Regional Transportation Council

0:00 [MUSIC]

0:30 [BLANK_AUDIO]

1:00 I don't like this room. [BLANK_AUDIO]

2:00 >> Maybe try- >> Just checking sound for our panelists. >> We're trying to get sound. [BLANK_AUDIO]

3:00 >> Let's try it again. >> Panelists, can you, you can hear us now? >> Thank you, Rebecca. >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Okay, thank you for your patience, played. Is there any way we can turn down the speakers in here? [BLANK_AUDIO] All right, we got some serious echo here, but we'll power through for now while they work on that. Good afternoon, everybody, it's May 5th, 2026. I'm gonna call this regular RTC Board of Directors meeting to order. If we could start with roll. >> Michelle Belcott. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Sue Marshall. >> Here. >> Will Fuentes. >> Here.

3:56 [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Anne McEnany-Ogle. >> Present. >> Ty Stober. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Masa Eschke. >> Here. >> Troy McCoy. >> Here. >> Asa Leckie. >> Present. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Ron Irig. >> Leanne Kaper. >> Present. >> Devin Reck. >> Here. >> Temple Lentz. >> Here. >> Bill Pyle. >> Brian Winsheimer. >> Present. >> Christine Lewis. >> Present. >> And House and Senate members of the 14th, 17th, 18th, 20th and 49th districts.

4:56 [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Wiley. >> Present. >> Okay. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, that completes roll call. We do have a quorum. We're still having some sound issues. We're not able to hear the panelists, so we have somebody working on that. So in the meantime, we'll go ahead and ask for thumbs up or thumbs down for votes until we can get through that just for a board approval agenda. Move to citizen comments and try to get it fixed before any board business. That's acceptable. With that, I would entertain a motion for board agenda. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. Seeing discussion, all in favor.

5:54 >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Thank you. That will bring us to public comments. We had nobody sign up online. We do have three signed up in person. First up, Carmen. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Do I have to push a button? >> Yeah, my name is Carmen De Leon and I just wanted to let you know that the Astoria Bridge that is four miles long is at the cost of $1.26 billion. And the Golden Gate Bridge in today's money would have been built for $670 million. Why is this bridge coming at us with over $16 billion? I got between $14 billion and $16 billion. And here's my biggest problem is that the city of Vancouver's mistake

6:52 was that they kept telling us it was 2 billion. Okay, 2 billion. Every mile and a half of light rail is a billion. Okay, we're stupid. And now suddenly it's 16 to 14 billion. I'm sorry, but you can be off by one or 2,000, maybe even 5,000. But off by over 10 billion. The city of Vancouver is a big question because they lie through their teeth. I have the proof right here in case you want to see it. And I can also play you the videos of the, what's it called? Absolute lies coming out of the city of Vancouver in order to silence anybody against this project because they're in debt and they want an unlimited check of billions of dollars to repair their errors. I'm talking $600,000 on homelessness laundry. You buy that? Let me sell you some swamp land in Florida. Literally, can I sell you a bridge for 16 billion when the Golden Gate Bridge and

7:50 there's a bridge back east of four miles long of 400 million. So why is this bridge only two miles and that many more billions? Because they want a light rail when we have trains over there. They even proved that they said that they were going to accommodate 5,000 people. And oops, it was really only 900 round trip. That's 450 people. For not even one billion, you can Uber them and their families wherever they need to go for the rest of their life. Just so a few people can go to their graves saying we left this county in billions of dollars of debt, which by the way, there's only less than 500,000 people in Clark County. And they're supposed to come up with billions. And you're saying, we're gonna get billions for this bridge, but then you're still gonna have to pay for it with tolls? This amount of money can build three other bridges. Camas wants a bridge, St. Helens wants a bridge. And everybody I've talked to mostly agree that we need more bridges. So if you wanna save some of the environment and

8:48 actually the interstate bridge is nationally registered as an historical bridge, and they will be contacting you cuz I'm gonna be contacting them because that bridge does not need to be torn down. Just today in Clark County Council, the engineer of bridges said that it's still sound. And like the one lady said, if you wanna fix it cuz of the earthquakes, why don't they fix the other 20 bridges in Portland first? Why just this one? Because it's been proven that if they don't fix the Rose Quarter exit, the bottleneck's just gonna go further down. So stop lying to everybody and scrap that idea. >> Thank you, Carmen. Margot, tweet. I'm sorry, I got Margaret. You want Douglas to go first? Go ahead. All right, that's fine.

9:39 [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you, board, council, for letting me come. Is that better? Yes, so I sent a document that you should have. I apologize, it's 18 pages, it's compiled. It's about a year and a half of research. And then the last few weeks with the new FSES IS come out. I spent a lot of time pouring through the documents, over 20,000 pages. I've not read all of it. But I've got a number of points here. But I wanna focus on something that I found in the FSCIS over the last week or so that I was not aware of, and that's the last four pages. If you go to page 15, it's looking at the congestion times and what the effect of the bridge designs do. So if you look at page figure seven here, it's a table that I compiled based on tables and data in the FSCIS that was just published a couple weeks ago.

10:36 If you look at the southbound direction, 2019 in existing conditions, congestion is currently three hours. This is for 2019. And you see there's another column for the preferred design. And the far column on the right is a design with two auxiliary lanes. And you see in 2045, after spending $16, $17 billion, congestion is getting a lot worse. And for the two auxiliary lanes, a little bit better. Look at travel time, extent of congestion. The two lane actually reduces the congestion lane distance from three to one. Now northbound, there's a little improvement in southbound. Northbound, there's a lot of improvement. Goes from almost nine hours now. The preferred design, no change really. The two lanes drops down to six. And then travel time goes from 35 minutes to 14.

