Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, September 25, 2003, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of Meeting Report

Chair Craig Pridemore called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. in the Metro Council Chamber at 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland. Introductions followed. The Meeting Report for June 26, 2003 was approved as written by voice vote. Those in attendance are listed below:

Committee Members
Chair Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner Vice Chair Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner John Fratt, Port of Vancouver, Alternate Jim Francesconi, City of Portland Commissioner Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor Matthew Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager Mary Legry, WSDOT, Alternate Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN, Executive Director/CEO Fred Hansen, TriMet, General Manager Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland, Executive Director
Staff
Dean Lookingbill, RTC Mark Turpel, Metro Jan Faraca, Metro
Interested Guests
Edward Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, Alternate Phil Selinger, TriMet, Alternate Carl Warren, Port of Portland Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland, Alternate Robin McArthur, ODOT, Alternate Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver Dale Millar, C-TRAN Dale Himes, WSDOT Jim Whitty, ODOT John McConnaughey, WSDOT Evan Dust, Clark County Kate Deane, ODOT John Gillam, City of Portland, Alternate Fred Eberle, ODOT Dick Benner, Metro Richard Brandman, Metro

II. I-5 Trade Partnership-Progress and Remaining Tasks

Mark Turpel of Metro, reported on the Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership, summarizing the work that has been completed and work that will soon be finished. The participating agencies in Oregon include Multnomah County, City of Portland, Oregon Department of Transportation, Port of Portland, TriMet and Metro. Those in Washington are Clark County, City of Vancouver, Washington State Department of Transportation, Port of Vancouver and CTRAN. The project focuses on the I-5 Corridor from I-84 in the south to I-205 in the north. A multi-modal balanced approach was recognized in the recommendations concluded in June 2002:

• Three through-lanes in each direction on I-5, including southbound through Delta Park;
• A phased light rail loop in Clark County in the vicinity of the I-5, SR500/4th Plain and I-205 corridors;
• An additional span or a replacement bridge for the I-5 crossing of the Columbia River, with up to two additional lanes for merging and two light rail tracks;
• Interchange improvements and additional merging lanes where needed between SR500 in Vancouver and Columbia Boulevard in Portland, including a full interchange at Columbia Boulevard; and
• Capacity improvements for freight rail.

“Soft” transportation investments in the Partnership included Transportation Demand Management--trying to squeeze out every dollar and efficiency from the investments made. In addition, the report calls for dealing with the mitigation of impacts.

Finance is a major challenge and on-going work continues to find dollars to fund these recommendations. The process timeline would conclude with construction of improvements beginning in 2010, although ODOT and WSDOT are evaluating innovative methods of finance, designs and construction, which could speed completion.

For a summary of work underway or completed on specific tasks, please refer to Mr. Turpel’s written report included in the meeting packet, “Specific Actions to be Taken,” as included in Section XI of the Final Strategic Plan of June 2002. He briefly commented on the following tasks:

• The recommended transportation improvements have been added to the state transportation plans on both sides of river. In addition, the MPOs have acknowledged the recommendations. RTC included them in its transportation plan and the Metro Council has recommended inclusion in the next RTP update.
• Metro and others have been working on a TDM/TSM strategic plan that will be introduced to this group for review, hopefully as a starting point to begin looking at a TSM/TDM Forum for both sides of the river.
• Correction: the MTIP grant approved for FY 2006-07 is for $125,000 (not $250,000 as stated in the written summary) to develop an I-5/TDM plan in the corridor.
• Creating a Rail Forum—since freight is a component of this task, the Committee may look to the Ports to provide some direction in developing next steps.
• Form public involvement groups—ODOT has formed a Delta Park/Lombard project citizen advisory committee involving persons from both sides of the river, even though the focus has been on the Oregon side. An environmental justice working group has been formed for the project as well and could be a springboard for a larger effort.
• Expand transit service by TriMet and C-TRAN. C-TRAN is in the midst of developing a 20-year plan and looking at alternatives. TriMet is preparing for the early opening of Interstate MAX, which could allow them to redeploy some of their bus service. While funding is always a challenge, the Oregon legislature has allocated some initial future funding.

