 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, November 21, 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, 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
Steve Iwata (alternate), City of Portland
Dave Lohman, (alternate) Port of PortlandEric Holmes, City of Battle Ground, City Manager
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Phil Selinger (alternate), Tri-Met
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
John Cullerton, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Gary Cardwell, Citizen
Heather Catron, ODOT
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Kate Deane, ODOT
Fred Eberle, ODOT
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Bob Hart, RTC
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Mary Legry, WSDOT
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Neil McFarlane, Tri-Met
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Sharon Nasset, NPBA
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Bill Stewart, Oregonian
Sharon Wylie, Clark County
Dave Williams, ODOTChair Pridemore asked for approval of the October 24, 2002 Meeting Report. The Meeting Report was approved as written.
Dean Lookingbill noted to Committee Members that it was intended to have a Draft of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Bi-State Coordination Accord. They were not able to get the legal staff assistance in time for this meeting. Mr. Lookingbill said that is now underway. Initially for the work scope, interviews will be set up for both the Oregon side and the Washington side to get the proper approach from committee members.
Neil McFarlane, Tri-Met, distributed an Interstate MAX Progress Report to Bi-State Members. The project is a 5.8 mile Interstate MAX light rail extension starting at the Rose Quarter Transit Center to connect downtown Portland to the Expo Center. It is a $350 million project with ten stations and two park and ride facilities. The project overall is about 75% complete, and well ahead of schedule. The original opening date was September 2004 and now may be June of 2004 prior to Rose Festival if the schedule continues ahead. Mr. McFarlane highlighted the construction progress. He said all the paving had been completed in October and ready for the winter. He said the overhead catenary work and track work continues. Mr. McFarlane said the most visible part of the project for the Vancouver residents’ standpoint is the long bridge from the Kenton neighborhood to the PIR station. All of the girders for that bridge are in place, and deck construction is well along. There are 27 new light rail vehicles under contract. The landscaping for the project will go in next fall. Mr. McFarlane highlighted the funding status of the project as noted in the distributed report. He noted the innovative artwork that is used in the alignment. They have worked very closely with the community in the project. There are more businesses operating on Interstate Avenue today than when construction was started. Mr. McFarlane said they are very proud of their DBE efforts and noted the statistics as listed in the report on pages 10 and 11. Mr. McFarlane said they are in the planning stages of the bus service for the opening of Interstate Max. He said a major reconfiguration of the bus service along Interstate Avenue is required. They have a commitment to the neighborhoods in north Portland to replace the bus service that is dislocated on Interstate Avenue because of light rail service. Open Houses are planned for February 5 and 6, 2003, and bus service changes in the spring of 2004. They are working with C-TRAN on the potential of transfer facilities at PIR or elsewhere along the alignment to maximize the efficiencies that are available.
Dean Lookingbill said for Vancouver residents the Victory Blvd. crossing is the most likely transfer. Mr. McFarlane said they had originally looked at the Expo station, but that is not as good of transfer zone. There will be two park and ride facilities with 300 spaces each, one at the Expo Center and one at PIR. Mr. Lookingbill noted that the Vancouver residents have to cross the bridge to utilize those park and ride facilities. Mr. McFarlane said they are looking at innovative signage to assist travelers.
Dave Lohman said as part of the changes in the ISTEA program, the Port realized they needed to take a port-wide look at their needs on an annual basis as a way of picking a list to give to the MPO to be considered among the Regional Transportation Plans. He said they realized it needed to be a part of their capital planning process as well. The Port has been doing this for nine years and it has helped them think through their transportation planning and the projects that they need. It also highlights some of the problems that they have, namely that the things that they need to make their portion of the transportation system work are on systems owned and operated by someone else. They found they need to coordinate more effectively with the other players. He said another problem for them is the area around the airport. The Federal Government has very stringent limitations on how money that is generated at the airport by any source can only be spent within the airport boundaries. This is done to prevent the diversion of airport revenue to other projects. He said they are very carefully audited every year on this.