11:31 This is from I-405 in Portland, all the way to 205 Salmon Creek. Extent of congestion, 10 miles down to less than a mile with the two auxiliary lanes. OK, so now they also have something called a heat map. How much of my time? OK, next page. They have this type of analysis. Vertical axis is distance. This is positioned from 205 Salmon Creek to the upper left down to Markham Bridge. And then this is timed from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Red is slow. So you can see in the morning, it's very, very slow. Now go to the next page. This is comparing the one auxiliary lane design, the preferred design with two auxiliary lanes on the right. And you see it's a little bit better. OK, southbound gets a little bit better if you have two auxiliary lanes.

12:25 But the big kicker is, which is in keeping with the table I put together, big kicker is if you look at northbound. Here's northbound just backed up in Portland, going north, two auxiliary lanes, almost nothing. That's the huge improvement with two auxiliary lanes. I was just talking with someone from the port, the background of the port. He says the port needs an extra auxiliary lane for their freight. And I suggest dropping light rail and spend the money on two auxiliary lanes and get something that actually improve traffic. Margaret, you're up. Good afternoon, board. I'm concerned about the inadequate justification for a 25-foot wide bicycle and pedestrian path.

13:20 That's equivalent of two traffic lanes in the FSEIS. We're reminded that there was an. Count on October 19th, 2022, that showed a total of 296 bicyclists and pedestrians observed using the facility. Then it goes on to say the air quality was low during due to extreme smoke. Therefore, the October 2022 count was adjusted inexplicably to 410 active transport users based on a literature review. And there's also another note, this likely the smoke likely impacted activity across the bridge, but the degree of impact is unclear.

14:15 Very, very unclear. My question is, why weren't more counts done it? This count is called an average. How can you have an average with a single count? There was plenty of time to collect actual data in the study area monthly for multiple years, which would include smoky and non-smoky days for every month of the years. There is a permanent traffic recorder with sites that was supposed to be collecting data. We learned about it in the DSEIS. It said that the permanent counts displayed troughs and peaks and the peaks were unreliable. But in the DSEIS, they completely threw out the permanent traffic recorder data, stating it was unusable.

15:07 That's a big change. So again, why wasn't more money spent to correct the traffic, permanent traffic recorders with actual data instead of substituting literature reviews and convoluted justifications for excessive allocations of space to pedestrians and bicyclists? I did get a count on the traffic recorders from ODOT from 2024 that were never in the DSEIS or the FSEIS. Again, the data was there. It tells us something. All the numbers in the 2024 figures are all lower than that October 19th, 2022 count.

15:57 So it does actually inform us and it should have been included for the public to review. How can we comment on something that is not there? Permanent data that was concealed from the public. Thank you, Margaret. Thank you. That concludes our public comments portion of the meeting. Can we get somebody on the panel to give us a mic check, please? Council member Belcott, I'll pick on you. Can you can you just say something, see if we can hear you? Yes, I can hear you. No, we still can't hear her.

16:50 Can you try again, please? Yes, can you hear me now? No. If you have a favorite book nearby, maybe you can read us some passages. We'll be. Hello. Hello. Hello. Nothing. Yeah. Who is that? OK, this is Ryan. All right. We got Ryan. Let's try. Councilor Belcott, can we try you again? Can you hear me now? Yeah. Technology is awesome when it works. Thank you so much for your patience. No problem. So is that fixed in the consent? That's signature. OK. All right. That brings us to the consent agenda items. There was one mistake in the packet that has been corrected. The signature line is correct now for resolution five twenty six fourteen.

17:45 With that, I would entertain a motion or a polling of any item that the board desires. I move approval of the consent agenda with that correction. Second motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. That'll bring us straight to our discussion information items. We have a guest presenter here on the interstate bridge replacement program. Former member of the RTC. Carla.

18:25 Thank you for joining us. And the floor is yours. Thanks so much for having us here. I also have Frank Green with me. He's an assistant program administrator. And I appreciate seeing so many familiar faces. And we'll give you an update. I know this is in queuing up a STIP agenda, a STIP amendment agenda item that we are seeking. So if we can go to the first slide. We'll also provide a cost estimate update as a recap here.

19:18 So first and foremost, the program has been looking at making improvements over five miles to address six core problems. This map shows those identified improvements and the states are committed to building out this five miles over time. The I would note also that as we've had our cost estimate come in, it's become very additionally real. We always anticipated delivering this program through phasing, but it's even more imperative now to consider phasing as a tool to bring the program forward. Next slide. So specifically, our cost estimate update that was issued in March did update our costs to a range of thirteen point five to fifteen point two billion dollars, with a 70 percent likelihood of costs coming in or below fourteen point four billion.

20:13 It's basically a plan to figure that we're using. That is the federal government's preferred Federal Highway Administration's preferred plan to figure. That does comprise escalation as well as risk and a base cost estimate. All three of those pieces are part of that robust estimate analysis body of work and bringing that forward. The previous estimate, as folks may be familiar, was five to seven and a half billion, with a likely cost of six billion. Next slide. A key component of the cost estimate increases is the construction industry trends that we've seen. One, we've seen costs escalate significantly. The two points on this graph basically demonstrate what the cost index was in 2022 as we are finishing the last estimate and then where we are for this estimate.