Metro Councilor Rod Monroe asked about the status of efforts to secure freight rail bridge funding through the federal Truman-Hobbs Act. Dean Lookingbill of RTC responded that an ad hoc group in Vancouver has met several times and although they have been discouraged from utilizing Truman-Hobbs, they have not given up on finding a way to fund freight rail bridge improvements. Mary Legry of WSDOT commented that other approaches have successfully been employed in Congress to secure Truman-Hobbs funding. Mr. Lookingbill added that an upcoming meeting is planned with the Coast Guard administrator who declined the Truman-Hobbs request.

In response to a request for clarification, the Truman-Hobbs Act was described generally as a federal funding mechanism for maritime improvements, which could include investment in a rail bridge across the Columbia River, as determined in part by the Coast Guard.

The question of how the freight rail bridge improvement discussion fits into the context of the I-5 Partnership discussion is very important for this Bi-State Committee to sort out, noted Chair Pridemore. The freight rail bridge is a major factor but is not the only piece of the puzzle. Lesser rail investments could be undertaken that would greatly improve the efficiency of freight movement in the region, said Bill Wyatt of the Port of Portland.

All of the partners who worked to craft the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership document will be engaged in the I-5 Crossing conversation, a complex issue encompassing many transportation modes, said Matthew Garrett of ODOT.

Jim Whitty of ODOT and Dale Himes of WSDOT reported on the progress of preparation for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-5 Crossing. An allocation of $3.5 million by the Federal Highway Administration occurred recently. Mr. Whitty outlined the task list under the terms of the agreement:

• Analysis and finance options including variable pricing
• Analysis of traffic and revenue including the feasibility study. This means traffic diversion, projections and performance of related facilities.
• Sensitivity analysis with the public
• Freight movement assessment
• Estimates of capital, net maintenance and operating costs
• Preliminary development of construction timeline and estimate of debt service

Mr. Whitty listed the basic thrust of the work in the EIS Scope and Methodology:

• Evaluation of alternates
• Approaches for structuring and managing environmental work requirements
• Legal analysis and implementation framework—analysis of options for organizational framework and bi-state compacts; and the legal framework for a multi-modal corridor.
• Preliminary investigations for the EIS involving land use, transportation planning, air quality and other environmental analyses, as well as public outreach and community organization.

WSDOT is reviewing the task list and will provide comments toward further refining the work. In response to a question, Mr. Whitty said he could not comment on how much time the EIS work would take to complete, however, he expects the preliminary analysis to be completed within six months. Richard Brandman of Metro, noted that because of the complexity of this project, more time might be needed to gather and analyze the information. Mr. Garrett commented that ODOT staff is cognizant of the partnership with WSDOT in this process. An outcome has not been pre-supposed. The obligation of the $3-4 million is to do the pre-work. Staff will work aggressively over the next six-nine months to gather the information that is needed to get to the EIS process. Fred Hansen, TriMet, encouraged the development of a task completion schedule to help provide structure and efficiency to the process. He suggested six months for the Scoping process, another six months for narrowing the Scoping data (Alternatives Analysis) and then another 1.5 years moving into the EIS. Mr. Garrett agreed that he too would like to see the EIS steps move along as quickly as possible. Mr. Hansen emphasized that the sooner a post-Scoping schedule can be determined, the better and more disciplined the process will be.

This is the public process, responded Chair Pridemore to a comment that it would save a lot of time to presuppose what needs to be done and build a bridge.

Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder requested that copies of the completed Scoping Report be distributed to the Committee.

Kate Deane reported on other I-5 Trade Partnership Tasks, including an Oct. 20-23 Design Workshop. The three build alternatives that were chosen for further study are the subject of the workshop. The schedule, previously described, has been revised to a more realistic timeframe (for the schedule, see the I-5 Partnership flyer, I-5: Delta Park to Lombard Project, which is included in the meeting record). After the Design Workshop, the final concepts for each alternative will be analyzed for environmental impacts and open to public review in the spring of 2004. The present schedule calls for final recommendations and approval from the Federal Highway Administration by Spring 2005.

Ms. Deane described the difference between an environmental assessment (EA) and an EIS. (An EIS is required when there is the finding that a project causes a significant impact.) The goal for the start of construction is 2008.

