 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, August 10, 2004, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Clark County Elections/Auto Licensing Building, 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Chair Rex Burkholder, at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Elections Building, North Conference Room 226, 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Matthew Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground Manager
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Alternate
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional AdministratorStaff Richard Brandman, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Ron Anderson, David Evans and Assoc., Inc.
Katy Brooks, J.D. White Co., Inc.
Bob Byrd, Identity Clark County
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Kate Deane, ODOT
Rob DeGraff, ODOT
Pat Egan, Port of Portland
Rebecca Eisiminger, Port of Vancouver
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Bob Hart, RTC
Dale Himes, WSDOT
Jim Howell, AORTA
Connie Kratovil, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Geoff Larkin, Larkin Group, Inc.
Mary Legry, WSDOT
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Ed Pickering, C-TRAN
Dale Robins, RTC
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
John White, J.D. White Co., Inc.
Sharon Wylie, Clark CountyA MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MAY 27, 2004, MEETING REPORT. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Rex Burkholder said the purpose of this agenda item is to address how the Bi-State Coordination Committee will participate in the process. Chair Burkholder said he and Vice Chair Craig Pridemore have been communicating with both the Washington and Oregon Transportation Commissions and met with them during their past joint meeting. He referenced a letter that was sent on April 29 to both Commissions, expressing the Committee’s interest in the role that they would serve. Copies of the letter were distributed.
Dean Lookingbill highlighted the April 29, 2004 letter that was sent to the Joint Commission stating a role for the Bi-State Coordination Committee (BCC). The BCC’s role would be to forward policy recommendations to the Joint Transportation Commission Working Committee. For example, these would include transit mode, highway sizing and range of alternatives for environmental impact analysis, considerations as economic development opportunities, land use considerations, environmental justice and other environmental factors. The BCC’s role throughout the project would be 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’s action to be taken in the first phase of the project would be to advise and recommend alternatives for environmental impact analysis. Mr. Lookingbill said the letter ended with a summary of what the Bi-State Coordination Committee had concluded. 1) that there should be a single forum that makes recommendations on behalf of the region, 2) that the BCC represents a substantial set of steps toward the organization of a single forum, but may need additional representatives for the purpose of the I-5 Crossing Study, and 3) that the BCC is very interested in working with the Commissions to complete a single forum body.
Mr. Lookingbill said the letter was presented to the Joint Commission Meeting on May 25. Since that time, the two DOT’s have meet and have put together a proposed Draft Charter for an I-5 Columbia River Crossing Task Force. Copies of the Draft Charter were included in the meeting packets and available at the meeting.
Rex Burkholder asked WSDOT and ODOT to discuss the proposal and vision of what the Bi-State Committee would be and in relation to the process, and the direction they were headed. Matt Garrett said the direction was forwarded by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Bi-State Committee to the Joint Commission. He said the Commission received that and understands the input and effort that the Bi-State Committee has put forth in the I-5 Partnership and the early stages of the Columbia River Crossing conversation. Mr. Garrett said with that said, the charge came to the Deputy Director of ODOT as well as the Assistant Secretary of WSDOT to look at I-5 crossing project decision making matrix and go beyond it. They accept that the jurisdictions that make up the Bi-State Committee as being central to this conversation, but they wanted more. There were actually two other charges. The decision-making matrix in reacting to the Bi-State proposal, but there was also a charge to the two DOTs to come back with a memorandum of understanding or an agreement as to how the two transportation agencies would work together as they work toward the delivery of a project. Finally, a standing agenda item would be to just update where they are in the current phase of the project. Those are the three charges they will bring back to the Joint Commission on September 2. He said specific to the composition of the committee, it is clear to him that in conversations that played themselves out at the Joint Committee and subsequent conversations specifically with Mr. Garrett’s Chairman and Director that the Joint Committee wanted more. They wanted to move beyond the existing structure of the Bi-State Coordination Committee. With that charge given to them, the previous week the two DOTs got together including Mr. Garrett, ODOT; Don Wagner, WSDOT; Rob DeGrath, ODOT; Dale Himes, WSDOT; John Conrad, Assistant Secretary of WSDOT, and John Rosenberger, Deputy of ODOT to answer the questions and specifically focus on the draft charter for the Task Force. He said now the Task Force goes beyond the structure of the Bi-State Committee. It really goes back to the past, using the foundation of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership. It said the make up of the membership is the DOTs, MPOs, Ports, transit districts, counties, and cities making up a significant portion of the membership. Then it works down, as Mr. Garret said Stuart Foster recommended, to bring in other components, business and industry, civic leaders, and mirror the work of the I-5 Partnership and bring in neighborhoods and community organizations. Because this project is of statewide significance, in the eyes of the Oregon Commission, it has ramifications beyond the State of Oregon, throughout the Pacific Northwest and beyond, so it also brings in some perspectives from outside the statewide perspective, possibly like AAA. Mr. Garrett said more importantly, who chairs the task force. He said they moved the chairmanship from the elected appointed officials to business and industry, trying to bring in that segment. He said they would need consensus in a comprehensive sense; all sectors need to be working forward and one message through many voices. Mr. Garrett said he felt the composition that is listed in the draft charter fulfills that mission. He said they would come back to the September 2 meeting of the Joint Commission proposing the draft charter. In a discussion with Stuart Foster the previous day, Mr. Garrett said initially, at first blush, Mr. Foster liked the direction they were headed with this issue. Mr. Garrett said there are other Joint Task Force members, and he said they await their input.
