 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, January 22, 2004, 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 NE Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Matthew Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground, City Manager
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Randy Bombardier, City of Ridgefield
Richard Brandman, Metro
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Bob Hart, RTC
Dale Himes, WSDOT
Jim Howell, AORTA
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Robin McArthur, ODOT
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Greg Miller, Citizen
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, Alternate
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
David Standal, City of Ridgefield
Bill Stewart, The Oregonian
Dave Williams, ODOTCopies of the December 18, 2003, Meeting Report were distributed. Chair Craig Pridemore asked for approval of the December 18, 2003 Meeting Report. The motion was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to approve the meeting report as written.
Dean Lookingbill referred to an 11x17 flow chart of the Congestion Relief Study process distributed to members for information. Mr. Lookingbill recalled that at the last Bi-State meeting, there were presentations by Senator Jim Horn and the project manager Michael Cummings. The 2003 Washington State Legislature funded the Congestion Relief Study. The study is largely directed at Puget Sound, but includes the Spokane and Vancouver urban areas. The Study has a completion date of July 2004. Mr. Lookingbill referenced the memorandum included in the meeting packet with the staff report to JPACT and a draft letter from JPACT Chair Rod Park to Aubrey Davis, Chair of the Washington State Transportation Commission. Mark Turpel distributed copies of the final letter to Aubrey Davis.
Rex Burkholder said this issue was discussed at the last JPACT meeting. He said their understanding is that the Study will address congestion in Southwest Washington and is intended to include analysis of all or portions of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. He said that JPACT wanted to voice their concerns with several elements of the Study to ensure that the information that comes out of this is the best information recognizing the existing conditions on their side of the river as well as the Washington side of the river. He said they hope the results of the study are something that can be used in this region, and do not make assumptions that are based on conditions that do not exist. He said they are very interested in participating in the process, but noted accordingly, should significant Oregon staff time be expended, these costs would have to be addressed in some manner.
Mr. Lookingbill said the Scope of Work is out and underway. Consultants are hired, and many project teams at various levels. They are laying out just what the alternatives mean. They have not yet produced any analysis. He said on their land use side, they would be using what Metro used for their previous GMA proposal. Commissioner Pridemore asked if there were plans for local decision makers to be included. Mr. Lookingbill said yes there would be that opportunity, and it will be brought back to the Bi-State Committee and the RTC Board.
Phil Selinger said some of the cautions that the technical committee has had are that the methodology includes these extreme highway and transit scenarios. He said it is a bit academic for some to see how these scenarios will get back to somewhere in the middle. Mr. Lookingbill agreed that the approach was a bit different, and will begin with an unconstrained demand for highway and for transit.
Matthew Garrett asked what the true legislative intent of this was. Mr. Lookingbill said it is to identify the most cost effective investment scenario to reduce congestion. The Study is focused on a technical analysis that would inform the legislature on a benefit/cost basis of how various alternatives rank toward reducing congestion. The analysis would not be project-by-project basis, but on a corridor-by-corridor approach.
Lynne Griffith asked if air quality was included in the analysis. Mr. Lookingbill said it is part of the cost benefit analysis, but he was unsure if it was a specific element.
Rex Burkholder said he had a chance to talk with Senator Horn and hear him speak, and Mr. Burkholder said he thought the impetus of this was to try to derive justification of highway projects, especially in the Puget Sound area.
Serena Cruz asked how social costs would be addressed. Mr. Lookingbill said this would be addressed in the benefit cost methodology. That methodology is still being developed and could be brought back to the Bi-State Committee at a later date.
Rod Monroe said as Lynne Griffith referenced air quality conformity, Metro just finished their air quality conformity through 2025, and found even with the plans that they have for more transit, increased use of transit, they still come pretty close to hitting the lid on air quality conformity. If it is an all highway choice, it will obviously never meet the needs. He said this would mean no more industry, no more jobs, and a great deal of health problems. Craig Pridemore agreed that there would need to be regular reports to this Committee.
