RTC

Bi-State Transportation Committee

Metro

Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, May 23, 2002, 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.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of March 23, 2001 Meeting Report

The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:36 a.m. at Metro, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver (alternate)
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager
Steve Iwata, City of Portland
Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor
Mary Legry, WSDOT (alternate)
Dave Lohman, Port of Portland (alternate)
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Staff
Andy Cotugno, Metro
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Richard Brandman, Metro
Francine Floyd, Metro
Interested Guests
Rex Burkholder, Metro Council
Patrick Lee, Clark County
Sam Imperati, ICM, I-5 Facilitator
Brian Campbell, Port of Portland
Kate Deane, ODOT
Bob Hart, RTC
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Alan Lehto, Tri-Met
Dale Miller, C-Tran
Steve Pfeiffer, Perkins Coie
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
John Southworth, Portland Development Commission
Walter Valenta, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association
Sharon Wiley, Clark County

CRAIG PRIDEMORE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28, 2002 MEETING REPORT AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

II. Vancouver HOV Lane Status

Dean Lookingbill reported on the HOV lane status which included: 1) the memo to the Bi-State Transportation Committee dated May 16, 2002 regarding “I-5 HOV Evaluation Report,” (included in the meeting packet), and 2) an update on the latest RTC board discussion and where the board was, in terms of the HOV lane.

Mr. Lookingbill briefly referred to the legislative piece. He said that the Washington legislature passed two transportation bills during the last session. One is called “current law” where there is revenue in place. Also passed was what he referred to as “new law” which included two pieces: 1) a list of projects, and 2) revenue bill. The revenue bill would raise about $7.7 billion bonded over a ten-year period. During the legislative session, the current law transportation bill passed and the new revenue bill passed subject to voter approval in November. Senator Benton (ranking minority member on the Senate Transportation Committee) inserted into the new revenue bill, language that would, in effect, take the HOV lane out on its anniversary date which is October 29, 2003 (one year since it opened).

Rod Monroe asked, didn’t the bill state that the HOV lane would be removed unless it met all the criteria? Dean Lookingbill explained that the language was stated as, unless there is another lane across the Columbia River Bridge or unless the number of park-and-ride spaces in Clark County doubled, they would have to take out the HOV lane. However, it didn’t mention the criteria at all. In conclusion, under current law, the HOV lane removal piece of the bill had been vetoed. They were still moving forward and there was nothing legislatively that said, that the lane must be removed. If the new law package passes, it would go into effect somewhere in mid-December and we would have to figure out how to deal with that. The important thing to recognize was that WDOT and RTC identified a list of performance measures, as addressed in the memorandum. The memo was a report on the second round in the series of evaluating the HOV Lane Pilot Project. The memo listed the performances of the eight goals and sub-objectives. Dean Lookingbill highlighted the key findings for the eight HOV goals. The HOV pilot project was meeting five goals, partially meeting two goals, and was not meeting one goal. This memo was a brief version of the report. The complete report “Vancouver HOV Pilot Project Evaluation Report #2”was available on the RTC website.

Fred Hansen asked for a clarification of “observed violation.” Basically, it meant looking at traffic and the use of HOV lane by less than two-person vehicles. Additionally, the police reports provided citation information on accident and speed checks.

Dean Lookingbill explained that the goal of maintaining and improving public opinion towards the effectiveness of the HOV lanes had been partially met. The two questions being asked were 1) Is the WSDOT HOV lane a good idea? (This is the first set of statistics). 2) Should we make the lane permanent? There were two data points, including the baseline survey done in September and the public opinion survey done in March. As indicated in the survey results, the public was split in their opinions.

Fred Hansen said that when people don’t have enough knowledge or are skeptical of an issue, they usually don’t support it. He asked for an explanation on why the public opinion on the effectiveness of the HOV lane issue had changed in the surveys, as mentioned in the Project Evaluation Report #2? Dean Lookingbill said he would have to check with the people who performed the surveys. He added that there had been some negative media coverage and negative opinions.

Mr. Lookingbill concluded, saying that this information was presented to the RTC board at their May meeting. The board decided to continue with the project. There were two more data points to collect, including one during late summer and one early next fall. The board understood that not all the eight goals had been met yet, but the pilot project was only six months along. At this time, the board’s intention was to move forward, to continue collecting data, and to see how the project works out.

