Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, June 27, 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.

Meeting Report

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

The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner, at 7:32 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 Jim Francesconi, City of Portland Commissioner John Fratt, Port of Vancouver (Alternate) Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO Fred Hansen, Tri-Met General Manager Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground Manager Chris Lassen, City of Gresham Councilor Mary Legry, WSDOT SW Region (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 Diane Workman, RTC
Interested Guests
Edward Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner Marcus Brotherton, The Reflector Newspaper Michelle Danley, Governor Locke’s SW Washington Representative Evan Dust, Clark County Michael Harrison, City of Portland Bob Hart, RTC Stephen Iwata, City of Portland Transportation Dale Miller, C-TRAN Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Phil Selinger, Tri-Met Walter Valenta, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association Dave Williams, ODOT Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver

Chair Pridemore asked for any changes or corrections to the May 23, 2002, meeting report. With no corrections stated, the May 23, 2002, meeting report was approved as written.

II. Endorse I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Recommendations for Incorporation into Metro’s RTP and RTC’s MTP

Dean Lookingbill noted that included in the meeting packet was a Staff Report, a summary of the final recommendations, and a proposed draft of the resolution. At the table was a revised copy of the draft resolution. This meeting’s requested action is to endorse the final recommendations and to forward those recommendations to both Metro and RTC for incorporation into their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).

Mr. Lookingbill highlighted the Task Force’s final recommendations that include:

• A phased light rail loop in Clark County in the vicinity of the I-5, SR-500/4th Plain and I-205 corridors.
• Provide premium express bus service to markets not well served by light rail.
• Increase transit service in the Corridor over the next 20 years.
• Three through-lanes in each direction on I-5, including southbound through Delta Park.
• Designate one of the 3 through lanes for use as a high occupancy vehicle lane during peak periods.
• An additional span or a replacement bridge for the I-5 crossing of the Columbia River, with up to 2 additional lanes in each direction for merging and 2 light rail tracks.
• Every effort should be made to avoid displacements and encroachments.
• Capacity improvements for freight rail.
• Bi-State coordination of land use and management of our transportation system to reduce demand on the freeway and to protect the corridor investments.
• Adopt and implement a Bi-State Coordination Accord to protect existing and new capacity and support economic development.
• Commit to a comprehensive use of TDM/TSM strategies
• Work with affected communities and develop a public outreach plan through the environmental justice process.
• Develop a finance plan for transit and highway capital projects.

Mr. Lookingbill referred to the revised copy of the proposed resolution and noted the changes for clarification. The last change was the addition of another item bullet: “Implement additional transportation demand and system strategies to encourage more efficient use of the transportation system.” Today’s action is to request the Committee’s endorsement of the overall package of recommendations and for those recommendations to go to both Metro and RTC to have them incorporated into their Regional Plans.

Fred Hansen referred to the last bullet that was added. He said the TDM recommendation were very specific, as opposed to the other recommendations that were rather generic to the whole region. They fall heavily on C-TRAN and Tri-Met, and he wanted to make it clear that the recommendations use the word “implement” and the dollars are not there to do much of that. He said he did not want to vote on a recommendation that could not be implemented. Chris Deffebach asked if he would like the word implement removed. He suggested the word “develop” or “establish”, something broader that is the responsibility of the region. Mr. Lookingbill asked if it would work to remove the word implement and insert develop in its place. Mr. Hansen said the word develop would be fine and asked that the minutes reflect the understanding of the request.

Chair Pridemore welcomed and introduced the Bi-State Committee’s newest member, City of Portland Commissioner Jim Francesconi.

Serena Cruz asked where it states, “…review all transportation issues of bi-state significance,” if this included the land use accord as well. Mr. Lookingbill said this would include the land use as well.