Susie Lahsene said a draft of the Port of Portland’s Transportation Improvement Plan went to their commission earlier in November and they are in the public review process currently, and that will end December 6. At that point, they will print the final document and send it to both JPACT and TPAC as well as other interested parties around the region. Ms. Lahsene displayed the information with a PowerPoint presentation.
The Port’s mission is to provide cost competitive access to both national and international markets for the region and state’s businesses and passengers. This is very much focused on the notion of cost and efficient access for industry and passengers. Their Transportation Improvement Plan is a collection of projects based on a series of studies that have been done over the course of many years. It is also a funding strategy that helps support and focus its interest in transportation project development and transportation projects that they may want to seek state, regional funds for. The document includes over 75 road, rail, environmental, transit, and waterway improvements that primarily address access to Port facilities. It does not include their terminal component. Some of the projects are on property that is owned by the Port, but many are on systems that are owned by others and often partner with another jurisdiction or the rail carrier and turn the improvement over to that particular jurisdiction. Ms. Lahsene said the Port’s Transportation Improvement Plan then becomes part of their own budgeting process and becomes the basis for work programs within the Port. She noted the goals and objectives.
Ms. Lahsene said it is important to know the context they are operating in. She said they are operating in a global marketplace. The whole notion of moving products long distances both for marketing purposes or product development itself means that products need to move very long distances over multiple modes within the transportation system. Industry today is focused on managing that. It is a key factor for them to gain productivity increases. The Portland metropolitan area including Vancouver is a part of a major distribution area on the west coast. The forecast for future trade is that the western part of the United States is going to more than double within a 20-year timeframe on all modes. She said for Portland, it is anticipated to be one of the fastest growing areas in the country in terms of volume of trade.
The Federal reauthorization bill occurs in 2003. There is potential in the state of Oregon with the legislature, where they may see some transportation legislation come together. This is the same timeframe that the region is allocating their federal funds. For the Port it is very important to think of what they want to put forward for a list of projects in each of the funding arenas. It is the Columbia Corridor area. The most significant reason is that 96 percent of all the re-handling facilities are located within that particular corridor. To the extent that industry relies on those businesses to move products efficiently, that focus makes sense for productivity gains in industry in the future.
The Port of Portland TEA-21 request is for Columbia Intermodal Corridor Phase 1. This is an intermodal access request to look at a rail complex in the Rivergate area, air cargo access around the airport, and general freight mobility on Columbia Boulevard in the vicinity of I-5. The rail complex project is one that came out of the I-5 Trade Corridor Study. They will have final public comment of December 6 and take it to their Commission on December 11.
Larry Paulson said conversation between the Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver continues. John Fratt said the I-5 Partnership identified ten projects for rail. He said he believes in the next 20 years, they will double the amount of commodities flowing through our area and generated in our area. Rail will play a significant component. He said all need to focus on that and support the Port of Portland projects in that it helps all the rail distribution centers. He said if our region is to grow, it has to have help on the rail.
Dave Lohman said in a previous discussion on this topic, someone questioned the idea of even asking for any public support for the rail system. He said they are finding increasingly that the railroads are driven by their financial factors and the Port is not the biggest kid on the block there. Even in LA, there needed to be a big infusion of public money to make a rail project that greatly increased rail efficiencies for freight movement there to happen. Mr. Lohman said he thought that we would be faced with those problems as well. This has been a national discussion as well. It was believed that there might be some rail funding in the next ISTEA bill.
John Fratt said the Alameda Corridor Project is a good case study. It is a 20-year project, and they are in their 20th year. There were many conflicts, but they resolved them. This project was laughed at in its beginning. Mr. Fratt said this region needs the same type of commitment together so the component does not get lost. Rail is going to be very, very important to us.
Kate Deane introduced Heather Catron, ODOT‘s Environmental Project Manager. Ms. Dean distributed a handout of slides representing today’s PowerPoint presentation and also a Target Schedule for the Delta Park project.
