 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, April 22, 2004, 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.
The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:30 a.m. at the Metro Council Chambers, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner, Chair
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor, Vice Chair
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Matt Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Alternate
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Jeanne Stewart, City of Vancouver Alternate
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
John Gillam, City of Portland AlternateStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Jenny Dempsey Stein, MetroInterested Guests John Cullerton, Metro
Kate Deane, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Dale Himes, WSDOT
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Greg Miller, Associated General Contractors
Sharon Nasset, Citizen
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Ed Pickering, C-TRAN
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, TriMet
John White, The JD White Co. Inc.Chair Craig Pridemore asked for approval of the January 22 and March 25 Meeting Reports. The Meeting Reports were approved as written.
Kate Deane reminded the committee that they’ve been working on this project for one year. ODOT has been working with several citizens committees and holding numerous open houses. A goals and objectives statement and evaluation factors have been developed. Three alternatives have been developed and refined during several design workshops. The citizen community has expressed much concern about one of the alternatives. Since December, ODOT has worked with an ad hoc group of neighborhood groups looking at different connectors and how they would work from a land use and transportation perspective. In June a final determination will be made whether to include the connectors and other alternatives in the final environmental analysis. The range of appropriate alternatives includes some proposed by citizen activist groups to insure that ideas have not been overlooked.
Environmental analysis, including air quality, noise, right of way and cost results, will be completed and shared in the fall. Public hearing(s) will be completed by next spring and a draft recommendation will then be written. Final approval from FHWA would be expected in Fall 2005. Public interest and feedback from this committee will be needed about the final range of alternatives.
ODOT is seeking initial feedback about these traffic findings and the implications of the three selected alternatives. Three overall transportation questions need to be answered: What happens when a third lane is added? What happens when a HOV lane is added in the southbound direction? Third, among the alternatives, which of the Columbia Boulevard interchanges work the best? Results of the environmental analysis will add layers to the central transportation planning decision.
When one looks at I-5 in the southbound direction, there are five morning corridor bottlenecks: Mill Plain; where the HOV lane terminates by Interstate bridge; Delta Park; the Alberta I-5/405 split which is an operational issue with many interchanges; and at the Rose Quarter two lane section. Delta Park is the controlling bottleneck in the corridor. Traffic backs up toward the river and Marine Drive.
The Delta Park project entails adding a third lane to a one-mile segment. When looking at this area over 20 years, as required with the NEPA process, there may be interim benefits but there will also be considerable growth that will have significant impacts on all local roadways. Although public expectations may be high after these improvements, an average driver will not see significant changes in their morning drive time. During the midday and evening, the third lane will especially improve freight mobility and travel times in this area. When this bottleneck is released, traffic will be more congested in the Rose Quarter area, especially during midday and the evening. Morning increases will be modest. It has been assumed that the light rail extension will go to downtown Vancouver in the next 20 years, the Rose Quarter section will remain two lanes, and there will be ramp improvements between I-5 and I-84.
Several chart handouts show some headway is made in the midday and evening. In the morning, slightly more people are able to move through the corridor. The HOV lane factor is more important in the morning.
Fred Hansen said in talking about I-5 and all of the potential bottlenecks, it would help to give some sense of the order of magnitude, in terms of where the traffic moves in the metropolitan area. It’s understood that it depends on the time of day and other variables.
Kate Deane replied, for example, Delta Park is a super efficient bottleneck because it is only two lanes. From a transportation perspective, it processes a lot less traffic than the Alberta I-5, I-405 area, which though there are operational problems, has a greater capacity.
When an HOV is layered onto the corridor, there are different morning dynamics. As a region, it’s been acknowledged that morning and evening commute time problems will not be solved, but having options is important. One scenario consists of extending the HOV lane from Vancouver down into Portland and the south urban area. The other scenario would leave the Washington HOV lane as is, with a discontinuous HOV lane near the Marine Drive and Alberta area. Overall, with the first there would be significant benefits for the amount of people moving through, and amount of mode splits, including transit riders, SOVs and carpools. There would be time travel savings for HOV users. The tradeoff is that for trucks and SOVs not in the HOV lanes, they will be in congested lanes with longer commute times. There will be more congestion on I-5 in Vancouver, on SR14 and SR 500.
Fred Hansen asked is that obvious as opposed to keeping them all as general purpose lanes? What about the case of no-build at Delta Park? How does that compare to the HOV/SOV alternative?
