 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, September 27, 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 Rod Monroe at 7:36 a.m. at the Metro Offices, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland OR 97232. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Charlie Hales, City of Portland Commissioner
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Dave Mercier, City of Battle Ground
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County
Ed Galligan, Port of PortlandStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Renée Castilla, MetroInterested Guests Deb Wallace, WSDOT
Dave Williams, ODOT
Michelle Danley, Governor Locke’s SW Washington Representative
Evan Dust, Clark County
Laurel Wentworth, City of Portland
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Paul Haines, City of Battleground
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
John Osborne, ODOT
Thomas Picco, ODOT
Ed Barnes, WTCTHE MEETING REPORT OF MAY 2001 WAS MOTIONED FOR APPROVAL BY CRAIG PRIDEMORE AND SECONDED BY CHRIS LASSEN. THE REPORT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rod Monroe stated that is was time for the Committee to choose a new Chair.
ROYCE POLLARD MOTIONED THAT CRAIG PRIDEMORE BE APPOINTED CHAIR AND ROD MONROE APPOINTED TO VICE CHAIR, SERENA CRUZ SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Craig Pridemore introduced Laurel Wentworth from the City of Portland and Susie Lahsene from the Port of Portland to review the designs to improve access between Columbia Blvd and I-205 and describe the function of the facility in improving access to the industrial area.
Laurel Wentworth and Susie talked about the project and the partnership with the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Port of Portland and the City of Portland. She described that the major intent for choosing this project over others was for freight mobility within the Columbia Corridor. The project serves predominantly in an east-west movement, but also a north-south movement as well. This is one of largest industrial areas in the region with mobility for marine, air, and roadway facilities. The quality surface transportation that is needed on this particular area has not been seen for a long period of time. There are now two major projects that have been completed that were part of the Columbia Corridor study originally done by the City of Portland. One was N. Marine Drive west of I-5 and the other was Airport Way. These provided for major east-west links to I-5 and I-205. The East End connector is actually at existing 82nd Ave and I-205 – Columbia and Killingsworth, which is also referred to as Lombard, further to the west. In the mid 1980s, the City was looking at freight movement at much more of a simplistic model, that were trying to get between two facilities, one state owned and one city owned. Killingsworth/Lombard is an ODOT facility and Columbia Blvd is a City of Portland facility. They looked at different locations where they could connect I-205 with I-5 for the businesses that come up on Columbia Blvd as a converging industrial area around the airport. In the Mid 1980s they looked at the connection between Columbia and Lombard at about 60th. In that situation, they looked at the pros and cons of whether or not 60th is serving the community well from both an environmental point of view and trying to get a lot of the trucks currently on NE Marine Drive off of that and onto a different facility. This would better serve both the trucking communities as well as key places of interest of industrial purposes along Columbia Blvd. That brought us to 1992 study. They actually engaged a very large population from the business community as well as those that were residents. It is a very common idea that there are not a lot of residents living in the Columbia Corridor and that is not true. There are pockets of residential uses throughout. Many of the residents had a great deal to say about the kind of access they currently have, improvements they would like to see, as well as the kind of recreation needs they have in their community. Out of all the analysis that was done to identify Columbia Blvd as the main trade corridor for east and west between Rivergate connecting I-5 to the balance of Columbia Blvd between I-205 and I-5 and areas to the east on I-84. The project eliminates a major bottleneck in the transportation system at the east-end of the Columbia/Killingsworth corridor that actually enters into I-205. It will provide for a great deal of business growth within that East End of PDX and through to Columbia Blvd. Through the conversation with the business community as well as the residents, this particular location between 82nd and 92nd was the best and most fortuitous place to start in terms of making fairly large-scale improvements for freight.
