 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the approved meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, June 22, 2000, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Room 370 A and B, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, at 7:37 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon, Conference Room 370 A and B. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Chuck Becker, City of Gresham (Alternate)
Elsa Coleman, City of Portland (Alternate)
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager
Mike Jordan, Clackamas County (Alternate)
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland (Alternate)
Pat McDonnell, Port of Vancouver (Alternate)
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Mike Thorne, Port of Portland Executive Directory
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region 1 Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional Administrator
Deb Wallace, C-TRAN (Alternate)Staff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Francine Floyd, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTCInterested Guests/Parties Edward Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Chris Corich, PDX
Evan Dust, Clark County
Fred Eberle, ODOT
Henry Hewitt, Oregon Transportation Commissioner
Stephen Iwata, City of Portland
Beckie Lee, Multnomah County
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Ed Pickering, WSDOT
Christine Wamsley, Port of Vancouver
Dave Williams, ODOTDAVE LOHMAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 2000, MEETING REPORT AS SUBMITTED. DON WAGNER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Rod Monroe reported that at the last meeting, the Bi-State Committee took action in approving a recommendation to JPACT and the RTC relative to HOV lanes North and South on I-5 both in Washington and in Oregon. Rod said he was proud to announce that both the RTC and JPACT have approved concurrent resolutions supporting the recommendation.
Don Wagner gave an update on the I-5 HOV Implementation in Washington. They are on track. The engineering work is being done that is necessary for the merge piece of the HOV lane from Main Street down to the bridge. Later this week, today or tomorrow, there is going to be another meeting on the engineering pieces as to how they can fit that in. The most difficult piece for them from the engineering standpoint is how to bring the lanes together before getting to the bridge. This is problematic to them and they need to find a solution to this before they can move on. They have not found any major flaws in the issue yet; however, they have not found a cheap way to do it. They are finding that the environmental world is going to create some interesting issues for them. They have a potential for moving noise closer to residents in the immediate downtown Vancouver area. There are no noise walls there yet. Complaints have been received from people about the existing traffic noise. They will have to address noise as an issue if any capacity is added. Presently, they are trying to determine whether converting a lane to HOV would potentially create more capacity, which then qualifies them to move back through their process of evaluating a noise wall. In addition, there are also storm water issues. If they add pavement in that area, this could be problematic in the corridor (which does not treat storm water today).
Don also reported that the Washington State Patrol in the State of Washington/Vancouver Detachment is training, this week, their motor cycle detachment (six motorcycle officers). This is about a six-week process. There should be motorcycle officers in the area functioning by the end of the summer ready to enforce the HOV lane laws.
Dean Lookingbill added that their target course on Public Involvement is to be in front of the Washington Transportation Commission in August. Plans for public involvement program includes readdressing and working with the public in terms of policy and idea, helping them to understand benefits of the HOV in the project. The Washington Department of Transportation's budgeting cycle is on a biennial cycle. For this reason, it is important to meet with them in August before they wrap up their initial budgeting process in September or October. Discussions with them will include the project, peak-hour issues, and budget needs.
Rod Monroe commented that people using this HOV lane are currently experiencing HOV northbound on the Oregon side. This may be helpful in transitioning them on the Washington side.
Don Wagner further commented that he believes there is a fairly strong support from users for the HOV in the corridor. On the political side, they might find a few elected officials that are not as supportive as some users.
There were no further comments or questions on this issue.
Dave Lohman explained that the Port of Portland is the gateway for commercial aviation for both passengers and cargo. About every five years, PDX does a long-range, twenty-year master plan to forecast what the demands will be twenty years out and begin to put together a preliminary plan to meet those demands. FFA requires this. A few years ago, this master plan effort was started for the next five-year cycle. Traditionally, this master plan has been a facilities' plan that includes information on what runways and terminal are in place, and whether or not these will be sufficient to meet future demands; however, they have not looked far beyond the fence at the airport. This time they have asked the consultant team to look beyond 20 years, in case there may be something beyond the 20-year horizon, in order to better plan ahead. Due to noise issues and airport access issues, PDX needs to look beyond the PDX fence. When the master plan was finished and some options were laid out---no options selected, PDX asked Ethan Seltzer, Portland State University's Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies to put together a team to examine the issues, especially the issues outside the fence. PDX could then try to maximize the existing capacity without major changes within the fence, as well as deal with noise issues and look at possible alternatives outside of PDX.
Chris Corich from PDX aviation department provided an overview of the regional air demand task force's final report. ("Final Report of the Regional Air Transportation Demand Task Force" distributed for the June 22 meeting). Chris gave an explanation on the task force's two-part report: findings, and recommendations, and a brief presentation on PDX's master plan to implement this document. Chris asked for any questions on these findings.
