42 of implementing it? Let's say that signal timing needs to be changed. Goes to each agency or parties. Yeah, that's one of the, Judith, I'm sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. No, go ahead. No, I was going to say, yeah, that each local agency is responsible in maintaining the signal timing plans that were created. And if there's any reason for modification, you know, after those three years, then it is the agency responsibility to continue that work. Okay. We want to be cognizant of the time. We're getting close to our 6 p.m. limit. So Adam's next up with the gorge safety action plan. Great. Thank you. So over the past year and a half, RTC has led the development of a comprehensive safety action plan for the Southwest Washington

1:41:40 RTPO region, which includes Cucada and Skamania County in alignment with WSDOT's Target Zero. The aim of the planning effort was to improve safety in the study area for the traveling public by eliminating fatalities and serious injury collisions on roadways for all modes of transportation. RTC was awarded twenty twenty four safe streets and roads for all grant funds in order to develop a safety action plan. The plan establishes a vision, incorporated data analysis and include outreach efforts necessary to develop a comprehensive safety action plan. And with that, a comprehensive, prioritized list of projects and strategies. The effort also included application for state and federal funds to design, build and operate these identified improvements, the stated goals of the program, which I've included on this slide. I'll include on the slide and in the interest of time, move ahead. The project

1:42:39 kicked off in February of twenty twenty five and was structured around seven required elements of the of the program. I'll start with the safe work group and see where I get the safe work group was critical to developing the plan and was built around the standing transportation policy committees for Cucada and Skamania. The GPCs are comprised of transportation planning professionals from member agencies, including WSDOT, ports, cities, the counties, as well as transit agencies. Additionally, we invited members of hospitals, EMS, police, law enforcement to join this conversation. We met quarterly and they helped, as I say, steer the plan elements, which I'll expand on in later slides. Safety analysis. This was a early component of the process which captured information between a five year period from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three. The outcomes of the element revealed that while the total number of crashes

1:43:37 in the study region decreased between twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three, so from two hundred and fifteen crashes to one hundred and fifty five crashes in twenty twenty three, the total number of fatal and serious injuries actually increased over that same period from fifteen in twenty nineteen to nineteen in twenty twenty three. Community engagement was a core part of the program area and we completed two large engagement, both online and in person, events in the summer of twenty twenty five and then in the winter as well. In addition, and I'll address these later in the slide and in interest, I'll just show you them here. There were other elements that we included in this plan to help steer our development. On this slide, I've highlighted several of the plan outcomes. They should be familiar. These were the objectives that

1:44:34 we had had early in the plan process. If they look familiar, it's because they're also similar to the Clark County Safety Action Plan objectives, which were, I'll focus on to support the development of projects and strategies that can be funded through both state and federal funds. This included supporting the counties as well as the cities. The counties have successful Highway Safety Action Plan applications in the past. Because the cities did not have any local road safety plans, they weren't eligible, so through this process we helped develop those. And in this last cycle, White Salmon was able to apply. I was here last month and presented the application for implementation grant funding for SS4A that this county, Skamania

1:45:30 County, had applied for. I will say that since then they had applied, so we are human fingers crossed that their application for $5.3 million to improve the corridor-wide safety improvements along Wind River Road, a 0.67 section, are successful, and I'll definitely update the board on that development. I'll move past this slide, but to say that we followed the safe system approach with this process and we incorporated the WSDOT version, which includes safe land use. We structured the different priorities of this around that. So emphasis areas, I'll turn to some of the features of the plan. WSDOT's Target Zero program focused on common factors that led to serious injuries and deaths in Washington roadways. The four

1:46:27 emphasis areas shown on the slide are based on the most fatal and serious injury crash trends in the study area, as well as on feedback from the work group and from the community engagement that we completed. The emphasis areas create the framework for the plan and guide investment and safety, and you can find more information structured through this in the document, which is included in your packet. So in order to identify locations of the most serious injury and concern, the analysis uses a scoring method. On this slide, I'm showing a region-wide map for the county roadways representing the six high priority locations. This includes B.C. Glenwood, Canyon Road, Dallas-Port Road, and Bickleton Highway in Crocodile County, as well as Wind River Road and Wind River Highway in Skamania County.