Heather Catron said they are beginning the NEPA process for this project. Federal Highways (FHWA) as the lead agency classified this as an environmental project. The purpose of an Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate the potential for significant effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the environment. It provides the opportunity for public and agency input. It aids in developing the project alternatives, provides technical analysis for identifying impacts and mitigation measures, helps determine whether or not an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is needed. An EIS is done on projects if it is thought there will be significant impacts to the environment. An Environmental Assessment satisfies federal NEPA requirements. Information in the Environmental Assessment will include: project description, purpose and need, project alternatives, probable permitting needs and planning actions, description of alternatives considered but dismissed, affected environment, impacts and mitigation measures, public and agency coordination summary, list of preparers, distribution list, and appendices. Potential environmental elements to be evaluated in the EA include aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, economics, environmental justice, geology, hazardous materials, land use, noise, parks and recreation, social impacts, threatened and endangered species, traffic, utilities, visual resources, water resources, wetlands, and wildlife. They are just beginning the scooping process to identify what will be evaluated and what alternatives will be evaluated.
Kate Deane said the decision-making structure is made up of the ODOT Project Team and Project Advisory Groups. The Project Team will be guided by the Project Advisory Group which includes the I-5 Project Advisory Group (PAG), Citizens Advisory Committee, Environmental Justice Work Group, and the Bi-State Coordinating Committee. Ms. Deane highlighted the representation on the advisory groups as listed in the presentation handout. She also noted key milestones stating in February they plan to develop the draft evaluation criteria, purpose and need statement, and alternatives development. In April they plan to work through alternatives screening, and by September have review of the Environmental Assessment. January of 2004, they plan to have public comment and have review of the decision document and revised Environmental Assessment. It is anticipated by April/May of 2004 to have FHWA receive the Environmental Assessment document.
Rod Monroe said this project is rated as one of the two highest rated projects in terms of public demand to be built. The other project is the widening of Sunset Highway. They both rank very high in public need and public support. Andy Cotugno asked if it was envisioned to have the startup of the community mitigation fund to be a part of the discussion. Kate Deane said there is an opportunity when they do the Delta Park project to carryout the I-5 Partnership Strategic Plan. That will be a part of the discussion. Andy Cotugno also asked how HOV would be tied into this project. Ms. Deane said they would have a study of HOV that is going to be going on in parallel with the Environmental Assessment. It should be fairly seamless in that there should not be a difference between the HOV study and the Environmental Assessment.
Dean Lookingbill said this is the interim step. We are looking at getting this project funded. With the reauthorization upcoming, JPACT has discussed this project as the next High Priority for Federal funding and also discussed at this Bi-State Committee. Both MPO’s are having discussion about reauthorization. There is a need to be mindful that this Committee will play a very important role in promoting funding for this project in the reauthorization process.
Dean Lookingbill said the Data Report is not yet fully complete, but with the timing of this meeting, felt that some of the information should be shared with the Bi-State Committee. The I-5 HOV project southbound in Vancouver was developed over a series of time. First policy was put into place, and for the Clark County side a full system analysis, and then an implementation strategy plan which the Bi-State Committee was a part of. The lane was opened October 28, 2001. There has been a series of data collection and monitoring throughout the project. Distributed to members was a copy of a draft summary of the Vancouver HOV Pilot Project Evaluation Report #4.
Bob Hart noted that this is the fourth and final evaluation report of the HOV lane for this pilot project period. The baseline data was collected from May 2001 to September 2001. The first evaluation report was in Mid-November 2001. The second report March 2002, third report July 2002, and the last report September/October 2002.
There were eight goals established. Of the eight HOV goals, the project is meeting six goals, and not meeting two of the goals. The first goal is to move more people per lane in the HOV lane during the AM 2-hour period than in the either of the adjacent general-purpose lanes. That goal is not being met. The data in this report showed some differences from previous evaluations. Volumes in the HOV lane are 90% of the adjacent general-purpose lane, which is a 20% increase from previous evaluations. The peak hour HOV person volumes remain at 2/3 of the general-purpose lane average.