Kate Deane answered that on Table 1 (I-5: Delta Park to Lombard, Key Traffic Findings), the first two columns shows what would be expected to happen compared to no build. The first column is “2025 No Build Compared to Existing Conditions”. The second is 2025 Build HOV only in WA: 99th to Mill Plain”. In the morning, there are modest results in increased amount of people served, vehicles processed and decreased delays. In terms of HOV use, travel times, mode shifts, they will stay relatively the same. In terms of the last two measures on Table 1; “Unserved Vehicle Demand at On-Ramps” in North Portland and “Average speed in Portland near Columbia Blvd”, in the morning it will be a little more difficult to get on the freeway in North Portland and speeds will go down.
In the next two columns; “2025 Build Separate HOV Marine Drive to Alberta” and “Continuous HOV 99th to Alberta”, as compared to 2025 No Build, these increases are more significant, and there are bigger impacts on SOV drivers.
Rex Burkholder said when looking at spending a lot of money and the purpose of doing this, which is to move people through the area, this is the measure: The continuous HOV lane would move 5,000 more people during 6-8 a.m. 2,000 people would move without the HOV lane. That’s a significant difference, and a good argument for the HOV lanes vs. the non-HOV lanes. Peak hours may always be crowded for trucks no matter what is done. These numbers help in understanding the committee’s role in determining policy.
Matthew Garrett asked whether this incremental improvement helps maintain the current peak or does the peak grow? This affects the movement of freight and trucks. Do they still have the opportunity to move around?
Kate Deane responded since the Delta Park bottleneck is so strong, the I-5 partnership has discussed that the corridor would be very difficult in a future no-build situation. Addressing this issue for both the midday and evening, particularly in places like the Columbia corridor, has tremendous corridor benefits in terms of freight movement and reliability.
Dean Lookingbill said the blue copy of the draft resolution was introduced, discussed and held over from the March meeting. Staff was charged to meet regarding this draft resolution and bring it back to this committee. An email regarding the second and third items followed. A gray or white handout includes a proposed flowchart and memorandum that lists the decision-making roles of the Bi-State Coordination Committee (BCC). There will be a discussion between the two DOT commissions.
All of the jurisdictions on the bi-state committee had staff present at this meeting on April 15th regarding this flowchart. The left hand column indicates levels of activities, decisions, recommendations or understanding. They begin at project and analytical activities. They continue to construction of alternatives and evaluation criteria, then to regional policy, recommendations or decisions. At some point, this project moves forward to a state level of funding, policy and decisions. The chart does not reflect eventual federal funding.
Technical work teams include many projects and consultants. The Regional Project Management Team includes senior staff and transportation directors of member agencies that begin to knit elements of this project together. Arrows interconnecting the BCC with other MPO’s including Metro and RTC, indicate that there are other concurrent activities, including those of the I-5 Partnership and Columbia Crossing. Policy making activities in the BCC are reported back to the MPO’s. The Oregon/Washington Joint Transportation Commission Working Committee is a new idea and yet to be built. The Oregon and Washington commissions will come together on May 25th and discuss this. Each commission is constructed differently, with different charges.
The community public involvement process relates to the flowchart star on the BCC. Standards set by the I-5 Partnership Taskforce were high. There has been discussion by the BCC whether and how businesses, citizens, federal officials or a transportation commissioner would join in for this project. The BCC charter does not provide for citizen or business membership per se.
On the second page of the memo: The BCC’s key role is to make policy recommendations. At the staff level, there are reasons, criteria and purposes for which we are undertaking this project. These involve economic development opportunities, land use and environmental justice issues. They are parts of how transportation policy that BCC would make, such as transit mode and highway sizing, would be analyzed.
BCC’s role throughout is to review the findings of the project development process and to concur with the analysis related to the purpose and need statement and range of alternatives for the EIS. The BCC would be the body that would recommend alternatives for environmental impact analysis. The complete mission for WSDOT/ODOT Joint Working Commission is still being discussed.
Andy Cotugno said the next step is the May 25th first meeting of this joint working group. Today’s discussion concerns what this group is comfortable with and prepared to go discuss with that group in order to arrive at a final conclusion.
Jeanne Stewart inquired about the BCC’s role throughout the project as reviewing findings of the project development process and concurring with the analysis related to the purpose and range of alternatives. The proposal will come to the group, and the group will decide if they concur with the accuracy and completeness? And if the group does not concur?
