 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, January 25, 2001, 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 7:35 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, conference room 370 A and B, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Steve Dotterrer, City of Portland (Alternate)
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN, Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met, General Manager
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Dave Mercier, City of Battle Ground City Manager
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, Chair
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver, Executive Director
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner, Vice Chair
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region 1 Manager
Deb Wallace, WSDOT (Alternate)Staff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Francine Floyd, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTCInterested Guests Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer
Kate Deane, ODOT
Scott Drumm, Port of Portland
Evan Dust, Clark County
Mary Gibson, Port of Portland
Paul Haines, City of Battle Ground
Bob Hart, SW Washington RTC
Mike Hoglund, Metro
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Beckie Lee, Multnomah County
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Bart Phillips, Columbia River Economic Development Council
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met
Ethan Seltzer, Portland State University, Institute for Metropolitan Studies
Kate Sinner, Congressman Brian Baird’s Office
Gail Spolar, C-TRAN
Dave Williams, ODOTRod Monroe introduced and welcomed Kate Sinner (representative from Congressman Brian Baird’s office). Other introductions included Deb Wallace (WSDOT and alternate for Don Wagner); Lynne Griffith (the new C-TRAN Director); and Rex Burkholder a member of the Metro Council, vice-chair of JPACT, and an alternate for Rod Monroe on the Bi-State Committee.
Councilor Monroe reported that there was much effort made in setting up the approved Bi-State Legislative Conference and that staff is continuing to work on several potential dates. Bill submission deadlines both in Washington and Oregon has caused some difficulty in scheduling a conference date. The hope is that this conference will take place and will be an opportunity for attendees to interface with legislators from both states and for legislators to interface with each other. Rod asked if anyone has advice for the conference, to contact him or his staff. The time of day considered for the conference is 9 – 9:30 a.m. (coffee and registration), 9:30 a.m.– noon (program), followed by a luncheon. This schedule will allow time for legislators to return to their districts.
Rod Monroe said the annual Washington D.C. meeting to talk with congressional representatives from both states about Washington and Oregon transportation needs is scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2001. He will be leading the delegation from the Metro area.
The approval of the November 16, 2000 Meeting Report was not addressed.
Chris Deffebach introduced Mary Gibson and Scott Drumm from the Port of Portland, and Ethan Seltzer from Portland State University Institute for Metropolitan Studies. Their presentation includes results for phase 1 and 2 of the Regional Industrial Land Studies, and outlines the research proposed for phase 3. Bart Phillips, Columbia River Economic Development Council President, will give his agency’s insights on Clark County’s industrial land conditions. Chris pointed out that this is a three-part study. In the first phase, focus groups were interviewed to help identify land use needs and environmental interests. In the second phase, the industrial land supply and availability were inventoried, as well as identifying land use development constraints (i.e. slope and soil conditions). The third phase of the study looks at how to make land available for industrial development.
Mary Gibson introduced herself as the senior land use planner at the Port of Portland and project manager for the regional industrial land use study in the first two phases. Her presentation provided background on work done in phase 1, identified the regional study partners and outlined the next steps for phase 3. Mary distributed the “Regional Industrial Land Study for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area” handout.
Mary further explained the three-phase program, identified the participating partners in the study, and presented reasons, objectives and findings for the study. In phase 3, additional members were added to the partnership and management advisory committee.
Next, Scott Drumm, Senior Research Associate at the Port of Portland, presented phase 2 of the study. He reported that in phase 2, they used the focus groups’ findings from phase 1. On the supply side, the study group created an industrial land supply database that contains a variety of characteristics (i.e., availability, size) on each land parcel in order to qualify the land supply. On the demand side, they developed an analysis of the region’s land needs based on economic forecasts, job projections, and job and building density. The starting point for the supply analysis was to identify vacant, designated industrial land within the region’s urban growth boundaries. The study expanded for a broad area, to reflect the region as the market would. The industrial land supply was classified into four tier categories (A – D) with A being ready to develop B, C and D with increasing levels of development constraints. The study results include 1) an industrial inventory of buildable acres in each tier classification, 2) buildable acres by county, 3) number of parcels by size (acres) and location, and 4) supply and demand issues. Since the data used for this study was collected in 1999, the available land supply has changed. The chart shows that Multnomah and Washington counties have the largest supply of industrial land in the region. The study also shows that there is a shortage of medium and large size parcels within the six-county region. Over 80% of the land supply are in parcels smaller than 10 acres. There are only four sites larger than 50 acres.