21:09 So there's a couple of things to note. One is that the slope going into the 2022 estimate is much more moderate. And so as you look forward or you look backwards to look forward, you have that sense of history that's guiding a future. So certainly escalation costs were anticipated for certain, but were not anticipated to be so strongly increasing over time. We have had seen that cost, that rate over time go up. And obviously the slope going into this 2025-26 estimate that we finalized in March was much more steep. And that's informing cost estimates and how they've increased. So we've seen that 58 percent increase across the industry. I would also note that there's key specialty work in what we're talking about here, heavy marine activities and other things.

22:01 And so the estimates in some of those specialty areas have actually been seen to be higher than these increases that we're seeing on this national average level. Next slide. So as we think about phasing the program, internal to the project, we were trying to figure out how to bring forward sort of key benefits. We've always known that we needed to start at the river. Critical there is the opportunity to build a seismically resilient structure, to add an auxiliary lane, to add shoulders. All of those things which the bridges don't have currently, really in any measurable way. So we identified this core set of projects that you'll see here on the slide. This includes a replacement bridge over the river with a shared use path and also the width for light rail built into that contract.

22:51 There are connections into I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14 so that folks can use that bridge as it's built, the active traffic can use it. There's also the removal of the Columbia River Bridge that's identified in this core set of projects. So making sure that we meet permit requirements and remove that bridge. And then what you see in orange is the extension and anticipated operational light rail that would extend from Expo Station where it ends currently today. It has to grade separate at Marine Drive. There needs to be a bridge over the North Portland Harbor to carry that transit onto Hayden Island. There's structure along Hayden Island and a station on Hayden Island that needs to be designed and constructed, need to connect it into the bridge. And then on the Washington side, this anticipates we have two stations identified in Washington over time.

23:45 This identifies going to the waterfront station first so that you need to connect to the bridge and then also build that waterfront station. Other components that are built into this estimate, there is pre-completion tolling in this cost estimate. So that's the gantries and all of the equipment, but also the launch activities for having pre-completion begin as we start construction of the bridge itself. The cost for this was seven point six five billion. That was a cost that was issued in March. We do look to update that over time. Specifically within that, since seven point six five billion is above the five point four five billion we had identified as we were bringing out the cost estimate. There's additionally the question of how do you really get started? So the step one is that very first step, which is replacing the bridges, connecting them into I-5, Hayden Island SR 14, also the pre-completion tolling.

24:45 And then there's a design for transit that's included in this estimate that was also issued in March that is necessary to complete and continue the capital investment grant program process. So this body of work was estimated to be five point nine billion dollars. Since that time in March, we'd identified as we brought out cost estimates that we had some work to do. One, we have added bridge demolition into those costs up front. So we are reserving funds that we have available now to be able to demolish the bridge that's required by federal partners to meet those permitting requirements. We've built those costs in. Additionally, we've identified cost savings significantly through combining packages. So originally we had anticipated delivering the bridge, the connections to I-5 and then the connections at Hayden Island and SR 14 as separate construction packages.

25:43 We've combined those into one, which provides opportunities in the efficiency for management. There's also risk and opportunity and not managing the interface of those contracts and also efficiencies in toll equipment placement that we're anticipating to realize out of that. There were some risk reductions and adjustments to risk assumptions that went into that, so that created a net savings. And finally, then there's an update to total available funding. Specifically, we were working with the Treasury Office in Washington and also the ODOT finance office to update our toll estimate, projected toll revenues that could come to the program. Those activities I would also note about the tolling, one that is based on toll rates that have been discussed and recommended for analysis in the level three traffic and revenue study by the transportation commissions of both Oregon and Washington.

26:40 So it's based on a rate that has been publicly discussed and that work is ongoing with the transportation commissions. Those activities allowed us to close the gap. So the next slide will show what that what that looks like. So I've noted we have the bridge, the connections and the removal of the Columbia River bridge existing that's there now. This does also include precompletion tolling and then also has that transit design item built in that does do transit design for the entire alignment of light rail. The total cost as now estimated for this to be five point six eight billion dollars. Next slide. So the update to our funding. Folks have seen this many times before. The real primary change is the projected toll funding amount. But we do have the two point one billion dollars identified through MEGA and the bridge investment program grant.

27:38 Those are federal dollars, a billion each from Oregon and Washington. Some previous state funding and a projected toll funding amount, which used to be one point two five billion has been updated to a projected one point five billion. That's validated through, again, the Treasury Office and ODOT Finance and their independent analysts. So independently verified by both of those parties. There's also noted on here. So basically in context of the STIP conversation, the MTP conversation we're having here. What's really critical to recognize is that we at this moment are working to program funds that are committed and match those two costs that we would anticipate having. We cannot start to commit funds that are not yet are not yet in hand. So you see below the black line here is the capital investment grant and the billion dollars we're targeting from the federal government there.

28:33 And then also additional funds through Connecting Washington that were identified and identified for Mill Plain and then the Reconnecting Communities pilot grant that the program and the city partnered on an application for. Specifically to the MTP amendments that we are here to talk about, the core set of projects that I've talked through is this is just to help you track what things which pieces are where. So as I've noted, we have all of these components that are listed in that core set of projects. Step one is basically how we had first spoken about what we might move forward, which does not include bridge removal. And it also has those separated packages. We're talking about now what will be in the MTP amendment is a combined package.

