the Commute Trip Reduction Board Community

enhancing transportation across washington state

Live blog: Dec. 9, 2016 (legislative) meeting

Interact live with the board as it moves through today's meeting. Please join us on Lync to follow along with our presenters (link is embedded in the event and the piece in the forum).

Views: 144

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:21am

After hearing a few of the angles and considerations for the budget request from Karen, we're now getting some great insights from Veronica on the lens through which OFM views the budget requests it receives. 

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:22am

Brian: Are we definitively separating the new program from the existing program? We have to decide on that before we move forward with our legislative direction.

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:27am

Matt: We should consider that we have proven the concept— GTEC did that for us. 

Karen: The sense we got from legislators toward the end of last session was not exactly one of overwhelming support. It seemed interest was waning. We need good examples—pilots, GTECs, the JBLM work, etc.—of how we "wring the most from the roadway" in a cost-effective, efficient way to give them this time around. 

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:27am

Brian: WSDOT's government affairs office is going to help us with our legislative meetings this year, so WSDOT is showing that it's invested in our success this session. 

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:29am

Matt: Maybe instead of tying it to CTR, what about connecting it to the Regional Mobility Grant program? Is that possible?

Brian: That's a secondary question— what we first need to settle on is whether the board supports changing our direction with our approach to the Legislature in 2017.

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:30am

Melissa: I support uncoupling the all-trips program from the legal mandate. Also, what thoughts and ideas do we have on any kind of rebranding effort?

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:33am

Roll call on uncoupling:

Jamie: I support separating the two.

Amy: Me too.

Bob: Agreed.

Karen: Me too.

Veronica: Yes. Also, what about the telework piece?

Brent: I'm on board. 

Matt: Samesies.

Kristina: I'm in, but I want to make sure we hone the message in the next four weeks. Also, let's be clear that these weren't necessarily tied together in the first place. Rep. Jake Fey has mentioned to me that he's in our corner and could potentially serve as a champion for us.

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:36am

Back now to Matt's question about the RMG program.

Comment by Jef Lucero on December 9, 2016 at 10:41am

The group is kicking around the idea of how best to bundle CTR with an existing grant program. We've heard good insights from Molly, Matt, Brent and Jamie. Karen suggested that, no matter what grant program(s) we look at, the board should look at how we can best leverage opportunities for collaboration.

Comment by Molly Beeman on December 9, 2016 at 10:44am

Backing up a bit to the "who needs a grant" piece, as a Community College rep, getting a grant like that could make/break whether the college was able to participate fully.

Comment

You need to be a member of the Commute Trip Reduction Board Community to add comments!

Join the Commute Trip Reduction Board Community

© 2017   Created by Jef Lucero.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service