Dean Lookingbill of RTC briefly touched on the need for developing a Rail Forum. Chair Pridemore suggested that the Ports could work together to coordinate the Rail Forum. Bill Wyatt of the Port of Portland, said he believes this is a good time to move into that area, and John Fratt of the Port of Vancouver, concurred and described freight rail as a regional issue. There is an undeniable link between transportation and economic issues, noted Mr. Garrett.

An MTIP grant of $125,000 has been included in the 2006 budget to develop and move forward a TDM plan in the I-5 Corridor. The hope is that other partner agencies would contribute funding as well. The possibility of an earlier start date is being considered, potentially coordinated with a Bi-State TDM/TSM Forum. Mr. Turpel said that Metro has been working with local jurisdictions on a TDM/TSM Strategic Plan and that this would be brought in draft form to the Bi-State Committee for comments and recommendation prior to JPACT review.

Ms. Deane described the Delta Park project as a proving ground for environmental justice. A joint Oregon-Washington Environmental Justice Work Group has been formed to conduct outreach during the EIS process and to identify low income and minority communities that could be affected by implementation of the I-5 Strategic Plan.

The environmental justice work currently underway by this committee is related to I-5 improvements, where mitigation tied to the Interstate MAX Light Rail project was specific to the light rail EIS process. Mr. Hansen noted that environmental justice is not a new concept, rather it is linked to Title 6 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Further, he briefly described why it is important in this particular community. Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz indicated that there remains much to do to achieve the goals of this program. Portland City Commissioner Jim Francesconi introduced the subject of community work force involvement, and Mr. Hansen noted that local disadvantaged business hires approached 20 percent for Interstate MAX.

III. Bi-State Coordination Committee

Dean Lookingbill reported on the effort to craft an intergovernmental agreement forming the Bi-State Coordination Committee (see blue handout, Status of Issues for Discussion). There seems to be agreement on the key elements of the agreement and options for handling them as outlined on the handout, including committee membership, its role, its authority, geographic scope, agenda setting and staffing. A new notion is to explore the participation of federal transportation agencies such as Federal Highway and Transit and possibility, Federal Railroad. This committee would have no regulatory authority. It would basically be a forum for information sharing. Decision-making would be on significant transportation, economic development and land use issues with potential bi-state impact or benefit. The I-5 corridor will be the major focus with a potential for a secondary focus on the I-205 corridor. Within the bylaws process, there may be a need to address the issue of a technical advisory committee. After reviewing the next steps, Mr. Lookingbill said he is looking for feedback from the Committee and that any comments from the Steering Committee would be helpful also. Councilor Burkholder commented that he is pleased with the progress that has been made and that there seems to be general agreement on the need for this committee.

Ed Barnes of the Washington State Transportation Commission, voiced his concern that Labor does not appear to be represented on the Committee; he would like to see some outreach to working folks on both sides of the river. The chair and co-chair concurred. Mr. Lookingbill suggested that the stakeholders group would be an appropriate place to include additional persons. The goal is to complete organization of the Bi-State Coordination Committee and distribute an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) to the participating agencies by the end of the year, said Councilor Burkholder.

IV. Suggestions for Future Bi-State Topics

Mr. Barnes mentioned that at a recent transportation committee meeting in Walla Walla, numerous freight-related concerns were voiced, including dredging on the Columbia River; rail; heavy truck travel on I-84, and the impacts of new security requirements on area airports. He proposed inviting folks from the Tri-cities area to provide a presentation. He emphasized that what happens regarding the river in the metropolitan area has an impact on communities up stream. Chair commented that in the context of the Columbia, there is a broader region to be considered.

Mr. Garrett suggested the Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization act as a topic within the next six months.

Mr. Hansen said the Bi-State Committee would need to take steps to insure that it has relevance as a forum for issues of concern to both Oregon and Washington DOTs.

Councilor Monroe requested a report from C-TRAN and TriMet about their plans for the opening of Interstate MAX in May, how that connection is going to work and their plans for increasing the use of transit in the corridor.

Mr. Wyatt mentioned an update about the proposed distribution center at Ridgefield and its impacts. Other members agreed that the broader topic of distribution centers within jurisdictions on industrial lands would be a timely topic of interest.

V. Public Comment

Hearing no comments, Chair Pridemore adjourned the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 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.