29:24 So you're seeing that combination of the first four items here, the inclusion of precompletion tolling, transit design and bridge removal specific to the STIP bridge removal is out several years. And so it does not fit within the STIP horizon that you will be considering. So just to note that we're programming those funds are going to be set aside and held and not programmed at this time because they don't fit into the four year horizon for the STIP. So specifically at the June meeting, there will be this request for the MTP amendment. We will be requesting to amend the 24 to 27 MTP that you have to increase funding for IBR from the 322 million previously obligated to five point about five point three billion for a total increase of just under five billion dollars.

30:17 The amendment of the STIP and the MTP does meet federal requirements to issue both a record of decision and to secure obligation of grant funds. I would just note very plainly, we have gotten the final supplemental environmental impact statement out on the street, which is amazing. And very specifically, the federal government needs to have the MTP and the STIP amendment process complete and approved through the federal government before they will issue the record of decision. That is our activity to advance to construction. That is the approval. We can't move to construction without that. Additionally, beyond that, and I'll probably say this again, but the federal money that we have, there is 546 million of the bridge investment program grant funds that will expire at the end of September if we do not obligate them by this time. So just to note that we are working this process now, it's very time sensitive.

31:11 Really appreciate your partnership in this and also looking to make sure that we get every dollar that the federal government has committed to this program and are able to apply it here. So there are specific to the line items. Just cover those briefly for the MTP amendment. There is an increase of funding to the bridge replacement overarching STIP line item. There is increasing funding to the bridge, the precompletion toll project, and then the addition of two new projects. We're adding a new Columbia River bridge and Columbia River Interstate Bridge line item that covers program management moving forward. And then also that transit design item. So those are new items. So a couple of ones that have increased funding and a couple of new items for the STIP.

32:10 So just to be very plain about the funds that we are actually programming. So because we have set the bridge removal out because it falls outside of this time period, we will be programming five point two nine billion of the five point five point seven billion that we have identified as available. So that's reserving the bridge removal costs for the future so that we can continue to demonstrate that we have the financial capacity to take those bridges out when it is when we are able. Which means once traffic is fully transferred over to the new bridges and is using them. Next slide. So I covered this a little bit, but I'll hit it again, because it's very important. The time sensitivity of this is really critical. We are working with RTC, with Oregon Metro and with Oregon Transportation Commission to complete MTP and STIP amendments.

33:02 Looking to have those all complete by July one. Again, as I noted, we don't get the amended record of decision without those activities. So it's very critical. Also, then, that once we have the record of decision that unlocks certain federal review of our grant obligation agreement amendments that we are working on. That is, again, to obligate funds, which is necessary to actually start construction. We need to have those obligated funds to actually continue with the procurement process. So as noted here, you have all funds in place. Then you can release the request for proposals and that will lead ultimately to construction. So very excited about the opportunity for construction for these bridges. We've been talking about it for a very long time.

33:48 I know. And you all play an important part in that. So I'll take questions if we have them. I'll open the floor for questions. I'll start out. Could you go over what all will be included in phase two? And if I'm understanding correctly, there's no there's not funding for phase two. So I would say there will be multiple phases. So there's sort of there's right now we have we have. All right. So I would say that we have the core set, which which I would identify as the state's first priority in working through the program improvements.

34:47 The very first step of that we have step one of the core and step one of the core is that bridge, the connections, the shared use path that's connected and bridge removal. So that's step one. The completing the light rail is then the finalizing the core. And then beyond that, we actually need to have rich conversations because it won't be that the other stuff all falls in neatly into a phase two. There will probably be multiple phases and that will be informed based on discussions around sequencing of priorities and preferences. So if there are opportunities to separate things out and people have higher priorities or lower priorities, we can certainly talk about that. The other thing is the availability of funding, which will inform that. One other note I would say is as we're getting into this detail, we get to this level of detail and people are wondering about, like, well, how do you do this piece? Right. This next piece. There are places where there are dependencies in this work.

35:46 And so we see that in Oregon around the design that exists for a marine drive on Hayden Island and a local access bridge. Those have a certain sequence that they have to fall within. And there are other sort of dependencies. So I think it's really going to depend on that work to identify funding and then figure out priorities with with our partners. OK, just a follow up to make sure I understand this, that finalizing light rail is part of the core. Yes. Thank you. Councilor Belko. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. OK, just checking, because the sound went out for a little bit, so I wasn't sure if it was working or not. What rate of tolling is the analysis based on? So there are four rates that the Transportation Commission's identified.

36:40 And I don't have the chart in front of me here that I can show you, but I can tell you that they are ordered one, two, three, four. Basically, if you look at any chart, they're in the same order every single time. It is number two as they fall from the top of the page to the bottom of the page. Those first three rates one through one, two and three have different policies, but we're all identified to sort of generate a similar amount of revenue. And we would call them the lower group of rates. The fourth the fourth rate that has been identified by the Transportation Commission's first study was sort of exploring whether or not there might be additional revenues needed. And so there is a fourth rate that is a little bit higher. But this rate was from those three that are roughly comparable from projected toll revenue and reflect an array of policy decisions that will be made by the Transportation Commission's.