Don Wagner commented on rail service. The State of Washington's new budget, now in progress, includes consideration for adding four more round trips (Seattle to Portland) in the next six years-to a total of 10 trips with an average speed of 90 mph in the segment.
Rod Monroe said that this will reduce travel times between downtown Portland and downtown Seattle to about 2 ½ hours (down from the current 3 ½ hours). He added that this rail ground transportation is competitive, in terms of travel time and downtown arrival/departure conveniences, with air travel between PDX and SeaTac.
Ed Barnes added that last years' figures of people traveling by train between Portland and Seattle was about 534,000 people. Presently, the trains are so booked with 250 people per trainload, that they have increased the passenger total to 300 per trainload in order for people to be able to make their trip connections. There are motel shuttle services to and from the train station, as an alternative to car rentals. The rail trip costs are comparable to airline prices.
Mike Thorne said that you can't count on the capacity of the rail lines being there unless there is a commercial component that drives the railroads' incentive to build capacity.
Ed Barnes pointed out that recently the Commission in the project process authorized the rail division to start looking at passenger rail service between east and west (to Spokane). There will be a study done on this.
Fred Hansen asked if there were any plans to expand another runway at SeaTac. Chris Corich explained that there is a third parallel runway that's under construction there. They have gone through their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, and have started moving some dirt. They are continuing to work through some environmental issues. Chris added that PDX is fortunate to have the space they do today, however, more planning is needed with the expected growth.
Chris Corich summarized (with the use of overhead projector) the four recommendations made by the Regional Air Transportation Demand Task Force. He said PDX works with FAA on access funding to determine what qualifies for airport improvement funding.
Rod Monroe said Mayor Drake has talked about the possibility of off-peak cargo on the light rail line from Washington County to the airport. Is this something that is being actively investigated?
Fred Hansen said the hours that Tri-Met is shut down is about 2 ½ hours---last train at about 2 a.m. and first train out about 4:30 a.m. This time is often used as maintenance on the line in order to not disrupt passenger service. They may begin a study to look at the ability to be able to move freight which will be dependent on what hours are needed to move freight to the airport.
Rod Monroe commented that one of the advantages we have here is that our airport is at the core of the urban area. Also with the high-tech industry being such an important part of our economy in this area, getting airfreight to and from the airport is critical. In Metro's Regional Transportation Plan, we have included highway projects to improve access to the airport. Finding other creative solutions to getting cargo to and from the airport in a timely way, will increase the economic viability of this region in one of its major industries.
Fred Hansen added that the problem time is not middle-of the-night type deliveries, but rather that the normal peak time is a problem. Alternatives need to be looked out (i.e., maybe utilize a part of a car or a different car structure).
Ed Barnes mentioned that Amtrack has added magazines and newspapers to the passenger trains. They have also approved what they call the "apple trains." These trains will be in Wenatchee and Yakima and when passenger trains pull through, they will hook up the "apple trains" and take them to Chicago or to the Port area and drop them off to go on to Portland, Vancouver or shipped out. This is done during peak hours.
Chris explained recommendations from the Task Force's Final Report. He said that joint use terminal facility is currently being done (i.e., airlines share ticket counter at various gates). So rather than building a new facility, they are being encouraged to share. The issue of demand management---"getting more out of what you have" is being pursued.
Mike Thorne commented on Chris' statement regarding there being two sides of demand management. The assumption is that on demand management, you have a fixed quantity and you can push it where you want it to go. And that your action doesn't cause a reaction.
Chris concluded his presentation saying that he was pleased with the report recommendations and findings. These will be incorporated into the master plan that they are currently working on. The 1993 master plan was strictly a facility plan. The master plan being put together today will have five parts:
- a facility plan---what to do if growth does occur,
- strategies to maintain PDX viability,
- stretch the capacity,
- an environmental plan,
- communications.
If you have further questions regarding the Final Report document, you can contact Chris Corich or Ethan Seltzer. The master plan strategy now is to take the program out for public review until August. At that time, they will present the master plan to the Port Commission, and then hopefully adopted it in September.
Fred Hansen asked Mike Thorne to list the choke points for the next 20 years. List in order, most to least important. Mike Thorne said the first critical choke point is terminal capacity, then runway capacity. Somewhere in between is an access question. It will be of interest to see how rail performs. If it doesn't meet the projections, or exceeds them---then there will be an access problem (i.e., exit backups on Interstate 205).
Ed Barnes commented on the warehouse idea where luggage check-in could be done early (a day or two prior to a flight). Such a facility could help to expedite travel time. On the day of travel, the passenger could then arrive at the airport and board their flight with their luggage already taken care of.