Fred Hansen asked if the study gave recommendations on how many large parcels each county should have, as well as typical patterns of development? Scott said the study didn’t give this information and added that this was a policy issue. In phase 3, they will look at industrial site location requirements by different industry types. Dave Lohman commented that a set-up for a policy discussion could include the kind of employers we want to attract to the region. Scott added that each year commercial mixed-use development encroaches on industrial land. This happens at the rate of about one in two hundred acres per year. Dave Lohman said that in some counties, land use zoning is not exclusive to industrial, but rather a mixture of industrial and commercial.
Scott said in order to discuss the demand analysis, we first need to define “What is an industrial job?” For the purpose of this study, industrial jobs are defined as those jobs located on industrial lands (excluding retail office and commercial uses), including traditional economic sectors associated with industrial land (i.e., manufacturing, transportation and wholesale trades) and some non-traditional sectors (i.e., software, research, data processing, auto repair). Rex Burkholder questioned the possibility of utilizing multi-story buildings to improve floor area ratio for the non-traditional jobs (except auto repair), versus a typical industrial, one-story building in a spread-out facility. Scott added that in terms of demand forecast, the study group looked at job density and floor area ratios.
Fred Hansen asked that according to Tier A – D classifications, how constrained is the Tier B land supply and how available is Tier B land to be moved into Tier A? Scott answered that this is addressed in phase 3.
Scott explained that phase 3 revisits the demand assumptions and availability of the land supplies. Three key implications grouped from these study results are: 1) the region’s job growth over the next 20 years may not be as great as Metro is projecting. The region’s job projections are based on the assumption that the land supply can accommodate jobs. The study’s results suggest that this may no longer be the case here in the region; 2) the land supply lacks the diversity in size and geographic location to meet market demand; 3) infill and brownfield redevelopment to meet market demand, simply due to scarcity, is minimal. The group decided phase 3 was necessary for additional analysis.
Ethan Seltzer, director of the Institute for Metropolitan Studies, explained phase 3 of the study. Ethan said that Fred Hansen’s last question, what it takes to move land to a higher state of readiness —is what phase 3 is about. The question is how available is Tier B, C, or D land? Also, all potential additions to the industrial land supply involve significant public policy questions and commitments. In phase 3, the group wants to study the following: 1) revisit demand assumptions, and employment density; 2) what it takes to move land to higher degrees of readiness. What are the costs and issues associated with this? The study will sample land parcels around the metropolitan area (including Clark County).
Ethan said RLIS expects the consultant team will begin work in February; a draft in early summer; final report by late summer; and public presentation of the results in September and October. Ethan asked for questions.
David Lohman added that it is not intended that the group get involved in policy discussions. Furthermore, it would be difficult for them to do so in that there is so much disagreement within the group on policies. The group did reach common ground in agreeing that it would be useful to provide everyone with the same set of accurate data to begin with in order to have good policy discussions.
Craig Pridemore pointed out to Bart Phillips that the numbers in today’s report are significantly different from the CREDC Industrial Land Analysis report that he received about a month ago. Bart said that in comparing the two reports, they weren’t that vastly different; however, there are some definitional issues that changed things. Scott Drumm added that Tier A plus Tier B is about the same total amount of acres in both studies.
Chris Deffebach said that Bart Phillips; President of Columbia River Economic Development Council was invited to attend today’s meeting. The Columbia River Economic Development Council is a group that works actively in marketing industrial land in Clark County. Bart provides an additional prospective from what the market is asking for.