37:35 Where are those rates available? Because you mentioned because I'm writing notes one, two, three and four. So I would say we can certainly get a link out to this group so folks have access to that. They are there in a variety of places, but we can get you a link so that you have access. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. OK, Commissioner. Yeah, thank you. With the cost increases, is the toll rates going to stay at where they are currently discussed or are those toll rates anticipated to increase? And also, are those toll rates what you what you commented on earlier, those publicly available to the public? Yes, absolutely. They are publicly available. They've also been discussed in public facing forums of the Oregon and Washington Transportation Commission's and a bi-state toll subcommittee.

38:28 So absolutely available publicly. Again, we'll send a link out so folks have access to that with respect to the question about whether or not toll rates will increase. One, I think all of the toll rates that are identified by the Transportation Commission have a policy assumption that there would be some inflation increase of them either annually or every other year so that they keep up with the cost of doing business generally. The other piece I would note is that what we have built into the estimate at this time, one is a more conservative expectation about inflation. And this is a pretty significant update of numbers. So I think part of the answer is we've done our very best to do a good cost estimate for what these things are going to cost. And so we look to have the tools, you know, sort of help support that. So at this point, I don't see a huge need for that.

39:21 And also it is an active discussion and management point over time. What we have right now in the estimate is a highly educated and many people involved. Guess what those numbers will be. And as we get a contractor on board and we identify what those costs will actually be in a negotiated contract, we will have additional information. And so I think it's I would just note it's an active management dialog over time and we've done our very best to incorporate risk and also those more a higher rate of inflation into the estimate so that we do our best job to get a solid number that can be anticipated to achieve over time. Thank you. And can I ask a follow up question? Absolutely.

40:09 So right now there's a significant amount. There's been an increase on Highway 14. It's community county on commercial traffic that diverts from 84 because it's got a higher tax rate than 14. So as tolls materialize on I-5, is there any anticipation that commercial traffic is going to divert down 14 on that two lane highway and then cross the bridge of the gods to avoid that tolling? Because that can also put more undue pressure on 14. It's already stretched and it's in horrible condition right now as is. Thank you. Sure. The work that we are doing tries to understand where there may be diversion and where it's driven to. I am familiar with how narrow and windy and unfit for trucks SR 14 can be.

40:58 So I absolutely hear that comment and concern. I think with respect to diversion, the other thing that we see is recognizing that and this is a little bit less relevant to SR 14. But I think the construct still holds that trucks are really trying to find a path of least resistance with respect to time. And so that's very material. So that cost of a toll will always be measured against sort of their cost of travel and that energy activity that they're doing. So I just would know that I think there's a lot of mediating mediating factors there for folks to consider. But we do try to understand what that diversion will be. Thank you. Thanks for the information. Just want to follow up about the recommended design on one auxiliary lane.

41:57 And it shows that the southbound still have traffic congestion. How do we address that? So one, I know that active management is always a tool in the DOT's tool belt. And I think what the final environmental impact statement identified was that there was significant improvement with the provision of one auxiliary lane. And also that there's a management of other impacts that you see and trying to just negotiate a decent balance of impacts and benefits. So that's where that recommendation for one auxiliary lane came from. And I think the dialogue I know already Southwest region and Oregon DOT region one have rich dialogue about how we manage those facilities. There's active traffic management already on them. So I think using those and other tools going forward to try to understand what those new traffic patterns are and how to best manage them will also be a component.

42:57 OK, I'll go back to light rail. So the Evergreen station was assumed to be the terminus of light rail. And and that assumption was included in the preferred alternative. That was the analysis and that was all subject to the EIS. That's correct. Does removing that why I'd like to better understand how that decision was made and does removing it change anything about the assumptions? You know, because I think there is an assumption that ending it so that it connects with C-TRAN would would make it more successful. Yeah. So I would note that the intention is to get to Evergreen. The question of when is the is the question we have ahead of us. So there's been we have not removed Evergreen station from the plans.

43:56 It is part of the environmental document and the intention is to get there over time. As I was mentioning, there are dependencies between the work that we have. And so what we have as identified in coordination with our partner agencies on the program was a highway aligned transit extension from waterfront up to Evergreen. Specifically in the narrow amount of space that we have there to build that, you actually need to build a wall on the east side of the highway. Shimmy everything up against that sort of build everything kind of to one side so that then you can build a wall on the west side. That west side wall actually supports the bridge for a section that would be the light rail bridge. So that west wall is one side of supports for that transit extension. There will be a collector distributor lane underneath that collector distributor.

44:54 So ox lanes are those ones that run right next to the highway collector distributor lanes are ones that are sort of separated off. So along I-205 in the stark area, that area, that's a collector distributor. You see some other places around that have those there would actually be a collector distributor highway traffic underneath that light rail. And so you need to build that all in a sequence. And so recognizing the funds that we had to work with, we needed to basically look to strip as much out of of what we were doing and still provide a independent utility product. Right. So we have to have something that is usable, which is why we're making sure that the bridge is then connected into I-5 and connected to SR 14 and Hayden Island. So that's really critical for moving those highway fund dollars forward. So recognizing where we were at with funding, we were just trying to figure out one how to make sure we were maintaining those sort of core activities,

45:51 replacing the bridge, extending light rail into Washington, making sure there was a bike pad component there. All those pieces. So trying to make sure that we built the bridge right, because without building the bridge right, you never get light rail to Vancouver. So it's not there's a lot of there's a lot of minimization in the first steps. That is not my favorite and not anybody's favorite. And our intention is to go further than that over time. But we really needed to find a way to move the project forward. I think in the dialog with governor's offices, as we were bringing out the cost estimates, there was a heavy focus on starting the project because the cheapest bridge that you can build is the one you start building today. Thank you. Any further questions, comments?