Fred Hansen said the Bi-State Committee was set up to address transportation issues that were referred to it by JPACT or RTC. It seems that now as the Bi-State Committee, we would also identify things that we would like bring back to JPACT and RTC. He said he would like to make sure that that shift is being made whether it is at JPACT or RTC level or at this level. Chris Deffebach said that is addressed in the bylaws. The current bylaws of the Bi-State Committee reflect that either the Bi-State Committee can get their agenda items given to them or referred to them by JPACT or RTC or they can help identify bi-state issues of significance to bring before the Committee. Mr. Hansen asked if that should be brought a half a step further and say the Bi-State Committee is charged with finding those things of bi-state significance. Ms. Deffebach suggested that would be a change to the existing Bi-State Transportation Committee Bylaws, and that may be changed at the time the bylaws are written for the new Bi-State Coordination Committee. Mr. Hansen said as long it comes together in some fashion.

ROD MONROE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 06-02-01, ENDORSEMENT OF I-5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRADE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED. LYNNE GRIFFITH SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

III. Next Steps: I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Project

Dave Williams said there are two ways to look at the next steps, the mechanical sense and the strategic sense. On the mechanics, staff needs to go through the recommendations on a line-by-line basis to make clear what the recommendations are, and the implications for the various entities throughout the region. He said there are a few other mechanics such as I-5/Delta Park. They are looking at this to incorporate how they work with the neighborhoods through the process. The HOV lane analysis needs to be addressed as to how it is linked with the bridge. He said there are rail financing capacity bills in congress this year and a tax exempt bonding proposal also. He said this is important to rail capacity. Mr. Williams said we need to watch how the railroads internalize the findings of the studies themselves. A lot of the capacity problem is not passenger induced: it is freight railroad induced within their yards where their yard leads are being blocked by trains, and that is where a lot of the inefficiencies are showing up. This may imply that this may not be a problem that the public needs to solve. The ODOT and WSDOT who manage the passenger trains are in rolling negotiations with the freight railroads as to if they should add another passenger train and what the appropriate fix is to allow that to happen. Consultants have been kept on board to fine tune the short list of near term improvements to see which ones are most appropriate if they want to add a train.

Mr. Williams said they had some assistance from national experts to assist them in how they would proceed in an EIS. There currently is no funding for either ODOT or WSDOT for an EIS. Key issues include: 1) Try to keep the momentum going from the Task Force forward. 2) Leadership is another key issue. The next round of undertaking is more challenging. A heightened level of leadership will be necessary by key people in the region. 3) Making the case. This project has a linkage to economic vitality and quality of life. This project needs to be seen at two state levels. 4) Maintaining bi-state cooperation. Each side of the river has different politics. We need to proceed in a way that is conscious and sensitive to issues on both sides. 5) Local, state, regional, and federal cooperation. If we move to the next stage, we will have federal agencies involved. We will have two states with the legislature, and need to make sure this cooperation works in order to proceed. 6) Community engagement. Context sensitive solutions. The goal is to design something that is good for the community along with environmental justice issues. 7) Business community engagement. 8) Be true to the basic findings of the Task Force. Figuring out the process will be a collaborative process.

Lynne Griffith asked if it was the intent of entities to pursue their internal process, their Board or elected officials at their local level now. Chris Deffebach said the recommendations affect each jurisdiction differently. Sorting through the recommendations may help better understand that. There is not an agency that is not affected by the recommendations. They are figuring how to work through that. Bi-State coordination is an example. The modified RTP and MTP is the most obvious example, but there may be other policies that may need to be changed or modified or taken into consideration at Metro because of the recommendations. Lynne Griffith said the recommendations have a great impact on different agencies, especially C-TRAN and Tri-Met.

Fred Hansen said he has already briefed his Board on essentially the major corridors, which it involves more than I-5. They did brief them specifically on I-5, what it would take to be able do light rail, and how that has worked through the bi-state work. They are enthused and understand what it takes to move that forward and work creatively at it. Mr. Hansen said others would be working somewhat parallel to that given their structure.

