 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, November 29, 2001, 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 Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner, at 7:30 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
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 Manager
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Executive DirectorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Michelle Danley, Governor Locke’s SW Washington Representative
Kate Deane, ODOT
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Paul Haines, City of Battle Ground
Don Hamilton, Portland Tribune
Mark Harrington, RTC
Sam Imperati, Consultant, I-5 Partnership Study
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Mindi Linquist, U.S. Senator Patty Murray’s Office
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland
Art Pearce, City of Portland
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met
Gail Spolar, C-TRAN
Deb Wallace, WSDOTChair Pridemore asked members to introduce themselves. He stated that the Committee has regrettably received a resignation letter from Dave Mercier, City of Battle Ground Manager. He has accepted a job in Maine and will be leaving. A new representative will be appointed. Chair Pridemore thanked Mr. Mercier for his participation on the Bi-State Committee.
CHRIS LASSEN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2001, MEETING REPORT AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Pridemore noted that the meeting would proceed with agenda item 3 and come back to agenda item 2.
Chair Pridemore welcomed new Committee member Bill Wyatt, Executive Director of the Port of Portland. Bill Wyatt said he is working in close partnership on the Channel Deepening project with the Port of Vancouver and Larry Paulson. He said the project is important to our collective futures and also to the future of the region. It is directly related to the I-5 corridor discussions. Larry Paulson said in terms of the process, the Biological Opinion that was put out last year was withdrawn in August. Since then, National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife, Corp. of Engineers, and the Ports have worked together cooperatively and have taken an intense scientific look at the estuary, in particular to what can be done to evaluate the environmental impact of the channel deepening itself. They have met consistently weekly over the past year. They have had a facilitator to bring in a number of scientists, Ph.D.s, from across the country to sit down with them and go over the science to help filter out what is real, what applies, and what does not. As a result, he said he believes they have a cooperative effort that has resulted in a Biological Assessment that is being put out by the Corp. of Engineers and the Ports within the next week or so followed by a Biological Opinions by March of 2002. This report will help to move this process along. He said that when the Biological Assessment Opinions come out, he expects them to show little effect of the channel deepening itself. There will be ecosystem restoration projects that are included and that they believe will help to put the river in better shape than it is now. There is real potential for a win-win situation, not only for the economic side but also the environment as well. He said this is a very strong cooperative project for the Ports of Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, Longview, St. Helens, and Woodland. Mr. Paulson said it is sometimes perceived that this project only favors Portland. That is not true. The Washington Ports ship tonnage wise, slightly below the Port of Portland on an annual basis. Secondly, the vessels that port at Vancouver, wheat vessels in particular, are 70% of the cargo. About 25% can use the extra depth, and over the next few years that will increase to at least one-third and probably 50%. This impacts our region, the wheat growers in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and as far away as Minnesota that use our facilities.
Mr. Wyatt said the Columbia River navigation channel is 114 miles long, 40 feet deep, and 600 feet wide. He said $14 billion worth of goods from over 40 states (28 out of 36 Oregon, 23 Washington counties) moved goods through the channel in 2000. This river system is the first in the US in wheat exports with 37% of all US wheat exported through the Columbia River system. This system is also second in the world in grain exports with 25% of US grain exports. Since 1960 the number of vessel calls has actually declined somewhat, but the tonnage has gone up. The ships are getting bigger and the drafts are getting deeper. Some larger vessels cannot load fully out of Portland because the channel constraints are too great. He stated that 75% of transpacific container fleet are constrained by the current channel. Over 50% of grain vessels in the world fleet are similarly constrained. Approximately 455 deeper draft vessels called on Portland in 2000 with 328 in 1998. Fred Hansen asked how the grain would be exported if not through the Columbia River channel. Mr. Wyatt said there is really only two ways to effectively ship grain out of the United States, the Mississippi River system and the Columbia River system. Both have enormous channel related constraints. The Mississippi periodically suffers major flooding events or ice events, which preclude the shipment of anything. For Oregon and Washington grain growers, each of whom ship a majority of their product overseas, having to send it from here to the Mississippi River system is a major competitive disadvantage. The Ports of Seattle, Oakland, and Long Beach, the eastern seaboards are getting out of the bulk business. Because containers are so profitable, they’re reserving their valuable marine resources for containers. That is a challenge and an opportunity for our regional economy. The opportunity is to get more into food and bulk minerals. Larry Paulson noted that they could go to rail. The difficulty with that is it raises the price. They compete on a worldwide basis. For a penny or less, the region could loose millions of tons of cargo to Australia, Argentina, China, and other countries. The risk of taking away the opportunity to bring barges down the river and to facilitate it from Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview would be a significant loss to our area as well as to the wheat farmers upstate. Mr. Wyatt said a very important issue is the New Biological Assessment that is scheduled for completion in December 2001. That will be the foundation on which the Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife will issue their Biological Opinion. This will come out with one of three opinions 1) no jeopardy to the listed species, (which means we can proceed to seek appropriations from congress), 2) this project will jeopardize these species, but if you do these things you will be okay. The order of magnitude of what ever needs to be done will have everything to do with whether or not we can proceed. If the cost of doing it is too great, the project will not succeed, because it will not be able to approve the economic benefit that is required. The next three-month period is critical. Serena Cruz said no jeopardy does not equal no detriment, and asked how much detriment the no jeopardy standard allows. Mr. Wyatt said in reference to the Coho case in Oregon, the no jeopardy opinion had virtually no allowance for margin of error. This is a relatively new thing. Based on the scientific work that has been done, a no jeopardy opinion means we cannot measure any negative impact. They don’t believe there will be any. From a legal perspective, a no jeopardy opinion is very important because it involves a lot of science foundation. Larry Paulson said he does not know if they will come back with a jeopardy or a no jeopardy. He said there would be a continuing of the monitoring of the systems. A key is the restoration issues, which are separate from this and ecosystem monitoring. Craig Pridemore said there are clear indications that the Washington legislature is certainly engaged and hopes for funding from the Washington side. Rod Monroe said the Bi-State Committee has had strong support for the Channel Deepening project. Mr. Wyatt said it is important for people to know it is not just the Ports, this is about the region.