46:51 OK, I just have one quick one. So I'm assuming with the funded phase, not including light rail, that essentially then is there going to be some sort of are we going to use that light rail lane for buses? Or what is the what's the thought process? Because if you're not going to have trains running across, what's it going to be used for or is it going to be used? So I think that, you know, at this moment, the idea is what can we do to figure out how to deliver the program as anticipated? So the reality is there was always a time gap between when the bridge is open to traffic and when light rail would be active and running on it, because you have to build that entire you have to build all of the bed for transit to be on before you can put track and systems on it, before you can test it. And so what we did not have, apologies, was sort of a scheduled slide.

47:47 So we're targeting the start of construction in twenty twenty eight. And that would be a six to seven year horizon. So twenty thirty four, twenty thirty five, targeting the full funding grant agreement in twenty thirty. So that is that billion dollars from the capital investment grant program from the Federal Transit Administration. That begins your start point for construction on all of those activities for transit. And that targets transit being up and operational in twenty thirty six. And so I just would note that there's some time to work on that problem. And also as we engage with the design builder, you know, maybe there are things to explore, but also recognizing that popping traffic out into that space and popping them back in, especially especially given that the road bed, that bridge bed that you're building for highway versus for transit is actually fundamentally different because you're going to place different activities on it.

48:40 So there's some nuance there. So certainly there may be ways to think about it if that is anticipated to be an extended period. Right now, we're targeting to get the work done. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you, Carly. I'm glad I don't have your job. Thinking about with the first funded phase, there's several things like interchanges and on off ramps, like the C Street, things that aren't going to be built that will come. We'll all just hold together that they will come. But there's a long time until some of them will come. Is there work being done or will work be done to model what those impacts will be?

49:37 Trying to navigate this new build with the old connections and potential traffic issues or other impacts so that we can plan for how that gets mitigated. So when I would note that the C Street and City Street ramps that are currently part of SR 14, yes, they're not in that first step body of work. And I think there is at least some information in the final supplemental environmental impact statement around construction impacts, because we'd anticipated those being closed for many years just associated with the construction. So that's one component of it. I think the other thing is there may be places where we need to just look and consider what does this look like for more of a long term perspective and just understand that a little better in partnership with the members of our executive steering group and others.

50:31 So we are not we are a little bit nose to the grindstone right now on finalizing the environmental impact statement and working towards this financial deadline at the end of September. But also we anticipate dialogue both before and unlikely with the progressive design build contractor, because there may be some opportunities to understand what those impacts are and work with them to also understand and mitigate them. So it's a conversation that we need to make sure we have. OK, well, I don't see any more questions. Once again, thanks for coming. It's always informative, if not confusing at times, but we'll trust the process and let's get a bridge built. We're always happy to answer questions. We will get the link to toll rates out and just appreciate your partnership in a MTP amendment next month. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have a discussion items on safe streets and roads for all.

51:30 I don't know who's presenting that. Yes, thank you so much for your time tonight. Included in your meeting packet is some high, high level overview of what I'm going to be discussing is a information item hoping to provide you with some information about the safe streets and roads for all grant that we are pursuing across the region. The SS for a I'll be referring to this as SS for a should be familiar to many people around this table in 2023, RTC was successful in applying for a three hundred thousand dollar planning grant to pursue a safety action plan for Clark County.

52:26 As a part of this work, we had tasks associated with developing implementation grants in 2024. We pursued a similar model of application and were successful in receiving another three hundred thousand dollars to develop safety action planning work in Skamania and click attack counties as well. These are the two plans I have on the screen right now. You probably are more familiar with the Clark County safety action plan. And that is because we are in the final steps of completing the safety action plan for Click It and Skamania, the gorge safety action plan, as we're calling it. So I'll be back here in June and July to provide more information about that. Tonight, though, I'll just be talking about the notice for funding for the implementation grant this this year.

53:21 So on March 28th, a notice for funding was released by the federal government for the final phase of this one one billion dollar allocation, a majority of which is going to be allocated for implementation grants. The the projects that are identified that I'll be talking about tonight were identified in those two safety action plans. And because of the short turnaround time we were given 60 days from the notice of funding opportunity, we'll be working towards submitting those applications before the May 26th deadline. I apologize for the short turnaround. That's just the nature of the of the NOFO this year. We were anticipating it would be a little earlier than last year and we were anticipating it would be quite short,

54:20 but we weren't anticipating it would be this early and this short. I'll also say, well, I'll get to it in a sec. So the the first application I'm going to discuss is coming out of the Gorge Safety Action Plan over the last year. And as I say, I'll be talking about this more next month. We have been working with local agencies, including fire and safety and ambulance and other EMS agencies to develop a safety action plan. Core to this work was identifying the high injury network across Klinkitat and Skamania and within that network, identifying projects that have the highest and best case for improving safety. One of those projects that emerged as a great candidate was the Wind River Road Improvement,

55:20 a project that has come before this board for improvements in the past. This would be extending some of the safety improvements north of the Carson downtown core to separate pedestrians and a lot of freight traffic that moves through the region. We have estimated that this project will cost about five billion dollars. And Skamania County has committed to providing the matching funds, which is about 20 percent of the of the project. On this slide, I've included a map of the Clark County SS4A application for grant funding in the previous year for the implementation grant funding.