Chris Deffebach said so far the Bi-State Committee has at this point endorsed the recommendations. Prior to the actual amending of the RTP and MTP, those amendments will be worked out jointly between both sides of the river so they are consistent. The Bi-State Committee can be a forum on how recommendations are brought through the process.

Dean Lookingbill said at the August RTC Board meeting, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) discussion will begin to address some of the policy issues related to the recommendations. Specific projects themselves will be discussed along with meeting air quality standards and being fiscally constrained. For the Clark County agencies/jurisdictions, the RTC Board will serve as a beginning point in how to address the recommendations.

Andy Cotugno recommended that each Bi-State member seek endorsement of the Task Force’s recommendation from their jurisdiction/agency and include in that resolution a request that Metro and RTC amend their RTP and MTP and an acknowledgement that each party will be considering an action to sign on to the Land Use Accord.

Jim Francesconi said that was a good suggestion and the City of Portland can do that. He said he had recently returned from a trip to Washington, D. C. meeting with Senator Smith and Congressman Blumenauer. They had asked what the City’s priorities were. Those have to be set in the context of JPACT and they will have discussions. He said this is important to do with the reauthorization of Tea-21. He asked who at staff level is responsible for developing the work plan for the follow-up work to be done from the I-5 Partnership Study. Dave Williams said that he would initiate those things. He said that he has worked with staff from all the other jurisdictions and will continue to work with them through this next process. He said they have all participated well through the process.

Mary Legry said WSDOT echoes Dave Williams’ introductory comments. She said the two DOTs have not formally sat down and discussed the next steps, but what Dave outlined is exactly what WSDOT internally has talked about the approach and about projects that may be started or are already related to the corridor. It is a new approach, and they will be working closely with the environmental justice related issues. WSDOT will work with ODOT to continue the staffing that has already been established and as it develops in the future.

Craig Pridemore said there are a lot of different pieces that are coming together at various times and different phases. Getting them to the finish line at the same time is a struggle. Clark County is dealing with that on their Comprehensive Plan update. A lot of these recommendations need to be incorporated into that update and how and when that comes together and the business community prepared is still to be answered.

Rod Monroe said the Land Use Accord piece is critical. He said that some from the Oregon side see it as a way to see that Washington does not mess up. He said he sees it as a way for the Oregon side to make sure they do not mess up in terms of land use, especially in the Delta Park area. He said the Accord is very sensitive and makes many people nervous, but it is critical. We need to continue working on it to get general acceptance.

Serena Cruz asked in regard to the suggestion of Andy Cotugno, how they should deal with the fact that some Bi-State Committee members represent more than one jurisdiction. She asked how they should deal with the action from the other jurisdictions they represent.

Ed Barnes said that he had had discussions with Kate Deane at ODOT, Don Wagner at WSDOT, and Andrew Johnsen from the Governor’s office. Mr. Barnes said after 18 months of work on the Governors’ Task Force project, that some noteworthiness was needed. Both Governor Locke and Governor Kitzhauber should be invited to a meeting to present the recommendations that come out of the project. We should have some public knowledge and press for all the work that has been done. Mr. Barnes said we need to get a buy off from the two Governors if we want to get anything from the Oregon and Washington Legislatures. The money in both areas is short, and this is a huge project. Washington currently has Referendum 51 on the November ballot. If we do not get a place at the table, we will not get funding. He said this needs to be done in a timely manner.

Mary Legry said the results of the I-5 Task Force are to be presented to the Washington State Transportation Commission this fall and also before the Legislative Transportation Committee in September. Dean Lookingbill will be part of organizing and making those presentations.

Jim Francesconi asked if he heard correctly that the business community did not participate in the Partnership study. Dave Williams said they have participated. When it was initiated, 14 business community members from both sides of the river made an assessment of the economic problem of the congestion in the corridor. On this phase there were a number of business members participating on the Task Force. The quality of participation and the staying power was an issue. He said it was their hope to find a number of business champions that would go out and initiate support for this to their community. That has been lax. Jim Francesconi said the City is bearing the brunt from the business community about economic issues including the Transportation Freight. He said this group needs to work on that issue and he would like to participate in that.

