 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, September 7, 2000, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. 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 7:35 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Charlie Hales, City of Portland Commissioner
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Mary Legry, WSDOT (Alternate)
Dave Mercier, City of Battle Ground City Manager
Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner (Alternate)
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met (Alternate)
Gail Spolar, C-TRAN Interim Executive Director/CEO
Mike Thorne, Port of Portland Executive Director
Dave Williams, ODOT (Alternate)Staff Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Kate Deane, ODOT
Steve Dotterrer, City of Portland
Evan Dust, Clark County
Michael Haggerty, C-TRAN
Paul Haines, Battle Ground
Bob Hart, RTC
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Mark Zolton, City of Portland
News 26 StaffA MOTION WAS MADE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 2000 MEETING REPORT AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Monroe stated the Bi-State Transportation Committee has been meeting for a year now. Royce Pollard said the Committee is stable and respected by both organizations, Metro and RTC. In order to have continuity in the leadership, he would like to have the same Chair and Vice Chair for a two-year term instead of a one-year period.
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED TO RETAIN ROD MONROE AS CHAIR AND CRAIG PRIDEMORE AS VICE CHAIR FOR A SECOND YEAR. CHRIS LASSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Rod Monroe said he is pleased to be a part of this Committee and feels that their work has been beneficial. Last month he was invited to meet with the Washington Transportation Commission on behalf of the Bi-State Committee. The meeting was productive promoting our HOV proposals and also talking in general about our bi-state process. He will also be representing the Bi-State committee at a conference in Eugene at the end of the month addressing the bi-state cooperation. We are one region and need to be treated as such. He thanked committee members for the opportunity to represent them.
Chris Deffebach stated that when RTC and JPACT established this Committee, they also established an intergovernmental agreement that said how the committee would work. Based on the experience of meeting over the last year, staff identified a few minor modifications to the Intergovernmental Agreement to better reflect the Committee's operating procedures. These modifications include
- Clarify that Bi-State Committee members may identify agenda items in addition to JPACT and RTC identifying agenda items.
- Clarify that the agencies named in the Intergovernmental Agreement to serve on the Committee shall select their member and alternate.
- Clarify that the Bi-State Committee is responsible for scheduling bi-state issues for JPACT and RTC action as needed, instead of reporting to JPACT and RTC semi-annually.
If the Committee approves of these modifications in the Intergovernmental Agreement, the changes can be brought to RTC and JPACT for action at the same time as the presentation of the annual report.
CRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CHANGES AS OUTLINED ABOVE. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MARY LEGRY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Monroe said this is for discussion on the process that we have been through for the first year and comment on where we are going. Dean Lookingbill said the bylaws call for an annual report back to JPACT and RTC. In order to develop the report, Committee Members are being asked to discuss what they see as the most important information/tasks/decisions of the last year and which should be in the report. Mr. Lookingbill referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet, which gave a chronological listing of last year's meetings and their topics. Mr. Lookingbill highlighted some of the topics from the meetings. September 20, 1999, discussions included elements that bind the communities together, interdependent economy, interrelated land use and a single air quality shed. The Committee agreed to build a base for their discussions by examining the bi-state interrelationship between the land use plans and the transportation system improvements. The November 1, 1999 meeting was devoted to the presentation and discussion of the land use planning process in the Portland region and the 2040 Growth Concept. On November 15, 1999, most of the meeting was devoted to the land use planning process in Clark County. Congressman Brian Baird attended the meeting and pledged his support of the bi-state process and also said he would be working closely with his Oregon peers, Congressmen Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. January 27, 2000 meeting agenda topics included making the land use and transportation connection, the leadership committee structure for the I-5 Trade Corridor Study and initial look at the findings of the I-5 HOV Study. At the February 24, 2000 meeting, Phase II of the I-5 Trade Corridor Study was presented along with the I-5 HOV Study findings. At the March 23, 2000 meeting, C-TRAN and Tri-Met each presented background on their transit system services and how the bi-state element of the system was coordinated. The I-5 HOV recommendations were presented to the Committee and they formulated their recommendations for the new southbound HOV lane proposal. April 27, 2000, ODOT staff presented the operation and use of the existing northbound HOV lane and moved forward with action on the adoption of a resolution for the I-5 HOV recommendations. At the June 22, 2000, meeting most of the discussion was devoted to the findings of the Regional Air Transportation Demand Task Force who was charged with validating the air travel demand forecast for the PDX Master Plan and what alternatives should be looked at as a part of the master plan.