Kate Deane, ODOT, said that there were some of the Bi-State Committee members who are also on the I-5 Partnership Committee, but today’s presentation is to update everyone on the status of the study. A handout on the study was distributed. The I-5 Partnership study is a Bi-State planning project with ODOT and WSDOT along with local and regional governments in the corridor. The corridor is along I-5 from I-84 in Oregon across the Columbia River north to the interchange of I-5 and I-205. The purpose is to develop a strategic plan for managing and improving that corridor. The plan is multimodal, multi-faceted, not only looking at freeway but also transit service in the corridor, managing demand, and freight and passenger rail. The project began in January 2001 with a 28-member bi-state task force. Members of the committee include elected, business, neighborhood and community representatives. The Task force spent six months working with the public and one another to determine what improvements should be studied. The options that were evaluated included Baseline (2020), Express Bus – Short/3 Lanes, Light Rail Loop/3 Lanes, Express Bus – Long/Add a 4th Lane, Light Rail Loop/Add a 4th Lane, New West Arterial Road, and Commuter Rail. Ms. Deane highlighted the options. She said the West Arterial option had much bi-state discussion. The option is an arterial road near the Port of Vancouver between Mill Plain in Washington and US-30 in Oregon. This would go through the railroad cut through the St. Johns area connecting up at Portland Road and providing access at Hayden Island, Marine Drive, Columbia Boulevard, Lombard, US-30 and Mill Plain. This option performs really well for Oregon, helping many neighborhood problems, by taking a lot of traffic out of the neighborhoods. On the other hand, in Vancouver the traffic overloads streets at Mill Plain and Fourth Plain. They looked at options to help the Vancouver side, but have not found alternatives at this point. Ms. Deane said the analysis for the Commuter Rail option would be ready this spring.
Included in the handout was some of the data that was collected. The information was presented in a “Consumer Reports” style format for the options. The data show what happens to auto travel times, transit travel times, congestion, along with environmental impacts, and estimated costs.
Fred Hansen said the data showed that the lane improvements in the I-5 corridor tended to pull traffic from I-205. This shows that people want the I-5 corridor as a place to move. The investments that are made on I-5 don’t really get as much benefit as is thought because the space is filled up by the pull over from I-205. He said he was surprised by the numbers and thought it was strikingly important.
Serena Cruz said the only proposal that doesn’t shift traffic from I-205 to I-5 and actually decreases I-5 is the West Arterial option. Andy Cotugno noted that there is a decrease in I-5 traffic, but that there is a pull of traffic from I-205. Kate Deane said this option does have some good things for one community, but no options have been found at this point to make it a winner in the Vancouver area.
Kate Deane distributed a handout of the Task Force Emerging Consensus as a result of the November 27, 2001, Task Force meeting. 1) There is strong support of keeping the corridor to 3 through lanes corridor-wide, 2) Support for widening I-5 to 3 lanes between Delta Park and Lombard Interchanges, 3) Address Columbia Blvd. Ramps, 4) Light rail is the preferred mode of transit in the corridor, along with express bus as a phasing tool prior to LRT, 5) Support for a new river crossing: supplemental bridge, Joint use: vehicles and transit, 6) Transportation demand management and transportation system management actions, 7) Land use policy actions, and 8) Separate study of the Portland freeway loop needs including the Rose Quarter area.