Mike said the Port can't put this type of facility in until they have a security/clearance system.
He added that they are open to workable ideas.
Henry Hewitt focused on the "I-5 Trade Corridor Study Organization" box chart (handout at meeting). They are filling the positions for the Governors' Task Force on the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Trade Corridor. Reporting to the Task Force will be three working groups:
- Regional Land Use Assessment Committee,
- Transportation Options Committee, and
- Railroad Committee.
These are general work areas that are important in the review of the I-5 Trade Corridor Transportation issues. There are significant land use issues that need to be addressed now, along with transportation issues on both sides of the river. The first "kick-off" meeting of the task force and committees is expected to be in September.
Henry asked Dave Williams to talk about what will be the work of the task force, and Ed Barnes to talk about his AASHTO meeting regarding something similar that is occurring in the I-15 Corridor.
Ed Barnes told about his attendance at the 18 Western State Conference. One of the conference presentations was on the corridors. That group has been working on it since 1999. There's a five-state agreement between the governors of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah. The Canadians felt the benefit to Canada would be so great in their area that they have put in a billion dollars for development of the trade corridor into Canada. The States have made a commitment to improve their rail systems in order to get freight trucks loaded and hauled to the corridor, and to get to Canada or Mexico. Ed said that group would be glad to come make a presentation here.
Dave Williams presented the "Charge to the Governors' Task Force on the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Trade Corridor (Draft7)" meeting handout. The membership of the Bi-State Committee jurisdictions or members is being involved almost 100% in this study. Dave talked about structure and public involvement process. In addition, he further explained the "I-5 Corridor Study Organization" box chart. The three committees (Regional Land Use, Transportation Options and Railroad Committees) is where the work is done. The task force receives this work from the three committees and then helps the region strategize on how to act on the findings of the three groups.
The land use assessment committee is intended to do several things concurrently. First, the committee determines what we think we ought to build supports the land use objectives that have been set. This committee will address that question. Second, the committee will determine how to integrate and support the development objectives (i.e., accessing trucks to and from the ports in the industrial area). In the first study, the modeling work showed that if you build something it will "fill out." The first committee concluded that attention to land management is important in protecting our assets. If something is built across the Columbia River it will be an investment for a generation or two. The Land Use Committee will have an analytical and a strategic management function. The analytical function was organized to decide if something should be built---and how to do that. The committee will analyze what are the effects to the region (both sides of the river) if nothing is built. The lack of capacity could force growth to go elsewhere. Secondly, the committee will analyze effects if capacity is added.
The Transportation Option Committee's task is to build on what was done in the first phase to determine outcomes for building versus no building. This will be an analytical exercise by the committee to put some facts before people, followed by political discussion on finding solutions to growth. The first phase was a modeling exercise. A number of hypotheses for adding or not adding capacity across the river and analyzing the effects were presented. The exercise did not look at the host of details of how to do this (i.e., How do you build a bridge or an interchange? How do you integrate light rail on a bridge? What do you do with old bridges?) The Transportation Options Committee will look at the details and engage the public in looking at the options. The first exercise was a business group (and not the public) was asked to tell the region what they thought about the size of the nature of the problem that confronts us in the I-5 Corridor. The Transportation Options Committee will be the public exposure part of the next phase. The Land Use Committee is more government related, although there will be a public portion, too.
The Railroad Committee will have an analytical exercise to find out when the problem occurs (i.e., impending rail capacity problem in the Corridor) and decide when and how to react to the problem. This committee along with the cooperation of the railroads, Ports, ODOT and WSDOT will be involved in modeling the growth of traffic on the railroad. These people will have a financial interest in the outcome. By offering a few scenarios of growth and traffic, then we can see when a capacity problem might occur and who initiates the problem (i.e., a joint problem, 15 years out, that is caused by growth through freight including local freight, local switching activities, or growth through passenger trains). The committee will look at the future cost responsibility question. Through discussion, this committee will address the relative responsibility of the roles for those entities that contributed to the capacity problem.
These three committees are anticipated to begin in September. The Governors' Task Force will "kick off" in July.
Dave Williams discussed the public involvement process. Due to the size and complexity of the undertaking that they are about to "kick off." They have hired consultants, engaged the government groups, and prepared a draft plan to present to the task force after they are formed. He reported back a few of the findings. They met and interviewed people around the country that have similar exercises. (i.e., Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Washington, major I-405 study underway, new bridge across Mississippi River in St. Louis). They talked to them about how the processes were organized, and what they learned during public involvement. They also interviewed people (i.e., neighborhood groups, business associations, social and environmental groups in the Corridor). A number of interviews were conducted and feedback was given. Some feedback ideas were:
- There's no way not to have broad inclusion of everyone that's affected---is one lesson that they heard.
