DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of Interstate Safety Investment Priorities in Washington State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Assessment of Interstate Safety Investment Priorities in Washington State An Assessment of Interstate Safety Investment Priorities in Washington State Morgan State University The Pennsylvania State University University of Maryland University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University West Virginia University The Pennsylvania State University The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Transportation Research Building University Park, PA 16802-4710 Phone: 814-865-1891 Fax: 814-863-3707 www.mautc.psu.edu Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Assessment of Interstate Safety Investment Priorities in Washington State December 1, 2014 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Venky Shankar, Minho Park, Junseok Oh, Sudhakar Sathyanarayanan, and LTI 2015-11 Vikas Sharma MAUTC Report No. PSU-2011-02/ PSU-2012-03 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute The Pennsylvania State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 201 Transportation Research Building DTRT-07-6-0003 University Park, PA 16802 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Final Report 11/7/2011 – 12/31/2012 Bureau of Planning and Research Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 6th Floor 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Harrisburg, PA 17120-0064 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) commissioned the current study, targeting the entire interstate mainline network in Washington State, to provide strategic direction to multi-biennial investment interstate locations that offer the greatest return in terms of cumulative and annualized safety benefits. The objectives of this study were to prioritize interstate locations strategically in terms of risk of high social cost, while targeting locations that repeat in nature. As such, the methodological questions that arise relate to the following: what measurements are required to comprehensively address the “strategic risk evaluation” aspect, and what measurements are required to adequately address the “repeat location identification” aspect. Using a step-wise procedure to systematically assess mainline interstate accident risk, a multi-objective approach was employed in order to factor in multiple criteria for ranking of segments, while accounting for multiple accident types as inputs in the ranking process. The planned scope of this study produced a target priority list of 202 locations with a total length of 154.5 miles. This list should be evaluated in detail for scoping improvements, associated costs and benefits prior to evaluating locations in the “tracking list.” The next step in ensuring implementation and successful deployment of this procedure will be to carefully evaluate cost improvement strategies and estimate associated benefits. Once costs and benefits are computed, one can systematically proceed to evaluate various measures of cost efficiency and effectiveness using lifecycle and annualized benefits and costs. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Interstate mainline network, accident risk, investment, safety benefits, No restrictions. This document is available strategic risk evaluation, repeat location identification from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 18 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. AN ASSESSMENT OF INTERSTATE SAFETY INVESTMENT PRIORITIES IN WASHINGTON STATE REPORT PREPARED BY Dr. Venky Shankar, PE Principal Investigator and Associate Professor The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 226C Sackett Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Tel: (814) 865-9434 E-mail: [email protected] Minho Park Doctoral Candidate in Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The Pennsylvania State University Junseok Oh Doctoral Candidate in Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The Pennsylvania State University Sudhakar Sathyanarayanan Transportation Engineer DKS Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA 98104 And Vikas Sharma Transportation Engineer Olsson Associates, Inc. Phoenix, AZ 85020 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................4 STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................7 Safety priority evaluation process step one: screening and segmenting the network .................8 Safety priority evaluation process step two: defining accident-based prioritization criteria ......9 Safety priority evaluation process step three: computing segment-specific inputs ...................10 Safety priority evaluation process step four: prioritizing and estimating accident reduction targets ...................................................................................................................11 Safety priority evaluation process step five: determining improvement strategies ..................13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................14 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Accident Distribution Across the Seven Interstates in Washington State in 2002-2006 ...................................................................................................................7 Figure 2 Process Flowchart .....................................................................................................15 iii Introduction The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) embarked on a statewide traffic safety initiative in the early 1990s to enable the systematic assessment and treatment of accident risk on state highways. The initial effort was targeted at roadway segments on a sample of the entire state highway system for which risk models were developed and tested (Milton and Mannering 1998). The models were statistical in nature and provided a framework for estimates of overall