Boardmember DeForest moved, seconded by Boardmember Sackrison, to approve the June 11, 2014 minutes as published. Motion carried unanimously.

Transcription

1

2

3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Transportation Policy Board July 9, 2014 Thurston Regional Planning Council Conference Room A, 1 st Floor 2424 Heritage Court SW Olympia, WA Call to Order Chair Andy Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. Attendance TPB Members Present: TPB Members Absent: Staff: Others: Graeme Sackrison, Citizen Representative (Vice Chair) Martha Hankins, Citizen Representative Andy Ryder, City of Lacey (Chair) Cheryl Selby, City of Olympia George Barner, Port of Olympia John O Callahan, City of Tenino Nicole Hill, City of Tumwater (Alternate) Ron Landon, WSDOT (Alternate) Doug DeForest, Business Representative Renée Sunde, Business Representative Jerry Farmer, Business Representative Cathy Wolfe, Thurston County Ryan Warner, Intercity Transit Jim Longley, Nisqually Indian Tribe Kayloe Dawson, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Tracey Wood, City of Yelm Lon Wyrick, Karen Parkhurst, Jailyn Brown, Paul Brewster, and Tom Gow Martin Hoppe, City of Lacey Scott Lindblom, Thurston County Randy Wesselman, City of Olympia Dennis Bloom, Intercity Transit Approval of Agenda Boardmember Sackrison moved, seconded by Boardmember O Callahan, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes from June 11, 2014 Boardmember DeForest moved, seconded by Boardmember Sackrison, to approve the June 11, 2014 minutes as published. Motion carried unanimously. Public Comment There were no public comments.

4 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 2 of 8 August Meeting Boardmember Farmer moved, seconded by Boardmember DeForest, to cancel the August Transportation Policy Board regular meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update Highlights of the Vision & Priorities Survey Senior Planner Jailyn Brown thanked the Board for its support in soliciting public input on the regional vision and priorities for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The overall effort was very successful. She provided an overview of the general results. When the survey was initiated, the goal was obtaining 1,000 responses. Nearly 1,500 responses were received. The survey questions were divided into three categories of top priorities for me, my community, and for commerce. Planner Brown reviewed the responses ranking 60% or higher by survey participants. The top priorities for respondents were bike lanes, sidewalks/crosswalks, trails, pavement repair, and other, which consisted of a fill-in-the-blank answer generating 245 responses. For the community, the most important transportation priorities were transit, and in particular, inter-county bus and rail, park and ride lots, vanpooling, commute trip reduction options, para-transit and rural transit, and fleet repair. Commerce priorities included freeway widening, transportation technology, imposing user fees, and pavement and bridge repairs. Boardmember Hill arrived. The budget calculator was a new and different option available to participants. Participants were afforded $500 to allocate to transportation priorities. Approximately three-quarters of the respondents used the budget calculator and 85% indicated the calculator was helpful. Three-quarters of the respondents indicated the $500 budget allocation was insufficient to meet their specific transportation priorities. Most of the respondents managed to budget transportation priorities between $500 and $1,000 with several respondents budgeting over $2,000. Fifty-six percent of the respondents using the budget calculator indicated it changed their transportation priorities. Quick and easy tools in the future may be a way to help the public understand transportation priorities. Boardmember Barner arrived. The following responses were split on a question to select only one transportation priority: 1/3 selected commuter rail 1/3 selected combo of lower cost 1/4 selected light rail Questions on long-term objectives of the system included the following responses: #1 Expand Travel Options #2 Maintain System #3 rove Mobility & Increase Efficiency #4 Boost Economy Another question asked respondents to consider what transportation options they would be using in 10 years. The responses included: Driving less