Dean Lookingbill replied yes, that’s correct. If not, then the BCC goes back and continues work. The BCC needs a project that comes out of this regional level and goes on to the state and federal level, that has community and local support, and does what they, businesses and elected officials want. A significant decision requires this concurrence or consensus on the project to move forward and be able to compete on a state and federal level.
Jeanne Stewart asked by entering into agreement, would jurisdictions be compelled to concur as part of their agreed duties, without question?
Craig Pridemore said for a project of this magnitude, jurisdictions throughout the region have to agree on a project. Individual jurisdictions may not be unanimous in supporting conclusions, but as a whole there needs to be agreement.
Jeanne Stewart said she’s looking for some reassurance that if information comes forward that a jurisdiction is not certain of, that there are opportunities for discussion and resolution. These drafted documents are based on input from Mayor Pollard and others in prior meetings.
Dean Lookingbill said this chart doesn’t show that this is a process with opportunities for feedback.
Fred Hansen asked how does the BCC, which is a subset of this group, become the final recommender to the Joint Transportation Commission Working Committee, rather than this group recommending back to RTC and JPACT, and they recommend to them. Should these arrows be moved?
Craig Pridemore said in reviewing the BCC charter, there is a clause that if BCC and the states go in this direction, revisions to the charter may be necessary. However, under BCC, this group is not just advisory to the RTC and JPACT, it is also directly advisory to Metro, Multnomah and Clark counties, Vancouver and Portland. The charter is inconsistent here. BCC is no longer a subset of RTC and JPACT. Should either of the two commissions choose for BCC to have a broader role, there may need to be revision.
Dean Lookingbill said the two-way arrows say that BCC has that responsibility in the charter to report back to RTC and Metro. Because of this project, it is still a collecting point to report back and hand off to the Joint Working Commission. A dual role is to initially address the bi-state transportation issues, go back to RTC, JPACT, Metro then recollect as needed also.
Fred Hansen said all of these groups have the ability to trump any major decision. For example, RTC could say they’re not going to adopt the Regional Transportation Plan.
Craig Pridemore said the idea with BCC was that neither JPACT nor RTC were heading in different directions. In a project like this, strong regional and local support is needed on both sides. BCC is well constituted but needs broader representation to provide input.
Fred Hansen asked for this to work, do the DOTs have to say, that’s what we’ll go to? BCC has to say that that’s where we are going to funnel all of the regional opinions through?
Craig Pridemore replied exactly. The charter is clear that BCC is advisory to local governments and jurisdictions in this capacity because the decision making for this project is at the state level. This is another charter issue that may need to be addressed.
Don Wagner said the Washington Transportation Commission has intended that there be a coordinating group that would advise them. Is this a regional recommendation with some other outside regional group or does the BCC get expanded to be broader and statewide?
Fred Hansen said if this group comes to a consensus recommendation, short of violating the law, both transportation commissions need to say yes to it and not second guess it, or solicit multiple recommendations and make their own decision. If BCC does not come to consensus, then the decision would be punted to the transportation commissions.
Don Wagner said the Joint Committees need to decide if this is broad enough, and whether BCC will broaden to meet that need. If a separate coordinating committee is set up just to deal with this one project, and it has its set of recommendations, then this group is not adequate to bring everyone together. The charter does not empower BCC to do this.
John Gillam said the BCC decision-making process emphasizes communication and is not intended to be hierarchical.
Matthew Garrett said this work will be brought forward to the EIS process.
Serena Cruz said this is a great step forward. Concerns expressed last month have been heard and incorporated into this complicated process.
Dean Lookingbill said there is agreement on the substance of BCC comments. How shall this be communicated in a letter for the May 25th meeting?
Matthew Garrett said this substance should be clarified and documented. It will be formally brought to the Oregon Commission in Salem next week in preparation for the May 25th meeting.
Don Wagner said to formalize this in a letter to the two commissioners from the BCC Chair and Vice Chair. The two chairs will be invited so that they can be present at this meeting and answer technical questions such as how new representatives will be added. It should be clarified whether this is a regional recommending body.
Serena Cruz asked isn’t that the role of the commissions to be thinking more broadly than the states? Who else should be here besides a business and citizen representative?
Don Wagner said project completion of this magnitude necessitates more than local resources. Legislators from Oregon and Washington need to have ownership of the project, particularly for funding support. Key transportation legislators from outside of the Vancouver area would be brought in. There could be a regional group, and one that makes recommendations on a state and national level. It would be better to have just one group making recommendations for the region.
Matthew Garrett said there are regulatory folks that would be helpful in this process and during the dialogue with the joint commission.