Goal Two was to reduce peak period travel time for HOV lane users and reduce the average per-person travel. That goal is being met.
Goal Three was to minimize impacts to other traffic in the corridor on parallel facilities. Mr. Hart said this goal is also being met. Compared to the baseline, the share of traffic on I-205 decreased.
Goal Four was to increase the use of carpools, vanpools, and transit. This goal is being met. The number of carpools and transit ridership has increased since the Baseline reporting period. Transit ridership increased initially and remained stable from November to July, then increased during the October reporting period.
Goal Five is to maintain safety by not increasing the accident and incident rate in the corridor during HOV lane operating periods. This goal is being met. The number or incidents has fluctuated during each reporting period. There are two types of incidents that are being monitored, on-road incidents (traffic accidents, etc.) and off-road incidents (running out of gas, abandoned vehicles, flat tires). The number of off-road incidents increased compared to the prior reporting periods. WSDOT recently expanded its Incident Response Program. The increase in off-road incidents might reflect a greater percentage of the actual number of incidents being reported rather than an actual increase in the number of incidents.
Goal Six is to maintain the HOV lane’s effectiveness with appropriate enforcement. This goal is being met. The violation rate overall is 4-6%. The standard general rule is that 10% or better is very good, 15% is considered acceptable. We are well within the range of acceptability. This is due to the good presence by the State Patrol to enforce the lane.
Goal Seven is to maintain or improve travel time reliability for carpools and transit. This goal is being met as well. C-TRAN’s travel times for Bus 134 during the commute period compared from Baseline has improved significantly, helping the reliability in terms of performance of the corridor. Also, the lane overall is operating at least 45 miles per hour, which is a minimum standard for speed in an HOV lane.
Goal Eight is to maintain or improve public opinion as to the effectiveness of HOV lanes. That goal is not being met. A total of three surveys were done over the course of the pilot project, a baseline in September 2001, one in March 2002, and one in September 2002. Mr. Hart highlighted this as presented in the draft report.
Mr. Hart referred to the tables listed in the draft summary listing the persons per lane and the total person and vehicle trips from six to eight a.m. for the baseline and the four evaluation periods. He noted that more people are being carried in the corridor than before. The baseline shows 6,100 vehicles compared to 7,000 people being carried, and the most recent data shows 5,600 vehicles and over 7,000 people. Mr. Hart also highlighted the number of persons in carpools, vanpools, and transit from six to eight a.m. Information is showing more people are using the HOV lane where they belong, and a drop of carpool users in the general-purpose lane. Mr. Hart said the Evaluation Report is not final yet, but will be brought before the RTC Board of Directors at their December meeting.
A question was raised as to when a decision would be made and the impact of Measure 51. Craig Pridemore said that the RTC Board of Directors would make a recommendation to WSDOT at their January meeting. The Bi-State Committee is not scheduled to meet again until after that January meeting. He said if the Bi-State Committee wishes to take action on this, it needs to be at this meeting.
Dean Lookingbill said the data is not yet complete. The policy element within the HOV lane of moving more people and fewer vehicles is in the face of R-51. We need to make this system as efficient as we can. He noted even without adding any park and ride facilities at this point, higher transit ridership is being seen. With park and ride facilities in the future, it is hopeful to see that increase in the future.
Dave Lohman said that given the considerations, he asked if we could establish a consensus to put a letter together that all jurisdictions could sign in support, given the time element. Mr. Lookingbill said the RTC Board is scheduled to meet next Tuesday, December 3, 2002, and be presented with the full report. Today’s summary is a draft. The information will be presented to the RTC Board in December and brought back in January for a recommendation.
Don Wagner said to clarify the issue of more people movement and less cars: it is about 100 people more in 600 fewer cars. Referendum 51 effects are such that is the equivalent to about 1/3 to 1/2 of a lane of carrying capacity with no revenues to build lanes now. While the data is available now, WSDOT is still running checks on the information. They want to make sure the information is correct. Mr. Wagner said this process is a local project in conjunction with RTC and the local governments. They are very interested in what they have to say before they make their decision. It is their intention that once RTC voices in their recommendation, WSDOT will follow quickly with a decision.