Craig Pridemore commented that after the group’s study at the end of the year, the difference between whether we have 16,000 or 880,000 acres of industrial land available is a significant difference. Ethan Seltzer explained that it really depends on how you handled parcels 10 acres or smaller. Bart added that the study done in phase 2, looked at the 10-acres or smaller parcels and included those in the Tier A category. The CREDC didn’t include the smaller parcels. Anything under 10 acres is not considered to be prime property. Ethan Seltzer explained that land available for industrial development or constrained in the Tier B category is about the same amount of total acres; it depends on how you see the land being used. The study done for phase 2 was a market-based analysis. It was based on market activity, and the history of market activity. In phase 3, the group is not going back to revisit the supply question, but rather to figure out how to make land that is less ready for development—more ready.
Craig Pridemore asked, “Is the challenge we face, to make more land available inside the growth boundary?” Ethan added whether you’re comfortable with the idea that 10 acres or less in not prime—this is an issue that you will have to grapple with.
Fred Hansen commented that through the last decade, this nation has analyzed and debated the fact that we are moving substantially faster toward a service economy than manufacturing. Ethan Seltzer said that employment density looks a lot different in industrial land today. The notion of what the employment densities will be, will have a huge impact on projections for industrial land use. This indicates that we still have a relatively high percentage of unemployment in this region in manufacturing. This region, however, has managed to hold onto their manufacturing base unlike other metropolitan areas. The way industrial land is used today is much more diverse than 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago).
David Lohman commented that Andy Cotugno’s presentation last night to MTAC, included updating Metro’s employment forecast and covered many of the questions asked today.
Mayor Royce Pollard said one of the policy issues that this group will have to address is misuse of industrial lands. By building up, rather than building only one- or two-story buildings, 10 acres can become a very valuable piece of industrial land.
Fred Hansen said he wants to understand better how the group is identifying tier properties. Scott Drumm explained that the group’s analysis has not been able to include the potential that exists from landowners rethinking the use of their properties. There may be other things going on in the market that may create new opportunities for land to come onto the market, too.
Andy Cotugno said in doing an assessment of how much land we will need for the UGB and maintaining the 20-year land supply, we have factored in an assumption that a certain portion of new jobs and new housing is done through redevelopment based upon past experiences of the last five or six years. Scott Drumm added that they have had close cooperation with Metro’s Data Resource Center, which sits on the management committee and provides data that the consultants depend on. The data provided is compatible so that it can be folded into Metro’s inventory. Mary Gibson said they have a set of maps available that show how each parcel is categorized.
Dave Mercier asked, do you think there is a need for a phase 4 in the study? Or will you have sufficient data at the end of phase 3? Scott Drumm said that at the next stage, the region needs to talk about policies. This next set of questions probably needs to be done in a public setting. He added that this work is pointing to a series of decisions that must be made for this region to be able to move ahead. This could be a phase 4.
Rod Monroe said that—in regards to Mayor Pollard’s earlier comment to encourage more efficient use of industrial land—often this requires some public investment. For example, if we expect industrial lands (ten acres and less) to be used, there may be some restrictions on the amount of employee parking provided on site. Better transit infrastructure may need to be required for that site. Policies may need to be made to encourage or subsidize a business to provide free transit passes and to discourage employees from using private automobiles in an area that is restricted and has limited amounts of parking. Policies may need to be made for alternate travel modes and to encourage businesses to build up not out. This may involve some public investment or public-private partnerships. We don’t have to continue to do things as we have done them before. Phase 4 may have to happen in order to answer some of these questions.
Ed Barnes asked if the study for Washington and Oregon considered the gravel pits and big holes in the ground as industrial land? These land parcels are being considered in the study.
Rod Monroe thanked the group for their report. He said that the committee might want the study group back for another report after they have completed phase 3.
Dean Lookingbill, RTC, gave an update on the I-5 HOV lane being implemented in Washington and the public outreach plans. The project is ahead of schedule, due to weather, contracting, management and design. He thinks the project will be completed and the HOV lane opened this fall.
