 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, March 28, 2002, 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
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Laurel Wentworth, City of Portland (Alternate)
Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Executive DirectorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Josh Alpert, City of Portland
Edward Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner
Richard Brandman, Metro
Michelle Danley, Governor Locke’s SW Washington Representative
Kate Deane, ODOT
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Bob Hart, RTC
Sam Imperati, Consultant, I-5 Partnership Study
Cami Jones, Vancouver Business Journal
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, Tri-Met
Walter Valenta, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association
Deb Wallace, WSDOT
Dave Williams, ODOTCHAIR PRIDEMORE ASKED FOR ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE JANUARY 24, 2002, MEETING REPORT. WITH NO CORRECTIONS STATED, THE JANUARY 24, 2002, MEETING REPORT WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Larry Paulson said that the Washington Legislature just approved $27.7 million for the Washington share of monies for the Channel Deepening project. In addition, the biological opinions should be out at the later part of next month. He said they, both Vancouver and Portland Ports, have consistently worked with National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife, and the Corp of Engineers to get a biological assessment from the Corp, which is the foundation for the biological opinions. They are cautiously optimistic that they will get good reports, which should be around April 26. The Federal appropriation is yet to be taken care of. With a lot of the money issues taken care of, Mr. Paulson said they should be well on their way. The permitting process and SEPA review in the state of Washington is still being taken care of and a supplemental environmental impact statement that will be required with the new biological opinions. Those should be done in the fall.
Bill Wyatt said The Oregonian has had a series of articles on this project. It is part of a national story on projects done by the Corp. All over the country papers are focusing on similar projects as an opportunity. He said our project is quite different and important because the value of commerce going up and down the Columbia River is just enormously greater than any of the other projects. The series of stories focused on three things: 1) the cost benefit of the study, 2) the environmental impacts of the project, and 3) the liability of the Port of Portland in the marine business. In regard to the first score, as a part of the Corp’s supplemental environmental impact statement, the cost benefit analysis will be redone. They expect it to change because several things have changed since the original project was done. The Japanese economy continues to soften, and that is significant because that is our principle export target. The global price for wheat and other grains continues to be depressed; the dollar is strong. All of these things affect our ability to succeed in the export business. The Columbia River ports are primarily an export series of ports. The project cost is also less now, which will also be reflected. The purpose of the cost benefit analysis is very targeted and limited in scope. All it attempts to judge is whether or not the national shipping assets are greater than the cost of the project, period. It doesn’t deal with the local economic impacts. That is significant for local folks to understand. There are enormous local benefits to this project that are not accounted for in the national method of evaluating these projects. They expect to show a healthy cost benefit for this project possibly in May. On the environmental side, the final decision is not ours. It is a combination of federal regulatory agencies and presumably a federal judge. This system of ports is the largest exporter of wheat in the world. We are the second largest exporter of grain in the United States. We are the largest importer of automobiles on the West Coast. He said these are very significant. Port of Portland is primarily an exporting port. All of the other West Coast ports are primarily import ports. So we have an edge. This is a tough business. He said he is quite confident that we have a strong future here on the Columbia River. This project is critically important to us as we continue on. Mr. Wyatt said the Channel Deepening Coalition did an opinion survey to find out if The Oregonian series had an impact on the public’s attitude. The answer was no. The Columbia River Deepening Project continues to have a strong two to one support. Many of the people who read the article thought the project was positive. The public support for the project continues to be very strong as does our Congressional delegation support, Oregon as well as Washington.
Larry Paulson said this is not just a Port of Portland issue. This is a regional issue. The combined ports on the Washington side of the river ship cargos roughly the equivalent of what Portland does. So there is actually a parity in size. He asked if it meant something to us that the river is deepened. It is not just a container issue. A third or so of the vessels that call into the Port of Vancouver for wheat, which is 70% of their cargo, can use that additional feet of depth. They anticipate in the next five years that will go to 50%. The ships are getting bigger, and there is an economic necessity as well as a job related people related necessity to go forward with this project. Mr. Paulson said he thought just as Mr. Wyatt said that this is economically a good project as well as a good project for people.