56:10 Clark County RTC was a part of a coalition of agency partners that submitted roughly twenty five million dollar grant application requests for planning, implementation and demonstration activities. Unfortunately, we weren't successful with that grant request in subsequent meetings with FHWA. We were told that the projects were great and unfortunately the demand was just too high. And this project was one of many that didn't receive funding. So on this table, this shows the projects that are going to be a part of the package that we're submitting this year for Clark County. We're continuing to work, as I say, the NOFO was released less than a month ago.

57:04 So we're continuing to work closely with agencies to understand what their priorities are and if they can meet the match requirements. As I said earlier, this is 20 percent match. So for a grant that could be anywhere between two point five million dollars to twenty five million dollars, it's a substantial match requirement. So at this time, Canvas, Clark County, Vancouver and Le Center are able to participate and we're still waiting to hear back from Ashugal, which is identified on this slide. In terms of next steps, we are working to finalize the Gorge Action Plan Safety Action Plan. That's a requirement of this application, and we're working diligently to to meet the deadline. As I say, we'll be submitting a package for Clark County,

57:58 which includes a variety of of transportation improvement projects that improve measurably safety across the region and supporting Skamania County as they submit their safety action plan, their implementation grant, sorry, application. That's my last slide. I hope to answer any questions you might have. Yeah, I have one. Are these all going to be on one application or are we supporting as RTC individual applications of higher dollar amounts? So the two projects, so no, they will not be one application. The Skamania application will be coming from them directly for the Clark County package of applications.

58:48 I can go back two slides to show this. We will be submitting this as a package consistent with how we had submitted them previously. If a municipality wishes to do their own application, would RTC be able to support that application? Correct. And I believe Clark County is submitting an application independent of this application in this final round. And we are definitely supportive of that. We are happy to provide any letters of support to the county or to any other agency that it's looking to submit applications, either for implementation grant funding or for the other two grant opportunities, which include planning and demonstration. Thank you. Anybody else?

59:42 Councillor Ty Stover, Vancouver. So you said Clark County is going to implement or submit separately. Is that the project listed here or there's an additional project that they're planning on submitting separately? I might have to defer to Jennifer, who's been leading the discussion in Clark County. I've been sort of focused on Clark and Insagmania County. Sorry to pull you off, Jennifer. And I thought I was giving Jennifer the night off. I'm sorry. So the question was, so Clark County is going to submit a separate application for I think it's Safe Routes to School. So it's under the planning program. And this is a implementation grant.

1:00:39 So capital improvements. Yeah. Any further questions? OK, thank you so much. That will take us the other business portion of the meeting from the board. We have one thing on the agenda. City of Vancouver resolution. I think that will be Mayor Ann. Thank you very much. Directors, in your packet, you have a letter that was transmitted to Matt. It points out that the city of Vancouver on April 13th unanimously passed a formal opposition to the scaled back IBR plans that would terminate the LRT at the waterfront.

1:01:30 We support extending the line to Library Square at the station and that the waterfront stop is insufficient and abandons years of coordinated land use. And all of the work that C-TRAN has been working on in that network of transportation planning. As we look at it, we believe there is an option later this fall with the design builder to take a look at a different approach of getting light rail, not over the asphalt, but onto the dirt that is parallel to that line. And we would like the designers to take a look at that opportunity. But we need to have that the pressure, if you would, on the IBR to know that the different signatories on this document,

1:02:22 on the modified LPA want to see light rail at the terminal, not 90 feet, 10 inches up in the air, straddling a stop over the BNSF with four elevators. We're not planning to build park and rides at the bottom of those elevators. C-TRAN was not planning to bring the buses down to the waterfront as we have looked at this project for eight and a half years. We have based land use and network planning on a terminus at Library Square. And so we pass a resolution. We, Matt, do you have an accompanying resolution over there? Directors, I've reviewed the Vancouver resolution and have drafted a smaller version.

1:03:16 I don't have copies here around the table. We could display a copy online if the board would wish to entertain at least review. I'll give you a characterization. It's briefer or shorter. Just getting to the essence of I think the statement that could be made, which is consistent with the statement as expressed in the Vancouver resolution, strongly suggesting that the core phase, initial phase, however it's described here as core phase, LRT extension, make it to Evergreen Boulevard. So this is certainly subject to the board's debate, but a version I think just more scaled down than what Vancouver adopted. So after we've had a chance to take a look at this, this is not an action item for this evening.

1:04:10 I will be making a motion that the RTC board of directors add a formal review discussion and action item of the IBR LRT alignment to the June 2026 regular meeting agenda, and that the discussions shall specifically reaffirm this board of directors previously approved approval of the LRT terminus at Library Square, and it was integrated into our 2022 modified locally preferred alternative. You'll notice the first part of that says that we absolutely remain committed as a supporter for the IBR program. We want this to move forward. The whereases that follow are specific to RTC and the work that they have done.

1:05:00 And if you could go to the end of that, it's the therefore be it resolved that the RTC board of directors strongly recommends that the core phase of LRT extend beyond the planned waterfront station and connect with C-TRAN's existing and planned bus system at a multimodal hub by Evergreen Boulevard near Library Square. So I'd be happy to answer. Any questions? Any questions? Yeah, I'm seeing Commissioner Asa. Yeah. Is this already included in current funding or would this require additional funding? And where would that funding come from? Would the city fund that or would regional transportation dollars fund that? Thank you.