Laurel Wentworth turned the presentation over to Susie Lahsene. Susie stated that the Columbia Corridor study determined the best way to maximize capacity on the two parallel routes north of I-84 for freight was to make good connections between those two routes and the freeways. The biggest obstacle was under the rail system on Columbia Blvd, which forced traffic into long delays, or onto alternative routes such as Airport Way. By improving the bottleneck it reduced delay for both the Columbia Corridor traffic destined for I-205 and eliminated the opportunity for cut through on Airport Way. It also opens up Columbia/Killingsworth and 82nd Ave as a better access and exit for PDX and finally it reduces the delay critical to the just in time air cargo trying to access the freeway. The recommended alternative that was developed by ODOT has been evaluated through a reconnaissance study. The improvement is the connection from Columbia Blvd in the vicinity of 87th Ave and 82nd Ave (old access to PDX). It connects 87th with a free connection down to an at grade intersection at Killingsworth which is the primary access to I-205 freeway to the east. The improvement accommodates the forecasted truck traffic and meets the operational needs of the overall traffic for 2020.
Fred Hansen asked if there were any roadway through that area even though blocked by rail.
Rod Monroe asked if this improvement would be an overpass or underpass.
Susie Lahsene replied that it would be an underpass, under the railroad where the existing bottleneck meets. Importantly it adds a bike and pedestrian improvement to an area that currently does not have any bike or pedestrian facilities. This project provides the opportunity for the rail carriers to be able to add a second track to their facility and eliminate a pinch point in their system. Susie explained on the map where that would be located. She pointed out on the overhead what it currently looks like in terms of traffic operations. She stated that for the most part they have completed the reconnaissance study, and are continuing public outreach. She stated that the City of Portland is managing the project, in cooperation with the Port of Portland and ODOT. There will be an environmental assessment that will began in the fall and carry over in the spring of ‘03 with the anticipation of final engineering and construction in ‘04 and ‘05. She stated that this project is an expensive project and that the Port of Portland has contributed $2 million to the project, which has funded the reconnaissance level work effort. The City of Portland has identified up to $3 million out of their transportation SDC funds and that they are seeking construction funding.
Rod Monroe stated that House Bill 2142 transportation package passed by last session of the Oregon legislature will normally provide $400 million statewide. About $60 or $70 million will be available in this region.
Dave Williams stated that it is $70 million. Fred Hansen asked what is the $70 million for again? Dave Williams stated that it is $70 million out of the possible $400 million for the state and that this region is bigger than just Metro. It is for the entire Tri-County area for modernization. This region will get additional money for preservation and bridges.
Fred Hansen stated that at JPACT they had as a guest Bruce Starr and he outlined what his priorities were on House Bill 2142 funding. Fred Hansen asked for explanation regarding argument for this project when Bruce Starr indicated his priorities were for lane capacity.
Dave Williams answered that ODOT thinks this project fits perfectly. It is a freight project that adds capacity. He stated that ODOT’s definition of capacity is getting rid of bottleneck. For instance there have been projects were people have only straightened curves but since that improves the flow of traffic, it is considered as adding capacity. This is one of the four projects that JPACT has named as their priorities. He stated that part of what the legislature is expecting is to meet some of those long standing commitments.
Rod Monroe stated that he was very familiar with the intersection and that some of the problem is that it has narrow two lanes with steep curves under a railroad track and then it comes out almost right across from the connection to I-205. There is traffic that when it does get a light it has to travel clear across a very wide highway. If traffic wants to head south on I-205, this will put the connection a bit to the east so it will give traffic more time to make that connection. It also expands it from a narrow two lanes to four lanes with bike and pedestrian in addition so it does add to the area and it will also be less steep of a cut. He stated that this project is a high priority for JPACT but is it really a project that is of bi-state concern?
Susie Lahsene responded that the Columbia Corridor really represents the freight infrastructure for this entire region. There is the Airport, which obviously SW Washington/Clark County relies on just as the Portland region does. There is also the reload facilities, all of the freight corridor that carry the business products from business in Clark County to the airport or to the marine facilities for ultimately for distribution outside of the region to national or international markets. When the Columbia Corridors study was done, the idea was that I-84 was going to be completely restricted for freight movement within the next 15 years. It is largely restricted now, so an alternative to I-84 needs to be looked at. Columbia Blvd/Killingsworth represent that alternative just to the north. The trucking communities reside in that area so they can use those facilities pretty efficiently and not have to get caught up in traffic on I-84. To a large extent it’s the whole idea of having the freight system work efficiently for the entire region and not just for the Portland region but for the Clark County/SW Washington.