5 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Walking more or walking the same Bicycling more Using bus more Carpooling the same or not at all (likely because respondents were workers and many were older workers who would be retiring) Teleworking more or not at all (likely because respondents were workers and many were older workers who would be retiring) Using train more or not at all Respondents were asked why they believe their habits would change in the next 10 years. The 941 responses indicated they are: Retiring Teleworking Have kids will drive more or less dependent upon age Fuel costs Another question paralleled the state study with similar results: For transportation priorities you feel are important, would you pay more taxes and fees? Two-thirds of the participants said yes with over 300 comments submitted. Most of the respondents (65%) lived in Lacey, Olympia, or Tumwater with the remaining residing in Thurston County. Approximately 15% of the respondents lived outside the county. Approximately 90% of the respondents worked in Lacey, Olympia, or Tumwater. TRPC s most successful outreach was through the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with state employees. Approximately one-half of the respondents were between 35 and 54 years of age with another one-third between 55 and 64 years of age. It proved difficult to attract younger respondents. During the survey, TRPC s intern, a student at The Evergreen State College, found the questions on transportation options in the future difficult to answer because of the uncertainty of where the intern would be residing and the type of job in the future. It s difficult to understand the demographic shift currently underway, as well as complicated to forecast in terms of how future demographics will play out for future generations. Boardmember O Callahan asked about the possibility of surveying senior students at local colleges. Planner Brown commented on the difficulties staff encountered in obtaining input from younger generations. As a part of the region s transportation program, TRPC continually explores other ways and methods to acquire information. One example is Senior Planner Karen Parkhurst s talks to local college classes on various transportation topics. Boardmember DeForest remarked that the sampling should have also been reflective of the percentage of the population commuting north to central Puget Sound. Planner Brown acknowledged the sampling was biased to some degree because of the effectiveness in generating responses through the region s CTR program, which involved surveying employees. The region s Household Travel Survey has a larger reach to include surveying more of the population. This survey was conducted utilizing internal resources and lacked the resources for sampling specific populations. The survey was successful in securing nearly 1,500 responses. Boardmember Sackrison expressed interest in learning how survey demographics compare to county-wide demographics. It appears based on the results that the respondents were overwhelmingly well-versed or actively engaged in transportation. Policies implemented often receive opposition from the public because they are not representative of the general population. Planner Brown replied that a comparison might be possible as more analysis is completed. She acknowledged the helpfulness of comments because it s often clear when respondents are well-versed because of the way they address transportation issues. Many of the respondents are actively engaged in transportation.

6 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Senior Planner Karen Parkhurst added that it s important to recognize that the survey was not only completed by Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) who oversee CTR programs at each worksite, but by many employees at each CTR work site. Individuals participated based on their interest level. Planner Brown reported gender demographics included 55% women and 45% men. Most of the responses indicated the respondents are Caucasian. Hispanic responses were lower than the county-wide population of 5%. Most respondents earned between $50,000 and $100,000 in household income with more than onethird earning more than $100,000 in household income. Approximately 386 respondents took advantage of the opportunity to provide additional information. The respondents were definitely engaged with 252 of the respondents agreeing to participate in other transportation surveys or planning efforts. Next steps include more tabulation and analysis to form the basis of the report from 138 pages of data. Of importance to the Board is receiving some public information, as well as each member receiving information from each respective board, council, and commission about long-range transportation priorities. At its September meeting, the Board is scheduled to discuss long-range transportation priorities and how the work program can achieve those priorities. Boardmember DeForest asked about the potential of establishing a group or groups of individuals who could develop significantly different priorities or outcomes than what the region assumes are important. Boardmember Farmer expressed interest in promoting the economic aspects of the survey, as it could have been difficult for the respondents to connect the importance of transportation in creating a vibrant economy. He suggested further review of how the questions were phrased. Planner Brown responded that it could entail a discussion on questions to pursue as part of the work program or consider whether it s an area of public perception that requires additional efforts. Those discussions could be the start of how to develop a public message. Boardmember DeForest said he was surprised one of the top transportation priorities was maintenance of the system because when he describes how half of all transportation budgets are allocated to maintenance most individuals perceive maintenance of the system as insufficient. Chair Ryder commented on the validity of the budget calculator as there is a perception of an endless supply of transportation dollars or that transportation costs are not that high. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update Guiding Principles Planner Brown requested feedback and direction on the Guiding Principles section of the plan. The section communicates overall values reflected throughout the plan. Throughout the RTP update, the Board expressed a preference to minimize formal planning language and focus more on plain speak language. Last fall, Senior Planner Thera Black summarized the guiding principles into simple statements reflecting the plan s values: Keep life cycle costs as low as possible. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. Align transportation and land use decisions. Increase viable travel choices. Minimize environmental impacts. Make the transportation system safe for all users. Planner Brown requested feedback on the proposed language. The current RTP synopsizes Guiding Principles in single or two-word phrases, as supportive, responsive, and fiscally responsive. The list is another option for conveying the information.

