MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY BOARDS
Thursday, January 10, 2002

CALL TO ORDER
TThe meeting was called to order at 9:25 a.m. by Mayor Connie Marshall, Vice Chair of the Growth Management Policy Board.

REPORT OF THE CHAIRS
Councilmember Earling, Vice Chair of the Transportation Policy Board, was delayed due to traffic, so Mayor Marshall gave the reports for both policy boards.

Mayor Marshall welcomed board members to the first meeting of the new year. She then welcomed the following new members: Mayor Marshall announced that the final printed version of the Destination 2030 plan is now available (copies were provided to board members at the meeting).

Mayor Marshall informed the boards that the February 14 board meeting will be a joint meeting at the Jackson Federal Building that will focus on the status of urban centers development. Representatives from the region's 21 designated centers have been invited to share information about progress in their center.

COMMUNICATIONS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS
Paul W. Locke spoke in support of repealing the federal gas tax and allowing the state to collect the tax. He also criticized the "siphoning off of these federal funds for transit," and spoke against the Sound Transit light rail project.

Philip Grega pointed out that several upcoming transportation projects may require tunneling, and he encouraged the boards to support the enactment of legislation to allow the disposal of tunnel excavation materials in the ocean.

Bruce Nurse, Vice President of Kemper Development Company, spoke in regard to Agenda Item 7, "Review/Comparison of 'Reduce Congestion Now' (RCN) with Destination 2030." He said there had been a cooperative effort among the Regional Council, the Washington State Department of Transportation and Kemper Development Company to reconcile the information and data to be presented under this agenda item, and that "we're on the same page to talk about the subject." He also urged the boards to consider and discuss, in the immediate future, significant planning efforts in the I-5 and I-605 corridors.

CONSENT AGENDA

Growth Management Policy Board:
  1. Minutes of the Growth Management Policy Board Meeting held October 11, 2001
  2. Minutes of the Growth Management Policy Board Meeting held November 8, 2001
ACTION: It was moved and seconded (Clark/Overstreet) to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.
Transportation Policy Board:
  1. Minutes of the Transportation Policy Board Meeting held November 8, 2001
  2. Routine Amendment to the 2001-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
  3. Recommend Changing Project Status from Candidate to Approved for Three Destination 2030 Projects
Councilmember Earling drew attention to a handout that noted a revision to Item (d) to correct funding amounts for two of the projects proposed for amendment into the TIP.
ACTION: The motion was made and seconded to approve the Transportation Policy Board consent agenda, with the corrections as noted for Item (d). The motion carried unanimously.

REPORT ON COORDINATION OF COUNTYWIDES' PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
At its last meeting the Transportation Policy Board received a presentation from King County on the county's efforts to respond to a request from Senator Patty Murray for a list of priority projects for potential federal funding. As a follow-up to that discussion, Loren Sand was going to contact the technical committee chairs of the other three counties to see what similar efforts they have underway and report his findings at this meeting.

Mr. Sand reported that the countywide groups are working toward putting together a combined list of priority projects for a joint federal appropriations request through Senator Murray's office, and he described each county's progress in completing its list. The four county proposals will be discussed at the Regional Project Evaluation Committee meeting on January 25, and Mr. Sand will report back to the Policy Boards at the February 14 joint meeting.

REVIEW/APPROVE 2002 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) REGIONAL PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK

Councilmember Earling began by thanking the Ad Hoc Task Force on TIP Funding Priorities for their considerable work on the recommendations for the proposed 2002 TIP Regional Programming Framework.

Karen Richter provided background information. She noted that the Regional Council's TIP programming process is nationally recognized for linking the policies in the region's long-range transportation plan to transportation investments, and for setting forth both a regional project competition and a shared countywide process. The TIP Policy Framework, which documents the process, is being updated to reflect the policies adopted in Destination 2030 last May. A copy of the draft Policy Framework for the 2002 TEA-21 TIP Process was included in the agenda packet.