Rod Monroe stated that this has been a priority project in our regional transportation plan for some time. He asked if Susie Lahsene and Laurel Wentworth were asking for action by the committee.
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD MONROE AND SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD FOR THE BI-STATE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND TO JPACT THE EAST-END CONNECTOR IN THE COLUMBIA CORRIDOR AS A PRIORITY PROJECT FOR THE ODOT BONDING PROGRAM. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Serena Cruz asked for some kind of notice to go out the I-5 Task Force stating the status of these projects, where they are at or how far along they are. She also asked who was making the decisions regarding these projects. Fred Hansen replied that the east-end connector should be in the baseline for the I-5 Study. Lohman stated that it is. Royce Pollard stated that the baseline makes the assumption that the project is in place.
Craig Pridemore stated that an ODOT staff person will review the design for widening southbound I-5 for a third lane between Delta Park and Lombard and discuss the upcoming decision making process.
Dave Williams and Kay Van Sickel from ODOT introduced John Osborne who is the Area Manager for ODOT.
John Osborne explained that the three aerial handouts all tag together for the project. What there is both north and south are three lane sections on freeways. Between Delta Park and Lombard, there is a two-lane section, which causes a bottleneck for traffic coming southbound. He stated that the areas that are highlighted are what are proposed for the Delta Park Lombard Project.
Fred Hansen asked if John Osborne could explain with regards to the aerials, what is blue, red, and green?
John Osborne explained that the red shows the boundary where ODOT thinks they will be working at this point and also indicates lanes going down the freeways. The blue is area within boundaries that will be impacted when worked on. There is a two lane section both north and south on the freeway and the idea is to bring this up to a fully standard three lane section both north and south to be able to eliminate the bottleneck which is currently experienced in that area. This will increase the capacity of I-5. When ODOT went through its current paving project of I-5, they had to go through a design session with regards to shoulder widths and median widths. ODOT had to make a commitment at that time that whenever another project came through, ODOT would actually bring those structures up to standard in that section. The FHWA says facilities must meet minimum set of standards in order to spend federal money. These standards are applied nationwide. The State of Oregon further watches over those standards with the assistance of a Chief of Engineers. The guidelines include minimum lane widths, shoulder widths, and shy distances between barriers.
Rod Monroe asked if ODOT was adding a 3rd lane, presumably HOV, during peak times southbound but bringing northbound up to standard. He asked if the 3rd lane northbound is not currently standard?
John Osborne stated that ODOT is proposing to make a full three-lane section through Delta Park to Lombard and construct a standard acceleration lane from Columbia south to preserve the truck movement. Columbia Blvd has a high amount of truck traffic and that is one of the concerns regarding that area now. It is sub-standard and there are weight problems. This project would address that. To do this project, ODOT needs to widen everything in that area. The Columbia Slough Bridge will be widened on both sides. There will be a new structure over Columbia Blvd and the railroad that will bring it up to standard. One of the significant things that will happen and that ODOT will look at and address with this project is south of Columbia Blvd activities, the widening will likely impact the neighborhoods to some small degree through there. ODOT does not know for sure how much of an impact there will be. ODOT will be getting into sound walls and will probably have to take a residence or two. ODOT is doing their preliminary survey work currently and will try to minimize what the impacts to the neighborhoods are and still try to meet standards. He also stated that the acceleration lane and the widening south of Columbia Blvd would be one of things that will have to be accomplished with this project.
Building this freeway to standard does not necessarily mean that ODOT would put in an HOV lane. They will not preclude an HOV lane from the project. As part of the schedule there will certainly be an HOV lane analysis. The two other big issues are the project schedule and cost. It is an approximately a four-year schedule. It takes a considerable amount of time to do all of the environmental reconnaissance, HAZMAT analysis and get very detailed surveys. They need to look at all of the historical and cultural impacts along the corridor. They need to do all of the geotechnical analysis of the area so they can put proper design in. There are wetlands they have to deal with and fish sensitive areas. There needs to be traffic studies and they need to look at right of ways. After that they get into preliminary design and start to develop some alternative concepts and make sure they receive various input from stakeholders so ODOT can come up with something everybody wants for this region. The other issue is how much it will cost. ODOTs preliminary look is that it will be a $35 million dollar project. The major costs are building a new structure across Columbia Blvd and railroad and also widening various structures along the way as well as working over water.