accident risk. The structure of the models was similar to that employed in early accident modeling work by Shankar et al. (1995) in the analysis of safety risk on Interstate 90 near Snoqualmie Pass. In the 1995 study, Shankar laid out the foundation for modeling both frequency- and severity-oriented risks. The 1998 models from the Milton study applied the frequency framework to segment accident risk. These models were supplemented with a roadside accident risk framework that enabled the estimation of run-off-the-road accidents. Around 1997, about five years since the inception of the statewide safety assessment initiative, a targeted effort involving the refinement of statistical models for roadway segments was conducted (Shankar et al. 1997). Complementing this advanced effort was an attempt undertaken by the WSDOT Design Policy and Standards branch to quantify the risk of median crossovers on state highways (Shankar et al. 1998; Albin et al. 2001; Glad et al. 2002; Chayanan et al. 2004). At the turn of the century, efforts continued in the area of severity modeling, which WSDOT viewed as an important step in the development of a systematic process. Initial testing of severity-oriented models was based on early work by Shankar et al. (1996) that analyzed severity risk under inclement conditions on Interstate 90 near Snoqualmie Pass. Other studies conducted by WSDOT safety researchers targeted non- motorized modes such as pedestrian travel. In a study published in 2003, Shankar et al. provided a statistical framework for the analysis of mid-block pedestrian accident risk, and complemented this effort by examining the risk of pedestrian severity in a subsequent study published in 2006. Milton et al. 1 (2008) concurrently applied a state-of-the-art statistical framework to assess the risk of frequency and severity simultaneously. In a paper published in 2008, Milton et al. laid out the foundation for the analysis of segment and intersection accident severity proportions. This study was meant to provide a methodological completeness to the study of high accident locations and corridors (HAL, HAC) and pedestrian accident locations (PAL), long established in WSDOT practice as the three basic modalities of network safety analysis. The above-described studies provided utility in the forecasting of accident risk – they employed historical data related to accident
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Report
    Report to the Washington State Legislature Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory December 2017 Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Errata The Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory published to WSDOT’s website on December 1, 2017 contained the following errata. The items below have been corrected in versions downloaded or printed after January 10, 2018. Section 4, page 62: Corrects the parties to the tolling agreement between the States—the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Oregon Transportation Commission. Miscellaneous sections and pages: Minor grammatical corrections. Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory | December 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary. .1 Section 1: Introduction. .29 Legislative Background to this Report Purpose and Structure of this Report Significant Characteristics of the Project Area Prior Work Summary Section 2: Long-Range Planning . .35 Introduction Bi-State Transportation Committee Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force The Transition from Long-Range Planning to Project Development Section 3: Context and Constraints . 41 Introduction Guiding Principles: Vision and Values Statement & Statement of Purpose and Need Built and Natural Environment Navigation and Aviation Protected Species and Resources Traffic Conditions and Travel Demand Safety of Bridge and Highway Facilities Freight Mobility Mobility for Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Section 4: Funding and Finance. 55 Introduction Funding and Finance Plan Evolution During
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project, F T a Report Number 0075
    Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project SEPTEMBER 2013 FTA Report No. 0075 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Lara Whitely Binder, Ingrid Tohver The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington Amy Shatzkin Sound Transit Amy K. Snover The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington COVER PHOTO Photo courtesy of Sound Transit, © 2008 DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project SEPTEMBER 2013 FTA Report No. 0075 PREPARED BY Lara Whitely Binder, Ingrid Tohver The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington Amy Shatzkin Sound Transit Amy K. Snover The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Budget and Policy U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE http://www.fta.dot.gov/research Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Area Fire Weather Annual Operating Plan
    Williams Flats Fire: August 7, 2019 Photo: Inciweb 2021 Northwest Area Fire Weather Annual Operating Plan 1 This page intentionally left blank 2 3 This page intentionally left blank 4 Table of Contents Agency Signatures/Effective Dates of the AOP ......................................................................................3 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................6 NWS Services and Responsibilities.........................................................................................................8 Wildland Fire Agency Services and Responsibilities ........................................................................... 14 Joint Responsibilities ...........................................................................................................................15 NWCC Predictive Services ...................................................................................................................17 Boise .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Medford...............................................................................................................................................30 Pendleton ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Portland...............................................................................................................................................53