1:47:22 If you don't like landscape-oriented documents like I don't, it's because of maps like these which show the study area that we have favored landscape design. Here are some of the study recommendations that are included in the project. This is a prioritized list of projects on county roadways. They are prioritized, and it's explained in more detail in the document, but they're scored based on their risk factor and the number of serious injuries and fatalities that occur on them. The projects are structured around the best use of funds and the availability of both grant funding as well as staff time in the near term to complete them, and those

1:48:14 are included in the document. The packet that you have before you includes the draft document. I hope to return either next month or the month after with the final document. We are taking the document, which will include WSDOT comments that aren't reflected in the version ahead of you, to the TBCs tomorrow to receive their recommendation to then return to this board for your consent or action, I suppose. We will then be monitoring the implementation grants that we had submitted in this most recent cycle to see if we were successful. Skamania County had submitted an application in this region based on the safety action plan that we developed, so we're keeping our fingers crossed that they're successful. How

1:49:12 is that, five minutes? I see you working. Any questions from the board? I would encourage, there's a lot here, so feel free to reach out with email questions and perhaps we can just address those at the next meeting. Thank you so much, Adam. That moves us into other business. Anything from the board tonight or this evening or whatever it is, this afternoon? With that, we'll take it over to our executive director. All right, directors, I published today a folio. Here it is. Congress has been moving specifically the House on reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Act. This is a folio produced by the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. It might be a little bit out of date, but this characteristically describes the program that they recently on May 22nd voted it out of Committee 62 to 2,

1:50:10 which is perhaps by commentary a pretty bipartisan vote to move the Build America 250 proposal forward. Then maybe the House takes it up. The Senate, by way of reference, has not introduced a bill, so this is the first one out of the gate for reauthorization this fall. Just as a point of awareness for the board and those in the public, all of RTC's grant programs are funded by the Federal Transportation Act and about 90 plus percent of RTC's operating funds to run the organization are Federal Transportation Act funds. This is very important for us and the work that we do. A couple of highlights here to mention. First, reauthorizes the SDBG program, which is our primary grant program that local agencies apply for. It reauthorizes the bridge program, which earlier this evening you heard reports on the Hi-Fi program and how they've secured billions of dollars worth of bridge grant programs.

1:51:07 Those are reauthorized. What's also reauthorized proposed would be the Safe Streets and Roads for All program. Those are the good aspects. On the converse, and again, when I say reauthorized, this is what's proposed. The carbon reduction program is eliminated. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which spent a lot of resources on electric system charging programs and so forth, is either reduced or reshuffled. There's some program consolidations across the board. On the positive side, there's some good things. Expand a program, Safe Streets for All bridge program. On the negative side, CRP and other programs are shut down. Major permitting reforms within NEPA. On the MPO-specific side, it would increase some of the planning funds, which are part of the federal resource that RTC receives to operate and increases the PL apportionment across the board by, I think, upwards of 9 to 10%. Then it also creates this new opportunity for MPOs to be a direct recipient of funds. Currently, all

1:52:06 of our money flows through the state and the state sub allocates. There is an opportunity if this is approved in law to where MPOs, probably more prominently large MPOs, could apply to be a direct recipient. If that occurs, of course, that's something that I would look at because it might streamline and save some money. Let me just summarize this by saying, so Representative Rick Larson, ranking member of the House T&I committee, Washington's second district, so this is out of the San Juans. Here's a quote in the press release announcing that the committee had passed it out. A quote from Representative Rick Larson, Washington, quote, "You can't have a big league economy with little league infrastructure." And I think that's a good point to end on. I think the federal investment in our infrastructure is important and hopefully Congress moves this bill forward. Just a second update, just more on a personal note. The board's aware that I was appointed to the Washington Transportation

1:53:05 Commission last year. It's me endeavoring to serve the public in a non-local role. The state transportation commissions, Washington and Oregon, are holding a joint meeting this Friday to discuss the matter of tolling of the Interstate 5 bridge. They'll hear reports about the financial capacity of tolling, toll policies. The Washington Transportation Commission over the course of the next month takes a public hearing and comment on a low-income toll program proposal that has been proposed for first rollout up in the Seattle area on SR 167, SR 509. That's legislatively directed the first quarter where a low-income program could be deployed. It's believed that a low-income program would be deployed then concurrently or afterwards on the I-5 program. So just by way of reference, I'll be attending those meetings and on the topic broadly, at some maybe future point, this board might want to report on that. I won't give it, but maybe somebody from the commission could give that

1:54:05 report. That's what I have for the board. July meeting of the board, we're monitoring agenda. Of course, we get into the summer months. There's an August recess July meeting. We'll plan to have, but we'll be reaching out to board members, checking travel schedules and attendance levels, unless there's something critical and an action item form, then it's possible that we could look at that for a postponement and that would kick us to September. But anyway, just advisory, we'll be reaching out soon in terms of your travel schedules because that abuts up against the July 4th weekend. And to that, yes, the next scheduled, if needed, RTC board of directors meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 at 4 PM. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.