Fred Hansen asked on the map, where the construction is? Where were the two lanes?
John Osborne replied the two lanes southbound are in the areas surrounded by red, which are – the two lanes between Columbia and Lombard.
Fred Hansen asked what is the concept on the ramp? Is ODOT moving over into the long run coming back up onto I-5 southbound?
Dave Williams answered that it will not be an add-lane like it is now where trucks can freely flow and have their own lane. To get the third lane in they will have to weave the trucks in and to do this they will be extending the ramp so that they have a longer distance to make the merge.
John Osborne stated that the current acceleration lane is substandard and not long enough. What ODOT needs to do is increase the length of that acceleration lane and give more room for the trucks to be able to merge into the traffic.
Fred Hansen replied that he thought some of the arguments was that the merge lane works pretty well and the question was what will take its place and will the trucks be able to gain enough speed to be able to merge in. He stated that he wants to be able to be more knowledgeable in not having this become a conflict.
Kay Van Sickel stated that this ramp (the ramp on the aerial) is a long ramp that comes in and connects just south of Columbia Blvd. That is being designed so that the grade is not so steep and the trucks can accelerate and the length is long enough so it gives them time to build up their speed and merge into the existing traffic on I-5. Whereas, now they have that free lane they do it on the freeway.
Fred Hansen asked if they would have to take the trucks that are coming off Columbia Blvd and route them back around so they can come on I-5?
Kay Van Sickel replied that the trucks are already doing that.
Charlie Hales stated that the current ramp ends a lot sooner and the new ramp will end south of Columbia blvd. He also asked John Osborne if that $35 million was a general estimate. He also stated he thought the 217-interchange project was $27 million.
Kay Van Sickel stated that the 217 interchange project, when construction costs were added and then engineering it worked its way up to over $40 million.
Charlie Hales stated that with all of the over-water work and from a cursory view looks more extensive and more difficult in some areas, why is ODOT hovering at $35 million when the 217 interchange experience states it would be a surprise if the costs stayed that way.
John Osborne replied that ODOT looked at preliminary numbers based on estimates and they keep coming up with the $35/$36 million dollar range. The costs are based on similar work and bids ODOT have received over the last year or so. They use those for comparison and look at the volume of work ODOT has to do and the quantities. ODOT is confident that it can be done for $35 million. Unless something comes out of the environmental study or geotechnical studies that ODOT is not aware of.
Royce Pollard asked if the federal highway standard for a major metropolitan area is three lanes?
John Osborne replied that the standard does not specify the number of lanes. The standards refer to how wide do the lanes, medians, the shoulders, shy distance need to be, as well as, the barrier height and width.
Royce Pollard stated that there are a few people who think the only goal of Clark County and Vancouver is to create more ribbons of concrete. He stated that that’s not their goal. The purpose of the study and the reason why he is at the table is to improve capacity for trade and commerce to move through the area. It is an economic issue for him as well as the City of Vancouver. Realistically one of the only ways this can be accomplished is to get those people in single occupancy vehicles out of the way, and to be able to offer them alternative forms of transportation, whether it’s light rail or HOV lanes. He stated that they have been taking heat in Clark County because they want to do a HOV lane. Quite honestly that makes Delta Park the linchpin for what they are trying to do for Clark County and Vancouver. He stated that he realizes it is a bit of stretch for some people but it is important for the economic future of the region. He stated that the cost is $35 million, it was $2 million a couple of years ago and every year they wait it will only grow. He stated that 2005 is a long time. If there is any way for any concurrent planning that can go on to move this forward, he would hope that this committee would be looking for that. The quicker things can move to resolution, the quicker Clark County/Vancouver can move to other items that should be the focus but are not.