    [Show full text]
  • I-90: Twin Falls (North Bend Vicinity) to I-82 Jct (Ellensburg) Corridor
    Corridor Sketch Summary Printed at: 3:54 PM 3/29/2018 WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Initiative is a collaborative planning process with agency partners to identify performance gaps and select high-level strategies to address them on the 304 corridors statewide. This Corridor Sketch Summary acts as an executive summary for one corridor. Please review the User Guide for Corridor Sketch Summaries prior to using information on this corridor: I-90: Twin Falls (North Bend Vicinity) to I-82 Jct (Ellensburg) This 74-mile long northwest-southeast corridor is located in King and Kittitas counties and runs between Twin Falls, just east of North Bend, and the Interstate 82 junction in the city of Ellensburg. The corridor includes a five-mile segment of US Route 97 on the eastern end of the corridor that runs concurrently with I-90. In the upper elevations of western Kittitas County, I-90 passes near Keechelus, Kachess, and Cle Elum lakes, three large reservoirs that provide irrigation water to the Kittitas and Yakima valleys. I-90 follows the Yakima River valley between the Keechelus Lake in the Snoqualmie Pass area and the city of Ellensburg. The corridor is primarily rural with some urban areas in the cities of Cle Elum and Ellensburg. The corridor travels over Snoqualmie Pass through the Cascade Mountains. On the western end of the corridor, the route is on a steep grade through heavily wooded national forest lands before reaching Snoqualmie Pass and Kittitas County. On the eastern section of the corridor, the route descends into grasslands and irrigated fields in the lower Kittitas Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Leave the House Alone
    SUNRISE MONDAY EDmO JANUARY 7. 2008 Qkegonian t. ______~~c=~~~c=~ --------_:~~~~~~~ PORTLAND, OREGON 3REAKING NEWS AT OAEGONLlYLCOM WINNER Of THE 2007 fUUTZE~ PRIZE FOR BREAKING NEWS •• EDITORIALS TH.EOREGONIAN. MONOAY,JANUARY7,2008 THE OPINION OF THE OREGONIAN EDITORIAL BOARD Leave the house alone n the gritty southem edge of the transit cleared, as Tri-Met acquired various properties even after a 2004 environmental impact statement mall, where Interstate 405 dumps com­ and tore them down to make way for the tracks. concluded that the transit work would have mini~ muters into downtown, stands a lonely The Figo House is so isolated by construction work mal impact on his property. At the same time, the O vestige of old Portland, the Figo House now, it's hard even to reach Acker's office. State Historic Preservation Office agreed that the (named after the owner's dog.) It is channing to think that, when the work is house shouldn't be disturbed by the transit project It's a well·kept example of the Victorian archi­ done, the Figo House would again be accessible without some undefined measures, such as reloca­ tecture that has almost vanished from the central and situated by a busy light-rail station and the tion, to mitigate the changes. But TriMel says sub­ city. Unlike the last few remaining old houses state's largest university. But, of course, the transit sequent revisions to the light-rail route have put downtown, ~uch as the lovely but vacant halianale agency doesn't sec il that way. II wants 10 strip the the Figo House in tht' way.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • I-405, SR 522 Vicinity to SR 527 Express Toll Lanes Improvement Project (MP 21.79 to 27.06)
    JULY 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I-405, SR 522 Vicinity to SR 527 Express Toll Lanes Improvement Project (MP 21.79 to 27.06) Mill Creek N 5 405 Canyon Park 527 Bothell Kenmore 522 522 Woodinville Kirkland 405 Lake Washington 520 520 Bellevue Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. Notificación de Titulo VI al Público Es la política del Departamento de Transporte del Estado de Washington el asegurarse que ninguna persona, por razones de raza, color, nación de origen o sexo, como es provisto en el Título VI del Acto de Derechos Civiles de 1964, ser excluido de la participación en, ser negado los beneficios de, o ser discriminado de otra manera bajo cualquiera de sus programas y actividades financiado con fondos federales.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6-1 3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy
    3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy Center would most likely affect traffic flow on McNary Beach Access Road, U.S. Highway 730, and U.S. Highway 395/State Route 32. Up to 600 workers would travel to the facility site during construction, 100 to the natural gas supply/wastewater discharge pipeline routes, and 120 to the transmission line route. During operation, 30 workers would work at the facility. 3.6.1 Affected Environment Major highways accessing the project study area include U.S. Highway 730 (i.e., U.S. Highway 730; the Columbia River Highway), U.S. Highway 395/State Route (SR) 32 (i.e., SR 32; the Umatilla-Stanfield Highway), Interstate 82 (I-82), and State Route 207 (i.e., the Hermiston Highway). U.S. Highway 730 is a 2-lane west-east highway that generally runs along the south side of the Columbia River. U.S. Highway 395/SR 32 is a 2-lane northwest-southeast highway that runs from U.S. Highway 730 in the north; through Umatilla, Hermiston, and Stanfield; and then to I-84/U.S. 30 in the south. I-82 is a 4-lane highway running north-south from the Tri-Cities in Washington until it intersects with I-84/U.S. 30. SR 207 is a 2-lane highway that runs southwest- northeast, starting at I-82 in the west, through Hermiston, and then intersecting with U.S. Highway 730 in the east. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the average daily traffic (ADT) and accident counts by milepost and location for these major roadways for 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Oswego Portland