Andy Cotugno referred to the memorandum and attached tables that were included in the meeting packet. The tables outline a series of proposed federal transportation reauthorization bills. He said three of the bills relate to the bill that is in the House of Representatives, and that is the bill that is most comprehensive, with both transit and highway elements. The senate bill at this point is only a highway bill. The house bill in these packets covers the highway portion of the bill and a second portion that covers the transit portion of the bill, and a third portion that covers the New Start portion of the transit bill. There is one piece that covers the senate bill, which is only a highway bill. The third bill has been introduced on the house side as a series of amendments that could be added into the house bill, referred to as the metropolitan reduction relief act. It is strictly at certain categories related to the metropolitan regions only.
Mr. Cotugno highlighted some of the differences between the House and Senate Bill as it relates to the Bi-State questions, the I-5 Trade Corridor improvements. He said most of the current EIS work has been funded so far through the Borders and Corridors program. That program is very important to advancing this project. It is not sized to build something as big as a new Columbia River crossing. It is sized to continue to do the EIS work and perhaps get some funding for the Delta Park project. In the 10-30 million dollar range, not the 100’s of millions of dollars range. The house bill is most favorable in terms of the dollar amounts. There are conflicting objectives in the State of Washington, because they have a Canadian border and Oregon does not. The split of that money between the borders versus the corridors is more important to Washington than it is to Oregon. The corridors piece is what is important to the I-5 Trade Corridor. Clearly the New Start categories are important to the transit component of the Trade Corridor. The House bill is the only transit bill in progress right now. It does include an increase in the New Start funds, so that goes well for building that element of the project.
There is some miscellaneous language: more liberal provisions for tolling of Interstate facilities, better provisions for TIFIA (a credit program). There is a new category proposed commonly referred to as the Mega Projects category. These are projects of national or regional significance. The program is proposed to be run much like the New Starts program, where there is a competitive process and if you succeed, you stand to receive several hundreds of millions of dollars toward the project rather than five or ten. This is designed to be a discretionary funding source for a large project. This program does not exist yet, but a key question for both states is if we want to support that program, or just take that level of funding and put it in the normal formula programs. Both states would get money through the normal formula programs, a couple hundred million on the Oregon side and three or four hundred million on the Washington side. The question is do we go through the normal formulas or do we create a big program where we would be competing and instead of 50 states getting money, only five or six or maybe ten states get a larger chunk of money for some big projects. The next question is what the priority is. The I-5 Trade Corridor fits the criteria very well, from the standpoint of national competition that has been laid out. It is a good candidate for that category, if we want to support that kind of category.
In addition to all of those policy issues, there is also specific project earmarking dollars. Mr. Cotugno said they will be seeking construction dollars through earmarking for the Delta Park project and EIS dollars for the I-5 Trade Corridor project itself. They are anticipating asking for funds on both of those projects. Mr. Cotugno said the Delta Park project could move into construction within this six-year life of this bill. Whereas, the Columbia River Crossing project has a lot of EIS work ahead of it. Mr. Cotugno said they anticipate a resolution endorsing the position that deals with both these policy questions and the private questions at JPACT’s next meeting.
Craig Pridemore asked what he felt about the Mega Projects. Mr. Cotugno said personally he thinks it is a good idea. He said he just wants to open with the trade off question, if there is increased funds, do you take money through formulas and know you will get a piece, or do you create a program where you have to compete for it and you have to work hard to land it.
Dean Lookingbill added that as currently proposed, both the Senate and House Bills would require a federal revenue increase in order to be funded at the levels that are presented.
Serena Cruz asked how many other communities have a project as large as the I-5 Corridor Planning, stating that two years were spent in the planning. She said she could not see that many large projects out there. Mr. Cotugno said it is not hard to come up with a big expensive highway project, but it is hard to come up with the kind of specifics that we have. Ms. Cruz said with the two states and two years of work, it does seem to be a way to get to this ambitious list.
Eric Holmes said it may be the only way to get to this list, recognizing that it is also nationally important for safety not just the northwest, but also the west coast economy.