To assist in updating the Policy Framework, an Ad Hoc Task Force on TIP Funding Priorities was created last fall to review the existing framework and develop recommendations for changes. Ms. Richter introduced the Task Force Co-Chairs, Mayor Connie Marshall and Councilmember Karen Biskey.

Councilmember Biskey thanked the Task Force members for their work. She said that the Task Force met four times from September through December 2001 and developed recommendations on a consensus basis whenever possible. She reported that the Task Force was unable to agree on how to split the federal funds for allocation to the regional and countywide TIP competitive processes and that the Policy Boards were being asked to make a decision on a split for recommendation to the Executive Board. She further noted that the Task Force's recommendations included the Regional Council's request for an annual allocation of $500,000 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. [The total STP and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds available to the region for programming in the 2002 TIP funding cycle is $64 million.]

Next, Mayor Connie Marshall discussed the following specific recommendations from the Task Force and asked the Policy Boards to take action on each for final recommendation to the Executive Board.

Policy Focus for Regional and State TEA-21 Funding

Mayor Marshall reported that the first step for the Task Force was to identify a regional policy focus to guide near-term funding decisions. She noted that in 1999, nine policy focus areas were used. The Task Force thought that the nine areas were too many and too broad for the limited amount of funds the region receives. Task Force members unanimously agreed to narrow the policy focus to one area that best supports the growth and transportation strategies in Destination 2030: Support for centers and connecting corridors development.
ACTION: Mayor Judy Krill made the motion to narrow to one the number of policy focus areas in the Policy Framework for the 2002 TEA-21 TIP Process, and that the policy focus area should be "Support for centers and connecting corridors development." The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
10 Percent Enhancements Policy

There has been a long-standing policy to set aside 10 percent of the region's federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for transportation enhancement projects in each of the four counties [for the 2002 TIP cycle, this amount will be $6 million]. The Task Force recognized the need to continue this small but significant funding source, and, since there is now a non-motorized element in Destination 2030, the Task Force recommended clarifying the policy as having a "non-motorized" focus.
ACTION : The motion was made and seconded to maintain the policy for a 10 percent set-aside of the region's total STP and CMAQ funds, and to clarify that the policy will focus the investment of those funds on non-motorized projects. The motion carried unanimously.
Shared Regional/Countywide Project Development Process

Mayor Marshall reported that the Task Force unanimously recommended maintaining the shared regional and countywide project competitive processes which have been in place for the past three federal funding cycles, with the following recommendations for each. The policy focus was clarified to support the designated urban centers and manufacturing/ industrial centers as adopted through countywide planning policies, and connecting corridors.
ACTION: Mayor Bob Kraski made the motion to clarify the policy focus for the regional project competition to support the designated urban centers and manufacturing/industrial centers as adopted through countywide planning policies, and connecting corridors. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Mayor Marshall said the Task Force had concerns about the "peanut butter" approach to recommending projects through countywide forums and unanimously agreed that the countywide processes must be better defined, with more explicit policy direction to support centers and connecting corridors. The majority of Task Force members agreed that for the countywide competitive process, the centers policy should be broadened beyond the 21 designated regional urban centers to also include centers designated in local plans. A minority opinion advocated that only those jurisdictions having designated urban centers through countywide GMA policies should receive funds through both the regional competition and the countywide processes.

Councilmember Tim Clark pointed out that the designated urban centers had agreed to take on additional growth and need the infrastructure to support that growth. He expressed concern that broadening the centers policy could result in badly needed funds being drawn away from the designated urban centers. Mayor Marshall said the Task Force recognized that the 21 designated urban centers should be supported and that would be the case under both the regional and countywide competitive processes. In addition, for the countywide competition the Task Force also wanted to recognize the centers identified in local comprehensive plans, and to allow them to be competitive in the countywide process.