7 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Boardmember Sunde said the list covers all the categories and provides some generality affording some flexibility within each of the bullets. Boardmember DeForest agreed as the language clearly conveys the intent. Boardmember Sackrison commented on TRPC s Sustainable Thurston effort and the importance of establishing some greenhouse gas reduction targets over the next several decades. Under the environment heading, he suggested including another bullet stating, Minimizing the generation of transportation-related greenhouse gasses in pursuit of the targets established in Sustainable Thurston. The language complements the three-year efforts of the Sustainable Thurston process. Boardmember Sunde agreed with the inclusion other than specifying it was established during Sustainable Thurston, which is too specific because other Guiding Principles are not tied to specific efforts. Boardmember DeForest recommended adding another bullet stating, Providing transportation infrastructure that meets the needs of the majority of the public. Boardmember DeForest questioned the meaning of existing language stating, Making investments that contribute to a community s overall sense of place. Boardmember Sunde said the language could address the additional bullet recommended by Boardmember DeForest. The Board supported Boardmember Sackrison s recommended language with the elimination of Sustainable Thurston. Members discussed Boardmember DeForest s recommended language. Boardmember Hankins expressed concerns as the language speaks to the majority of the public and conveys a majority rules perception. One issue surrounding transportation is subgroups, which should be addressed, such as people with disabilities who are not represented as the majority of the public. She s not necessarily uncomfortable with a majority of the public provided it implicitly includes diverse subgroups existing within the public. Boardmember DeForest acknowledged the concern and suggested the third bullet of increasing viable, affordable travel choices for people and goods could also address subgroups. The bullet could also be revised to address various subgroups. Executive Director Wyrick offered an option of eliminating of the majority to reflect, Providing transportation infrastructure that meets the needs of the public. Several Boardmembers noted that the statement is essentially what the region is supposed to accomplish. Boardmember DeForest said eliminating a majority of the public changes the intent because it speaks to improvements benefitting one person as opposed to benefitting 10 people. Boardmember Sackrison noted that the region s policies should benefit the largest group of people possible. He supported inclusion of a majority because it implies that the region is listening and trying to address the needs of the public while not catering to a small subgroup. He s also unsure whether the Board s discussions align precisely with the public s interest. The Board discussed options for addressing the greater good or the majority. Boardmember O Callahan advocated for clearly articulating majority to ensure it addresses what the majority of the county s taxpayers expect. Boardmember Barner recommended revising the second bullet under Supportive to reflect, Integrating transportation and land use decision-making processes for the majority of the region to address the issue. Planner Brown advised that staff would draft some optional language for the Board s consideration. Boardmember DeForest suggested the language of sense of place is planner language and should be revised. Planner Brown verified that staff would also address the language.

8 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Boardmember Barner recommended replacing impacts with effects within the third bullet under Collaborative. act implies hitting something rather than affecting it. The Board concurred with the recommendation. Boardmember DeForest suggested moving the third bullet under Responsive to reflect the first bullet. The Board concurred with the recommendation. Boardmember DeForest questioned the intent of bullet two under Fiscally Responsible stating, Ensuring system funding is equitable. Planner Brown replied that the bullet could be interpreted several ways, such as environmental justice or providing a range of transportation services to help all people meet transportation needs. Planner Parkhurst said another aspect is that system funding should be equitable, such as users paying more than non-users. Boardmember DeForest suggested the language should be revised to reflect that intent. Planner Brown affirmed staff would provide some alternative language options. Regional Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan for the Thurston Region Planner Parkhurst reported the update provides an opportunity to engage some of the population not involved in the previous survey. Over the last 10 years, TRPC has completed the Regional Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan for the Thurston Region. The plan meets state and federal requirements. The plan addresses specific populations of individuals who because of age, income, or ability have limited transportation options. The plan was developed by TRPC prior to federal requirements. The plan emphasizes a coordinated approach for special needs transportation. The goal of coordinated transportation is to increase efficiency of the system by sharing trips and rides. Over the years, one of the coordinated efforts includes the Village Vans Program through Intercity Transit, which helps people participating in some state programs access job training. A second service is the Rural & Tribal Transportation Program, which serves residents of the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation as well as the communities of Bucoda, Rainier, Rochester, Tenino, and Yelm. Intercity Transit also recently introduced the Bus Buddies program last year. The plan encompasses the entire community and because individuals in the rural communities have less transportation options than urban dwellers, the plan focuses on outreach to the rural communities by working in partnership with Intercity Transit, cities, non-profit organizations, Area Agency on Aging, and others to track transportation changes for special needs populations. TRPC initiated discussions on changes in transportation needs, gaps, and how to improve services for other people with needs. The plan also includes a project list. Although the plan is updated every four years, the project list is updated every two years. The project list is important because it establishes the basis for qualifying for funding through the State Coordinated and Consolidated Grant Program. The Thurston region has been fortunate because through regional coordination of projects, the project list is fairly short providing a better funding formula for projects that achieve a higher ranking for project funding. Planner Parkhurst added that the update might provide another opportunity to utilize the budget calculator through a rural community focus group effort. TRPC has initiated the update exercise with the draft due in September with adoption scheduled by the end of the year. Planner Parkhurst queried the Board on ideas for reaching out to the rural and special needs communities within the county. Additionally, two other areas of specific focus in the last several years include emergency planning for natural disasters for citizens with special needs and veterans. Transportation providers who transport people with special needs know where they live and it s important to ensure smaller transportation providers are part of the emergency network. The second area of focus is veterans. A recent county workshop coordinated by a veterans group shared information from veteran providers, veterans, and available service programs. The intent of the effort is providing information to veterans on options available to them.