Rod Monroe said two weeks ago the JPACT delegation was in Washington, D.C. when the articles were coming out. He said the JPACT commitment to the project remained firm. They spoke with Oregon’s seven Congressional leaders along with Congressman Brian Baird from Washington State and all remained in strong support. There was one issue that some environmental folks picked up on in one of The Oregonian articles, the issue of dumping in the ocean. That was inaccurate information.
Bill Wyatt said the project has been changed over the course of last year. The change revolves around the ocean dumping, because it is important to know that the closer you get to the mouth of the river, the more material there is to be disposed of for a variety of reasons. Originally, all of that was targeted for ocean disposal because there are relatively very few sites on land. At the lower end, there are fewer places to put it. The crab fishermen in particular were very unhappy about this. On the Washington side, the State Department of Ecology was concerned about taking sand out of the system. There were concerns of erosion. The material now can be used primarily on the Oregon side to create what they call shell water housing. They can take two key areas and return them to the pre-Columbia River dam era and create shell water habitat for Salmon. There will be no ocean disposal as a result of the deepening project itself. There will only be ocean disposal as a result of ongoing maintenance of the 43-foot channel or the existing channel. That is the important consideration. We now have a project that will eliminate the need for ocean disposal, but if we did not do the 43-foot project, we would still have to maintain the existing 40-foot channel, which will involve ocean disposal unless we are able to concern some kind of an alternative. This is a broader issue, but strange as it is, ocean disposal is cheap. They are considering by current federal law to exceed to the least cost alternative for disposal. The Columbia River is not necessarily a good thing. It would be nice to have alternatives, Benson Beach being one, to take some of this material and repopulate the beach there. There is a pilot project to do that, and some money, state and federal, in the budget to proceed with that. To do something on a grander scale, we really need to work with our collective delegations to get around the lease cost provision so we can be more creative and use this material that are more beneficial. He said there is no ocean disposal of materials coming from the deepening project itself and none planned for the maintenance for ten years.
Rod Monroe said he read from the Congressional delegation that the only thing that would stop this project would be the environmental concerns, permits, and Federal blocking. The Federal money is essentially in place and local match from both states.
Fred Hansen asked on clarification of timing. The Biological Opinions will be out April 26. The Corp will then do a Record of Decision (ROD), which is the final decision by the Corp. Then everything is in place to go forward with the project, in the fall. Mr. Hansen asked if the mitigation elements are in the Opinions or the ROD. Mr. Paulson said they are in the Opinions, which are rolled into the ROD as a package. Mr. Wyatt said there are also state regulatory approvals. Mr. Paulson said this project has been 14 years in the works.
Chair Pridemore said the I-5 Partnership task Force will complete their recommendations in June. The purpose of today’s discussion is to address the Bi-State Committee’s position on the proposed recommendations including the land use recommendations that have been revised since they were first seen by the Task Force at their March 26 meeting. Copies of the draft Land Use Accord recommendations were distributed.
Dean Lookingbill said copies of the Draft Strategic Plan Recommendations were mailed in the meeting packet. At the table were copies of the same document but with highlighted areas that will need additional work before the Task Force makes their final recommendations in June.
Kate Deane referred to a map that was distributed with the core recommendations shown. Ms. Deane said in January, Draft Recommendations were adopted and the map lays out what those physical recommendations are. They include: Fixing the two 2-lane bottlenecks in the I-5 corridor, one is the Delta Park to Lombard bottleneck and the other in Vancouver, 99th St. to I-205, making these 3 through lanes in each direction. Making the Columbia Blvd. interchange a full interchange. Make up to two additional lanes in each direction across the Columbia River and also suggest a Light Rail loop in Clark County that would connect with light rail across the Columbia River over the I-5 and I-205 corridors. I-5 between SR 500 and Columbia Blvd. interchanges needs to be designed to balance all of the on and off traffic, consistent with the 3 through lane corridor capacity and 5 lanes of bridge capacity in each direction. The light rail loop would connect both in the I-205 corridor with the Airport Max and with the future Interstate Max that will open in a couple years and move east/west across Clark County in the SR-500 or Fourth Plain corridor. Work still needs to be done on all of these initial recommendations.
