 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, October 23, 2003, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, 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 Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Jim Francesconi, City of Portland Commissioner
Matt Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground, City Manager
Susie Lahsene, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Kate Deane, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Bob Hart, RTC
Dale Himes, WSDOT
Rich Lowry, Clark County
Robin McArthur, ODOT
John McConnaughey, WSDOT
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, Alternate
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Lydia Neill, Metro
Thomas Picco, ODOT
Ross Roberts, Metro
Phil Selinger, TriMet
Pat Serie, EnviroIssues
Bill Stewart, The OregonianChair Craig Pridemore asked for approval of the September 25, 2003 Meeting Report. The Meeting Report was approved as written.
The meeting moved to agenda item 3 and then returned to agenda item 2.
Kate Deane said they were holding a workshop this week on the Delta Park project. They have had about 120 people attend. They started Monday with a training session and moved to listening sessions. She said the sessions have been very, very helpful. She urged people to attend the session that evening and stay in touch with the process. She said they would be making changes based on the comments that they have received, particularly on the North to Schmeer option. Ms. Deane said they have also had some landscape architects working with them. The results will come back to this Committee. They will be starting the environmental assessment analysis in December.
Rex Burkholder said he was pleased the North to Schmeer option was brought forward to begin with. Even though it was found to not be a doable option, it brought more thought to look forward to other ideas. Mr. Burkholder said he received a letter stating concerns of impacts off the project, bottlenecks, that they think should trigger a full environmental review. Also an issue is the impact to air quality.
Kate Deane said they have heard all of these issues. She said they have tried to be responsive to the issues that have been presented to them. They are doing the environmental assessment at a higher level of analysis than ordinarily would be done. They acknowledge the needs of the community and are looking at the neighborhoods. She said the analysis might take a little longer time and money than anticipated in some areas.
Ms. Deane said there have been questions as to what is in the RTP for the Rose Quarter. She said in the RTP for the Rose Quarter improvement, there are actually two parts. One is making it three lanes in each direction, and the second is fixing the ramp connection between I-5 and I-84. The ramp connection is in the RTP not the three lanes. She said they are assuming the ramp connection, not the three lanes.
Don Wagner said he had attended Monday’s session, and over half of the people at his table were from the Washington side of the river. He said attendance was good, and that these were not the usual attendees of this sort of workshop.
Rod Monroe said that he and others made promises years ago that they were going to fix Delta Park. He said that anything that may delay this any further may cause the loss of the HOV lane. He would hope this project would not be further delayed.
Royce Pollard said much could be lost, and that this project needs to move forward as quickly as possible.
Fred Hansen said he understood the value of moving quickly, but also noted that it is easy to get off track. He said it is important to be careful and thorough. Even though it is timely, it is important to stay on track.
Lydia Neill, Metro introduced the Industrial Lands study that Metro is initiating to address industrial land within the urban growth boundary. Ms. Neill had two display maps. She said that this is required to be addressed every five years, and noted what they do affects their neighbors (Clark County) and it works both ways. She said that last year the Metro Council made an expansion of their Urban Growth Boundary and referred to the display map. She said they are about 1,900 acres short of industrial land. That is the land that is required based on forecast assumptions and others that are used to evaluate. She highlighted some of those assumptions. She referred to the display map showing the land that they are studying for possible inclusion in the urban growth boundary. Currently, they are in the process of completing their alternatives analysis study and getting ready to start their more public process of evaluating the suitable lands for industrial purposes and to start conversations with other partners and the public about which land makes more sense for industrial purposes. Ms. Neill distributed a handout of the Periodic Review Milestones of the project.
Dean Lookingbill said much of the land that is being analyzed is either farmland or vacant land now. He asked how much of the redevelopment potential is a part of the analysis. Ms. Neil said they have already gone through the process of evaluating the redevelopment potential inside the urban growth boundary. They have already made assumptions about that. The majority of the 1,900 acres is either vacant land or has the potential for redevelopment for industrial purposes in some form or fashion. Some areas are better than others. Matthew Garrett asked when comments needed to be received. Ms. Neill said comments would be received through December. Comments will go to the Metro Council in the first quarter of next year.
Mr. Lookingbill asked to what extent does it look at the bi-state region area. Ms. Neill said that when they did their analysis last year, the assumptions were discussed with the Clark County staff as to how they looked at these lands. They have had coordination.
Serena Cruz asked how the total acreage in Metro and Clark County relates to the Original Industrial Lands Study. Ms. Neill said the Original Industrial Lands Study looked at a short term versus a long-term basis. She said they used some of the methodology from that study and did not know the exact numbers, but could find out.