Rod Monroe said that it hadn’t been emphasized enough, in the information sent out to the public, that this was a first phase. He added that we are working hard on the Oregon side of the river to get funding for the Delta Park Project for that third lane all the way south. We anticipate that it will be an HOV lane. The time saving and other incentives for using HOV lanes would be greatly enhanced when they have HOV on the Washington side, suspended briefly across the bridge, and continued on the Oregon side down the freeway. Rod Monroe said he wondered if it would be advisable for Chair Pridemore and himself to co-author an “in your opinion” piece for the local newspaper, explaining the overall plan and the direction we are going in and urging people to support the HOV lane. Mr. Monroe said he would be willing to join Craig Pridemore in this effort. Chair Pridemore suggested giving consideration to this idea. Rod Monroe added that we need to seize every opportunity to do more positive press

Chair Craig Pridemore announced that today was Kate Deane’s birthday. A brief celebration followed. (Chris Deffebach provided refreshments for the occasion).

III. I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Update

Kate Deane handed out the “Final Draft Recommendations at a Glance” (a draft, work in progress), along with the “Discussion Draft Strategic Plan Prepared for I-5 Partnership Task Force—May 21, 2001.” Ms. Deane referred to the “Final draft Recommendations at a Glance” which was a draft and a first attempt to summarize for the public, where we are with the draft recommendations in the one-page document (front and back). She asked that any comments should be given to her.

Ms. Deane reported that the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Committee was coming to a conclusion. She summarized the “Final Draft recommendations at a Glance” (handout). The committee had new rail capacity recommendations (as listed) including that the region pursue the need for rail improvements; establish a Bi-State rail forum; and seek funding for additional rail services and replacement of the “swing span” for a “lift span.” The committee listed their recommendation (under the “Transportation Demand and System Management” section) for a study of the I-5 Corridor to develop a TDM/TSM Corridor, and to promote, fund and implement alternative modes of transportation.

Kate Deane added that the I-5 Partnership Committee had established the beginning of a good relationship with environmental justice communities on both sides of the river. Together, they discuss issues regarding what impacts to consider in the EIS and how to accommodate the affected communities. In terms of financing, the committee has more work to do. They have identified some financing tools (listed in the handout).

Ms. Deane said the plan would be presented to the two MPOs; therefore, it would come back to the Bi-State Transportation Committee probably in summer or fall. In addition, on June 18, the I-5 Partnership Committee would vote on the package presented today. There would also be some upcoming public involvement through the web, emails and mailings.

Mary Legry asked if this publication was being printed yet. Kate Deane answered, “no” and explained that this handout was only a DRAFT version. Ms. Legry asked whether some of the items listed could be moved around and/or rephrased. Ms. Deane suggested maybe beginning the publication with an introductory sentence before listing the sections or beginning the first section as “transit.”

Mr. Imperati presented the “I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord—May 22, 2002 Draft” (handout). The I-5 Partnership had previously suggested that the Bi-State Transportation Committee be changed into a Bi-State Coordination Committee. In addition to transportation, this Committee would also look at land use and economic development. Mr. Imperati highlighted changes to the revised document, including the following:

Mr. Imperati said the I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord’s purpose was expanded to include rail, TDM/TSM, and finance issues.

Additional changes to the Draft Accord followed:

Sam Imperati reported that at Tuesday night’s meeting, a motion was passed to expand the current membership of the Bi-State Transportation Committee to include members of the public. (Members from the Bi-State Transportation Committee would be the same membership to start out the Bi-State Coordinating Committee). No specificity was made on 1) how many public members should be included, and 2) whether members of the public included citizen, activist groups, neighborhood associations or adding members from business and industry.

Rod Monroe asked how these public members would be selected. Sam Imperati explained that, at this time, there was no recommendation from the task force on the selection process. However, the overall Coordination Accord provides that the new entity would establish the details and would take charge to determine: 1) how many public members, 2) from what interest groups, and 3) the selection process. Prior to the Tuesday night meeting, the concept was that although there were no public members on the Bi-State Coordinating Committee, there would be a mechanism for citizen participation in the work of the Bi-State Coordinating Committee.