Mayor Rosemarie Ives noted that one of the challenges on this issue is that each county took a slightly different approach on how they designated urban centers. "We need to work collectively on getting some uniformity, because it's presenting some problems here." She feels strongly that the urban centers stepped up to the mark in accepting their designation and the accompanying responsibility for increased housing and employment to accommodate the additional growth, and they deserve support.

Councilmember Pam Carter noted that if in the countywide competitive process, funds were limited to supporting only the 21 designated urban centers, then Kitsap County would be constrained to using its countywide TIP funds in Bremerton (Kitsap County's sole designated urban center) or to connect Bremerton with another urban center across Puget Sound.
ACTION: The motion was made and seconded to broaden the centers policy for the countywide competitive process beyond the 21 designated urban centers to also include centers designated in local plans and connecting corridors. The motion passed.
STP Rural Program

Mayor Marshall pointed out that a small portion of the region's STP funds must be programmed for use in the rural areas. She said the Task Force recommended the creation of a Rural Town Centers and Corridors pilot program and called on Charlie Howard to explain in greater detail.

Mr. Howard said a large number of transportation needs are resulting from growth that is occurring at the fringe of the urban growth boundary. The proposed pilot program, which would be a joint project between the Regional Council and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), would help determine how to approach roadway needs that cross between urban and rural areas, and would assist rural towns and cities in addressing the need for capacity improvements while preserving the quality of rural life and without promoting sprawl.
ACTION: Mayor Judy Krill made the motion to recommend the creation of a Rural Town Centers and Corridors pilot program, and that $100,000 of STP rural funds should be used by the Regional Council, in cooperation with WSDOT, to establish the program during 2002. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Regional/Countywide Funding Split

Mayor Marshall reported that the Task Force could not reach agreement on the split of federal funds allocated to the regional and countywide competitive processes [for the last TIP funding cycle, the split was 60% regional/40% countywide]. There were good reasons to increase the percent of funding on both sides, although Task Force members agreed that the regional process should receive a larger portion of the split. She reviewed the Task Force's votes on several proposals ranging from a 75/25 regional/countywide split to a 50/50 split. As the Task Force could not reach a majority agreement, Mayor Marshall requested the Policy Boards' assistance.
ACTION: Councilmember Tim Clark made the motion to recommend a 60/40 regional/countywide funding split. Several members seconded the motion.
Mayor Kraski spoke to the motion. He acknowledged the challenge of trying to fund major regional projects, but also stressed the important role of local connecting projects in addressing larger regional transportation problems. He suggested the best approach to addressing transportation projects in a comprehensive way would be "to provide assistance at the level that is going to be the most immediately impacted because of the long-term approach to the problem."

Councilmember Pam Carter said she would support a 75/25 split, as the regional process would put more focus on supporting designated urban centers and connecting corridors. Councilmember Phil Noble agreed, saying that after adopting a policy focus that supports urban centers and corridors, giving only a 60 percent funding split to the region would be a step backward.
ACTION: Councilmember Phil Noble made a substitute motion to recommend a 75% regional/25% countywide funding split. Mayor Rosemarie Ives seconded the motion.
In the discussion that followed, board members were fairly evenly divided on whether they supported a larger regional or countywide split. Councilmember Earling finally interjected, saying, "There isn't much money, and the best way to focus the dollars until we figure out how to accumulate more is to move them into regional centers." He expressed support for the substitute motion.
ACTION: Councilmember Earling called for the question. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion for a 75/25 regional/countywide funding split failed with 12 in favor and 13 opposed.
ACTION: Councilmember Richard Conlin made the substitute motion as a compromise between the two positions for a 67/33 regional/countywide funding split. The motion was seconded and passed, 17 to 8.
Councilmember Biskey recapped that the Policy Boards had just approved all of the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Task Force and had resolved the regional/countywide funding split to be 67/33. At staff's request, she asked board members for an overall motion to confirm that these recommendations be forwarded to the Executive Board for action on January 24, 2002.
ACTION: Mayor Rosemarie Ives made the motion to recommend Executive Board approval of the Policy Framework for the 2002 TEA-21 TIP Process, including the 67/33 regional/countywide funding split. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
ENDORSE FRAMEWORK FOR REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAM

Regional Council staff presented the framework for the performance monitoring project. The monitoring framework is organized into two broad focus areas: (1) growth and (2) transportation. The growth focus areas include indicators related to (a) growth occurring in the region's designated urban growth areas, (b) compact development, (c) issues associated with the natural resources and environment, and (d) economic growth and stability. The transportation focus areas include (a) condition of the transportation system and services, (b) plan implementation/project tracking, (c) finance and costs, and (d) system performance.

Regional Council staff noted that a series of topical monitoring reports is scheduled for 2002 and 2003. Initial reports in 2002 include: In the discussion that followed, Senator Jim Horn challenged the boards to remember that there are three perspectives to consider: the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) perspective, the Regional Transportation Planning (RTPO) perspective, and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) perspective.

Councilmember Carol Arends expressed the importance of having financial data that shows project cost to help constituents realize how money is being spent.

Mayor Rosemarie Ives applauded the monitoring effort and requested a copy of the indicators.

Gail Twelves expressed concern about how to hold the state accountable for adhering to GMA concurrency laws.

Ralph Cipriani stated that there is a parallel effort looking at concurrency at the regional level. He said that board members would receive the first concurrency report shortly. He also said that at some point the finding of the concurrency investigation would be merged with some of the data that will come out of the monitoring effort. In conclusion, Mayor Connie Marshall suggested Regional Council staff invite staff from Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue and Issaquah who just received a grant to do a concurrency study among those four jurisdictions. She said, "It might be fun to hear, as it develops, how they are doing."
ACTION: It was moved and seconded (Ives/Clark) to endorse the proposed Program Framework for the Performance and Plan Implementation Monitoring Program as identified in Exhibit A (page 6-2) of the agenda packet. The motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW COMPARISON OF "REDUCE CONGESTION NOW" (RCN) WITH DESTINATION 2030

Councilmember Earling reported that at the last Transportation Policy Board meeting, Senator Jim Horn made a presentation on the "Reduce Congestion Now" (RCN) proposal. The presentation included a chart developed by Dr. Bill Eager suggesting that the region could reduce congestion further than is shown in Destination 2030 by adding more highway and arterial roadway capacity. Regional Council staff was asked to contact Dr. Eager to obtain the lane-mile and cost assumptions used in the RCN proposal and report their findings at this meeting. Councilmember Earling then introduced Regional Council staff member Kevin Murphy.

Mr. Murphy drew attention to a copy of the aforementioned chart, which was provided in the agenda packet and as a handout at the meeting. He confirmed that staff found the information in the chart to be an accurate depiction of the RCN proposal and consistent with Destination 2030, the adopted regional transportation plan.

For clarification in comparing the two plans, Mr. Murphy described the following differences between the RCN proposal and Destination 2030. Next, Charlie Howard presented a project-level comparison of RCN and Destination 2030. He reiterated that Destination 2030 is a balanced plan covering all modes of transportation, and pointed out that "what we're focusing on here is just the state highway piece of that plan." He noted that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) worked with the sponsors of RCN in developing a methodology for comparing the lane-miles in both plans, and that his presentation would focus on commonalities between the two plans. As part of his introductory remarks, he also raised the interesting point that 71 percent of all delay in the state takes place on six facilities within the central Puget Sound region: I-5, I-405, I-90, SR-520, SR-167, and SR-16.