Rod Monroe said they have found that when things are in line and on time and on budget, and have political consensus built, that increases the opportunity for the project. He agreed with Serena Cruz and added that there are no doubts that there are regions around the country that have large highway projects that they want to get funding. Very few have the political consensus that has been developed here between our two states. He said it would be hard work, but felt they could succeed at the large project scenario.
Mr. Burkholder said it would be good to get the Committee’s consensus on this since there will be a JPACT retreat on February 2 and this would be a part of that discussion. He asked if this group wants to push ahead on this project as a mega project.
Lynne Griffith said while in Washington, DC, they view the transit element as one region. It is as if TriMet and C-TRAN are almost seamless. The two states are secondary to that. She said it has always worked well in having a common voice on the transit front. She did not see why it would not also be the same for the highways and other modes.
Royce Pollard said that the following week he would be in Washington, DC talking with our delegation. He said that he felt the mega projects might be something that we may not have the opportunity again for many years to come. He said we have strength in the region now, and that this is something we should be seriously looking at. He supports this.
Larry Paulson said in speaking for the freight mobility issue, he thought they have an interest as well. He said as Lynne Griffith said in terms of TriMet and C-TRAN, he said the two ports support this kind of coming together, and it seems timely.
Don Wagner said to clarify, the WSDOT has not yet decided if they support the mega projects or not. But to cover their bases, the Columbia River Crossing has been submitted as one of two projects from the State of Washington. The other project submitted is the Alaskan Way Viaduct. These are submitted just in case the mega projects do exist, these are the two that the State of Washington will pursue for listing. Mr. Wagner was asked how they would stand up. He said they are currently working on this because the actual language that they have seen has some criteria for what would be required. They are checking to make sure that they would fit the criteria for being far enough ahead in this process to be able to obligate the funds in this authorization period. The interesting thing is that the only model that they have to follow is the transit model. He said the numbers that they submitted was about $1.2 billion, which was option seven from the Trade Partnership.
Matthew Garrett said for ODOT, this is playing this out in several different layers, federal, state, and regional. He said regionally, there are a couple competing entries. He said when he looks at projects in the region, I-5 certainly positions itself well. He thought it would compete well. He said there are other interests on significant critical projects being vetted on just the region level. He said then stepping back and putting on the ODOT state perspective, there are some projects that play themselves through the valley, and the Yamhill Polk area, the Medford area, and Highway 20 between Corvallis and the Coast. These are mega projects on the statewide level. On the Federal level, Mr. DeFazio is asking about the cracked bridge problem.
Andy Cotugno said for the record, there are five major categories of funds in the highway bill that provide funds to the states on a formula basis: Interstate, National Highway System, Bridge, STP, and CMAQ. All of those programs are proposing bills, depending on revenues, to go up 40 to 60 percent. The Bridge Program for the State of Oregon stands to be $150 million a year under the normal formula program. It doesn’t need to necessarily be one of these mega projects.
Mr. Cotugno said one other project to consider is the railroad swing-span project. Their request is that project be made one of the priorities for earmarking. Mr. Cotugno said it is hard to imagine earmarking a railroad project as a highway bill. He said he felt there are two ways to look at the swing-span project. One is on a short-term basis, take another try at Truman Hobbs and try and get that program changed to allow for the consideration of highways which was excluded from the last analysis by the Coast Guard. Second, on a longer-term basis, the swing-span is really an inherent component of the overall Columbia River Crossing. There will be a highway project that could change the draw span, which would mean the swing span would need to be addressed. This is a long-term fix, and Mr. Cotugno said the Tugboat Association said they want a short-term fix, that something needs to be done about it today.
Larry Paulson said it went before the Truman Hobbs folks already. The current legislation does not allow the impacts to I-5 to be considered. He said it might be a better route to try and make some changes and do that again. He said even though we have a significant interest in the bridge after it is done, the I-5 Trade Partnership also came up with a number of other ideas to help with congestion. He said the Tugboat Association is very concerned about safety as well as the turn movements required. He said he thought perhaps that the Truman Hobbs is a better approach at this point. While this is something to keep on the radar screen, it may not be the highest priority at the moment.