9 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Executive Director Wyrick added that the plan was initially developed prior to any state or federal requirements. Coordination with the different agencies is the hallmark of the process. Because of inaction by Congress on transportation funding, the region focused on due diligence and positioned itself to ensure it secures funds by establishing a list of priority list of projects. The plan s been successful in achieving those goals with the region recognized as one of the more aggressive regions in the state. The region is fortunate in that it has been able to assign A s to each priority project. The plan positions the region to take advantage of funding for projects and programs. One example of the effort is the veterans project, which is combating decades of siloing by the military branches through partnership and consolidation of efforts with private service providers. Boardmember O Callahan recommended contacting Tenino Chamber of Commerce and Dale Vincent at Panorama City in Lacey. Boardmember Barner commented on the possibility of providing transportation to veterans to ball games as a way to promote camaraderie and promoting the use of transit services. It s likely the Seattle sports teams would provide discounted tickets as most veterans live on a limited income. Boardmember Farmer referred to the Rideshare program as a possibility to provide transportation opportunities to veterans. Planner Parkhurst affirmed that RideshareOnline.com is a WSDOT and Metro King County sponsored service providing commuting and special event transportation options. Future Agenda Topics Chair Ryder asked members to consider future agenda topics for meetings in the fall and winter. Recent conversations have spoken about ways to introduce Sustainable Thurston into the Board s discussions. He asked for input from members on potential topics to consider. Boardmember DeForest recommended scheduling a brief introductory message about the Sustainable Thurston Plan to provide a refresher to members. Executive Director Wyrick encouraged members to submit ideas to establish a list of topics for the Board s discussion at its September meeting. Outside Committee Reports Boardmember DeForest reported on his attendance to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Transportation Policy Board meeting. Based on recent changes at PSRC, Boardmember DeForest reported he would no longer receive the Board s monthly meeting agenda packet unless he specifically requests a copy. PSRC was facing the prospect of losing $20 million in project funding under the state s new use it or lose it policy. The City of Darrington was able to use $5 million and the Board was able to allocate the remaining $15 million to projects. Subsequently, PSRC is not losing any funds. Members received briefings on other transportation issues. The next meeting is on Thursday, July 10. Boardmember DeForest invited members to attend the meeting with him. The main topic of the meeting agenda is coordination of public transit facilities. Because Proposition 1 in King County failed, the Mayor of Seattle is proposing a different program to satisfy some of the city s needs. There appears to be some issues, which hasn t been discussed by the Board up to this point. Boardmember Barner inquired about the status of the tunnel machine, Bertha. Boardmember DeForest said the Board hasn t discussed the tunneling project in Seattle. The machine has been inoperable since the machine s bearings failed. The Board did discuss the additional $170 million for the Evergreen Point

10 Transportation Policy Board Minutes of Meeting July 9, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Floating Bridge because of issues associated with the construction of pontoons. The Board has not discussed Bertha and the financial impacts of the machine s delay. There is however, controversy about whether the delay in tunneling is the city, state, contractor, or the equipment manufacturer s problem. Executive Director Wyrick added that with the recent illness of the Director of Sound Transit, former Intercity Transit General Manager Mike Harbour has assumed the interim leadership position at Sound Transit. Boardmember DeForest reported that all transit organizations in central Puget Sound are independently organized and managed by a board of directors with the exception of King County Metro, which is a department within King County government. Adjournment With there being no further business, Chair Ryder adjourned the meeting at 8:08 a.m. Andy Ryder, Chair Prepared by Valerie Gow, Recording Secretary/President Puget Sound Meeting Services, psmsoly@earthlink.net

11 AGENDA ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Transportation Policy Board Jailyn Brown, Senior Planner DATE: September 4, 2014 SUBJECT: RTIP Amendment PURPOSE Make a recommendation to TRPC regarding the proposed Regional Transportation rovement Program (RTIP) amendment. Summary: Intercity Transit requests a new project be added to the RTIP for replacement of up to12 coaches at the end of their useful life. The project is contingent on Intercity Transit receiving a Ladders of Opportunity grant. WSDOT Olympic Region requests a new project be added to the RTIP for a regionwide upgrade of outdated ADA curb ramps. The amendment is being advertised for public comment. TPB will consider the requests in September and make a recommendation. TPB s recommendation and any public comment will be included in TRPC s October staff report. REQUESTED ACTION Recommend TRPC approve the RTIP amendment as presented.