Mr. Lookingbill said he wanted to clarify the direction being given by the Committee. Ed Barnes had suggested a joint Governors’ meeting to thank the Task Force members and to also present the Study recommendations. Also, the suggestion from Andy Cotugno of a signed letter or resolution from jurisdictions endorsing the recommendations, recognizing they need to be incorporated into the MTP and RTP, and also to recognize the Land Use Accord is a part of it.

Craig Pridemore said he is concerned that the Bi-State Committee gets ahead of the process. He said it needs to all come together and feels that the strategy needs to be worked out on the whole process. Fred Hansen said he said he was sympathetic to making sure that it fits in well, but he thought the idea of having the Governors thank the Task Force and hear the report would highlight it and move it along. That would be the I-5 Trade Corridor group rather than the Bi-State Transportation Committee. He suggested a draft resolution for all to use for the idea of Andy Cotugno, so there is consistency with jurisdictions. Multiple jurisdictions representation would need assistance.

Craig Pridemore pointed out that Michelle Danley, the Governor’s local representative was in attendance. Rod Monroe said if we are going to have the Governors meet, it needs to be in a timely manner. The Task Force would be presenting this to the Governors, and have Mayor Katz and Mayor Pollard present as well. Dave Williams said the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation would help plan this. The Trade Corridor would sponsor the event.

Chris Deffebach referred to the handouts of and overview of the creation of the Bi-State Coordination Committee, the final draft of the I-5 Bi-State Coordination Accord, and draft bylaws for the Bi-State Coordination Accord. Ms. Deffebach said the last change to the Accord was the addition of one more responsibility assigned to the Bi-State Coordinating Committee. This adds the committee’s assistance in establishing a community enhancement fund. Ms. Deffebach said one proposal is to have a set of bylaws that says how the group would be run, but keep it more flexible, so they can be revised if needed. That way if the bylaws need to be revised, they would just have to go back to Metro/JPACT and RTC and not all 13 member jurisdictions. She said the other option would be to incorporate the two documents into one and any changes would go back to each jurisdiction.

Since the Committee has seen the Accord previously, Ms. Deffebach did not review it. She began with highlighting the draft bylaws. She said the purpose is to transition from the Bi-State Transportation Committee being a subcommittee just of JPACT/Metro and RTC to being not exactly a subcommittee of all 13 jurisdictions, but more than just reporting to JPACT because of the land use new responsibilities. Membership is drawn from agencies serving on JPACT or RTC and the cities pick which smaller city wants to participate. A proposed change is for Multnomah County, to just represent Multnomah County. Washington and Clackamas counties would see anything at JPACT. Currently, notification of a new member is sent to the Chair of JPACT and RTC. This may be something that is changed, so there is one main contact with the information such as sending it to the Chair of the Bi-State Committee. Membership is valid as long as the member is a member of JPACT and RTC.

The Bi-State Coordination Committee will have four citizen members and will serve for a single two-year term. Chris Deffebach said the citizen appointment is a little more complicated. Each jurisdiction appoints citizens differently. At Metro, for example, citizens are nominated, appointed by the Executive Officer and concurred by the Council. Members of the Committee do not appoint the citizen representative. This is just one process. In the draft bylaws, it states that the Bi-State Committee identifies the process for selection and selects the citizens. There are many options, but a decision will need to be made as to what the process will be.

Fred Hansen said he was unclear as to who actually appoints the member. Usually there is a screening process that recommends and then another that appoints. He said he felt that RTC and Metro/JPACT should be the actual ones to have the appointing authority. Ms. Deffebach said that could be done with two picked by the Executive Officer, approved by the Council and two picked by RTC Chair, approved by the RTC Board, if that is the wish of this committee. Fred Hansen said he thought that the Bi-State Committee should be the one to recommend.