Craig Pridemore said as Clark County moves forward with their Growth Management Plan and Metro with their studies, coordination is a necessary piece.
Andy Cotugno said all the assumptions that were used were based on historical trends. Historical trends for the last 20 years indicate that 75% of the job development occurs in the Metro UGB and 25% in Clark County as well as the small jurisdictions in Oregon outside Metro. The question is if there is something in Clark County’s plan or something they adopt in their plan that will change that pattern.
Lydia Neill noted an important issue in the discussion. She said they are currently involved in a process to look at protecting their existing industrial land and plan that protection on the land that they need. Their assumptions are based on that protection.
An update on this topic will come back to the Committee at a future meeting.
Dean Lookingbill introduced Pat Serie of EnviroIssues who has been the lead facilitator in working through the Land Use Accord. Ms. Serie worked with the IGA Steering Committee consisting of Craig Pridemore, Betty Sue Morris, Royce Pollard, Jim Francesconi, Serena Cruz, and Rex Burkholder. The Steering Committee completed review and revisions on Monday, October 20. Legal staff from Metro, Richard Brenner and Clark County, Rich Lowry, assisted in the revisions. This item was sent to Committee members via e-mail after Monday’s review.
Rex Burkholder said one of the decisions made by the Steering Committee was to keep the Charter with broad language versus the actual statutes. The detail would be developed in the Bylaws of the Committee. There were some concerns of how to set up an agreement between the two states. Washington has a statutory requirement that an agreement between two states has to have an act of congress to approve it. Therefore, the best solution was to establish a charter. He noted an addition to the membership included the possibility of the committee, as desired, create ex-officio (non-voting) memberships for state and federal agency representatives, and also seek input from other interest in the corridor, such as communities, businesses, and interest groups.
Pat Serie highlighted the Purpose Statement of the Charter. She said the new committee, the Bi-State Coordination Committee, replaces the Bi-State Transportation Committee. It would serve as a forum to share information, coordinate review, and discuss implications of significant legislative land use, economic development, transportation, and environmental justice actions taken within the corridor. The results of the Committee’s deliberations are advisory to the RTC and Metro’s JPACT, and Metro, on issues of bi-state transportation significance. On issues of bi-state land use and economic significance, the Committee advises the local and regional governments appropriate to the issue. The Committee holds no regulatory authority. Member jurisdictions retain their full existing authorities, but consider carefully and give weight to Committee recommendations.
Matt Garrett said that it is important to coordinate state and federal agencies, but noted there needed to be continuity between the two states. Craig Pridemore said the intent of this was to include the federal agencies for air quality, since we are considered one region.
Ms. Serie further highlighted the draft charter, stating the geographic scope is the area of the I-5 corridor bounded on the south by the Fremont Bridge on I-405 and in the north by 179th Street. Its scope to the west extends to include important freight transport and economic development activities, especially along the river. Consideration of the area east of the immediate corridor extends as far as I-205, as indicated by linkages and impacts to I-5 corridor investments and communities.
The Committee work plan will define issues to be addressed, including significant baseline policy issues for the region such as comprehensive and sub area plans and interchange management plans. Members bring, prior to adoption, significant management plans to the Committee for review. More specific projects and policy issues are nominated by each jurisdiction that desires Committee review, and the Committee establishes its agenda collaboratively. The Committee does not address issues related to quasi-jurisdictional applications for specific land use projects, once applications are submitted.
Committee decisions on its recommendations are made by consensus, or if necessary a majority vote of its quorum membership, defined as 2/3 of total membership. Such decisions on Committee recommendations are advisory to JPACT/Metro and RTC, and have no legal or regulatory authority. The goal is to take this out to each jurisdiction for their approval.
Rod Monroe asked how this dealt with the issue of Metro having authority over land use and transportation and RTC only covering transportation and Clark County having land use authority. Mr. Lookingbill said as stated in the charter, on issues of bi-state land use and economic significance, the Committee advises the local and regional governments appropriate to the issue.
Fred Hansen said it was generally recognized that there was a strong connection between land use and transportation. He questioned whether the inclusion of environmental justice and economic development considerations should occur and recommended that these should be addressed only where there was a strong nexus between transportation and those issues.
