 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, December 18, 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.
Chair Craig Pridemore called the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber at Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance are listed below:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Matthew Garrett, ODOT Region 1 Administrator
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground, City Manager
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver, Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County, Planning Director, Alternate
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, MetroInterested Guests Bill Barber, Metro
Michael Cummings, WSDOT
Kate Dean, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Bob Hart, RTC
Dale Hines, WSDOT
Jim Horn, Washington State Senator
Jim Howell, AORTA
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver
Phil Selinger, TriMet
Deb Wallace, Washington State Representative, District 17Fred Hansen requested that the October 23, 2003 Meeting Report be revised to clarify the meaning of comments he had made regarding the Bi-State Coordination Charter. He suggested the following language:
"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."
The meeting report was accepted as revised.
Bill Barber of Metro provided an overview and report on the Regional Travel Options program. (Please refer to materials included in the meeting packet.) He emphasized the role of the collaborative marketing program outlined in the 5-Year Strategic Plan. Part of the collaborative marketing strategy under consideration is a campaign that invites people to think about how they travel around the region and measuring the increase of the use of travel options over a 2-year period.
Committee members participated in a short discussion reflecting upon Mr. Barber’s presentation. The following comments are noted for the record:
- Royce Pollard stated that there could be a lot of opportunity for connecting the efforts on both sides of the river, especially since the electronic media is Portland-based and broadcasts on both sides of the river. It is important that media messages be universal (or generic) and crafted with sensitivity to issues on both sides of the river. The Bi-State Committee would be the place to make the connections between the agencies on both sides of the river.
- Craig Pridemore stated his agreement, and said that there was work to be done to make true bi-state coordination on projects like this.
- Lynne Griffith indicated that C-TRAN’s Patrick Greene is a member of the TPAC Transportation Management that developed the 5-Year Strategic Plan. Further, C-Tran participates as part of Carpool Match Northwest and currently is in partnership with Washington State DOT in conducting a vanpool study, which has nearly concluded. The Portland side was looked at, although there were cost limitations. C-TRAN has had some discussions with TriMet and part of the C-TRAN 20-year plan requires looking at all of the alternatives. Many of the trip reduction issues relate to the I-5 Corridor.
Mr. Barber noted that there is MTIP funding available for a Transportation Demand Management study in the I-5 Corridor—that would be a start toward this TDM forum.
- A Washington committee member suggested that since Washington citizens would see the proposed media drive, Washington agencies should take advantage of the it and see how they could fit in.
Mr. Barber responded that although the program is primarily Oregon focused, it is very early in the marketing planning process and that there may be opportunities to work together in a collaborative media approach. He noted that an ad hoc group from the subcommittee that includes marketing specialists from TriMet and some of the other agencies and jurisdictions. He invited participation by a representative from Vancouver or Clark County. Washington members expressed interest in the suggestion.
Fred Hansen acknowledged the importance of the work being done and that employer-based coordination has shown itself to be an effective tool for car-pooling and van-pooling. Mr. Hansen said he wished to point out the importance of service to providing transportation alternatives. As an example, he noted that last September, TriMet extended service on its Red Line, the light rail airport line from downtown Portland west to Beaverton Transit Center. This was down to address over-crowding on the full east-west (Blue) line. In the first month, 2,000 people were moved from the Blue Line to the Red Line and 5,000 additional riders were added on the Red Line. In (the second month) October, it appears 6,000 additional riders were added, meaning 3,000 net additional riders and nearly 4,000 in the next month. This an area that TriMet thought was saturated, and yet by adding 4 trains per hour, that many more riders were added. He said it is important to remember this information when considering the I-5 Corridor—the message is that when we deliver quality service, it is remarkable how people respond.
Rex Burkholder noted that getting information out is so important so that folks know they have options.
Kate Deane, ODOT, presented an update on the I-5 Delta Park/Lombard Project. She noted that based on public workshops with the residents, businesses local governments and other interested parties that changes were proposed to the design options. She described three new options that were intended to respond to public comment. The North to Schmeer option was modified to keep Victory Blvd open. It would widen I-5 southbound to 3 lanes with the possibility of one lane as a HOV lane and eliminate Columbia Blvd interchange, and relocate access to and from I-5 via two new bridges across the Columbia Slough to a new interchange. Optional improvements for truck access to I-5 via Denver by reconstructing the Columbia Blvd/Denver Ave and Schmeer Road/Denver Ave intersections. This option would not be phased (as the other two are designed.)
The second option described was the Full Columbia, with a first phase that widens I-5 southbound to three lanes with the possibility of one lane as an HOV lane. This phase would also re-construct the southbound Columbia Blvd on-ramp in its existing configuration and alignment. The second phase includes construction of a full diamond interchange at Columbia with optional improvements for truck access to I-5 via Denver by reconstructing the Columbia/Denver and Schmeer Road/Denver intersections.