Notably, the Task Force does not want to pursue expanding the capacity of the corridor to 4 through lanes in each direction. The West Arterial road would have connected up at the Port of Vancouver and cross the Columbia River ending in the industrial area in NW Portland at US-30. That road has had a great deal of interest and promise and a great deal of work needs to be done in order for that to come to fruition. It was found that it is really not a substitute for improvements on I-5. That has been suggested for further study by the region but not in the context of this process.
In addition, this is not just about the capital construction of roads and transit facilities. In terms of transit, there is a huge amount of transit service that would need to be added in both Clark County and the Portland area to support the goals of getting higher transit ridership and bringing competitive travel choices to the region. In terms of land use, Ms. Deane said there was a strong recommendation from the Task Force to agree on major land use issues as a bi-state region before the investment is made for a new river crossing. Ms. Deane highlighted the additional work items that the Task Force will be addressing before the June deadline. She said as far as a time line, it is anticipated that the earliest an EIS could be initiated would be January 2003. They are currently seeking money for that EIS. In terms of a date for construction to begin, it could possibly be a 2008 to 2010 time period.
Chris Deffebach said she wanted to note that these recommendations came out after the last Bi-State meeting. Today would be an opportunity for the Committee to give some direction back to JPACT and the RTC Board as to their overall support of the recommendations. By the time this Committee meets in May, the final recommendations will be out with another opportunity to comment and in June the Bi-State Committee will be able to comment back to JPACT and RTC at the beginning of the implementation process for the recommendations in the Regional Plan.
Chris Deffebach referred to the I-5 Task Force’s Working Draft Land Use Recommendations “I 5 Bi-State Coordination Accord”. She said that Sam Imperati, the facilitator for the I-5 Partnership process, has been working with them on this. Ms. Deffebach said the Partnership Committee has discussed the significance of adding capacity and its affect on increasing land values and increasing demand for land development and how if those pressures are not managed carefully, in the sense of development that meets what we are trying to accomplish regionally in our goals, preserving the corridor for goods movement uses and supporting our other goals, that our new capacity could get eaten up without us realizing it. Not only is that particularly true for new capacity across the river where there is more of a significant increase in accessibility, but also true as we continue to grow as an urban area. The development pressures particularly around our interchanges are going to increase. While in the next several years, while completing the EIS, we could, if we are not careful, use the available capacity we have for ways we are not intending to. The significance of the corridor and the significance of the remaining industrial lands assessed via the I-5 corridor is critical to our economy. Also during the Task Force discussions, it has become clear that management of land use has to be part of the overall package of capital improvements.
Ms. Deffebach said there are six elements to the Bi-State Coordination Accord. The proposal is to expand the function of the Bi-State Transportation Committee, which already looks at transportation issues of bi-state significance and is already aware of the significance of land use actions on transportation conditions, to recognize that they will also be looking at land use issues that have major bi-state transportation impacts as well as economic development issues. This would not just be the I-5 corridor. It is felt that the Bi-State Coordinating Committee should be established before reaching an agreement on adding capacity in the corridor.
Rod Monroe said that the Bi-State Transportation Committee is made up of JPACT and RTC and has advisory authority on transportation issues. The new Committee would expand that advisory responsibility to land use, and then also advise Metro and Clark County, since they are the land use authorities.