Craig Pridemore stated that the HOV lane would be opening in mid November. When that lane opens, clearly it will not function as well as it should because it will be just on the Clark County/Vancouver side because as soon as they get south of the river they get into the bottleneck. The pressure they will take could be much alleviated if it was clear that this solution was forth coming and the HOV lane will continue into Portland. He stated he wants to echo and agree with the Mayor of Vancouver that in order for them to move on to longer-term transportation objectives, they need to keep pushing and get to more progressive solutions.
Craig Pridemore stated he feels there is some prejudice on the Oregon side of the river that all Clark County/Vancouver wants to do is grow houses to send commuters to Portland. That is not true. They have adopted the growth projection in Clark County at 1.5%; growth in Clark County was 3.7% in the 1990’s. It has been over 3% in the past 4 years on an annual basis. Their intent is to go in the opposite direction, which is to start, pushing the economic development piece. Part of that development, in addition of the comprehensive plan is a mass transit system that they can anchor their growth around.
Rod Monroe stated that he had a couple of financing questions. He stated that he assumes that the $35 million estimate is date of construction.
John Osborne answered that no, the $35 million is based on today’s dollars.
Rod Monroe replied that this project has a construction period ending the earliest in 2006. So there will be about 5 years of inflation on top of that $35 million so you’re actually looking at $40-45 million depending on what rate you use. He asked that, assuming that ODOT goes forward with a project that meets federal standards, what percentage of federal money would be available for this project and how much of a local match would be needed?
Dave Williams replied that the current match ratio for Oregon and federal funds is about 11% because there is so much federal land in Oregon, but he is unsure if that is the real issue. If you go after federal money in the next federal bill with a corridors demo, it really depends on how big you can make the demo. The demo will not get as big as this project so there’s a need to find a way to supplement money to get $30 to $40 million dollars. Because this is a big project, it will be consuming 3 to 4 years of regional modernization allocation. So it will need federal money to supplement it so the cost can get down to the range everyone can agree on regionally.
Rod Monroe stated that in order to get federal money then this project needs unanimous support from not only the Oregon delegation but also the Washington delegation.
Royce Pollard stated that they are prepared to step to the table in a very strong way with their delegation, which happens to be in a good position. He stated that they need to start working on identifying what those pots of money are.
Serena Cruz stated that she has a similar concern. She is having these conversations in a couple of different arenas at a couple of different levels. This is a tremendous conversation and a depth that they did not get to at the I-5 Corridor Task Force. She stated that she is concerned about the number of projects that are being discussed at the I-5 Corridor Task Force and the level of which they are discussing them and the presumption in that group that those things are not proceeding. The discussion and arguments in this committee is on how critical it is for this project to be proceeding and to be moving. She stated that a number of people are on a lot of the different committees and she is not and she is raising a concern about how to clear this up.
Craig Pridemore replied that in different forums there are different things that can be talked easily about and some that can’t. The I-5 partnership with the size of the group it is difficult to talk. This group is easier than the I-5 partnership to address issues.
Kay Van Sickel stated that from ODOT’s perspective, the key is going to be the decisions made around the JPACT table as to what is the priority of this project. That has a lot to do then with when ODOT can start and when Washington State can start and others can start the funding issues and working those out. She stated that she would offer that up as a suggestion. There are a lot of priorities that were set at JPACT table, a lot of projects there. This is looking at another to be fit into that list of priorities. That is what this group needs to talk about. Where is this group going to go with a recommendation to JPACT?
Craig Pridemore stated that he has concerns with the 2005 timeline and the federal legislation, and does that push this group into a timeframe, which would be more difficult to obtain the T3 authorization because this project will not be ready by 2003 but probably by 2005.
Dave Williams stated that he doesn’t think this project will be hurt at all. He stated that they will be able to construct a project with a completed design and environmental document and there will be 5 of the next 6 years of next bill to do it.
Craig Pridemore replied that the issue is if they can get the necessary funding in the next re-authorization.
Dave Williams answered that there are two ways to go. They can try to get an appropriation out of the existing borders and corridors in the last year of the current TEA21. Or you can go try in the new authorization. Depending on how good you are with the appropriators, that might be the way to go. You will have multiple years in which to obligate the money. So with a 2005 construction date, he doesn’t see any constraints in a 2003 appropriation. If you go into the next T and get an authorizing demo then you have the full 6 or 7 years of the bill to obligate the money and construct the project. In fact, the reason ODOT went after the demo for the PE wasn’t because they didn’t have money it was so they springboard off of the fact that the program bankrolled us to do the first step. If we’re coming back, Congress thinks that way. “You gave us this, now we’re back for the full funding.”