Lynne Griffith asked as this group advances if it is anticipated that a relationship with a citizen group or subcommittee is worthwhile. Given the rail advisory and TDM advisory groups, do we want a citizen advisory group? Many jurisdictions already have citizen advisory groups. Use these groups to draw from for the four members so we know we have someone who will participate well. Craig Pridemore stated that no specific funds have been identified for staff support through RTC or JPACT for funding a high level system. Serena Cruz said when we select our criteria; it should address our concerns of selecting interested people who will be committed. She said she would be more supportive of an open process, rather than only those who have already been a part of transportation and land use issues. Mary Legry said that was done with the Transportation Futures Committee that RTC did in Clark County. It was advertised and applications were submitted. Applications were screened, and selections were made by the Mayor and County Commissioners. It brought a range of people that seemed to work.

Jim Francesconi apologized that he had to leave, but had two comments. He felt the duties need to be spelled out in the bylaws. Mr. Francesconi also referred to the handout for the next agenda item, the summary of the Reauthorization of the TEA-21, and said the document was very well done.

Chris Deffebach continued to highlight the bylaws. For Other Members, the Bi-State Coordination Committee may recommend that other representatives from other jurisdictions or agencies become members as specified in the Accord and that expansion of the membership would be a change to the Accord, not the Bylaws, needing approval by a quorum. Fred Hansen said he thought that the body that is the decider should be the decider about expanding. He said he would remove “Expansion of the membership is a change to the Accord, not the bylaws, and will need to be approved by a quorum of members.” Chris asked if he meant the responsibility to decide would be by someone else. He said that the Bi-State committee is authorized by the JPACT and RTC process, it seems that they should. Membership is a very important element. To be consistent with that process, the advisory committees would also be recommended by the Committee to RTC and JPACT.

A Chair and Vice Chair will be elected and not from the same state. They will approve the agenda. Each member will have one vote, and a simple majority vote is needed to pass an action item and a quorum needed for a vote to be valid. A quorum is defined as five members from each state for a total of ten.

Ms. Deffebach noted the elements of Reporting, Changes to the Bylaws, Termination, Meeting Locations and Times, and Public Notice. Administrative Support for the committee has been shared between Metro and RTC. The Bi-State Committee does not have the ability to obligate a financial commitment to any member jurisdictions. The Draft Bylaws will be brought back to the Committee in the fall.

Eric Holmes said the principles in the Accord look good but questioned some of the details. Regarding the section on managing land use, there are a number of other activities that are going on in Clark County. Some of the proposals may negatively impact the level of service on roads leading to the Interstate. He said he hopes to have an opportunity to discuss some of those issues. Mary Legry said some of those issues were raised by the Task Force members.

Dean Lookingbill said it is anticipated that the Accord would first be brought back to this Committee. Once that is established, the operation of the bylaws will be clearer to establish.

Rod Monroe asked if the consensus was to have membership decisions and decisions of the potential expansion of membership to include citizen members or other jurisdictional members to be made by RTC and JPACT, which created the Bi-State Committee, not the Committee itself. Yes, that was the Committee’s recommendation.

IV. 2004-09 Federal Transportation Reauthorization Policy Paper

Andy Cotugno referred to the distributed copies of the Regional Discussion Draft Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). He said it is an options and issues paper that they are developing for JPACT consideration. This year is a period where all kinds of issues are going to be on the table for the next TEA reauthorization. He said they will probably start bill mark-ups in January, and this is preparatory to that. This is intended as a policy component. Later this year, they will also have to deal with project priorities. This document is not intended to be the project priorities, rather the broader policy issues, how you structure programs, funding levels, eligibility, and activities.