Rod Monroe asked if in the land use discussion, there was discussion of the development east of I-5 Delta Park area at Portland Meadows. Kate Deane said yes there was. Mr. Monroe said if that area is developed for industrial job space, it has a tremendous difference in terms of impact compared to if it is allowed to become commercial. Ms. Deane said the Task Force has not had a lot of discussion about this. They are just beginning to discuss these issues, but that is one of a couple interchanges that are samples for interchange management. This is an important policy issue to be discussed. Mr. Monroe said the Metro Council is concerned about what happens there in terms of their support for the rest of the project.
Kate Deane said a couple outstanding issues to be addressed in the next couple months include what is done about HOV, and express bus long. She said in talking with the public at Community Forums, they wanted light rail and they wanted express bus. They want both. She said we need to learn more about that. They may provide express bus service in the peak period as a premium service or a supplemental service to light rail. The Task Force will be discussing this a lot more. The area of most uncertainty and controversy is what happens at the bridgehead. What is found are a great number of trips that are made on this segment of the I-5 corridor really come within the segment of SR-500 in Washington and Columbia Boulevard in Oregon. They believe that there needs to be additional capacity and interchange modifications.
Fred Hansen said he was surprised to find the amount of traffic that is in that narrow area of Columbia Boulevard to the Bridge and the Marine Drive interchange and not passing through. He said going back to the express bus; we may want to think about modeling some mixed markets on express bus in the Swan Island, Columbia corridor. This may give a different picture of how that may work. Bill Wyatt agreed saying also to look at the airport area and the job generators. He said he is not shocked about that connection. People are not all driving from here to Intel. This is a close proximity. It is a very important piece of data. Kate Deane said on the Vancouver side there are some significant issues with the interchanges. It is quite likely that more analysis will need to be done in that whole area.
Serena Cruz asked if the interchange impacts occur in Washington and Oregon for both a new bridge and a supplemental bridge. Kate Deane said the impacts in Oregon are pretty minimal. The real impact is on the Vancouver interchange because it impacts neighborhoods for both options.
Andy Cotugno presented land use issues. He said the land use effect of increased capacity in the I-5 corridor has been a significant issue. He recalled the effect I-205 had and the growth effect it had in Clark County. Analysis was done to evaluate what degree of effect would happen and what might be done to mitigate some of those effects. He said it is clear that if you increase accessibility, it does provide the magnet for increased growth pressures in that direction for several reasons. The magnitude of that impact is not as great as the I-205 experience. I-205 provided 6 lanes across the river to increase to 14 lanes across. That is more than double the capacity. Now we would be going from 14 lanes to 16 or 18 lanes. Nonetheless, it does induce more growth in that corridor in a couple different ways. The forecasting shows more job growth in Clark County than has historically been assumed. As a result, that means more of the community staying in Clark County and the job growth could have the effect of inducing even more housing growth in Clark County. He said how you manage and the amount of growth that occurs is really important to how well the road will function over time. This is a critical issue for the Oregon representatives on the Task Force. This means how to manage the land use effects as well as how to manage the travel demand (TDM).
Mr. Cotugno said there is particular concerns in the interchange areas as well as in the light rail station areas. In the interchange areas there is increased accessibility in the overall corridor, but the best accessibility is around those interchanges. Commercial likes those places. Commercial has the financial ability to outbid industrial. This produces political problems with zoning change pressures as well as real traffic problems with filling up those interchanges that are trying to provide industrial access for trucks with a whole bunch of cars. The light rail stations have almost the opposite effect. The travel accessibility the light rail station creates produces the market demand to want to increase density around those places. It is often across the country that the neighborhoods do not want that increased density. It is important in both these cases that the land use management techniques be such that you are encouraging the appropriate kind of transit supported by the land use patterns around those stations to get the kind of land use you want. In interchanges you want to avoid the land use patterns you don’t want, commercial conversion, and make sure they are reserved for industrial purposes. There are both situations on both sides of the river that need to be dealt with. Mr. Cotugno said the Land Use Committee is now finished with their analysis and have made their recommendations to the Task Force. He referred to the Land Use Strategic Policy Options included in the handout. Mr. Cotugno highlighted the Land Use Committee recommendations for Land Use Policies which include 1) Interchange and light rail station area management plans, 2) Integrated Regional Plans, and 3) TDM/TSM policies.
Sam Imperati, the facilitator for the I-5 Partnership process, handed out a summary of the I-5 Partnership November 27, 2001 Task Force meeting land use comments. The three land use polices stated above were rated by three levels, “status-Quo”, “Coordination”, and “Mandatory”. Neither Oregon nor Washington members felt that “status-quo” was sufficient for any of the policies. Mr. Imperati highlighted the responses and comments from the Task Force members.