Andy Cotugno stated that the fact that these two things are going in parallel is fine but they’re also not disconnected, they are connected issues. This is a four-year process to get through all of the engineering and decision making. This activity can happen in parallel with the other activity. What JPACT did six months ago when the preliminary engineering that’s paying for this work was included in the TIP so that it could get started, they included in that resolution, a recommendation that before this is done and in order to make a decision to proceed to construction it needs to be fit into the context of a comprehensive strategy for the overall corridor. The trade corridor is where that is happening. So they need to get to a conclusion on a comprehensive strategy for the overall corridor and all of these issues about what is in that comprehensive strategy are fair debate and he thinks the process allows for having that process conclude that no we’re not going to do that in this corridor in which case we’ve wasted money. Clearly this group is banking on this not being a waste of money because it will be a logical part of the overall strategy. But that is a fair debate to have in that context. It is also possible that that group could get to a conclusion that no we’re not going to do this project, we’re not going to do hundreds of projects, but when that recommendation comes back from JPACT and back to the RTC, that there’s a disagreement on that part as well. So there are a number of stopping points along the way in this decision making process. Its not fair to say that the I-5 Trade Corridor discussion about this project is moot, its already a forgone conclusion. There is clearly a lot of interest in it but the decision making process still has to happen and the resolution that was adopted saying yes we’re spending the money to do this engineering work because they have to get this project up and running and ready to go so that they can decide if they want to decide to go to construction. They don’t have to start this work in 2004; they can have the work ready to go by 2004.
Craig Pridemore stated that is a timing issue for him and it took on a new sense of urgency because of the HOV situation and the heat that they are getting already and he has no doubt that when it opens the Legislature approved it as a 2-year pilot program and when that comes up for renewal they will need this committee to be strongly supportive of continuing but they are also going to need the public acceptance that its worth continuing with. It would be very unfortunate that they got to the point where the Delta Park situation was getting addressed and they don’t have the political support up north to continue with the HOV lane.
Andy Cotugno asked on that issue - Where does the HOV analysis fit on this schedule? He stated that it seems that that is a task that could be broken apart from the rest of the tasks and you could do it earlier. The HOV analysis is needed and they need some focus on whether or not to approach it as a HOV project and they need the data if Clark County needs to go back to get reauthorization to keep the thing open in two years the committee needs to be able to say it is going to happen on the Oregon side of the river. If the committee doesn’t have the decision then at least they need to have the data to rule out the Pros and Cons.
John Osborne replied that part of what ODOT was thinking when they added that in the synopsis was that the I-5 trade Corridor study would be closer to completion. Then they could go ahead and get started with the HOV analysis. If it is something that everyone wants done sooner, they can move up the HOV analysis.
Ed Barnes stated that he missed the I-5 Partnership meeting Tuesday afternoon because he was meeting with the Senate Transportation Committee in the State of Washington trying to get some movement as to what is going to happen. He stated that yesterday the Commission has approved as a priority project the continuation of the I-5 project out through to I-205 including in that to have room for Light Rail plus they reconfirmed the fact that they will support HOV lanes. In order for him to get the votes out of the legislature if they do something in this next session, both 3 and 4 have to go hand in hand that is on the list because to leave any part of that out, he is quite sure the legislators from SW Washington are not going to support money for continuation of state money on that side of the river. It is very critical that the committees work hand in hand. The Commission has voted unanimously to support the continuation of that project on the Washington side of the river and the HOV lanes involved with it, so they need to have that movement on the Oregon side of the river.
Charlie Hales asked what does HOV analysis involve? Is that an engineering question?