Larry Haverkamp asked the meaning of Truman Hobbs. Larry Paulson said it is a specific piece of legislation that allows for the replacement of freight rail bridges due to safety issues. Susie Lahsene said it is replacement of impediments affecting waterborne commerce. It is Coast Guard managed, so it is focused on water and impediments related to safety. Dave Williams said under that Act, the analysis goes through a cost benefits calculation for water navigation. The railroad is not included. The reason that there was not a success with the Truman Hobbs funding is because there is no accident history on the bridge. No one has hit the bridge, so there is no way of factoring the benefits of replacing it, and they would not allow them to include the traffic delay to vehicles or to the trains in the calculations. As Mr. Cotugno suggested, they could try and amend the bill so they are required to consider those costs, and then maybe the benefit/cost shifts and it could be funded. Mr. Cotugno said there is not a set cycle for Truman Hobbs funds. Truman Hobbs establishes how you study the process and qualify the project. Once the project is qualified, the project then is appropriated by congress. It is a two-step process.
Mr. Cotugno said if it is not treated as a short-term fix under Truman Hobbs, then it must be addressed as part of the overall Columbia River Crossing. Craig Pridemore asked what steps could be taken. Mr. Lookingbill said there could be work with the Ports and the Tugboat Association for some expertise on what the language needs to be, and also how we want to approach out congressional delegations and who may be willing to carry something like that.
Craig Pridemore asked members their views of the mega projects. It was agreed by members that the Bi-State Committee would be supportive of the mega project program.
Dean Lookingbill said project lists are starting to be constructed for the ’05 appropriations. He said the Clark County region will be requesting New Starts resources for the I 5/I-205 High Capacity Transit Loop. He said regarding the I-5 Trade Partnership, there is still a question if there will be an appropriation request. He said if the mega project category happens, there is a certain level of engineering that needs to be achieved at a fairly early date. That could lead us to push further and faster in terms of the ’05 appropriation request.
Portland’s 2005 authorization request for Delta Park is $32.8 million and for the ’05 appropriation request for the I-5 Crossing is $4 million.
Matthew Garrett said in the August/September timeframe, Dave Williams gave the Bi-State Committee a briefing on the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study. ODOT received close to $4 million, and went through the necessary steps to amending the Unified Work Program and submitted to FHWA how they were going to spend the money. They are currently bringing a project manager on board. They have charged him with crafting a scope of work, and in doing this they have partnered with WSDOT. Mr. Garrett introduced Dale Himes, project manager for WSDOT.
Dale Himes said he has had an opportunity to work on this project with Matthew Garrett over the last several months. He said the intent of WSDOT is that they need to take a leadership role in this project. He said they need to take on their share of this project and make sure that the people of Clark County are engaged in it. They feel that as the project moves forward, both WSDOT and ODOT need to be involved. His concern is that there must be a transparent process and that needs to happen. Mr. Himes said he has had an opportunity to meet many of the Committee Members, and from the Washington Department of Transportation point of view, they will stay engaged to make sure the stakeholders on both sides of the river are engaged as well.
Matt Garrett said he hoped that is what will take place. He said when this started, it was built off a foundation of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study. He said there was a tremendous amount of time spent in crafting that document and creating the consensus. He said they have taken that document and its recommendations, and narrowed it down. There were a dozen or so recommendations that came out. He said they are starting to position themselves to better understand what they are going after, what it will look like, and what it will cost and how they will deliver. The specific focus of this scope of work that they are working on now centers on two things. The recommendation to supplement or replace the I-5 Bridge and related projects within that bridge influence area, and in addition to that using high capacity transit to Vancouver. There will be some specific tasks, deliverables, and timelines. They are working to bring closure to this document. He said it is extremely important to take this abstract conversation that they have had, even though they have tangible documents, and many hours of sweat and tears, they need some tangible information that makes this project real, something that is not just out there. This document will then position us at the doorstep of the draft environmental impact statement in about 18 months. He said they want to get moving fast on this and get it done, and then start crafting the work. That is the level that this Committee will be involved and engaged.