12 MEMORANDUM Page 2 September 4, 2014 BACKGROUND About the RTIP and The Regional Transportation rovement Program (RTIP) is a four-year programming document derived from the comprehensive six-year Transportation rovement Programs (TIPs) that each local agency develops and adopts annually. The RTIP performs three main functions: 1. It identifies projects programmed for implementation within the next four years which 1) secure federal funding, 2) are WSDOT projects, or 3) are regionally significant, regardless of funding source. 2. It identifies proposed transportation projects planned for the next four years which have been adopted in local TIPs but have not secured funding. 3. It demonstrates that projects programmed for the next four years will not cause, aggravate, or contribute to any new or existing air quality violation of the federal PM 10 standard. Transportation projects meeting the requirements listed above must be included in an approved RTIP and Statewide Transportation rovement Program () to proceed. Amendment Request Intercity Transit and WSDOT Olympic Region each request to add projects to the RTIP as summarized below. Replacement Coaches (IT 1402) Intercity Transit Describe Amount: Action: Reason: Replace up to / foot heavy duty low-floor coaches at the end of or beyond FTA standard useful life. Add up to $9,09,5810. This will be determined by grant award. Add a new project to the RTIP and. If Intercity Transit receives the grant, the project will need to be obligated before the end of It must be programmed in the RTIP and before obligation. The last opportunity to amend the is October. Intercity Transit will be notified in September about the award. The project will be brought to both TPB and TRPC in September for their consideration. If the project does not receive the award, it will be pulled from the October TRPC action request OR Region Wide Curb Ramps ADA Compliance (300015B) WSDOT Olympic Region Describe Amount: Action: Reason: Throughout the region there are ADA facilities on State Routes that need updating. This project will prioritize outdated ADA facilities and upgrade as many as possible within the funding constraints of the project. Add $117,853 to the RTIP and. Add a new project to the RTIP and. Design is set to begin in This project uses federal funds and it must be included in the RTIP and before obligating. Public comment is being solicited, but none has been received so far. Both TPB s recommendation and any public comment will be included in TRPC s October staff report. The project is consistent with regional air quality conformity requirements.

13 AGENDA ITEM #6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Transportation Policy Board Jailyn Brown, Senior Planner DATE: September 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Draft Regional Transportation rovement Program (RTIP) PURPOSE Review and discuss the draft RTIP. Make a recommendation to TRPC regarding adoption in October. Summary: The RTIP is a four-year programming document derived from local six-year TIPs. The RTIP includes federally-funded, state-sponsored and regionally significant projects. It is prepared annually to provide a list of funding secured projects (Tables 1 and 3), identify other secured and proposed transportation projects for the same period (Appendix A), and demonstrate air quality conformity (Appendix D). s are summarized by transportation planning goal, carryover from 2014, and obligation in The Summary section with Tables 1 and 3 (listing the funding secured projects that must be programmed into the RTIP and ) are attached. The complete text is available electronically online. Printed copies of the complete text will also be available at TPB s September meeting or may be picked up in advance of the meeting from the TPB receptionist. WSDOT has requested TRPC consider grouping various paving projects into a single line item or bucket in the RTIP and. See discussion below. The draft RTIP will undergo public review. TPB s recommendation and comments, with any public comments received, will be included in the staff report for TRPC at the October meeting. REQUESTED ACTION Recommend to TRPC adoption of the draft Regional Transportation rovement Program, including the use of a bucket for WSDOT Asphalt/Chip Seal Preservation.

14 MEMORANDUM Page 2 September 4, 2014 BACKGROUND What is an RTIP? The Regional Transportation rovement Program (RTIP) is prepared annually in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to meet state and federal requirements. It serves three primary functions: 1. Identify federally funded projects and their financial feasibility for the period 2014 through The RTIP must also include regionally significant projects and WSDOT projects being built in the Thurston Region. 2. Identify proposed projects for the same period that have not secured funding and other locally significant project that are funding secured but not required to be included in the RTIP or. 3. Demonstrate compliance with state and federal air quality conformity requirements. The RTIP is derived from six-year Local Transportation rovement Programs. In these local TIPs, each agency establishes its own priorities, conducts its own public review, and adopts its own locally developed project list before submitting that six year list to TRPC. The RTIP that TRPC prepares is only required to include projects from the first four years of those Local TIPs. Originally, the RTIP s purpose was to identify and document federally funded transportation projects to be included in the WSDOT s Statewide Transportation rovement Program () and approved by the Governor. This is important because projects are not eligible to receive federal funds unless they are included in the RTIP and documents, even if they have already been awarded those funds through a grant process. The RTIP evolved to include proposed (but as yet unfunded) projects that local agencies will seek to finance in the next years, regardless of potential funding source. It also includes locally significant funded projects not required to be in the RTIP and. Consolidating these projects in Appendix A affords a more comprehensive view for the community of short range needs than is possible from individually evaluating all the Local TIPs. Including the projects now for community review also streamlines the amendment process should a project receive funding, since such projects are already identified and approved as part of an adopted RTIP. In addition to federally funded projects, the RTIP must also include regionally significant projects and WSDOT projects being built in the Thurston Region. s are presented in three phases, preliminary engineering and design (PE), right-of-way acquisition (), and construction (CN). phases included in each year s updated RTIP may vary as phases secure funding or are obligated. Hence, a project may be included in the RTIP, although its phases and funding may vary yearto-year. Relating the RTIP to the Regional Transportation Plan The RTIP is a short range implementation program of the priorities identified in the longer view of the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. It consolidates the next four years of transportation projects into a form convenient to review for consistency with the region-wide goals, policies and priorities articulated in the Regional Transportation Plan. The RTIP projects were reviewed for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan and grouped by transportation planning goal. Many projects meet multiple regional planning objectives, but for the purposes of consistency review, each project was identified only once by a primary goal it achieves. The funding secured projects are identified on a map found between the main text and the appendices. While all the RTIP projects were found consistent with the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, some are individually identified in the Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan specifically calls out regionally significant projects, major projects that influence travel patterns and traffic flows over large areas. To facilitate comparison between the RTIP and the Regional Transportation Plan, projects in the RTIP that are regionally significant show the Regional Transportation Plan s project identifier in brackets.