Dave Williams responded that it is a usage analysis. He explained that what will happen is because there is 2 ½ lanes of bridge, there are HOV lanes up to the bridge and the bridge is now the bottleneck on the road. With this project there will be three lanes southbound so the bottleneck will now be the bridge. The question that will have to be asked is if the bridge meters the traffic, is there enough usage out of the HOV lane as opposed to using the full capacity of the roadway. If there is not some degree of utilization of an HOV lane the public will turn against it. What ODOT does not want is other people stuck in congestion with only a handful of cars in the HOV lane after they get pass the metering point. It is just a traffic analysis. The second piece is the enforcement. ODOT needs to make sure they can enforce the HOV lane they currently have as well as the new one. If people cheat on the HOV lane then public support will be lost.
Dean Lookingbill stated that when they did their analysis for the existing HOV, they looked at exhaustively in concept at how to continue the HOV lane south. It isn’t just a matter of the two-lane section becoming three lane sections and how the traffic works. It does trickle up to the bridge but the analysis, in concept, said HOV makes sense and that’s why they moved forward as a bi-state project. He stated that he thinks the piece that should come now is some of the advance work on the traffic analysis. It is a bi-state HOV project. He then asked how does JPACT feel regarding this project?
Andy Cotugno replied that JPACT has not decided what its priorities are going to be for this region and they are still going through the application and review process. The deadline for applications is October 5, 2001 in which to apply. During the month of October will be the evaluation and on November 1, 2001 the JPACT will decide. There were a lot of comments that stated the East End connector seemed to fit the criteria pretty well is because the single largest overriding criteria the commission adopted is project readiness. ODOT is clearly being held accountable by the legislature to start delivering projects quickly. So they want confidence that the projects they pick can be implemented ASAP. The East End connector has a lot of work under its belt, it has gone through the planning process, gone through the environmental process. There are lots of clear indications that there are not many roadblocks to get to the point to be able to go to construction. This one still has a lot of open issues. With the community out there we don’t know whether or not, when and if they are going to get to the point of construction. Does if fit project readiness? He stated that he thought it was a matter of opinion if it fits project readiness. Can ODOT commit to going to construction within the next few years? From a project readiness point of view, JPACT has acted on four projects being their top priority. Sunset, I-5 Kruse Way, East End connector and Murray/217. JPACT has adopted it as their priority and this is why this fits in the bond package.
Dave Williams stated having JPACT have a short list of priorities is something ODOT likes because they try to see projects as commitments. As the money flows down in the last decade, ODOT takes a lot of hits. If the project is on this short list, ODOT will get to it eventually by either highway demo or using mod money. ODOT will ultimately deliver the job. The short list only has four projects. The other reason is that the legislature holds ODOT on their budget. When they do pre-engineering work and environmental work on projects that are not in the STIP, they see that as an administrative expense. So ODOT has to shrink down how much money they spend on that kind of work and put most of the dollars into construction.
Rod Monroe stated that regarding this project, he would hope that this committee recommends to JPACT that this continues to be a very high priority for JPACT and the region. But he questions, given what needs to be done politically with the 2142 money, whether this could come in under that bond program simply because of the question of readiness. It may have to be other funding that meets this need rather than 2142 money. The reason that he is saying this is because he has had conversations with Bruce Starr and others and it is real clear that the legislature is saying to us as a region and state, show me. They have given this region a little bit of money and are saying show us that this money can be used appropriately on projects that are needed. That can be done quickly, on time and on budget. And then maybe the legislature will give consideration to another enhanced transportation funding package in the next session. The next session is 2003. Projects need to be underway by 2003, not finished but identified and underway. The East-End Connector meets the criteria. It can be underway. But Delta Park obviously will not be ready in that timeframe.
Kay Van Sickel stated that regarding the HOV analysis issue it would be good to get a recommendation from this group so that ODOT can then proceed.
Craig Pridemore stated that the recommendation for the HOV analysis is in the original resolution they did when they were looking at the HOV lane up north.