Dave Lohman noted that there was discussion at the April meeting on West Hayden Island Industrial Development.
Mike Thorne said in today's world it may be more important than ever, that transportation systems define communities. If you believe that, then we are at another critical crossroads where we are determining what we ultimately want this greater community to be. There is no one single event to be dealt with and fixed. In looking at the Delta announcement, underneath there must be a recognition of fundamental changes that have taken place in our efforts to deregulate transportation systems, make more service available, bilateral agreements between, in this case the US and Japan, put a lot of extra capacity on the table and as Mr. Armstrong said, made it possible for carriers to fly from heavily populated inland hubs to the destinations. If you recognize that these transportation services define communities, and you believe that, then this is a big issue. It also helps to determine the approach that we want to take to reach a solution.
The dredging issue is really waiting for a couple things. The Ports have never done or said anything other than we want the best possible project we can get. Unfortunately, two federal agencies are wrestling with how to define that. The answer really can be found in how well the administration, or how we compress the question of how we make people commit to schedules and say what they are going to do and do it. The Columbia River dredging is not a dead issue. It is a matter of stepping back and figuring out a process of how to move forward. Not unlike the Delta situation, the clock is ticking. Already, this year, Evergreen came in with their big ships, and for a couple of reasons decided to take those back out of our service. This is going to be a critical time period. By the end of this year, the carriers will have to reassess whether they can commit to this region to the extent that they would like to. The fundamental question is if we believe that systems define the future of communities clearly, then we are at a major crossroad.
Charlie Hales said that what this committee has accomplished so far and in the progress of HOV discussion, indicates the value this committee has added and can add system thinking. With the many agencies looking at their own "box", there is not enough system thinking going on. This is something that this committee can do and has done on the HOV issue and brought others to understand how the system works. The issue of the freight rail bridge has possibilities and is important for this committee to examine over the next year from a transportation system standpoint.
Arch Miller said in going back to the dredging issue, he said when you have two government agencies that are critically involved in a project such as this and they do not have agreement, it is best that they resolve those issues before they go before a judge. And that is really what has happened here. Mr. Miller said it is a problem for Evergreen to bring their big ships in here. He said we should not lose sight of the fact that we have a problem today with a lot of our ships. A lot of them cannot leave with a full load today because of the depth of the river. It is not just the Port of Vancouver or the Port of Portland, but also the Port of Kalama and Port of Longview. We are losing business today because of the depth of the channel. It is not just bringing in Evergreen's super ships; it's keeping our business going today that is so very important.
Royce Pollard said there is real value in what this committee is doing and has created. HOV is an example. Credibility was added when members of this group made a bi-state HOV presentation to the Washington Transportation Commission in Olympia. Rod Monroe as Bi-State Chair went with Mayor Pollard as RTC Chair for the presentation further acknowledging the value of partnership. Mayor Pollard thanked Mr. Monroe for taking the time to do this. He also said the issues that we are discussing are critical to both sides of the river. We need to be sensitive to this and look at where this committee provides information and recommendations to our major organizations, but also how we can help influence what may be going to happen to the INS, Delta, and in particular, the dredging. Regarding the railroad bridge, we should be looking at other opportunities with the bridge whether it is putting possible road traffic on it or truck traffic or light rail. When we build a new structure across the river, we should look at multi-faceted uses for multi-modal uses. Mayor Pollard said he feels this committee has done well and there are many more opportunities for us to be involved.
Craig Pridemore said the committee has had great achievements, but he has a concern that we will put everything on hold pending the I-5 Trade Corridor Study. The fact is that there are a lot of issues out there that this committee can take a hand in and help add clout to this region's priorities. He is glad to hear that others see this the same.
Ed Barnes said regarding the dredging issue, it is extremely important for the Bi-State Committee to reaffirm their commitment to the resolution that was signed by everyone on the project. This will show that this region is together in pushing forward on the project.