Rex Burkholder asked whether it would be helpful to have the content of this resolution in a letter, because there is a lot of history and background?
Craig Pridemore said the commissions are abreast with the current status of this conversation, but a letter could set the context.
Craig Pridemore asked what should be added to this committee in order to address the state concerns?
Fred Hansen said that what really needs to be said to the transportation commissions in a letter is:
- There needs to be a single forum that makes recommendations on behalf of the region, broadly defined, to the transportation commissions for this project.
- The Bi-State Coordination Committee is a beginning or a substantial set of steps toward that, but not necessarily yet complete.
- The BCC would urge to work together with the transportation commissions so that the committee that is formed with the BCC as the core is that committee.
The BCC feels very strongly about that. "This is the core, the BCC wants to work with the transportation commissions to be able to expand, but when it’s expanded, it has to be it.”
Matt Garrett said that Fred Hansen has captured the essence of his conversation with Stuart Foster. What’s the best way, where’s the continuity?
Fred Hansen said that this letter would essentially say that.
Craig Pridemore directed staff to put that letter together, circulate it to folks before the group moves forward in case there are any concerns. If there are no objections, then the group will move forward.
Mark Turpel said some of the bylaw core issues were previously discussed, and comments responded to at the last meeting. There are several items still needing to be addressed. Economic development and environmental justice are addressed in the context of transportation and land use. When they converge, they will be addressed, particularly for the I-5 corridor projects. During these discussions, nine members, including four members at a minimum from each state will ensure balanced representation.
One that is not addressed is whether there should be a citizen representative on the committee itself. When those I-5 and trade issues come about, citizen representation could become available and the committee could reconstitute itself.
Craig Pridemore said that if another role is assumed, changes might need to be made both to the charter and bylaws. They were both recently passed through the different jurisdictions. The role of the citizen representative may change.
Fred Hansen said an alternative to that would be to have in the charter instead of having the BCC, the bylaws creating a larger subcommittee that the DOT’s work with.
Craig Pridemore said whether the larger group is a subset of the smaller group, or vice versa, it’s possible that in the larger group of 35-40 people, specific subcommittees could deal with environmental justice, land use and railroads. The project area crossing issue raises questions about the constitution of the BCC.
Fred Hansen asked what is the proposed action from the chair? Should the action be held?
Craig Pridemore said to take action on the proposed bylaws as written based on where the committee is today, with the recognition that this may be an interim step.
Matthew Garrett said that flexibility should be built in the process in case of committee expansion in order to debate issues.
A formal vote was held:
It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Revised Bylaws Resolution No. 04-02 for the Bi-State Transportation Committee. Motion passes.
Craig Pridemore led a discussion of new officers. He entertained a motion for Rex Burkholder to be the new Chair for the Bi-State Coordination Committee for the next two years. Motion passes. Rex is elected.
Are there any parties or alternates interested in being vice-chair?
Jeanne Stewart said Mayor Pollard didn’t know there would be an election today.
Rex Burkholder holds over the vice chair election until the next BCC meeting on May 27th. Craig Pridemore will serve as interim Vice Chair for the May 25th meeting, until the next election. Motion passed.
Craig Pridemore said this is a momentous day where this subcommittee of another committee is now an independent body working on making Oregon and Washington work well together in the future. Hopefully, it’s just a starting point for more interstate cooperation.
Don Wagner gave a brief update on financing for the Columbia River Crossing project. There’s a good chance that by the end of this week, of the 2004 appropriations of $3 million for Washington, 7/12 of that will be available to the BCC to start working faster on some of the communication and other project issues. The $16 million reauthorization is not released yet. It will probably be late summer before any of that is available. A total of approximately $24 million will be available over the next 5-6 years. That’s not enough for every pre-EIS item, but it’s a big step.
Jeanne Stewart asked whether there is any legal need to dissolve the existing Bi-State to replace it with this newly implemented committee?
Dean Lookingbill said as the resolutions were passed that dealt with the formation of this committee, those resolutions recognized the dissolution of the previous committee.
Rex Burkholder said letters would be sent this week regarding the first MPO Summit on Friday, June 4th at Metro. It will bring together the seven metropolitan planning organizations. Members of the Southwest Regional Transportation Council will also be invited. Staff will discuss shared urban issues in Oregon and the relationship between Vancouver, Clark County and Portland.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m. The next meeting would be held on May 27, 2004, at the Clark County Public Service Center.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|