Fred Hansen said it was recognized the connection of land use and transportation. He questioned the inclusion of environmental justice and economic development considerations.Craig Pridemore said that came out of part of the I-5 Partnership Task Force recommendations.Jim Francesconi said that if this committee becomes the regional approach for economic development and environmental justice issues and is a broader group, he questioned how appropriate the players might be in the future. Mr. Francesconi said he felt the strategies need to be more directly related. He said on specific tasks, such as Delta Park, he feels that sharing information is not enough. There was discussion of the environmental justice issue. Serena Cruz said there was a commitment to following through on the environmental justice issues. There was further discussion and the fact that environmental justice needed to further defined.
Don Wagner said that he has raised strong concerns of separating out one of the elements of the environmental process. If this suggestion is to be more specifically about the I-5 corridor transportation projects, that it would have a group of this size and stature looking at this environmental justice piece, to the exclusion of air quality and exclusion of the Columbia River, and to the exclusion of other truly bi-state environmental issues that a project of this magnitude would have. His suggestion would be to either take out the word justice and include all environmental aspects that are associated with the project or take out the words environmental and justice and utilize other opportunities to voice in on project level documents as with Delta Park.
Serena Cruz said she would like to find a way to acknowledge the environmental issues that Mr. Wagner brought up, but she was uncomfortable removing the word justice or environmental justice out of this purpose statement. She suggested including environment and environmental justice. Removing one or both of the words does not reflect the promise of the Task Force.
There was further discussion of environmental issues relating to people, lands, and projects. It was noted that the committee is to look at transportation and land use, and all other things come under that. Also noted was the need to look at the economic development connection and regional economy. This Charter was set up to be a broad coverage.
Rex Burkholder and Craig Pridemore asked if members were comfortable with passing this resolution today and send it on to RTC and JPACT and then on to the various jurisdictions. Fred Hansen said he would support this with the amendment to the Purpose Statement to say the charter expands the scope of the bi-state effort to include both transportation and land use. Review of land use and transportation issues of bi-state significance may prompt review of these topics in the context of economic development, environmental, and environmental justice issues. It also ensures that regionally significant aspects of transportation - highway, bridge, transit, freight rail, and transportation system and demand management - are considered.
Don Wagner said he would like to see the final wording before it was passed on to RTC and Metro for adoption. Mr. Lookingbill said the finalized document could be e-mailed out to members. Participation in the new committee will be accomplished through adoption of resolutions of intent to participate and observe the charter by local jurisdictions, and through letters of intent to participate and observe the charter by state or federal agencies.
Jim Francesconi said he could support this but felt it put economic development as a secondary position. He felt there was a need for another group to address that issue. Craig Pridemore said this is the only bi-state organization to address that. Rex Burkholder noted that the Bi-State Committee was a subset of RTC and JPACT. Mr. Francesconi felt there was a need to define where economic development would be addressed. Craig Pridemore said there are many issues to be addressed, but the charter is set up to be broad, and not the appropriate document to set those determinations.
Jim Francesconi requested a list of what this group can accomplish next year beyond Delta Park.
Royce Pollard said there are three main issues he has concern about land use, transportation, and economic development that need attention.
It was the Committee’s recommendation by consent to move forward with the endorsement of the Charter and Resolution.
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland, gave an overview of the next needed steps to initiate the Rail forum. She referred to the Summary of Rail Freight Recommendations from the I-5 Rail Capacity Study completed in February 2003 and updated specific project cost estimates. The rail system for this region is very significant and important to the Ports’ operations. The challenges as they move forward include they expect a significant increase in freight and freight rail in particular. The carriers are private businesses and in their effort to maintain their possibilities, they have been sharing much of their system and have remained cost competitive, and in some cases, their rates are similar to what they were in the late 80s. This makes it a difficult situation for them because when you look at investment in a system in terms of rate of return and what kind of rate of return, they have a relatively high level. Therefore, they are constrained in having passage. In essence, what the carriers look at in terms of system, this region typically falls 11th in their top 10. The Port has been looking at a way to try and create both market opportunities as well as density, so they can move up their investments that are required onto their top 10 list. The Port’s interest in trying to negotiate cost allocation responsibilities between public and private stakeholders is not a simple task. Ms. Lahsene said what is needed is a region-wide bi-state effort focused on a rail agenda, perhaps to agree on what their priorities are. They have set their priorities from the I-5 Group, but as this set of recommendations, there may be more priorities, projects, beyond that. Also, there will be a need to enter into negotiations with the rail carriers. She said this is just the beginning of a work effort that a concentrated amount of time needs to be spent to come up with a set of priorities that make sense as a region that we want to pursue.