Mike Thorne said this is an excellent comment, and from the Port's perspective, they meet regularly on this issue. Perceptions need to be dealt with and agencies reassess the studies. The ports believe that we need to reach out and broaden the base of understanding, the person on the street that is not directly involved, but has an opinion. He said they are committed to taking another step in ramping up that effort to try and get across the message. It is just more than the people who have committed to date, it is the community that needs to be reassured. The commitment to do the dredging is a catalyst to restore thousands of acres of habitat from Bonneville to the mouth of the river. This is a plus that is hard to walk away from. Without the project, there is no basis to do this. In the project itself is over 1,500 acres of wetland restoration planned today. To those who are concerned about the impact to endangered species, the project is bringing a substantial commitment in those areas, plus an opportunity to do an extensive restoration from Bonneville to the mouth of the river. There is a win win on both fronts.
Dave Williams added to what Charlie Hales said. He said meetings have taken place from the resource agencies having to do with the I-5 Trade Corridor. There is a desire at the federal level and by the resource agencies not to look at a project in terms of simply mitigating the construction of the project but actually looking at what the effects on endangered species will be if you build a road and develop more land, what that cumulative effect does to the species. What this means is that the planning process that both MPOs will have to undertake will have to start factoring that in the future. The desire is if you can effectively move that concern into the planning process then when you do actually move a project, you can speed up the NEPA process because you have answered those questions in the planning process. That is really important. For the I-5 project, the resource agencies want to be involved in the land use committee. It seems that this Committee takes a role that the two MPOs are paying proper attention, but also to bring some of the resource agency people in here. It is a matter of perception on their part. If they see a region that is working hard, then you are likely to get a trickle down through all the staff levels, that this is a place that is doing it right. Mr. Williams said this might be a place for this Committee to serve that role for I-5. He would like to recommend this to staff. It could help us down the road.
Rod Monroe said he had a meeting with Mark Brown, lobbyist for the City of Vancouver, along with Metro's lobbyist. It was a very beneficial meeting and will help to bring the Washington delegation onboard in terms of their lobbying efforts to get funding for I-MAX. They want to make it clear to the Washington delegation that this is a project of Pacific Northwest concern, a project with bi-state concern. It will be helpful to have the Washington delegation in DC help them to achieve funding for the I-MAX project. I-MAX is a step toward an interlinking of transit across the Columbia River.
Dean Lookingbill said when the Bi-State Committee passed the HOV policy and plan as a recommendation on to RTC and JPACT, there were still a few design and operational issues outstanding and the public relations program needed to be started. Both of have been completed since then. WSDOT is working on the final design. The public relations program is not quite up and running, but the group has met and have a draft scope of work and most importantly, there are funds to carry out the first phase. Staff will meet and finalize the scope of work and begin in October. The intent is to be able to take to the people the idea and work with them on such things as enforcement. Mr. Lookingbill referred to a few newspaper articles that were distributed to committee members on the presentation to the Washington Transportation Commission. The presentation left a definite impression on the Washington Commission as to this bi-state project and region. Mr. Lookingbill thanked Rod Monroe for assisting in the presentation. He said the Committee would be kept up to date on the project.
Chris Deffebach added that they had an opportunity to work with the people who work on HOV in the Puget Sound area as to how to talk to the people about HOV. Their strong recommendation was that this should not be presented as a piece on the WSDOT system, but a piece of a regional approach to addressing and/or encouraging more people to use carpools, vanpools, and transit. The whole next phase of the public outreach program has really got to focus on the regional nature. This is a good challenge for this Committee to review the regional viewpoint. Mr. Lookingbill said the policy initiative behind this project from a regional point of view is one that communicates a message that says we don't think we can build, or have enough resources to build big enough facilities for all single occupant vehicles to have levels of service of B and C. The HOV decision is to build facilities that more efficiently move more people and is a facility that can reliably have faster travel times in the future.
Mike Thorne asked if there was a master plan of some sort that envisions HOV. Chris Deffebach said there is not a master plan for HOV on the Oregon side. It is being evaluated as an option in individual corridor studies. The Regional Transportation Plan supports on a regional basis seeking and encouraging alternative modes. Mary Legry said Clark County does have a master plan that was completed through RTC. The next opportunity is to extend it further north on I-5 to where I-205 connects. The I-5 North Study is looking at park and ride relocation opportunities in that north corridor that would allow direct bus access to an HOV from the park and ride, which is not currently done.