Also added to the Draft Accord were the following actions and issues of major bi-state significance:

Sam Imperati explained that the I-5 Task Force recommended that prior to the Delta Park/Lombard project, two things needed to happen 1) the formation of the new Bi-State Coordinating Committee and 2) the new committee review the relevant environmental documents. Section 5B on page 6 listed the actions needed before new capacity in the I-5 Corridor.

Chris Deffebach thanked Kate Deane and Sam Imperati for their efforts in putting together the draft update. Ms. Deffebach added that today was an opportunity to look over the draft document and to submit any comments, before the final recommendations were adopted.

Rod Monroe said the issue of public membership was a concern. He said he welcomed public comment and suggested that care be taken in selecting these members. The selection process is absolutely critical in order to find people who would have a large view on the issues and would contribute on that basis.

Fred Hansen commented on public participation, saying the public needed to be involved in the decision-making. The question was how to make that happen. The recommendations here were to move the Bi-State Coordinating Committee into more of a decision-making responsibility, rather than merely advisory to JPACT and RTC. As a result, Mr. Hansen asked that Metro’s General Counsel take a look at the issue of appropriate delegation of authority because there are certain things that you cannot delegate away from the governing bodies. He said that might help to clarify what role was appropriate for a body that would have citizen involvement. The clarification from Metro General Counsel might help this issue prior to June 18.

Chair Craig Pridemore said this concern is certainly worth getting the additional legal advice.

Lynne Griffith added that we might want to discuss and share with the Task Force that there were provisions within the Accord to have an advisory panel on the rail issues. Not knowing all the issues this committee might deal with over time, it is a vehicle for advisory groups to be formed in order to support the Bi-State Coordinating Committee.

Further discussion followed regarding voting and non-voting public committee members; engaging public involvement and membership; and geographical public representation.

Chair Craig Pridemore said that this committee over the past few years has had good interagency conversations. A lot of issues get put on the table, which maybe couldn’t be done under other forums.

Mary Legry gave her ideas on the committee at present and what changes would possibly mean. She added that as we expand the Bi-State in other ways, consideration needed to be given as to how this would be staffed. Right now, the Bi-State operated with the meetings being evenly spaced. Presently, two people from the organizations manage and handle it.

Ms. Legry said that non-voting members, in her opinion, don’t have the same status as a voting member. Finally, Mary Legry said we needed some legal overview added to the Accord.

Chair Pridemore said any additional comments on the Accord could be given to Kate Deane.

IV. Hayden Meadows Redevelopment Opportunities

Chris Deffebach introduced Steve Pfeiffer, Perkins Coie and John Southworth, Portland Development Commission (PDC). Both are working with development at Hayden Meadows and the racetrack site. John Southworth said this site provides enormous opportunities and challenges. Issues included freeway capacity, industrial sanction protection, project management, and development of the interstate corridor urban renewal area. There are some huge public expectations, funding issues, and what should be achieved in this urban area. Community issues included possible job generation, esthetics (the site borders the slough and the Delta Park). He said it is an interesting site, with lots of opportunities. Mr. Southworth gave a brief update on what the process had been to date. About one year ago, they initiated a dialog with the community, including about five neighborhood associations. Over the last four or five months, they have met four or five times with agencies (i.e., PDOT, ODOT, Parks Bureau, Planning Bureau, Tri-Met, and the Port of Portland.

Steve Pfeiffer explained that he is an attorney in private practice (Perkins Coie). Mr. Pfeiffer described the issues facing this redevelopment. The idea of a master plan was precisely what was needed for the Hayden Meadows parcel. He said they were trying to raise the bar to elevate the discussion and make sure that, collectively, they don’t miss an opportunity (both public and private) on this particular property or set of properties. The horsetrack (about 80 acres) will remain as is for now with a three-year option to operate. This could convert to a 20- or 25-year option to run, irrevocable. The site could remain exactly as it is today (this would be the default position if nothing else happens). The other consideration (option 2) would be the eastern two-thirds of the site, zoned general industrial could go to one of the industrial uses—the most likely would be warehouse distribution which is the default zoning position.

There are 11 property owners who own the 67 acres in the shopping center. There are generally the same property owners who own the 110 acres in Portland Meadows. There are about 11 property owners controlling 180 acres of dirt at that location where the light rail stops. There are potentially other improvements that could benefit that surrounding area.