Mr. Garrett said the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation would be in the lead, which is new to the way that they have been doing business. It is the Interstate, and it is their bridge. The two DOTs will be leading it separate, but they will certainly know that there is a complementary effort and there is wisdom, counsel, and insight that have walked down the pathway more than a handful of times to address certain issues at the transit level and the highway level. They can glean that, and eclectic wisdom is a must as they move this forward. Communication is imperative. Engagement is imperative.
Mr. Garrett said there are four distinct areas that they will be aggressively engaged in outreach input. First, is to establish an Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee comprised of all the local, regional, and state agencies. This is where the folks come into play as they start to craft documents with regard to finance; the statutory issues that need to be dealt with on both sides of the river; the various analysis of revenues streams; tolling; the traffic flows; the demands; the patterns; a lot of technical documents. The collective wisdom of the group is necessary to make sure the best decisions are made with the best information. This Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee is the foundation where most of the conversation will spin.
There is a Project Leadership Committee comprised of the project managers. He said that ODOT does not have the staff to do this and have hired a project manager. This is the committee that Mr. Garrett and his project manager will interact with WSDOT and Don Wagner and Dale Himes. Mr. Garrett said that he is trying to bring on an ODOT staff person to assist in some of the issues. He said they are very close to that, and they are working through their processes. He said there is a little question as they continue to move through some of the various issues and areas that events will arise that may need to establish some type of ad hoc or issue specific committee.
The final thing, and Mr. Garrett said he thought it critical as a look is taken at the Transportation and Trade Partnership, is the spirit that follows that. He said that is how to engage the community, the neighborhoods. He said they want to engage the public through a contact sensitive solution, a contact sensitive design approach. He said this means they will be extremely aggressive on the front end engaging these folks and listening to their vision. They need to have ownership. He said in looking back at the I-5 Partnership, it is demonstrated that the first major step in that direction for ODOT, something that they as an agency will follow. He said that is the way that business at ODOT will be done from now on. This project continuing in the spirit of the I-5 Partnership will continue that effort, a major effort. He said this is new, and perhaps they will need to bring in people who know how to craft this type of approach for this large project, but that is the direction that they plan to go.
As for the technical type of issues that will flow out of this scope of work, are formidable. He said they spoke of the travel demand forecasting. They will need to understand the dynamics. Look at funding and the issue of tolling, who gets tolled, where it gets tolled, (because of the two states another area), and how they toll it. There have been conversations at ODOT through various committees about the technology involved. A project of this size will have to chase some federal dollars. He said they would not have to chase additional revenue streams because tolling is an option that we need to lay on the table. He said as these conversations continue, the feasibility will come in to play. That is another aspect of technical documentation and information that will be gathered that will allow them to answer questions in an intelligent manner. They will do some conceptual engineering in design concepts and capital cost issues to engage the people. As for the environmental considerations, he said they have major issues in the bridge influence area, major engagement with their natural resource agencies that will flow from those issues. Those that have experience in these areas will complement this effort and advise in that direction. The environmental justice issues that have sprung from I-5 Partnership have some understandings. They will need to work through what the impacts are of moving a huge project like this forward to the communities on both sides of the river. They will also need to look at the obligations of agencies as this moves forward. The financial analysis will be prepared. This is the detailed funding package, the costs associated with the project and the various revenue streams. He said the timing would also be looked at with reauthorization bills moving. They will be analyzing federal and state administrative and statutory requirements and the various procedures that they have.
Mr. Garrett said they are embarking on something that has not happened since he has been at ODOT, a bi-state commitment with two sets of legislatures, two DOTs, and two sets of regional government and their various jurisdictions. These are all new pathways and need to explore all the ramifications and what the parameters are. He said the political ramifications would need to be addressed. Questions that need to be answered such as: Is tolling feasible; How and where the revenues can be used; If tolling is used, how does that play at the federal level? Can toll revenues be used as credit for the local match that follows the federal funds that are sought? The bi-state ramifications need to be addressed. This work is preparatory work with the EIS. This will be an expensive undertaking, possibly $50 million. He said they anticipate an 18-month timeframe. They are working to bring closure to the scope of work. He said they would bring back the information as it moves forward to the Bi-State Committee as well as JPACT and RTC. He said that they need to coordinate to make sure that they are not compromising with any regard to highway projects or transit projects. He said they would continue to move forward to position themselves to make this project a reality.