Dave Williams said that the logic on I-5 is that this is a very constrained corridor, if we are going to spend a lot of money and energy to see if we can add capacity across the river, it's going to be a one time only opportunity. We want to make sure that when we are out there we have a full range of options available to squeeze as much person capacity through the corridor as we can. The first phase showed that no matter what was put out there in terms of highways and transit, it filled up within 20 years. This led the committee to say you need to worry about demand management as well as the capacity. The logic is if you have HOV lanes, it is queue bypasses leading up to the bridge. If you go into the study and don't confront the problem of having to take away an all-purpose free lane, you just put something new in. This allows in the I-5 Trade Corridor Study the optimal flexibility to think about reconfiguring the freeway if that is where the process comes out.
Rod Monroe said Metro is also talking about HOV in other parts of the Portland area. The South Corridor Steering Committee is looking at transit options toward Milwaukie and Oregon City. One option in the Milwaukie to Portland corridor is on McLoughlin as a possible HOV busway along with discussion on the Sunset.
Ed Barnes said the Washington Transportation Commission has been looking at ways to solve congestion, and prove to the public that we are doing something for congestion relief. The Commission's endorsement of HOV development in Clark County is an effort to provide some relief.
Dean Lookingbill added that as Craig Pridemore said, we cannot just wait until we get this ultimate I-5 decision in order to do something. There is a long-range system plan behind this HOV decision. This project allows us to move forward as best we can and not simply wait for the long-term decision to move forward.
Mike Thorne said it is logical to take from this discussion that HOV type lanes will conceivably be a part of the expanded strategy in the Trade Corridor. He asked if this was a permanent strategy or a fix until it happens.
Dave Williams said one of the rules is that you cannot take away all-purpose lanes that exist to put in an HOV lane. What has been done, by adding capacity with the HOV lanes in both directions, it allows us to consider what to do without taking away a free lane. It leaves an option for an HOV lane or bus lane or HOT lane.
Charlie Hales said it is interesting to note that ODOT's traffic counts for the HOV lanes show that the HOV lane carries more people than either of the other two lanes. This proves that the person carrying capacity of the system is improved without adding lanes. Congestion is too many cars; this moves more people. The public needs to understand this. Dave Williams said this is true and noted that the person count includes people on buses as well.
Dean Lookingbill said this agenda item was in anticipation of the previous day's meeting of the Governor's Task Force. There was good discussion at the meeting, but the group did not have enough time to move on the organization structure that staff had anticipated to report on.
Dave Williams said regarding the railroad bridge, a Rail Task Force has been formed and a consultant has been hired. A bill that may move through congress would allow AMTRAK to sell bonds to make capacity improvements on high speed rail lines. He said they want to get to conclusions on the rail capacity analysis as fast as they can so they do not miss the boat when it comes to where the Coast Guard or AMTRAK will be when this bill passes.
Regarding the I-5 Governor's Task Force first meeting, Mr. Williams said because of the magnitude of the study, they want to make sure they have their finger on the pulse of where the public is. As a part of the start-up process, they had Davis and Hibbitts do a poll to see what people thought about the I-5 corridor and how bad of a problem it was and which options made sense. There was a good recognition of the problems on I-5 also a good response on the economic importance of trade and goods movement. There was also support of transit solutions in the corridor. A public involvement plan is being developed. As a background to that, they interviewed many stakeholders in the corridor, neighborhood people, environmental groups, and business people, to find out how we should interact with the public. They also talked with several people around the country that have undertaken similar exercises such as this one. They then presented these conclusions to the Task Force. There were a couple very important points. One was that the public needs to be involved at the very beginning of the process. Second, you need to go out and find the public, not just people who routinely attend meetings. The third point was that there has to be a Washington face on the study. There cannot be a perception that Oregon is driving this exercise. They have 50/50 on the committees and utilize consultants from both sides of the river to make it apparent that it is for both sides of the river. They hired a consultant to critique what they have put together. The consultant reinforced the points that had been put together and said to have this process be a public driven process rather than to have it be government driven. Staff felt the need for strong political, business, and civic leadership for this process or it would not happen. At the same time, we need to have the public engaged in this. We need to organize to get the best of both. That is where the Task Force meeting ended. At their next meeting they will look at how they are going to achieve this. There was a lot of information to grasp. There is an entire range of options and an enormous thought process will be required as to how this region will proceed with each option.