Bob Hart presented a sampling of the public outreach materials for the HOV lane opening (still in draft form) to be available soon. These materials include key policy issues of why they are doing the HOV lane.
Information will cover:
- What is an HOV Lane?
- Where will the HOV lane be?
- How will our HOV lane work?
Information on the HOV lane will be sent to 10,000 names of businesses, neighborhood associations, employers and others on a WSDOT database.
Fred Hansen mentioned the issue of reversible lanes, citing an example of a safety award given in New Jersey for a reversible lane (bus only) that wasn’t separated structurally, but rather with pylons. Does this give us opportunities that we haven’t studied? Rod Monroe said the possibility of reversible lanes has been studied. It was determined that it wasn’t technologically feasible. Fred disagreed, saying that the U.S. Department of Transportation and New Jersey has been able to accommodate reversible lanes with pylons. Bob Hart said that the bridge is a more complex issue when using reversible lanes because of the lift and waterway.
Kay Van Sickel said she has also seen some of the same reports as Fred. She said that for now, Washington and Oregon are looking at it from a safety perspective and at having some kind of physical lane separation. Kay added that she agrees that there are other options.
Ed Barnes said that in the Seattle area there are reversible lanes that do work well. He added that he is in favor of HOV lanes. Ed hopes this project succeeds. He said that the Spokane area is considering doing this, too and this project could be a model for them.
Rod Monroe said this committee, RTC and JPACT intervened successfully to recommend converting the lane to HOV.
Kay Van Sickel introduced Kate Deane, ODOT and Deb Wallace, WSDOT to give a status report on the I-5 Partnership.
The Washington and Oregon governors appointed the I-5 task force. The task force has changed their name to I-5 Partnership. (The long name is Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership—formerly the I-5 Trade Corridor Study.) The task force is hosting several open houses and informational lunches during February. Kate distributed a letter of invitation, dated January 15, 2001 addressed to Neighbor from I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership and signed by Henry Hewitt and Ed Barnes. This letter was mailed out to about 10,000 people regionally (businesses, elected and interested citizens) and invited people to participate in a kick-off for the project. The task force members are listed on the side of the invitational letter. The community forum of about 60-70 citizens (citizens, businesses, environmental groups) who are stakeholders for the corridor. The first joint meeting of the task force and community forum is scheduled for Saturday, January 27, 2001.
The fact sheet “Project Overview – Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership” was handed out, too. The “Project Overview” includes the following: 1) purpose of the task force and project, 2) why the project is needed, 3) how the public can get involved, and 4) target schedule for public input opportunities.
Kate briefly outlined the schedule. The study is scheduled for 18 – 24 months and categorized into three phases. The assessment phase will end in May with the task force adopting a problem and vision statement, evaluation criteria and a range of options to be evaluated. The design and evaluation phase will end in December with the task force looking at conceptual level designs at some of the packages and evaluating them in terms of their transportation performance. The strategy development phase where the task force will decide in February 2002 to adopt draft recommendations and finally in August 2002 they will adopt their final recommendations. During this schedule process, the Task Force will provide updates. The Task Force has appointed the community forum to act as an advisory group to them. The community forum will meet in joint sessions six times over the course of this study. Finally, the Task Force will have a series of public gatherings. There are also numerous public outreach activities that will be an ongoing effort—including the website with a speaker’s bureau, newsletters, and person-to-person community outreach. The I-5 partnership website is available at www.I-5partnership.com for the public to use.
Kate Deane asked Deb Wallace if she had information to add. Deb said no, that Kate had presented the information well.
Rod Monroe thanked Kate Deane for the presentation. He added that we will be eagerly involved along the way.
Rod Monroe asked for public comment. No comments were given.
Rod Monroe asked that agenda items be given to him or Craig Pridemore.
The next meeting will be held March 22, 2001 at the Port of Vancouver in Vancouver, Washington at 7:30 a.m. (This meeting was later cancelled).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|