15 MEMORANDUM Page 3 September 4, 2014 Though dubbed regionally significant, these are only part of the important transportation investments made in the region, as the RTIP shows. s like pavement preservation, system safety, intersection efficiency, sidewalk infill, on-street bike lanes, and shoulder upgrades all found listed individually in the RTIP are essential to the safe and efficient functioning of the transportation system, and are consistent with the priorities expressed in the Regional Transportation Plan. The complete list of projects provided in the RTIP, while consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, provides reviewers with a more specific picture than provided in the Plan of the investments being made in the region s transportation system. WSDOT Request to Add a Paving Bucket Federal regulations allow certain types of projects to be grouped into a single line item in the. This is familiarly referred to as a bucket. There s a long list of types of projects that can be bucketed, but the gist is that these projects are done within the existing right-of-way, conditionally exempt from environmental review, and don t substantially change the motorized vehicle capacity of the regional transportation system. Examples include safety (signs and guardrails), maintenance (pavement resurfacing), equipment replacement (replacement buses), and non-motorized improvements (sidewalks and bike lanes). The advantage of bucketing similar projects is two-fold: 1. It introduces flexibility into the delivery of bucketed projects. If one project is delayed, another may advance. If a project estimate changes as design proceeds, funds can more easily flow between projects. 2. It reduces the number of projects needing amendment in the. Increases and decreases in costs and revenues, and changes in schedule can be managed within the bucket. Buckets will be updated on the annual RTIP and development schedule, rather than month by month. WSDOT is in discussions with the MPOs, RTPOs, and FHWA about instituting buckets for State projects: paving and preservation, bridges (except for large bridge replacement projects), major electrical and other facilities (like rest stops), safety, and environmental mitigation (like bio-swales). WSDOT requests TRPC partner with them in a trial run for an Asphalt/Chip Seal Preservation Bucket. This trial run will allow the regional, state and federal agencies to try out an approach and shake out any glitches. If successful, WSDOT will propose the approach be expanded statewide and to the variety of buckets listed above. Over the last few years, TRPC already programmed several small WSDOT buckets for guardrails, signs, and low cost pavement repair. The Asphalt/Chip Seal Preservation [aka Paving ] Bucket is a bit different from these smaller buckets. More Visible - The Paving Bucket will impact many more miles of highway throughout the region, for millions of dollars. More Years - The bucket could potentially span 4 years, depending on the scoping in WSDOT s delivery plan, and projects could advance among the 4 years as needed. Some factors that could impact which projects advance first based on the bidding climate, overly optimistic project delivery schedules, and changing field conditions. Fewer Amendments? Most of the RTIP amendments for WSDOT the last few years have involved changes in schedule, budget and funding sources for paving projects. The budget changes have been just large enough (increases or decreases) that they trigger an amendment. Under the proposed approach, TRPC and TPB still review the list of proposed bucketed projects annually, when the RTIP is developed. But amendments to the bucket will likely be much fewer, perhaps limited to any unanticipated new projects that have to be added to the bucket. Generally, these new projects would just be folded into the annual update process, unless a pressing need to proceed arises.