Dale Himes said that his intent as this moves forward is that this involves the people in Clark County. As discussions take place with the various agencies, those involved in the past are involved now. He said he has discussed this a lot with Mr. Garrett, and he understands how that will work. Both of them expect to represent their DOTs but also represent the region as well.
Larry Paulson said it sounded in some ways that Mr. Garrett is proposing to reinvent what was done with the I-5 Trade and Transportation Task Force. He said he described it as a piece of clay, and it sees that it has some form already. He said Mr. Garrett talked of environmental justice, and they went through a lot of that already. He said there does need to be some guide paths and technical studies, but it sounds as though what has already been done is being reinvented. He said he did not understand this process and how it fits within what has already been done.
Matt Garrett said the recommendations were to put a new structure over the river and it should be multi-modal. The question was unanswered as to how to fund it. To answer that question, these other questions need to be answered. He said if we chase a funding revenue of tolling, and that is feasible and everyone is comfortable with that, then we look at the ramifications of tolling. He said if we toll I-5, that gives the option of going I-5 with a toll or going I-205 without a toll. Traffic changes and numbers may go down, so that brings the question of if we want to bring in a second corridor of I-205 and all the implications of that. Those are legitimate issues that need to be addressed. More solid information is needed to make the investment. Mr. Garrett said all the information will be used to get to the DEIS status. Larry Paulson said he understood that at the end, the funding was left unanswered. Having gone through planning processes, this seems repetitive. He said he thought some of this was done as you go through the DEIS process.
Dave Williams said there were four things that the Trade Corridor did not do: 1) It said to go forward and do an EIS. It did not tell us how to do an EIS. We have to do it differently and have to do a contact sensitive design, which is a new approach or we may get negative community reaction. So we are going to develop a new way of undertaking the EIS. 2) It did not say how to finance the project or the EIS. We are moving forward to put together the money to do the EIS. It also did not say how we were going to finance the bridge. The DOTs are unwilling to launch a $50 million EIS without knowing how they will pay for the bridge. So funding options need to be addressed. 3) The study also did not say how to manage the construction of the bridge. In Oregon there is new legislation that suggests that they should be doing public/private partnerships for projects of this magnitude. They are going to look at ways of managing the bridge using the private sector. Rules need to be put into place in Oregon before they can even talk about it. 4) The study did not say how we should organize ourselves to collect the tolls, manage the collections of the tolls, and how to use the toll receipts to fund the construction of the project. Mr. Williams said those four questions need to be answered before the DOTs launch the EIS. Mr. Paulson said he understood that.
Serena Cruz said she agreed with Mr. Paulson. She said she understood the issues that Dave Williams outlined and agreed they need to be addressed. She was still unclear from Mr. Garrett, in that she heard ODOT was taking the policy role back. She said she felt a strong ownership over the I-5 Trade and Transportation Partnership Task Force. She said they see themselves as the Coordinating Group, the group that these technical issues come back to, and that is how the Charter is structured to be. She said she was unclear between the connections of ODOT working on the technical matters and their role as the policy group who spent a tremendous amount of time on it.
Matt Garrett asked for clarification. Serena Cruz said the I-5 Trade and Transportation Task Force and the Bi-State charter that we are going through specifically identified this Bi-State Group as the group that is the policy group. She said we are not a decision-making body, only the agencies in each state, but they are vetting group. Mr. Garrett said that this group would vet the issues. He said that he and Mr. Himes would bring the issues and the direction that they are headed to this committee. Ms. Cruz asked if the Bi-State Committee was the Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee that he referred to. Mr. Garrett said not specifically, it is a greater group. He said for all intents and purposes, it is made up of the same folks. Ms. Cruz said she did not understand why the process that he was outlining was not consistent with how they had proceeded. She had concerns.