The third option is the Denver Connector which includes reconstruction of the southbound Columbia Blvd on-ramp in the existing configuration and alignment as a first phase and a second phase that includes improvements for truck access to I-5 via Denver by reconstructing the Columbia Blvd/Denver Avenue and Schmeer Road/Denver Avenue intersections. It could include as an optional element a new southbound ramp to I-5 from Denver, north of the Columbia Slough.
Ms. Deane said that ODOT would need six months of analysis to work with the community, particularly concerning the Denver connection. She stated that she would be happy to bring the estimated impacts, right-of-way needs and community comments to the Bi-State at a future meeting.
Chair Pridemore asked whether any estimated costs were available.
Kate Deane stated that they had not completed these estimates at this time, but would supply them when available.
Mr. Hansen asked whether an outline of significant dates, especially when the shovels would hit the dirt would occur.
Ms. Deane stated that she would be putting together a schedule. She noted that there was additional Environmental Assessment work to be done, that the EA would look like an environmental impact statement. She stated that the final determination might occur in the Fall of 2005 and that a construction date would depend on the right-of-way needed, etc. She stated that 2006- 2008 was the possible construction time - that it would likely take two years to construct.
Mr. Hansen asked about available funding.
Ms. Deane stated that they had identified about $32 million for Phase I and are working on a complete funding package.
Matt Garrett noted that OTIA funding was being made available for this project.
Royce Pollard stated that he hoped that the project could be completed soon.
Chair Pridemore suggested to the Committee that in light of the time remaining and interest in the topic that agenda item 6, be taken next. Washington State Senator Jim Horn thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to tell what was being done in Washington. He stated that he and Michael Cummings would provide an overview of the work to strengthen Washington's strategic planning process through the analysis of how different transportation investments might relieve congestion. He reviewed circumstances faced in the Seattle area. He suggested there might be some geographic similarities between the Seattle region and the Portland/Vancouver region, in that both regions are divided by water--Seattle by Lake Washington and the Portland/Vancouver region by the Columbia River (with the added complication in the Portland/Vancouver area of a different state on either side of the river). He noted that he wore three hats, working with the RTPO, a state entity, the MPO's, representing local issues, and also coordinating with Federal issues. He indicated that for the Washington State Highways of Statewide Significance, that there was a need to think big. He noted that a band-aid approach had been taken and there was a need to take a fresh look. He noted the economic development importance of this work and noted that Michael Cummings, WSDOT Project Manager, had helped on the Boeing plant transportation improvement package. He asked how do you take a fresh look, what does it take to address congestion? He stated that if you think you can't, you won't. He stated that if you think you can, you may not be able to do everything, but you may achieve much of your goals. He stated that density was a forgotten parameter and that different densities each had a market share. He indicated that it was important to understand unconstrained demand, density and cost to make more sensible decisions. He noted that technical solutions were sometimes controversial and that it was important to discuss the options, pick the politically popular instead of purely political decisions that don't work. He then asked Michael Cummings to provide the technical description of the project.
Michael Cummings, Project Manager for WSDOT, using a PowerPoint presentation made a part of the meeting record, provided a summary of the purpose, organization, approach and products of the study. The current study schedule would see background information compiled in December/ January; alternatives development beginning in February/March through May; and a draft report developed in June/July with the final task completed in July 2004.
The study area includes Vancouver and Clark County, as well as part of the Portland metro region- that is, the study considers both sides of the (Columbia) river. He said that the Study will look at impacts and issues related to what happens on the Oregon side as well as the Vancouver, Washington area.
He emphasized that the Study will collect data but not develop a plan. A goal is to advance a tool to better determine cost/benefit analysis, especially when developing multi-modal comparisons.
Vice Chair Burkholder asked how congestion was defined.
Mr. Cummings stated that within a given land use pattern, if congestion did not exist, how would people like to travel. He stated that the analysis would be done on a system-wide as well as corridor basis. He noted that the work would not produce a plan, though the data could be used as inputs for MPO or State plans.
Mr. Hansen noted that the issue of density had been touched upon and asked for additional detail about how the study is looking land use patterns affecting the demand on the transportation system.
Mr. Cummings stated that first, modeling would be used to describe options and second, best practices will be considered. He further stated that consideration will be given to strategy and how densities fits, the best research that is currently available on transit supported development and how might that impact the overall number and types of trips that people make.
Mr. Hansen said that density is only a part of the story that urban design also made a difference. He stated that if you have sidewalks and good streets you could lower demand and asked if the study would include consideration of these factors or if it would only address the marketing side of TDM.