Mr. Garrett referred to the Draft Task Force Charter stating the charge will be to provide advise to the Joint Commission. The duration of tenure is anticipated to carry through the EIS process. The staffing is an issue. He said the teams that each DOT is putting together now will eventually merge into one team. The staffing of the Task Force will be done by that project team.
Don Wagner said that WSDOT agrees along the same lines. He said they have not had a chance to discuss this with their Commission Chair just yet. He said they believe this is the direction that Aubrey Davis ,WSDOT Commission Chair, will support, but the Commission meeting is the following week, and he has a meeting scheduled with the co-chair to see if this is something that he will accept. It would be a mistake to say it is a done deal at this point, but they are responding to the request. Mr. Wagner said it seems that it does follow the original lead from the I-5 Trade Partnership Task Force setup. It is a little different composition, but not that greatly. He said on the Washington side, the co-chair will be appointed by the Commission. It will not be something that the DOTs select. He said he expects that he will be asked to present a list of people to choose from.
Craig Pridemore asked for clarification that this meant that there would not be a particular role for the Bi-State Coordination Committee. He said it sounded like this might be another overlap meeting to attend on transportation. Don Wagner said from his standpoint, the Bi-State Committee still has the role that they have today. In this particular situation, data will be presented to Bi-State just as it is presented to any other group. Bi-State has an opportunity to attend the various meetings and make comments just like any other group. As far as them being the only group making recommendations, that is the piece that his Commission struggles with. There are some issues that go beyond just the Clark County area. That is what they want the Task Force to review. If you look at the charge, it is to review the data and make sure it is going in the right direction. It is not to specifically make recommendations. The Task Force does not make recommendations either. They simply advise the Commission on the direction that they are headed.
Craig Pridemore said there are concerns on a local level is how this project would impact other aspects of the community; its impact to the City of Vancouver; impact to interchanges along the corridor; routes for C-TRAN, and others. He asked if our ability to impact that would be in the Task Force forum, not in the Bi-State Committee forum. Mr. Wagner said the decision body for those groups that have a decision to make on any transportation project of this nature would have those same positions. He said they are looking at the size of this group to be around 40 members. He said as far as they can tell, any agency that has a decision that would be required to move a project in the EIS forward would have a member of the Task Force. He said, a majority of these representatives would be selected by the agencies, not necessarily by the Commission or the DOT. He said letters would go out to the County for example, saying who would you like to have in your one or two slots. He said there will be plenty of room, and there will be a lot of conversation. He said it is a good sign that this looks very similar to the Task Force that got us this far. He sees this as broadening the opportunities for the Bi-State to have a clear role as well as the individual agencies. Craig Pridemore said that would be the same Task Force that recommended the creation of this committee to move these things forward. Mr. Wagner said and several other issues, including rail and land use.
Craig Pridemore asked if there was any intent for legislators to participate in this. Mr. Wagner said not on this particular committee. Matt Garrett clarified that it was discussed. He said the focus was that was a unique constituency, both at the federal level and the state level. He said they would address those folks in different settings, independent. There will be other issues to address at that level.
Mayor Pollard said he hopes the enthusiasm is correct. He said it bothers him a bit that Mr. Wagner said that we would have input as any other organization. This is not just any other organization. He said most of the people on this committee are the ones who set the direction for what we are about to undertake. He said in his mind, we are about to undertake probably the most significant public works project in the history of this region. To say that we can get in line like everybody else raises some concern. He said he thought that was what the Bi-State Committee was formed for, and is not sure if it is worthwhile to continue to participate. Mayor Pollard said he agreed with Commissioner Pridemore in that they attend a lot of meetings. He said he wants this to succeed, and he is going to be supportive of what comes out. He said he guaranteed that the City of Vancouver would participate in one way or another. He said what is going to be done has a major impact to the community, and they will be at the table in some form. He said the direction in the Charter says the Task Force will “respond to and advise, and provide advice to the Joint Commission”. He said that means an advisory body is created. Don Wagner invited the City of Vancouver to participate with them in the process, and they believe they have set up something so that all of the agencies of the local area, and those who have a statewide perspective have a place at the table. He said they hear the concerns, and asked that everyone work with them and their commission. It will be a significant project for all of us as this moves forward.