Ms. Deffebach said in regard to membership of the committee, the Bi-State Transportation Committee is created by JPACT/Metro Council approval and RTC Board approval. At a minimum, the new Committee would expand to also include advising Clark County and MPAC (recommends land use issues to Metro Council). At the previous night’s MPAC meeting, they agreed that land use is an important part of the overall package of improvements and to continue. There was a question of whether or not all members of the Bi-State Committee wanted to be signatory members to the agreement. We want to keep the balance that is there currently is from both sides of the river. There was discussion of each State’s policies on land use management plans, how they would be reviewed and how or if enforced.
Craig Pridemore asked what if Clark County adopted policies counter to what the regional advisory says, and that causes a bottleneck or problem, we have to pay for. It would not be an expectation that Oregon has that responsibility. Chris Deffebach said that is still to be decided if we want to have that responsibility. Andy Cotugno said there is also a question of how this applies before and after the DEIS review.
Chris Deffebach also said to keep in mind that there are different levels of detail at different stages in the planning/implementation process. At a very general level, it is important to have the Task Force agree on overall land use coordination to give them confidence that these issues are going to be taken care of before the investment in a new river crossing. The second level of detail that we will need to get into is how we actually approve by resolution or IGA the expansion of the role of the new Bi-State Committee. She said there is time to figure that out. The Task Force needs to be comfortable enough that this is proceeding and we can continue to work out the details following their adoption. The plan is to begin to carry the Task Force’s recommendations into regional plans and local plans.
There was a question of adopting the recommendations by resolution but following with an IGA for enforcement. Chris Deffebach said the Bi-State Committee was created by resolution. If you want to put more “teeth” into it you can, but resolutions can be changed more easily than an IGA. There was a question of legalities that an IGA allows enforcement.
Rod Monroe said the agreement via the resolution gets us a collective judgment and peer pressure by having membership of elected officials from those jurisdictions to serve on this body. The likelihood of having good collective decisions in all parts of this region increases dramatically over what the situation has been in the past. It is not perfect, but he said he thought it would work. This will help people come together to discuss the issues for both sides of the river knowing more clearly how a decision made in Oregon affects Clark County and those made by Clark County affects Oregon. Mr. Monroe said he is in support of this.
Fred Hansen referenced the requirements in an EIS and its enforcement. He said this could be a mechanism to enforce policies. Sam Imperati said this is an angle that the working committee has not explored, but they would look into it. Larry Paulson said the EIS just gives a preferred alternative, which is eventually incorporated into a decisional document, or a decision by a Federal agency not necessarily what is going to be done with the land use planning five years later. Richard Brandman said typically in a Metro EIS not only do you describe the impacts specific to the project, you also have to have mitigation in the EIS and that is committed mitigation, which becomes part of the record of decision. If it is a very specific issue, such as build a noise wall, it has to be there. If it is not specific, such as we are going to try to do this if possible, if it is not done, there is flexibility. The degree of specificity usually determines the outcome.
Lynne Griffith questioned the financing issue in such that if you are operating from different state guidelines and funding limitations and it states the transit service is greatly increased and there is no funding to do so, how is that factored in some kind of bi-state relationship where commitments are made and there is no way to pay for it? There was discussion of a project that had a such issue and they later received funding and completed it and followed through on the commitment.
Craig Pridemore said these are in-depth elements of the issue. It might be more helpful at this point to just approach the issue as if we are in favor of expanding the Committee or not. Lynne Griffith said she thought the concept is good. Laurel Wentworth said we are not trying to set up the framework and details for the next 20 years. As long as we have an opportunity to come back to this forum and address issues, we can work as we go and those specifics will become more apparent as we go on. She said they are very comfortable with that.
Ed Barnes said as Co-Chair of the Task Force, they take their direction from Governor Locke and Governor Kitzhaber who are depending on the Bi-State Committee and the Task Force to work out their differences as much as possible so the delegates from both states could work together. Oregon and Washington need to work together.
Craig Pridemore asked Committee members their interest in putting to JPACT and RTC their willingness or interest in having this Committee expanded as discussed.
