Facts About Resolution 2013-07-19

Resolution 2013-07-19 is a draft, proposed resolution that is the basis for anti-BRT advisory vote #2.  This page gives our review of certain misleading, exaggerated, out-of-date or otherwise concerning components of that resolution.  We also provide links to the mentioned plans and reports so you can check our facts for yourself.  We trust, then, that once you've done your review, you will join us in
VOTING NO ON COUNTY ADVISORY VOTE #2.

The full text can be found here:  
 http://www.clark.wa.gov/bocc/current_issues/documents/BRTRes.pdf.

The part in italics is from the County's draft resolution.  After each statement we provide our factual findings.

"Because the 20-year Transit Development Plan adopted by C-Tran was based on the Columbia River Crossing High Capacity Transit project with Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit that was closed down as directed by Governors Kitzhaber and Inslee;"


C-TRAN's 20-Year Transit Development Plan (otherwise known as C-TRAN 2030) is found here:  http://c-tran.com/20_Year_Plan_Update2.html.

First, the county commissioners' statement implies that C-TRAN's 2030 Plan was done because of Light Rail, BRT, and the Columbia River Crossing project.  Our short answer is: no it wasn't.  C-TRAN's own summary of the Plan from their website states:

"The plan, C-TRAN 2030, will preserve existing service levels with improvements in the following areas:

• Two new bus routes in east Vancouver;
• Increased frequencies on many of C-TRAN's existing bus routes;
• Meet the growing demand of C-TRAN's paratransit service for people with disabilities (C-VAN);
• Construct two new park and rides with increased commuter service to downtown Vancouver and Portland;
• Construct C-TRAN's first bus rapid transit line with service along Fourth Plain Boulevard; and
• Fund the operations and maintenance cost of light rail in downtown Vancouver as part of the Columbia River Crossing Project."

 So, the parts we highlighted are BRT, LRT and CRC.  Note that BRT and light rail are separate bullets.  That means they are separate projects.  Also note that there are many other bullets.  That shows that the C-TRAN 2030 Plan was not "based on the CRC" but instead, factored in that the CRC project was being planned and that any competent planning process should account for such a major project potentially happening.  But the 2030 Plan also plans for a lot of other things happening.  Read the plan for yourself.  Also note that nowhere is BRT mentioned as being part of the Columbia River Crossing statement.  

And hold that thought for the next fact:

The Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit Project is not part of the CRC project and is not being shut down by the Governors of Oregon and Washington.  Look around.  Google CRC and "shutdown".  Look at the Columbian article:
http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jun/29/legislators-no-chance-crc-funding-session/

Do you see anywhere that says "Governors Inslee and Kitzhaber announced the termination of the Fourth Plain BRT Project"?  Of course you don't:  it didn't happen.  Neither governor has jurisdiction over the BRT project.  It's a local project.  Not part of the CRC.

All right, enough of that one.  Let's look at the next "Because":

"Because that plan to connect Bus Rapid Transit to Portland Light Rail at a High Capacity Terminus in Clark County is now obsolete".

Well, OK, we'll give them that one.  If the CRC project, and with the the LRT extension into Clark County (OK, downtown Vancouver) is indeed dead, then I guess you could call that obsolete.

But hold the phone.  The BRT's Locally Preferred Alternative never talks about being totally dependent on "Portland Light Rail".  Here's a link to C-TRAN's website and the adopted BRT Locally Preferred Alternative: 
http://www.c-tran.com/brt_files/alternatives/locally_preferred_alternative.php.

Note what it says: "Alignment – The alignment being proposed would follow the Columbia River Crossing LRT route in downtown Vancouver then travel north on Fort Vancouver Way..."  It says it would follow the route, not depend on LRT's existence.  In fact, BRT could easily operate in mixed traffic on Washington and Broadway Streets in downtown Vancouver (the "LRT route") without LRT even being there.  And if you look at other information on C-TRAN's BRT website, you'll note that the plans were for BRT to be in place years before LRT would even be built.  And those plans would continue C-TRAN's existing connection to Portland Light Rail at the Delta Park/Vanport MAX station.