Rod Monroe said he has particular concern around the issue of the Delta Park/Hayden Meadows area. He said they have a shortage of industrial lands for the whole region, and if this is not addressed, they could become economically strangled. Both states have different tax structures, and if additional capacity is built and more Washingtonians flood to Oregon to avoid sales tax, we defeat our purpose. It is essential to protect lands for industrial development.
Andy Cotugno said this project is coming to a critical juncture. The Task Force is trying to have a draft recommendation in January, so between January to June things can be refined and adopted by June.
Fred Hansen said that refinement needs to be done to narrow the differences. He said that if some thing is going to be done financially, the ability to make a contract like element associated with that that is enforced is there, but something that is enforced by something that is bi-state is pretty hard to do. It is more likely to be something like a federal mandate such as an EIS. He said he is worried as to whether Oregon is going to do it not as to if Washington is going to do it. He said Hayden Meadows will be our test point to see if we can hold the line.
Craig Pridemore said he is very supportive of long-term coordination and integration of Clark County with Metro. That is an inevitable part of our future. He said he is concerned that if this goes in a direction in which he has to tell his community that Metro is going to have land use decisions in Clark County, he can not sell that. That is his primary concern. He said he felt that a whole lot can be done through communication and coordination. He said there are different political issues on both sides of the river and these differences need to be recognized and discussed. Andy Cotugno said it is time to get to the specifics. The details need to be discussed that both sides can agree on. He said this Committee is important for that. Craig Pridemore asked for examples stating that Metro had said that Washington did not do TDM things. He said apart from raising parking fees in Portland, what can we do that we are not doing. Mr. Cotugno said the express bus service to Portland was being cut. Lynne Griffith said that C-TRAN had just expanded express bus service in the corridor. The subscription bus service is in jeopardy because the funds are no longer available. That is a Transportation Management Area (TMA) issue. Lynne Griffith said the subscription bus service is based on the Swan Island TMA. Craig Pridemore said the only way we would cut express bus service or any other things is if there is just no money to do it.
Fred Hansen said the TDM/TSM policy issue is one that the public and some of the members of the Task Force hold in a high regard. He said he is less concerned with this one, but it is the hardest one because of the multitude of issues and factors that are involved. Chris Deffebach said there is a work program that is yet to be fully defined for the time from January to June. These outstanding issues will be worked and discussed before the final recommendations in June. It is important to identify the issues so we can be working on them. Also, an important part of that is that the study has not yet gone into is funding implementation. How this whole process is funded is going to bring many possibilities and opportunities. Craig Pridemore said we have the opportunity to take this Bi-State relationship to a whole new level. This coordination process has a tremendous opportunity to move forward our discussions. He said that is risked by putting demands that are mandatory on each other.
Rod Monroe said he is sensitive to what Craig is saying. He said he did not want to see what is put forward as one side dictating to the other. We need something that everyone agrees to and mutually enforced on both sides of the river.
Serena Cruz said the Oregon sentiment is not to try and tell Vancouver and Clark County how to do it, but is a desire to see solid coordination. That there is in fact some sense that if it is not possible to do it on the Washington side then they will not add capacity on the Oregon side. They are interrelated. It is just as important to constituents on both sides of the river. She said there is a lot of room for compromise.
Sam Imperati said given the amount of time and other agenda items to be discussed, he referred to the Next Steps as presented in the handout. He said continued updates would be presented to the Bi-State Committee for comment throughout the remainder of the study for further exploration.
Fred Hansen said that what everyone has been reacting to is the way it came out of the Land Use Subcommittee. It seems that we need to look at different ways for things to be done. It is guidance and a mandatory requirement, then talk about the mechanisms of how to achieve that. That is where the hang up is. Does mandatory mean it is really mandatory as bi-state or mandatory as something different. It would help if there were a way to frame that for discussion to refine and help move the discussion along.
Chris Lassen said he agreed with Craig Pridemore in that they do not want to take away local control. They need to all work together to come to the end result. He said as Rod Monroe said, as far as the City of Gresham is concerned and several others, the protection of and expansion of industrial land is extremely important. The whole key is obviously to work together. Craig Pridemore said he deals frequently with the fact that folks from Portland and Metro are unaware of the land use controls on the Washington side.
Andy Cotugno said the recommendations will go to the Task Force to further discuss and flush out the agreement.
There were no citizens wishing to comment.
Meeting dates for January, March and May were distributed to members. There was discussion of moving the January meeting to the 31st but it conflicted with another meeting. The January meeting will be on January 24th. Chris Deffebach said they would like to have the Regional Industrial Land Study give a presentation at the January meeting. She questioned if the Committee would like to meet more frequently than every other month given all the topics of discussion. This would be discussed and determined prior to the January meeting.
Dave Mercier thanked the Bi-State Committee members saying that working on the committee has been a key learning experience for him.
The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be on January 24, 2002 at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|