Of the Bi-State Committee’s concern, Mr. Cotugno referred to page 2, the Overall Funding Levels. Additional funding is the most critical issue for the reauthorization of TEA-21. Major changes are not under consideration at the national level. He said there is talk about money that is now being diverted to the general fund via the Ethanol Tax Credit and lack of interest accrual on the Trust Fund going through the general fund. Those would add about 10% to the overall program levels. There is also a proposal under development by AASHTO to take that revenue screened and bond it. That is good up front but bad downstream. There are pros and cons. It is not really new money; it is accelerated money.

Page 5 references Additional Funding for New Starts. This has always been a significant priority for this region. JPACT has a clear set of priorities that focus on finishing off Interstate MAX, getting commuter rail in to Washington County, and getting something authorized for the south corridor. The importance of having a New Starts program is beyond those three projects. It goes to other parts of the system. This is where the principle of having a New Starts program is a priority for them. The project request to be discussed this fall is if they ask for a piece of the Loop, and if they include the alternatives analysis EIS request.

Page 12 references the I-5 Trade Corridor and a call for the north corridors category, a discretionary category, that provided the $2 million for the work that was just finished, calling for that program to be significantly expanded. It is currently $140 million and split with border related expenditures not just corridors. They are suggesting that it be $1 billion and a more rigorous process. The Truman Hobbs program is also referenced. In the Borders and Corridors category, there is the question of money for the Delta Park project or for the Delta Park project plus. Mr. Cotugno said there are many more issues on the TEA-21 Reauthorization, but only highlighted a few.

Chris Lassen said besides the National League of Cities, he is on the Steering Committee for Transportation, and the Subcommittee for TEA-21 Reauthorization. He said at their Subcommittee meeting a few weeks ago, along with their meeting in September, one of the overlying issues that came up was security. This was repeated over and over. He said he assumes that that will be one of the major things that they will recommend to the Policy Committee in December in Salt Lake when they meet. Their recommendation will go to the National League of Cities at the main meeting in December. Craig Pridemore asked if this means that security becomes a component in evaluating projects. Mr. Lookingbill said this goes back to the need to increase to overall funding levels. In the state of Washington, the idea is to not fund national security out of the existing transportation program funding. Although, there is great concern that that is how it may be funded. The point to be made is that they’re recognizing a national security need, but need to figure out how to fund it outside the existing program or we will never do what was suggested to increase the overall funding levels. Craig Pridemore asked Chris Lassen if they were not suggesting that more transportation dollars be added on for security. Mr. Lassen said it is a separate issue. There was discussion that that whole issue could eclipse this whole program. Fred Hansen said the bigger issue is how we keep some of this in perspective in efforts on the security side. The ability to fight the last war in over spending areas that are not necessary and not spend in areas that probably are is our greatest fear.

Ed Barnes said he had attended a joint meeting of both the House and Senate. There was discussion of security checks and who authorizes those checks. He said security is important, but we do not need to go overboard.

V. Public Comment

Rod Monroe said that Chris Deffebach will be taking an eight month leave and going to Germany. This is her last Bi-State Committee meeting until her return in March. Mr. Monroe wanted to recognize all of the good work that she has done. He said he leans on her a lot and that she works closely with Dean to make it a good process. He said she would be missed and wished her well. Chris said she has enjoyed working with this group and watching them come together as a group over the past three years to look at bi-state issues differently. She said she is excited about the future of this group and taking on the challenges as a region.

Walter Valenta had a comment about the citizen involvement. He said the process would probably be opened for the four members. As far as the other auxiliary assisted advisory groups like Lynne Griffith had suggested, he suggested having one citizen group that is monitoring the EIS or for the corridor and also advising you, so that whatever the citizens are doing, there is just one channel that they go through. They apply to everybody that it needs to. Even the small specialty groups, the environmental justice groups, are subsets of that one group so the citizens know one place to plug in. Maybe it is coordinated through ODOT and WSDOT already required to have these set up.

VI. Fall Meetings and Agenda Items

The next Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be on September 26, 2002, at Metro. (The meeting was later moved to October 24, 2002.)

The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 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.