    Lake Oswego to Portland TRANSIT PROJECT Public scoping report August 2008 Metro People places. Open spaces. Clean air and clean water do not stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does the need for jobs, a thriving economy and good transportation choices for people and businesses in our region. Voters have asked Metro to help with the challenges that cross those lines and affect the 25 cities and three coun- ties in the Portland metropolitan area. A regional approach simply makes sense when it comes to protecting open space, caring for parks, planning for the best use of land, managing garbage disposal and increasing recycling. Metro oversees world-class facilities such as the Oregon Zoo, which contributes to conservation and educa- tion, and the Oregon Convention Center, which benefits the region’s economy Metro representatives Metro Council President – David Bragdon Metro Councilors – Rod Park, District 1; Carlotta Collette, District 2; Carl Hosticka, District 3; Kathryn Harrington, District 4; Rex Burkholder, District 5; Robert Liberty, District 6. Auditor – Suzanne Flynn www.oregonmetro.gov Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Public scoping report Table of contents SECTION 1: SCOPING REPORT INTRODUCTION …………………………………......... 1 Introduction Summary of outreach activities Summary of agency scoping comments Public comment period findings Conclusion SECTION 2: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ………………………………………………… 7 Summary Handouts SECTION 3: AGENCY SCOPING COMMENTS ………………………………………..... 31 Environmental Protection Agency SECTION 4: PUBLIC
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 405 (Sepulveda Pass) Expresslanes Intermediate (Level II) Traffic & Revenue Study
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority I-405 Level 2 Traffic & Revenue Study Interstate 405 (Sepulveda Pass) ExpressLanes Intermediate (Level II) Traffic & Revenue Study FINAL REPORT April 15, 2019 Interstate 405 (Sepulveda Pass) ExpressLanes Intermediate (Level II) Traffic & Revenue Study Contract No. AE275020011497 WSP Project No. 28078B Prepared for: Prepared by: In Partnership with: ECONorthwest System Metrics Group, Inc. AFSHA Consulting, Inc. Redhill Group, Inc. Document Control Version Date Initials Originator 11/3/2017 KT/SP/MW Checker 11/5/2017 DW Back Checker 11/16/2017 BB Verified By 11/17/2017 DW Revision Log Revision Date Description Submitted by 0 11/17/2017 Draft T&R Report submitted to Metro DW 1 01/19/2018 Revised T&R Report in response to comments KT/SP/MW/BB 2 01/23/2018 Draft Final T&R Report with Executive Summary DH/MW 3 01/24/2018 Draft Final T&R Report with Executive Summary to Document DW Editor 4 01/26/2018 Draft Final T&R Report with Executive Summary to Metro DW 5 03/16/2018 Final T&R Report DW 6 04/15/2019 Updated Executive Summary (Metro) AT/LT I-405 Level 2 Traffic & Revenue Study Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ ES-Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Overview ........................................................................ES-Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Methodology of T&R Study ...........................................ES-Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3 Stated Preference Survey ...............................................ES-Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.1 Community Opinions ................................................................................... ES-3 1.3.2 Level of Service.............................................................................................. ES-5 1.3.3 Person Throughput ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Authority
    REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 99 BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS Meeting: Date: Agenda Item: Staff Contact: Phone: Executive Committee 10/17/97 No. 5 Agnes Govern, 206-684-1673 Regional Bus/HOV Board of Directors 10/23/97 TBD Access Director ACTION: Board approval of Resolution No. 99, authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington State Department of Transportation establishing a cooperative relationship for the construction, ownership, and operation of high capacity transportation facilities. BACKGROUND: Constructing and operating the improvements contained in Sound Move require cooperation and coordination with other service providers in the region. WSDOT is a major service provider that owns and operates highways and ferries in the region and operates intercity passenger rail through the region. This agreement establishes an ongoing relationship that allows RTA and WSDOT to cooperate on project development and undertake appropriate joint construction. It also states intent to contract with WSDOT for technical services in connection with projects and programs. RELEVANT BOARD POLICIES AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN: • Adoption of System Plan (May 31, 1996) • Adoption of Implementation Guide (May 22, 1997) • Adoption of First Moves (May 22, 1997) • Adoption of M/W/DBE Policies (May 22, 1997) KEY FEATURES: • Authorizes the Executive Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with WSDOT pertaining to the relationship of WSDOT and RTA in general. • Establishes an umbrella understanding within which individual project-level agreements can be negotiated consistently and expeditiously. • Authorizes the Executive Director or his/her designee to make changes to the Memorandum of Understanding with significant changes only at the direction of the Board.
    [Show full text]