Steve Pfeiffer talked about several possibilities for development of Hayden Meadows including redevelopment of even a portion of the property. Mr. Pfeiffer said if they ever were to come forward with a develop application, it would include two key components including: 1) a remapping of that combination of general commercial, mixed-employment and industrial, and 2) the requirement that says “no dirt is turned until there is a master plan approved for the entire 200 acres.” He further advised not to let this area go before giving deliberate consideration to it in terms of land use and transportation.

Serena Cruz commented that recently there had been considerable discussion and debate over that parcel, without understanding the discussions that had been taking place in that community. She appreciated the presentations today by Steve Pfeiffer and John and thanked them for coming.

V. Clark County Comprehensive Plan Update

Patrick Lee explained the handouts he brought to the committee including:

Mr. Lee gave a brief update on the progress to date. He reported yesterday they had a successful launch of their economic development strategy and were now trying to refine three comprehensive plan alternatives that they had presented at public meetings. He said that there was still lots of dialog needed to define the alternatives, as well as any additional alternatives that might emerge. Then they planned to present those alternatives to their board of commissioners for consideration over the next few months. Through the summer, they hoped to get more direction from the board in order to get a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) out into public circulation by later this year. Toward the end of summer, they hoped to get further direction from the board saying, 1) we’ve had another series of public meetings this summer and 2) we’ve gotten feedback on what people feel is the preferred direction to head in and 3) hoped that the board would then give them some direction as to the preferred alternatives. In terms of decision-making timeframes, they have to process both the public review of the draft and preparation of final response to comments received. They would expect a hearing action by the fall of 2003. During the next month or two, the technical work will need to come together in order to meet the schedule.

Patrick Lee referred to the three maps (posted on the front wall) including: 1) Draft Alternative A: No Urban Growth Boundary Expansion; 2) Draft Alternative B: Retain 1994 Policies and Assumptions; 3) Draft Alternative C: Limited Urban Boundary Expansion.

Chair Pridemore further explained the three map alternatives. He added that this agenda item needed further discussion; however, the meeting time today was almost spent.

Chris Deffebach asked Craig Pridemore if one of the three scenarios (alternatives) reflected an assumption of growth. Chair Pridemore said that with the policies adopted last June, that the 1.5% increase was reflected in Alternative C and also increased densities across the jurisdictions.

VI. Other Business—Columbia River Channel Improvements Project

Dave Lohman gave a brief report and mentioned the Port’s electronically submitted reports, including:

Mr. Lohman said that because this group had been very supportive on the channel project, they now have biological opinion from the federal fish and wildlife agencies that looked carefully at every plausible pathway to harm to the endangered species—their habitats and food chains—and they concluded that there were no discernable impact that they could currently detect. There was some uncertainty, as in any project that interacts with the environment, as to what might develop over the long-term. Systems are designed to deal with that uncertainty including on-going research and monitoring and adaptive management. Each year the services, the Corp, and the Ports plan to get together to review monitoring results and to make project adjustments as needed. They concluded that the uncertainties now were much less then they were two years ago, before they went through this rigorous scientific analysis. Dave Lohman reported that there were 20 acres of wetlands that would be impacted. That would require mitigation for several times over. In addition, there was 5,500 acres of restoration in the estuary that wasn’t mitigation and wouldn’t have occurred except for this project. Thirty-eight miles of stream bank opened up for salmon habitat. We are getting more from this than if we didn’t do the project, in terms of restoration opportunities. The next steps are relook at the Environmental Impact Statement. The supplemental Impact Statement, including a relook at the cost ratio, would be ready in mid-summer. By early fall, the state approvals hopefully would be ready. Then late this fall they would take it to Congress for FY04 funding.

Dave Lohman thanked the Bi-State Transportation Committee for their support. He provided a handout “Excerpts from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Columbia River Channel Improvements Project Common Questions and Answers on the Biological Opinions” dated May 20, 2002.

VII. Future Meeting Dates and Agenda Topics

Chair Pridemore noted appreciation to Councilor Rex Burkholder, Walter Valenta (I-5 Partnership member and Neighborhood Association representative on the Taskforce), and Sharon Wiley (Clark County’s lobbyist and former Oregon State legislator) who were in attendance.

The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be at the Port of Vancouver on June 27, 2002 at 7:30 a.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 a.m.

More Information

Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067		 Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2008, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated January 16, 2008.