Rod Monroe said that even though the data shows that not all is as effective as we would like, it seems that the primary data is moving in the right direction. He said that in the long term, especially after Delta Park is completed with an HOV lane, this is the way we want to go. He said he was ready to recommend that the HOV lane would be continued.
A question was raised if there was a deadline and if a recommendation could be made at the February meeting. Mr. Lookingbill said the legislature convenes in January and the HOV Pilot Project ends. It was hopeful to make a decision at the January 7, 2003, RTC Board meeting.
Don Wagner noted that if Referendum 51 had passed, there was language in R-51 that precluded us from establishing a new HOV lane in Clark County. There was discussion of the need to discuss with other jurisdictions’ boards along with the fact that they did not want to miss an opportunity for the future strategy for the corridor. Craig Pridemore noted the demand for more park and ride in the corridor that supported the numbers, which is planned. Rod Monroe said that when the Interstate Max opens, transfers would be encouraged. If those buses are clogged up in general purpose lanes and not have the HOV lane, it will be a lost opportunity. He said it is important to maintain that HOV lane.
Lynne Griffith said that C-TRAN has had an increase in ridership. There was a re-striping at the Salmon Creek Park and Ride to accommodate 20 more vehicles. It has been a transportation demand management strategy with the riders to carpool to the park and ride. C-TRAN does have a possible opportunity next September opening up a park and ride for 675 spaces around 179th. She said C-TRAN is aggressively pursuing this.
Dave Lohman said it is one of the functions of the Bi-State Committee to take into the account the public views of issues and to also to speak on behalf of the transportation system. It may be that sometimes we are caught in the functions, but he said he fears that the public opinion expressed by the polls will override all considerations. He said this committee needs to speak clearly of the impacts to the transportation system.
Craig Pridemore said it is clear that there is failure in the public policy and there will be politicians that will look at that and make a policy call based on politics. He said we have not had ideal conditions for the HOV experiment. He said there is more to this than politics. Kay Van Sickel said that I-5 is a corridor that is increasingly necessary to manage in as many ways as possible. This is just one way of managing it. This is also one way to maximize its use with the limited resources that are available.
Don Wagner said of the numbers of the public comments, 39% of the people questioned still thought it was a good or excellent idea. Only 31% of the people are using HOV or transit. The take-back issue and timing are also issues to be looked at.
Dave Lohman proposed a letter be drafted that said that as members of the Bi-State Committee, and on behalf of the transportation system, we think some things need to be pointed out. Those that feel they can, sign, and those others not.
Chair Pridemore said this type of action is usually done with a resolution. We can take action by drafting a letter and not a formal action and have the Chair and Vice Chair and those who wish can sign. A poll of members would be taken to see who is in support prior to sending the letter.
Serena Cruz said there are many issues with HOV. She said she is uncomfortable with an unofficial statement about HOV. Craig Pridemore said a resolution could be put forward at the next meeting, but he was hesitant at this meeting because the only Washington member present who can take a position was himself. The three other members need to get their respective jurisdictions position. The challenge of this is the sequencing in the allotted time.
Dean Lookingbill clarified that it was the final decision of the Committee to draft a resolution in support. This would be faxed to members to get a majority vote before final is sent. Lynne Griffith requested that a copy of that draft be sent so other jurisdictions could have it to present to their perspective boards. Mr. Lookingbill would have a draft by the following Monday. Eric Holmes noted that in the text of the resolution the issue of the impacts of the elimination of the HOV lane needed to be addressed along with the impacts to the transportation system in order to give knowledge to the public and to other boards.
Rod Monroe said the topic of HOV would be brought before JPACT at their next meeting.
There was no public comment.
A meeting schedule for 2003 was distributed.
The January 23, 2003, Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting will be held at Metro. The January meeting was later cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2003, at the Port of Vancouver.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|