Craig Pridemore said the I-5 Partnership recommended the formation of the rail forum so both sides of the river could work together. The hope was that the Ports would be willing to support under the Bi-State Coordination Committee. Susie Lahsene said that the Port of Portland has not discussed it in detail with the Port of Vancouver. She said there have been internal discussions, and would be pursuing it, but need to get together with the Port of Vancouver.
Dean Lookingbill said as that rail forum develops, their recommendations would come back to JPACT/Metro and RTC.
Don Wagner said the first project on the proposed improvements list is fully funded by the State of Washington for $55 million. Larry Haverkamp said that he did not see any mention of the Troutdale aluminum plant improvements. Susie Lahsene said the Port is pursuing a facility, purchasing the property for the purposes of both industrial and facility development. She said it is a long process, and there is still opportunity to add to the list. Mr. Haverkamp said he understood the discussion of economic development and land use, but rail is not discussed as much. He said it is important to understand the importance of rail.
Ginger Metcalf is Executive Director of Identity Clark County (ICC), a private nonprofit corporation in Clark County. She said their mission is narrowly focused on issues for the private sector to make a difference in the community and economic development in Clark County and the region. A few years ago, she said they recognized that there were many bridge lifts possibly taking place on the I-5 Bridge that could be avoided. They did a bridge lift study that led them to the conclusion that in fact the Coast Guard regulations were not being adhered to. They met with Senator Slade Gorton and the Columbia River Towboat Association and agreed that they would make a recommendation to the Coast Guard to have the existing regulations enforced and to extend the hours of non-lifts by a half hour on each end. This is how they became involved in the I-5 Bridge. She said obviously, lifts have an impact on the economy of the region. They created a partnership with the Columbia River Towboat Association because they made ICC aware of the navigational issue. That issue is the movement of going through the I-5 bridge and in less than a mile try to make a significant turn to the north shore to clear the swing span of the rail bridge. The rail bridge was built in 1908, and built to accommodate the small freight vessels on the river, certainly not designed to accommodate 600-foot tows that are seen today. The towboat owners were extremely cooperative and have encouraged their industry to try and avoid the I-5 Bridge lifts. She said Identity Clark County agreed to work with the Towboat Association and apply for Truman-Hobbs funding to possibly get the swing span relocated and replaced with a lift span. They did not meet the Truman-Hobbs requirements. They are now searching for an avenue to get funding to relocate the swing span.
Ms. Metcalf distributed copies of a diagram showing the navigational issues and also the geographical locations. She said they have met with the Coast Guard and their elected Washington, D. C. officials, and they have assured them they will be very cooperative in helping with legislation that would be acceptable to congress. ICC is asking the Bi-State Committee for support and recommendations to JPACT and RTC that the Vancouver Rail Bridge Project be included in the Financially constrained System as a priority of the Regional Transportation Plan.
Dean Lookingbill said this is an issue that will require a full discussion. The project will impact putting the federal priorities in order. Matt Garrett agreed with Mr. Lookingbill that this is an extremely important issue. It is one of many to prioritize. He said that ODOT Commission is very disciplined about the safety earmarks. They have taken an extreme approach in prioritizing projects. It becomes a difficult conversation. If added to the list, it would mean others would have to come off.
Ginger Metcalf clarified that no action was asked today. It was informational for future knowledge and opportunity as it affects freight mobility, safety to navigation, recognizing that should there be an accident, this is the only rail crossing in the I-5 corridor. There are concerns and National Security implications also involved. It is truly a multimodal mission.
Don Wagner said this will come again when the I-5 Columbia River Crossing is addressed. Knowing where we stand on rail structures and important to know where the high points are on any new structure that crosses the river.
Andy Cotugno said he felt that asking for specific earmark in safety is the wrong way to set it up. He asked who is going to take ownership. There was a strategy with Truman-Hobbs, and it failed. It needs a new owner to take change. He said maybe safety is not the answer, maybe legislation would direct it in another way. He said part of this relates to what the new highway bridge will look like. If the north lift span on the freeway is removed and made a high point, then there is no need to change because the passage would be lined up.
Susie Lahsene said that many cities across the country are looking at rail improvements. She said in picking off a piece of an improvement may not be as advantageous as looking at the whole system operation proposal.
Andy Cotugno said that Metro is updating its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). They will be including the I-5 Partnership recommendations. The RTP Preferred System retains the Metro light rail transit plan intact, which includes possible future light rail to southwest Washington. However, with regard to the financially constrained RTP, one proposal is to remove the light rail to Vancouver project from the financial package, with the understanding that at a later date, this project could be added back.
There was no public comment.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 a.m.
The next meeting will be on December 18, 2003, at 7:30 a.m. at Metro
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|