16 MEMORANDUM Page 4 September 4, 2014 In the attached pages, you will find included the proposed Asphalt/Chip Seal Preservation Bucket. Additionally, at the end of the packet, is a list of the projects included in that bucket of the four year period. WSDOT intends to program these projects in the RTIP and, either in the Bucket or each project as a separate line item in the RTIP and. Staff seeks TRPC and TPB direction regarding the use of a Paving Bucket in this year s RTIP. Public Comment While agencies held public hearings earlier this year on the Local TIPs, public review and comment on the draft RTIP is also encouraged. Notices regarding the draft RTIP s availability for comment will be published in The Olympian and posted on the TRPC website. The draft RTIP will be sent to TAC members for their review and to staff at the following agencies: WSDOT Federal Highways Administration Federal Transit Administration WA State Department of Ecology US Protection Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Pierce County Mason County Grays Harbor County Lewis County Olympic Region Clean Air Agency Nisqually Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Squaxin Tribe All comments received during the public comment period will be included in the staff report to TRPC for your consideration when taking action on October 4. In addition, any project specific comment will be forwarded to the respective agency. The draft RTIP will also be reviewed by the State s Air Quality Consultation Group, comprised of representatives from the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation, the US Protection Agency, and the Federal Highways and Transit Administrations. They will review the proposed conformity status for the RTIP. You will be notified of any substantive changes to the conformity findings based on this review. The TPB recommendation will be provided to TRPC in October when they are expected to take action on the RTIP adoption. To reduce resource use, enclosed with this staff report is the Summary section with Tables 1 and 3 (listing the funding secured projects). The complete text is available electronically online. Printed copies of the complete text will be available at TPB s September meeting or may be picked up in advance of the meeting from the TRPC receptionist. Attachment 75:ss

17 TABLE 1 FUNDING-SECURED MPO (URBAN) PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION BY AGENCY Agencies Included Intercity Transit City of Lacey City of Olympia Thurston County City of Tumwater WSDOT Olympic Region

18 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Lacey Number PIN ID (004) Lacey CE Yes Lacey Blvd 37th Ave SE 2,594,700 College Street Corridor -- Phase 1 Per the 2009 College Street Corridor Study, this project will widen the roadway to include a planted center median, auxiliary left turn lanes, sidewalks, with typical urban amenities. This includes traffic control roundabouts at 16th Avenue, 22nd Avenue and 29th Avenue SE. Future phases will be constructed as funding becomes available. The project will involve landscaping, excavation, paving, and drainage improvements. The project will be constructed in multiple phases with the first phase being the construction of the 22nd Avenue SE roundabout. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN Ped/Bike Program 926, ,200 1,355,200 s 0 926, ,200 1,355,200 CN 0 677, , s 0 677, , Page 2

19 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Lacey Number PIN ID 16 Lacey CE Yes 31st Ave NE 31st Ave NE 1,900,000 Willamette Dr / 31st Ave Roundabout Construct Roundabout State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN 2015 STP(US) 1,591, ,409 1,840,069 s 1,591, ,409 1,840,069 CN 1,740, s 1,740, State Funds Local Funds Agency s for Lacey 1,591, , ,609 3,195,269 Page 3

20 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Olympia Number PIN ID 16 Oly1312d CE No Cain Road Boulevard Road 1,899,300 22nd Avenue Sidewalk Includes sidewalk, planter strip, education materials and events. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN 2015 TAP(SR) 801, ,174 1,550,600 s 801, ,174 1,550,600 CN 1,550, s 1,550, Page 4

21 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Olympia Number PIN ID 16 Oly1101c CE Yes at Morse-Merryman Road N/A 5,069,380 Boulevard Road and Morse-Merryman Road Roundabout Construct a single lane roundabout, sidewalks, planter strips, street lighting, bike lanes, stormwater improvements and undergrounding of overhead utilities. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds TIB 143, , ,500 s 0 143, , , , s 448, Page 5

22 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Olympia Number PIN ID (008) Oly1115a CE No See Description n/a 815,725 Smart Corridors Upgrade traffic signal system controllers, associated equipment and software to provide Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Corridors include Capitol Way/Boulevard from State Avenue to Carlyon Avenue, 4th Avenue/State Avenue/Pacific Avenue/Martin Way from Capitol Way to College Street, Lilly Road from Pacific Avenue to Saint Peter's Hospital. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN 2015 CMAQ 536, , ,564 s 536, , ,564 CN 620, s 620, State Funds Local Funds Agency s for Olympia 1,338, ,535 1,137,915 2,619,664 Page 6

23 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Thurston Co. Number PIN ID (004) WA CE Yes Lacey City Limits (vic Fire Carpenter Road 7,650,000 Station 33) Mullen Road Reconstruction Reconstruct roadway and widen 2 travel lanes to add bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides, additional channelization, landscaping, illumination, drainage improvements and other associated work. Construct two new roundabouts at Rumac Street and Carpenter Road, and a raised median between the roundabouts. There will be some retaining walls constructed and a large culvert connecting Pattison and Hicks Lake will be replaced. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds 2016 STP(US) 300,000 TIB 281, ,000 1,080,000 s 300, , ,000 1,080, , , ,000 0 s 0 281, , ,000 0 State Funds Local Funds Agency s for Thurston Co. 300, , ,000 1,080,000 Page 7