Mr. Cummings responded that the cost/benefit analysis would also take a look at these things, which is part of the requirement in Washington. Mr. Cummings agreed that modeling probably will not be available to document these "least-cost" patterns and that judgments will need to be made. The best people nationally have been recruited to help with this and other aspects of the study.
Mr. Hansen stated that a least cost analysis was preferred to a cost/benefit analysis.
Senator Horn said, that one thing to understand is that a highway is an investment; transit is a mode and when you get too much emphasis on mode you can lose sight of what is the best way to fix a problem. He stated that if you are going to invest billions of public dollars, you must consider where people live and how do you accommodate the public.
Councilor Burkholder stated that some modeling has been done here that looks at the pedestrian-friendliness of the community and relates to the question of how does the Oregon side integrate with what you are doing? The smaller-sized city of Vancouver is affected by what happens in the Portland area. What is the level of participation that you envision for the Oregon side?
Dean Lookingbill responded that at the staff level, there will be one travel forecasting model, so we will be working together there using a Metro model along with Clark County models and data, but that is the front end of this analysis. He stated that this was basically a six-month study, what may be significant is what we learn at the end of this process and the awareness of whatever we learn about cost-benefit relationships that the study may bring to the table.
Councilor Burkholder suggested that the Bi-State Committee, which is to become the Bi-State Coordinating Committee, receive regular reports on the study and be able to provide feedback.
Mr. Garrett concurred--the committee has representatives from both sides of the river who are very interested. He said he has concerns about what impact the data may have on future decisions in Oregon as well.
Senator Horn said that there are a lot of concerns. He stated that they have found that 12 percent of our roads (in the Seattle area) carried 65 percent of our traffic and by identifying 27 projects you could reduce congestion by 36 percent. He stated that it does not mean that automatically a plan will be done, but it broadens public debate as to how you make a more (informed) decision and helps you not make an $80 decision when a $5 decision is available to you.
Andy Cotugno asked for clarification on two points, as follows. (1) In evaluating the impact of these alternatives on the Oregon side of the river, are you developing improvements on the Oregon side of the river or only examining improvements on the Washington side and evaluating their impacts on the Oregon side. (2) What standard of congestion (Level of Service A - F) are you trying to fix?
Mr. Cummings stated in answer to question number 1, that the Study would include those improvements on the Oregon side that would make the Vancouver side work.. He said that more work would be needed to determine how much detail would be needed. In answer to question number 2: Level of service issues--those developing the Washington Transportation Plan recently spent the better part of a year debating how to come up with level of service standards. What we've tried to do is not get into that debate. The study proposes is to try understand free flow conditions, what congestion levels are today and what congestion levels are in the future. Further, the study will look at what investment levels that take you through these sites. We found in the 405 program was that people understood was measures such as whether future congestion was projected to be better or worse than that experienced today, what was the access to modes and the percent that park and ride lots were full rather than technical measures like level of service.
Mr. Cotugno stated that his comment relates to what Dean said about holding the land use constant. He assumes that whatever improvements you come up with would have to extend to the I-84 corridor. He stated that if a high degree of highway accessibility were to be built in the I-5/205 corridors north from I-84 and only pointing it in that direction and not to the south, east or west, 40 percent of the region's growth will go to Clark County rather than 25 percent. He stated that under your unrestrained demand analysis, the growth induced impacts will mean you will need 5 lanes rather than 4 lanes going each way. A healthy debate is a good thing, but it has to be structured around accurate information. If the conclusion is that you need 4 lanes it is the wrong conclusion, because the growth impacts will require 5 lanes. The growth impacts are a fundamental constraint on the validity of the information you are going to be producing.
Mr. Cummings stated that they would provide the information to have the debate. He stated that the Study will look at the distribution issue, though it may be modeled or it may be based on professional opinion. He further stated that accessibility improvements may not affect the overall growth rate.
Mr. Lookingbill said there was a willingness to make use either DRAM/EMPAL or "Metroscope" to look at the land use analysis. The study will have to be made fit the Vancouver/Portland region, though the land use analysis may not fit within the six month time frame.
Chair Pridemore thanked Senator Horn for supporting transportation projects in Southwest Washington as part of the Nickel Package.
Mr. Lookingbill reported that RTC and CTRAN have adopted the Charter; and Metro Council has taken action. Further, letters soliciting interest and support have been sent to jurisdictions in the Clark County portion of the Bi-State region.
Chair Pridemore noted that the Steering Committee has suggested that the current chair continue in his position until the Coordinating Committee begins operating. Hearing no objections, he will continue.
Mr. Hansen offered congratulations to Mayor Pollard on the establishment of the first year-round public market in Vancouver.
There was no public comment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
The next meeting will be January 22 in Vancouver.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|