Lynne Griffith said for clarification of what Ms. Cruz was saying, some, including herself, took this back to their policy board under certain understandings, that the Bi-State Committee is the discussion area. Ms. Griffith said she had concerns that there was another group out there that impacts the commitment that will come their way. She said that was a trust issue and some clarity is needed here on how we deal with each of our policy boards that we have already sold a concept to based on the labor-intensive process.
Matt Garrett said he envisioned for the Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee as the technical work. What comes from that group goes to the Bi-State Committee, JPACT, and RTC. That group will help craft the documents before they are vetted. He said it is not the intent to diminish the role of the Bi-State Committee. It plays a vital role in vetting and reacting to what comes out of these committees. Eventually it does go to the bodies that make the decisions. He said he just wants whatever that comes back to them as policy makers to have substance.
Phil Selinger said that TriMet supports the initiative to get this going again. He said there was a huge effort to get the Partnership recommendations over a year and a half ago. They are ready to get to the next steps. He said it is an important initiative that the DOTs have taken. He said as they have reviewed the draft work order, they were a little nervous over the centralization of a lot of the work and the consultant team. He said he is comforted in hearing that the partnership strengths will be maintained. Another concern is how the relationship is maintained with their Federal partnerships. On the transit side, that has been a dance that metro and TriMet have nurtured and they want to make sure that work to date is preserved and sustained. There is also a major question here as to whether these modes that are a part of the river crossing go together as a joint project or a split project. That dramatically as an up front decision, changes the work scope tremendously on the schedule of how things happen. That is a concern that TriMet has. In going back to some of the concerns that have been made, he said he is comforted by what Mr. Garrett has said as to the Partnerships that were very much the core of the success of the I-5 Trade Task Force work has to be preserved and nurtured, not only the agencies but the community as well.
Matt Garrett appreciated the comments. He said bottom line, he sits at each of these forums as does Mr. Wagner and Mr. Himes. He said they will hold his feet to the fire, and he gave his commitment to engage with all the partners. Dave Williams said he did not see anything that he participated in that would change the role of this committee and all the recommendations of the Task Force. Mr. Williams said they are tracking all the movements of all of the recommendations in the Trade Corridor report not just the highway bridge. Nothing has gone on to suggest the change of the Bi-State Committee. He said it might be a semantics problem and that something needs to be in writing and the proper wording used to make that clear. Ms. Cruz said that would be helpful.
Royce Pollard said this is a big project that has never been done before. He said that Mr. Garrett is breaking a lot of new ground. Mayor Pollard said he agreed with what Dave Williams said. He added that in hearing of the Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee, the Technical Committee, a Project Leadership Team, a project specific committee, and public involvement committee/process, it might be helpful to flush those out. List what the intent is, and what the organization might be, and a description of how they see the Bi-State Committee role in that process. He said any effort to cut down the size of the I-5 Trade Corridor Committee, he said he would be supportive. This group is sufficient. The important thing is that it will be a public process, and that is where our interest is. He said he thought we were headed in the right direction; a little clarification was just needed.
Eric Holmes said a key point is if this is a new apparatus that this group would fit into, or if it is an existing apparatus that the project would fit into, or if there were two separate tracks that would have to have conversation in between. There has been a lot of effort to build a successful relationship with a lot of agencies all sitting at this table, if there is a new group or new apparatus that is going to replace that for this project, that may be the question. Matt Garrett said the apparatus or tools that will be used to craft this would be vetted with this group. There will be clarification.
Lynne Griffith said based on the recommendations that the Task Force had and were taken back to the various entities; there has been work that has been launched as a result of that. She said in looking at travel models and going through this process again, how are the technical pieces of the various entities that are impacted here, transit, highway, MPO, going to be in here. She asked if they were going to be reinvented. Matt Garrett said that they were not going to be reinvented. They were going to be built on what exists.