MOTION BY ROD MONROE AND SECONDED BY SERENA CRUZ FOR THE BI-STATE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND TO JPACT THAT THE ANALYSIS OF THE HOV LANES TO SOUTHBOUND I-5 BE RECOMMENDED FOR ACCELERATION BY ODOT. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MOTION BY ROYCE POLLARD AND SECONDED BY ROD MONROE FOR THE BI-STATE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND TO JPACT THAT THEY CONTINUE TO SEE DELTA PARK AS A HIGH PRIORITY CONSIDERATION. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Coast Guard Study of Railroad Bridge
Chris Deffebach stated to the committee that the Coast Guard study is still going on. She stated that when the Coast Guard came and spoke with the committee last year they talked about doing a survey of users and having a public hearing in the summer. There was no public hearing in the summer. She called the Coast Guard and found out that they have not quit doing the study, they are still doing research and analysis on calculating their safety and their travel times. She was told they would have something by the end of the year for the committee. She said as she gets more information, she would relate it but it would probably be next spring.
Dave Williams said that he has been talking to the Coast Guard, trying to get them to make sure they consider the impacts on the auto traffic in their calculations and they are prepared to think about that. They are also prepared to think about new methodology for measuring the costs of the delay in so far as ODOT can get FHWA concurrence on the methodology. What ODOT is proposing to FHWA, they are real interested. ODOT will try to get together with some of FHWA’s DC people so that ODOT can actually do a more accurate delay estimate of what those lifts are doing to the traffic. What is happening is that there is a ban on lifts in the morning and the afternoon rush hour, which means there are more lifts during the middle of day when the trucks are avoiding the rush hours. How can they capture that? It is making the freeway less reliable. The methodology cannot capture loss of reliability; it just measures raw hours of delay.
Andy Cotugno stated that he didn’t think the Coast Guard was using highway-related delay.
Dave Williams replied that ODOT wants the Coast Guard to consider highway related delay a factor when they come to decide whether to pursue. They do not function it into their cost benefit on the bridge itself but to use that to steer on how well they look at the bridge numbers.
Andy Cotugno replied that the cost benefit ratio will not include highway delay but they will measure highway delay. Dave Williams agreed and also stated that there are reasons the Coast Guard might do it and how Congress will look favorably on the project.
Dean Lookingbill stated to Dave Williams that when he is talking to the Coast Guard could he also mention national security.
Washington HOV Lane Opening
Deb Wallace stated that the HOV Lane is scheduled to open in mid November. There will be a ribbon cutting ceremony. She stated that there are information kiosks that have been put up in various libraries and businesses. She passed around CDs that outlined the program. There are a number of presentations being giving to people in the community to tell them the HOV lane will be opening fairly quickly.
Vancouver Event Center
Royce Pollard stated that the City of Vancouver has over $250 million of public/private partnership money to invest in a special event center: about a $64 million project for a convention center, with about 30,000 square feet; a 174 room, 6-story hotel; and a 6,500 seat special events center which will go south of Esther Short Park right up against the railroad. There will be five minor league sports teams: hockey, indoor football, professional tennis, minor league NBA basketball of some kind and indoor soccer. The special event center is estimated to bring about $44 million dollars into the economy, 900 new jobs $1.5 million of additional sales tax for the State of Washington and ½ million for the City of Vancouver. A group of citizens are attempting to gain signatures to be able to vote on this although there are no new taxes proposed to fund this. They attempted to gain signatures to put it on the ballot. The Court agreed with the City of Vancouver that the citizens incorrectly gathered signatures and threw it out. Right now they are waiting on the last hurdle, naming rights. There are a number of very good possibilities for the naming rights for about $7.5 million dollars. The Convention Center has George Kroffman, Burgerville, putting his name on it for $2.5 million dollars. George Kroffman has contributed $2 to $3 million to Esther Short Park. The bonding is still somewhat in question about timing, and the investors in the hotel, which is a private developer, has to fund, is a bit shaky. He stated that he is convinced that there is no greater need now for the City of Vancouver to have local opportunities and choices for our citizens and he is convinced that it is the right thing to do and that The City of Vancouver’s Council is committed as well.
Craig Pridemore stated that there is not a meeting scheduled for October. The next Bi-State meeting is scheduled for November 29, 2001, at the Port of Vancouver.
Craig Pridemore announced that the topics that will be covered at the next meeting would be:
- I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study
- Industrial Lands Study
- Empowerment Zone Application
Craig Pridemore adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|