"Because the 20-year C-Tran plan includes spending up to $407 million on Bus Rapid Transit projects that will require additional tax increases;"

Huh?  Where did that $407 million come from?  C-TRAN's 2030 Plan assumed $75 million for Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit (which C-TRAN has now reduced by over a third to $49 million). Go to Page 75 of the document, and in the table in the Preferred Alternative column (the adopted plan, not other alternatives which were discarded), for Fourth Plain Bus Rapid Transit, you'll see $75 million.  Which is now $49 million.

We believe the commissioners are getting this number from the now five-year-old High Capacity Transit System Study (http://www.rtc.wa.gov/hct/) which was the ultimate cost if you built every since BRT corridor at the cadillac of transit projects.  But, in the words of George W. Bush, or Dana Carvey, or both "Ain't gonna do it".  If the Fourth Plain project is now at $49 million, and the other two corridors, Mill Plain and Highway 99, end up with similar costs, you'll be somewhere just south of $150 million for the regional Bus Rapid Transit system, not $407 million.  And, if C-TRAN does to the other two corridors what it is doing with Fourth Plain, it would build those other two BRT corridors with existing tax dollars, rather than trying to raise taxes to pay for them.  We'd support the commissioners if they held C-TRAN to that standard.

Next up:

"Because the 20-year C-Tran Plan states that High Capacity Transit shall not be funded by diverting existing C-Tran revenues from current operating and capital costs;"

Hmmmm.  What we see in the 2030 Plan is a funding plan to increase sales tax by 0.1% to pay for HCT funding (see the pie slice charts: http://www.c-tran.com/20_Year_Plan_Update2.html).  OK, fair enough, Proposition 1 which would have funded that 0.1% failed.  Now C-TRAN has created a "Plan B Funding Plan" for BRT that uses existing, uncommitted reserves to pay for the local match.  And the project saves money which can be reinvested to increase service in other parts of C-TRAN's system.  No tax increase needed.  What's wrong with that?  How many other times have you heard of any agency building a project without raising taxes and without a public vote? Well, lots of times.  And C-TRAN is doing just that with BRT.  And the Washington Attorney General agrees that they can do that without a vote: http://www.columbian.com/documents/2013/jul/02/ag-opinion-c-tran-light-rail-vote/.

So then where's this statement about not diverting existing C-TRAN revenues from current operating and capital costs?  You have us stumped.  We can't find that anyway in C-TRAN's 2030 Plan.

Where do we find this?  Eureka!  It's in the C-TRAN resolution adopting the Locally Preferred Alternative for ... (drumroll please) ... the CRC project!  Check out page 51 of this link: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/GeneralProjectDocs/LPA_Resolutions.pdf.

This is about Light Rail.  No mention of BRT in this resolution.  And guess what?  BRT would not sap existing resources, and does not take away from any other project.  It would use existing C-TRAN uncommitted reserves (i.e. not committed to any project) and instead of diverting resources, it actually creates a savings which can be diverted to other corridors.

OK, Mr. Madore.  Let's keep going.  "Because the 20-year C-Tran Plan states that 'any means chosen to finance operations of the HCT component of the CRC project shall be submitted to the impacted C-TRAN voters for approval'";

Yes, that's what the CRC LPA Resolution says.  And yes, the C-TRAN Plan does assume the CRC project happening.  But BRT does not equal LRT.  BRT is not part of the CRC project.  Therefore, math wizards, this "Because" does not apply here.

Well, we won't go into the other "Becauses-s-s-s-s", well, "Because".  Because we think you'll agree with us on just the above that Advisory Vote #2 is a bad idea and you should:

Just vote NO.  Why?  "Because".