Mr. Howard used overhead transparencies to illustrate the lane-miles included in RCN and Destination 2030, and to show which lane-miles the two plans have in common and which are different. By 2030, Destination 2030 is projected to include 681 of the lane-miles that are in the RCN proposal. RCN includes an additional 451 lane miles that are not in Destination 2030, approximately three quarters of which are based on a proposed widening of I-5 from Everett to Tacoma and construction of I-605 in a large arc in the rural eastern parts of three counties. There are also a number of capacity expansion projects included in Destination 2030 that are not in the RCN proposal. Mr. Howard pointed out that overall, both plans share/agree that it is essential to complete the same $19.6 billion worth of freeways and arterials that currently are an unfunded state highway shortfall in Destination 2030 but are planned for completion over the next 30 years.

Mr. Howard summarized by saying, "There's a lot that we agree on, and where we should be focusing our attention is on what we agree on and what's ready to go." He acknowledged that the RCN proposal raises some legitimate planning issues and said he hoped "the Regional Council, WSDOT and all of us can start working on some of these things."

Next, Mr. Murphy reviewed the analysis of the performance of each of the plans. He described how the comparative analysis was conducted using a calculation based on the Texas Transportation Institute's road congestion index, which is a measurement of congestion. It was found that the road capacity increases identified in both plans would deliver significant reductions in the road congestion index by 2015 and modest reductions by 2030. If all of the lane-miles identified in RCN and Destination 2030 were completed, RCN would perform somewhat better than Destination 2030. Mr. Murphy also discussed RCN with the effect of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which indicated a further reduction in the road congestion index. Destination 2030 includes a significant number ITS projects as well, but accounts for them in terms of improved travel speeds rather than capacity benefits, so there wasn't a common platform for comparing the two plans in this area.

In conclusion, Mr. Murphy reemphasized that there is a significant shortfall in revenues needed to complete the road projects in either plan. The combined total four-county shortfall for state highway and local road projects identified in Destination 2030 is estimated to be $26.8 billion.

David Allen asked whether "induced demand" was considered in the projections of travel and congestion. Mr. Howard responded that it would be interesting to look at as there have been mixed professional opinions in the research on induced demand.

Commissioner Tim Botkin cautioned that the presentation focused on only one aspect of our transportation problems - congestion - and that is too narrow. We also need to protect and maintain our economy and quality of life. He suggested that to better compare proposals, they should be compared on a broader basis.

BRIEFING ON WASHINGTON'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN (WTP)

Chris Picard, Washington State Department of Transportation, reported that Washington's Transportation Plan, which spans a 20-year period between 2003-2022, is out for review (November 14 - January 18). He noted that the goal of the Plan is (1) fulfilling federal law requirements for a 20-year statewide transportation plan, and (2) satisfying the state law requirements that the State Transportation Commission review and revise a comprehensive and balance statewide transportation plan for submission to the Legislature in even-numbered years.

Using overheads, Mr. Picard noted some of the passed milestones in preparation of the draft Plan, including Washington's Transportation Plan Summit held in December 1998; and continuous review and critique through the Executive Guidance Committee.

Mr. Picard provided background information on the Plan. He said, "Washington's Transportation Plan is a statewide multimodal transportation plan to ensure the continued mobility of people and goods within the regions and across the state in a safe and cost-effective manner." He went on to say that the Plan combines all transportation needs identified in each metropolitan transportation plan and regional transportation plan from across the state. Mr. Picard said, "while Washington's Transportation Plan has utilized the needs identified in regional plans, it also strives to identify issues pertaining to statewide travel needs."

Next, he provided a brief overview of each chapter. In closing, Mr. Picard noted that Final Plan adoption is scheduled for the February Transportation Commission meeting.

Councilmember Pam Carter thanked Mr. Picard for extending the comment period past the holiday season.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Transportation and Growth Management Policy Boards will be a joint meeting on Thursday, February 14, 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Jackson Federal Building located at Second and Madison. This meeting will focus on the status of urban centers development, and representatives from the 21 designated centers in the central Puget Sound region have been invited to share progress regarding their center.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.