Dean Lookingbill said the stated focus of the scope of work is to replace the I-5 Bridge and the related list of I-5 corridor projects. He said it also needs to be understood what the list of projects is. If that is an extension of the high capacity transit loop to Vancouver, the transit entities need to be in a leadership role in that discussion. Mr. Lookingbill also said as a follow up, Mr. Garrett had said that ODOT and WSDOT will be the lead for this and it is a new way of doing business. His question is how will the MPO’s as represented by the local governments, and how will the regional transportation decision-making process be integrated into the idea of ODOT and WSDOT serving as leads continues to work within the federal requirements that the MPOs have to maintain. Mr. Garrett said those obligations are there. He said it comes down to one word, consensus. He said they will have to work the issues at the appropriate forums with the appropriate people to make sure as they move forward, there is consistency so they do not compromise the relationships that they have now.
Craig Pridemore said that the Bi-State Coordinating Committee was specifically formed to address these kinds of issues. A lot of this information must be brought back to this committee. As such that there is probably no area in Clark County that has the potential for more conflict or disagreement and passions, than how this project comes together, both in terms of realities and in terms of funding. Thus far, he said he is worried that if all of a sudden something comes out that has not reflected those sensitivities, he would be more comfortable with an ongoing basis and not seeing it in the newspapers. Mr. Garrett said Mr. Pridemore’s sensitivities were his sensitivities as well. These issues would be worked in detail in the various stages, and this group would be involved. Clarification would be brought back to the Committee.
Mark Turpel distributed a table listing action that has been taken by agencies on the Bi-State Coordination Committee Charter. Most agencies have taken action or have it scheduled. Mr. Turpel said it is hoped that all agencies will have taken action by February. In the list of entities that are to be a part of the Bi-State Coordination Committee, there are smaller cities from each of the counties. He said they are assuming that they will not be taking action in adopting the charter. The next steps include the following items. He said there are a few remaining agency adoption approvals. There is the need to determine who will be the representatives from the smaller cities in Multnomah and Clark counties. There is the selection of a Chair and Vice Chair. There is also the Intergovernmental Agreement, which is the Bylaws, which will need to be addressed, and options of how that will be brought back to this committee. Mr. Turpel said that staff can work on the document and bring it directly back to the committee or have in the past, used a Steering Committee to vet some of the issues and discuss first before it brought back to the full committee. It was decided to have staff address the bylaws and take it before a steering committee and then bring back to the full committee. Dean Lookingbill noted the positive progress of the Bi-State Charter.
Mark Turpel referred to the Bi-State Transportation Committee’s 2003 Annual Report that was included in the meeting packet. The report lists a summary of actions by the Committee over the past year. Craig Pridemore said they have identified some items for discussion in 2004 and asked for any items that members might want the committee to address.
Lynne Griffith said that C-TRAN would like to present to the committee the status of C-TRAN and a look at their future. They are currently at a crossroads and in a decision mode. This could set the foundation for the mega project.
Rex Burkholder noted the Annual Report really does remind us of all the work that the committee has accomplished. He said it needs to be recognized that this committee is unusual in that it is a voluntary gathering of both sides of our two states to come together to discuss issues and do so in cooperation and most times consensus. This is a valuable service that we provide to our citizens of our region that needs to be recognized. He said he is impressed and glad to be a part of it.
Jim Howell who represents an organization called AORTA (Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates) distributed copies of a proposed project. He said the project would extend the Interstate light rail line to Hayden Island as a first step in anything that is done in this corridor. He said they feel that even before the widening of Delta Park, there should be an effort to try to reduce the amount of traffic on I-5 and felt this proposed project would do just that. He said by extending the 900 yards to Hayden Island, a bridge is needed to cross Portland Harbor, or otherwise known as Oregon Slough. This bridge could also accommodate both local traffic and bicycles and pedestrians, thus freeing up the current 10-lane bridge for freeway use.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 a.m.
The next meeting will be on February 26, at Metro. The February meeting was later canceled. The next meeting will be held on March 25, 2004 at RTC, Clark County Public Service Building 6th floor Training Room, Vancouver.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|