Fred Hansen said he was not opposed to it, but he said originally this committee was to discuss transportation issues. This new committee looks as if it is something structured out of the I-5 Partnership study. He said more thought is necessary and asks if it will disrupt our original goal.
Rod Monroe said he has stated that if we go forward with this we need to maintain the balance from both sides of the river. This is very important.
Serena Cruz said she has concerns that she would like to discuss further, but she views the possibility of this new Coordination Committee as an expansion of the work the Bi-State Committee is currently doing. It is an opportunity to take a more, well rounded look at the issues that come up that do involve far reaching effects beyond transportation. If there is a vehicle for that discussion, she is interested in pursuing without losing what we currently have. She said the decisions that are being made in the I-5 corridor are going to have long time impacts, and she is interested in having a way to see those issues.
Chris Lassen said he agrees with the process, and the fact that transportation and land use go hand in hand. He said he just does not want the Committee to get so large that it becomes difficult to work with. It is a good mix.
Chris Deffebach said there are two questions being asked of the Committee 1) support to proceed with the expansion of the Bi-State Committee, and 2) the overall direction of the I-5 Recommendations.
Craig Pridemore said the support for the expansion of the bi-State Committee would be to proceed with the addition of land use issues. At this point the formal structure is not yet in place and that will come later. Sam Imperati stated that the Committee would be addressing issues of bi-state significance in the region, not just related to the I-5 corridor. It would address transportation, land use, and economic development.
The Bi-State Transportation Committee was in agreement to move forward with the expansion of the Bi-State Committee’s duties. A letter would be drafted and sent to JPACT and RTC Board. On the overall I-5 Partnership recommendations that are coming forward, the Bi-State Committee was in favor of moving them forward. Serena Cruz said she had already stated the objections she had to the Task Force.
Kate Dean said to contact her if members had any comments or questions on the recommendations.
Andy Cotugno distributed two handouts, charts of Share of Growth 1980-2025 one for Employment and one for Households. They each listed Clark County and the 3 counties in Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington). He said Metro is in the process of reevaluating their urban growth boundary. They have just released their draft regional forecast that is the starting point for decisions on urban growth boundary amendment. Those forecasts are population, households, and employment and are similar to past forecasts, but there are a couple key changes. First the forecast recognizes that there has been population growth in the past decade that they missed, so there is a higher population forecast than what they have seen in the past. Similarly, the rapid employment growth especially in the hi-tech sector of the mid ‘90s they also missed in the last forecast, which resulted in a higher employment forecast now. However, counterbalancing the higher population number, they also expected household family size would continue to drop, and in fact they didn’t drop. They went up. Mr. Cotugno said the population forecast that they have just produced calls for an average annual rate of growth for population of 1.6%. That becomes the driver for their urban growth boundary decisions. Clark County has determined a rate of 1.5% per year. They are very compatible. Craig Pridemore said this is a good example of Clark County’s commitment to the discussion. It was the wish of Clark County to be more compatible with Metro. The key next step for Metro is the decision about how much of the five county forecast they should size their urban growth boundary around. There is a direct connection to the rate of growth in their urban growth boundary relative to Clark County. Mr. Cotugno highlighted the charts noting what each side of the river does affects the other. Mr. Cotugno said Metro’s urban growth boundary decisions wouldn’t affect the employment growth rates in Clark County as much. The efforts of Clark County’s economic development will affect the employment growth rates in Clark County. Clark County and Metro’s urban growth decisions will significantly affect the two sides of the river’s household growth rate. The coordination issue is significant.
There was discussion of some of the impacts the decisions would have. Chris Deffebach said this means for their assumptions, they will need to assume more land use on the Oregon side than they thought they would need in order to avoid residential development going to Clark County. Craig Pridemore said he would like this presented to the Clark County Board of Commissioners.
There was no public comment.
Chair Pridemore noted appreciation to Michelle Ganley of Governor Locke’s office who was in attendance.
The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be on May 23, 2002, at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|