24 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Tumwater Number PIN ID 14 WA DCE Yes Tumwater Boulevard 300 S of 73rd Avenue 2,252,556 Capitol Boulevard: Tumwater Blvd to 300 feet south of 73rd Avenue Add travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination, storm drainage, landscaping and turn lanes/center medians State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE TIB 135,270 72, , TIB 336, , ,320 CN TIB 972, ,645 1,526,128 s 0 1,444, ,895 2,252,556 PE 208, , CN 0 1,526, s 726,428 1,526, Page 8

25 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Tumwater Number PIN ID 16 WA CE No Capitol Boulevard 150' south of C Street 230,100 E Street / Deschutes Parkway Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on the north side of E Street and the east side of Deschutes Parkway to a point 150' south of C Street State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN TIB 169,575 56, ,100 s 0 169,575 56, ,100 CN 0 226, s 0 226, Page 9

26 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Tumwater Number PIN ID 14 WA CE Yes Interstate 5 Capitol Boulevard 1,146,885 Trosper Road: I-5 to Capitol Boulevard Capacity: Design, right-of-way and construction of an additional right turn lane on Trosper Road onto I-5 northbound on-ramp and to southbound Capitol Boulevard. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE TIB 70,152 37, , TIB 160,875 86, ,500 CN TIB 514, , ,459 s 0 745, ,410 1,146,885 PE 107, , CN , s 107, , , Page 10

27 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Thurston Agency: Tumwater Number PIN ID 00 WA CE No 200' south of Grant Street South end of Marathon State Park Tumwater Historical Park Trail Connection Paved multi-use path (Class 1) will provide a trail connection from the current terminus of the Deschutes Valley Trail, located 200' south of Grant Street to the south end of Marathon State Park. 238,550 State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE 2015 TAP(US) 20, ,220 23,855 CN 2015 TAP(US) 185, , ,695 s 206, , ,550 PE 23, CN 214, s 238, State Funds Local Funds Agency s for Tumwater 206,346 2,359,711 1,298,034 3,864,091 Page 11

28 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Agency: WSDOT - OLY Number PIN ID S S34 21 CE No Regionwide n/a 98, OR Region Wide Basic Safety - Signing To address region wide work and/or non-operational signing which may also include sign posts. This will assist the traveling public with sign visibility. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE 2016 STP 13, ,621 CN 2016 STP 82, ,688 84,379 s 95, ,233 98,000 PE 0 13, CN 0 44,000 40, s 0 57,621 40, Page 12

29 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Agency: WSDOT - OLY Number PIN ID B B 21 CE No Varies Varies 117, OR Region Wide Curb Ramps - ADA Compliance Throughout the region there are ADA facilities on State Routes that need updating. This project will prioritize outdated ADA facilities and upgrade as many as possible within the funding constraints of this project. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds CN 2015 HSIP 99, , ,359 s 99, , ,359 ALL 16, , s 16, , Page 13

30 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Agency: WSDOT - OLY Number PIN ID I I34 18 CE No Various n/a 15, Traffic Operation Assessments Systematic assessments of highway operation. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE 2015 HSIP 14, ,510 s 14, ,510 PE 15, s 15, Page 14

31 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Agency: WSDOT - OLY Number PIN ID 00 fill in TRPC P1 05 CE No n/a n/a 9,689,824 Asphalt/Chip Seal Preservation Thurston Regional Planning Council Grouping of preservation projects for state highways and freeways in the Thurston Region. Pavement condition rating is projected to drop below the adopted standards at multiple project locations. By inlaying the existing roadway with hot mix asphalt, the existing pavement condition rating will be increased to be within adopted standards. Find a list of included projects at State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds ALL 2015 NHPP 333, , ,898 ALL 2015 STP 1,772, ,169 1,808,461 ALL 2016 NHPP 6,239, ,359 6,373,237 ALL 2016 STP 73, ,503 75,130 ALL 2017 NHPP 131, , ,050 ALL 2017 STP 54, ,283 57,081 ALL 2018 STP 875, , ,967 s 9,480, ,873 9,689,824 ALL 2,156,360 6,448, , ,967 29,768 s 2,156,360 6,448, , ,967 29,768 Page 15

32 ( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: TRPC Y Inside N Outside August 28, 2014 County: Agency: WSDOT - OLY Number PIN ID R R CE No ,040,445 I-5/W of Carpenter Rd NB - Stormwater Retrofit Stormwater runoff along this section of I-5 is collected along curbs and directed into catch basins that concentrate runoff without treatment before it leaves the right of way. By removing the curb and catch basins, the stormwater runoff will be dispersed along the vegetated shoulders of the roadway, allowing for infiltration and filtering of the stormwater runoff and providing an efficient, low cost stormwater treatment. State Fund Code State Funds Local Funds PE 2016 NHPP 138, , ,585 CN 2017 NHPP 877, , ,860 s 1,016, ,700 1,040,445 PE 0 100,000 44, CN , s 0 100, , Page 16