Craig Pridemore said the Task Force meeting held many interesting discussions. He noted that in Clark County when the word transportation comes up in a meeting of community leaders, everyone starts talking about how you cannot say light rail. He said it is time this community got over that, particularly political leaders and move on.
Royce Pollard said he thought the meeting had good discussion. He said if we are going to look at a whole range of options, light rail needs to be included and discussed. He said the group has a wide variety of business and community leaders.
Mary Legry said the business representatives from the Washington side had a very positive response.
Mike Thorne said he had planned to attend the meeting but at the last minute had a conflict arise and could not attend. He said he had read the material and had a few thoughts. He said there are some obvious strengths that this community has that does not surface in this discussion. He said if you look at the strengths and weaknesses, on the strength side, we have the ability to build the vision, but it is also a weakness because we haven't. This region has a freight rail system that most communities would die for, yet not many people recognize that. The Port of Seattle just recently is looking to hire a rail expert. They have just woke up to the fact that in this region on the west coast of the US we have as good of rail system as you could ask for. They are trying to build it in a corridor in Los Angeles because they recognize the failings of what they have and it is impeding their ability to move cargo off the docks with local impacts. This is a strength of ours. That is part of why the I-5 corridor is a trade corridor that encompasses that. It is what basically created the fact that our region is one of the largest trading center in the United States. We have a track record for getting things done. He believes to get the funding in place, we need to create something to inspire people. This is hard to do, but we need to look at our strengths and not give them up.
Serena Cruz said the Task Force has potential to be conduit to provide direction. At the same time, the challenge is how to capture and create this vision in conjunction with the community. If it is a vision that we establish and take out, then we continue to run into the challenge of people not feeling like they have a stake or an understanding. We need to bring folks in to understand why these things make sense. It is an opportunity to not advocate our responsibility as leaders, but to cooperate and collaborate in creating this vision that then has a huge grasp for stakeholders. It is not about satisfying neighborhoods; it's about coming together to think these through.
Dean Lookingbill said that there are two ballot measures in Washington State that relate to transportation. Initiative 722 is a follow up to Initiative 695 which went into effect December 2, 1999 and prohibited "the state " from enacting "tax increases " without voter approval. In several cases local governments enacted "tax increases" that went into effect before the legal date of I-695, Initiative 722 would roll back any increases after July 2, 1999, declare them "null and void" and be refunded to the taxpayers. Initiative 745 states that 90% of the transportation funds be spent for roads, leaving 10% for transit. Mr. Lookingbill referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet that had explanatory statements for both initiatives.
Chris Deffebach referred to the summaries for the Oregon Ballot measures. Oregon has many ballot measures for the November General Election, some of those listed may not appear to be transportation related but affect transportation indirectly. Given the large amount of information relating to the Oregon ballot measures, members were welcomed to read through the information provided on the different Measures.
No one in the audience wished to address the Committee.
The next meeting will be held October 26, 2000 at Metro at 7:30 a.m.
Charlie Hales noted a possible item to discuss at the October meeting would be the question of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) issue with the Cascadia Rail Service saying they are getting pressure from the other rail car manufacturers to declare the Talgo vehicles unsafe. At this point we do not know what the situation holds. Chris Deffebach said JPACT authorized a letter to be sent to the FRA in support of the Talgo and Don Wagner provided a summary of the issues. Mary Legry said WSDOT rail staff could come to talk about this issue. This may be included in the October agenda depending on the status of the issue at the time. Ed Barnes wanted to thank the state of Oregon Emergency Board for coming up with the $10 million for the second train between Eugene and Portland. He said they may consider another $10 million for yet another train between Eugene and Portland and encouraged this.
Mike Thorne asked if ballot Measure 8's direct impact to transportation funding if there was an out for ODOT in the case of the 15% cap in all fund growth. This seems to take away any opportunity for large projects.
It was noted that Measures 2 and 7 would severely restrict any land use activities.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|