- Public involvement must start at the beginning before the alternatives are set. You need to have legitimate alternatives (i.e. no build, as well as build). Repeatedly, they heard don't come to people with the answer.
- The public involvement efforts need to focus on including grassroots groups, organized neighborhood groups, and socially disadvantaged groups.
- The process has to be transparent---be open, honest, and admit mistakes. In addition, you need to have an open process that people can access. Websites can be easily accessed---anytime, day or night. There needs to be a strong educational component in helping the public understand the complex, long-term issues (i.e., future traffic congestion, inflationary effects) involved.
- Additional concerns that need to be addressed include the high level of distrust among the public, as well as cross-state (Washington and Oregon) issues.
This next phase's duration is estimated at one to two years. Effort has been made not to set artificial time constraints. If you run into a problem---don't run past it, solve it. Sometimes you have to go at the pace the public allows.
Rod Monroe asked if there were questions for Dave. Dave added that they would be back before the Bi-State Transportation Committee (probably in September or early October) with a briefing after the "kick-off" and the I-5 Trade Corridor committees are formed, looked at their tasks, and have work plans.
Rod Monroe addressed the agenda item on the future meeting schedule. He said the I-5 Trade Corridor Study duplicates the responsibility of the Bi-State Committee. Where does this leave the Bi-State Committee? Many of the Bi-State members are going to be active participants in the I-5 Trade Corridor Study. Will the Bi-State Committee need to continue meeting monthly or less frequently to monitor what the I-5 Trade Corridor Study is doing. To monitor it periodically and then to participate more actively in recommending to JPACT and RTC when the I-5 Trade Corridor Study is culminating its work. He said it seemed to be a consensus among staff, Craig Pridemore, and himself to schedule a meeting in late September with the idea that if the Trade Corridor Committee isn't ready to report, then to move the meeting into October. Rod Monroe referred to the meeting packet memo to the Bi-State Transportation Committee (dated 6/13/00) from Dean Lookingbill that proposed the next meeting on September 28, 2000.
Rod Monroe welcomed ideas on the relationship between the Bi-State Committee and the I-5 Trade Corridor. Also, whether or not the September 28 meeting date is agreed on.
Fred Hansen said most the Bi-State Committee members (at the table) are on at least one of the I-5 Trade Corridor Study Committees or close to those committees. He was not sure that even in September or October reporting from the I-5 Trade Corridor Committee to the Bi-State Committee made sense. If there are no other Bi-State agenda items, he wasn't sure that this one item would be enough to warrant a meeting.
Don Wagner added that an issue to consider for the September meeting is the Washington HOV issue.
Andy Cotugno said this committee was not formed to be an I-5 Trade Corridor Committee; the committee was formed to address a variety of Bi-State issues.
Kay Van Sickel added that she supports what Andy said on the committee's purpose and that she understood the purpose of this committee was to take up the common projects, and issues happening on both sides of the river (Washington and Oregon). She suggested looking again at the proposed Bi-State Transportation Committee topic list on memo (dated 6/13/00) from Dean Lookingbill and rethink and add to the list of items, issues and meeting dates. Kay said that the committee should definitely continue to meet on other issues in addition to the Trade Corridor.
Ed Barnes said Congress has decided to delay new funding for any new projects. He said that the Committee needs to stay updated on this and follow up with appropriate action. Rod Monroe added that IMAX funding is another concern that they are watching closely.
Rod Monroe asked for additional comments. Dean added that the Bi-State Transporation Committee is the committee that can try to figure out a joint strategy for the topic issues.
Rod Monroe said regarding the next meeting date that there will be plenty of important, critical agenda items besides monitoring the I-5 Trade Corridor's activities. He added that if we think we need a meeting date earlier for time-sensitive issues, it's easier to set up and cancel a meeting; rather than to try to schedule one at the last minute.
Chris Deffebach reminded the committee that we need to keep in mind when other committee groups regularly meet and what times are available for everyone.
Fred Hansen said he would like to know more about the railroad plan in order to better communicate these ideas when speaking to the public. Mike Thorne agreed that this additional knowledge would be helpful, but that it may take time to get. Fred said he would like to be able to frame the issues, so he could provide a whole, comprehensive package. He felt the knowledge that the Port of Portland has on the railroad plan would probably be sufficient to address the public.
The next meeting agreed upon is scheduled for Thursday, September 7 at the Port of Vancouver at 7:30 am. This meeting replaces the September 28 meeting.
No one in the audience addressed the committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|