1:05:58 And at this point, we're not identifying the funding. We would like the design option to be explored. And who pays for the design option? Thank you. As the entire bridge project moves forward, they will be hiring a company to design the bridge and all of the light rail and all of the on and off ramps. This would be a part of that design requirement. So currently it's not in the current cost estimate, is that correct? It is part of the current cost estimate.

1:06:48 OK, that clarifies it. Thank you. I have just a clarifying question to make sure that I'm reading, seeing the right thing. So this is recommending not to adjust the the first funding package that we're talking about. Like there's the core set of programs and then there's the part of that that we have the money for that is being put forward. So this is proposing add this, explore this for the core package, not necessarily impacting that first funding set. I believe the answer to your question is yes. Thank you.

1:07:36 Tice over Vancouver to wind to bring back to the action item being requested tonight is is only whether to add this as an agenda item to the June meeting. Correct. Yeah. So plenty of opportunity over the next 30 ish days for lots of clarification to happen. Lots of these background questions to be addressed so that directors are prepared to have a full discussion in June. Correct. The procedures for putting an item on the RTC agenda requires any one of us to bring it the month before. Bring the motion to the board of directors. The board of directors would vote to put that on the next month's agenda.

1:08:34 So the only motion tonight is, as I stated, is to add a formal review discussion and action item of the IBR LRT alignment to the June twenty twenty six regular agenda meeting. Just want to acknowledge Kamis position as you saw resolution last year as a resolution twenty five dash zero zero one. Kamis does not support the light railroad to be added to our five bridge due to its high capital cost and low ridership. So Kamis will not support whether extension to waterfront or to evergreen.

1:09:26 I just have a process question as far as whether this fits within maybe the purview of a resolution or a letter or what's the maybe it's a legal question that we can pursue in between the meetings. It doesn't absolutely have to be decided here. What's the best package to put this in for for our our purview and the intent of the words on the on the screen? So I would just ask maybe some maybe legal. And I don't know the answer to that question. I think the most appropriate format would be a resolution. A letter, of course, is an option as well. But I think a formal resolution has more weight to it than a simple letter. I would also point out that according to our rules procedure, which we just recently adopted, as the mayor pointed out, that takes a motion and a second and then a vote of this body to move this forward to the June meeting.

1:10:26 Right now, we're just allowing discussions before I'm sure there'll be a motion like Mike. I just had more of a question. Maybe it's a discussion over the next 30 days, but IBR talked about the timing and the significance of it and if this would how this might affect that. So that'd be kind of my question. You're wanting more information on if this would potentially delay or impact from the IBR team. OK, I see another question from Asa. Or I put my hand down. Oh, who is that? I'm sorry, my eyesight. That's right. Ryan, I'm sorry, Ryan. Oh, that's OK. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Thanks for noticing my hand.

1:11:23 Sorry, my my name on there is too small for everybody. Thank you, Mayor, for for sharing what's going on with the city. And obviously there's a strong desire to see light rail completed. And I share that. I, of course, want to see the complete project done. And I think that that's the stated position of a vote and and myself. I mean, this is something that I think we all want to see is this transit connect people where they need to be and try to connect to the to the model station. But to the points I heard some others say, just just if we are moving something like this forward. And I just like us to make sure we're considering what's been mentioned, which is the core set of projects currently matches the current set of funding. And slowing that down is putting billions of dollars at risk.

1:12:17 So stating a desire, I think, is, you know, could be an appropriate thing if the that's the will of the board. As long as we're not impacting the timing and moving forward of this, this current amendment. That's and I look, I'm open to some further discussions as this as this conversation progresses next month. Yeah. And can we scroll down to the bottom sentence? Go ahead. Chair, I want to move to bring this forward for discussion at the June meeting. Second. The motion is second. And I think the Ryan, to your point, strongly recommends maybe an important caveat to that.

1:13:14 Any further discussion before we go to a vote to add this to the June agenda? All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Opposed. Motion carries. It will be added to the June agenda. It'll take us to the executive director report unless there's anything else from the board. That's on the agenda. No, OK. Just a request. If that draft could be emailed to us soon so we can share it with our organizations. The IVR presentation to please. I have a request. Also, if we could be sure that our folks are here, if there's any questions that we have when we discuss this at our next meeting.

1:14:10 Our June meeting. They'll be here for the tips. Yeah, we've requested the IVR team be available at the June meeting to support the tip amendment and any questions that would arise. All right. Directors, just one report. I'm pleased to announce that we completed our financial audit and performance audit, which is our recurring review with the state auditor's office this morning. The chair and I met with the state auditor's office. We received their verbal report, which is the performance audit and financial statement out of RTC was approved with an unmodified opinion. The unmodified opinion represents the highest opinion of accuracy and and they had no comments. So I'd just like to express my gratitude to the RTC team, including support staff such as Shan, our external accountant controller and another support staff.

1:15:10 And the RTC team as a whole, it's a small team working together. As I mentioned last month, we don't have a procurement office. We don't have a finance office. That's sort of me in a sense. And so it is difficult to manage all the regulations and requirements. But given a small team, I think I'm happy to report the completion of this out as unmodified opinion. It'll be published in the state auditor's report and online filing system on Thursday. I'll share a copy with the board, but transmitted to you this morning was a copy of their report, which is not final, but it'll be final as of Thursday. So that's my report. Thank you. And I would also congratulate the RTC team on that. I know our city has a previous role as a state auditor and she gets clean audits as well.

1:15:59 But it is not easy. So job well done. With that, the next RCT board RTC board of directors meeting is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 at 4 p.m.. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.