Serena Cruz said she thought at the previous meeting, there was discussion about the role of the Bi-State Committee relative to the I-5 Crossing issues. She said she thought at that time one of the ideas that worked potentially for both the Commissions and Bi-State, and that was to bring in additional people to the Bi-State Committee every quarter when that issue was discussed. That discussion would still take place at the Bi-State Coordination Committee, but additional people would be added for the purpose of that discussion. She asked why they were back readdressing what was discussed a few months ago when it was thought progress had been made toward a different idea.
Matt Garrett said that was a proposal that was put before the Joint Commission. The Commissions wanted more than that and to go beyond the composition of the Bi-State Committee and the structure of the Committee. Today’s proposal creates the new committee that they want to go to. Commissioner Cruz said she did not know what they meant when they say go beyond. We said that at the meetings where this would be discussed, we would have those other constituencies present at the table. She asked what was effectively the difference, the “more” that they were seeking. Mr. Garrett said in structure they are too different. The composition is much bigger than even what was previously discussed at this table. The scope or the span of the expansion is different. This is much more comprehensive in its growth of the project. They want more input from the private sector to complement the public agency constituencies and move it forward. He said both are needed to walk together to secure additional federal dollars and state dollars.
Lynne Griffith asked if the participating 40 members would be chosen by the Joint Commission Group. She also confirmed that she heard that the Federal partners would not be involved. Don Wagner said they do not know exactly how this will end up. The understanding is that if you add up the list, it will include about 35 or 40 people. He said for example, neighborhood groups, they would most likely send a letter from the Commissions to the City of Vancouver and Clark County asking them to nominate or select someone to represent the neighborhoods of their area. The number of groups would be selected by the Commissions; however, the individuals represented would be selected by the communities. As for the Federal partners, they will have a key role to play in the process, but they will not sit on the Task Force, similar to other key groups who will be involved, but not on the Task Force. Matt Garrett agreed saying the letter would come from the Joint Commission asking the individual agency or group to select the representation. Lynne Griffith said on the Clark County side alone, we have multiple cities, county, transit, and a list of public agencies that will want to be at the table. When you add the private sector and some of the broader interests, it is well beyond 40. She asked who would make the decision who sits at the table. That will be an issue later on when sectors of the population who want to participate, because everyone will think they are impacted.
Phil Selinger said the I-5 Trade Corridor Task Force forwarded recommendations that were very broad, ranging from freight rail to TDM strategies. That has to in some way get forwarded into this EIS work ahead of us. He said one concern is to make sure that same range is fully addressed in the makeup of this new task force. He said he is looking for some assurance that they will be charged and be prepared to cover those bases.
Matt Garrett said there are two issues here. It goes back to the role of this committee. He said as we move the recommendations from the Strategic Plan forward, they have been narrowed down to the highway/transit component, i.e. the crossing itself. He said understanding there are there other activities, land use, rail, TDM, they are touching those bases. He said what that does in this context is that there are bi-state implications to those conversations that ripple through the Bi-State Coordination Committee. He said they did not spend a lot of time asking the ramifications of this decision would have on the Bi-State Committee. That is a discussion the Bi-State Committee needs to have. He said in looking at the I-5 Strategic Plan itself, there is work that has bi-state implications. There is a reason for being above and beyond the I-5 bridge crossing. There are other collateral issues that need to be dealt with. As they move this project forward, they will continue to partner on whatever efforts come forth.
Chair Burkholder asked the Bi-State Committee to give some type of recommendation in terms of shaping the proposal that they are putting forward. He said there is a lot of legal responsibility and authority that has been put into the Bi-State Coordination Committee through the Charter that was approved by all. He said, also that the Bi-State Committee reports back to a variety of governments that will have a role on the land use side and also to the MPOs on both sides on the transportation piece. He said all those organizations have legal responsibilities and authorities, none of which are vested in the task force that is being put forward. He said the issue is to have the Bi-State Committee have a coordination role and not just be another interest group, but a decision-making body on bi-state transportation policy issues or a recommending body to decision-making bodies. It is still a large role to play. He said it bothers him that this seems to be an issue of redundancy, and the difficulty of making sure you have good participation from the bodies that are around this table. If it is an extra meeting with different people at the table than are what is at this table, that gives potential for folks to have the presentation more than once. He said part of the issue is the Committee itself, and how does it stay relevant to the decision-making process when there are so many pieces that each individual jurisdiction is responsible for that will affect this project. How do we make sure that information flow is good and the decision-making flow is good as well? He said no one here is opposed to broadening this group and getting more voices at the table. The question is if this Bi-State Coordination Committee is still a core of that. He said he has heard that we will be asked to participate but in a different way, so there could be different people at the table. He said that does not make sense to him in the value for the time invested. He asked for recommendations, saying the recommendation previously made would be to make the listing “public agencies” and change it to “Bi-State Committee” since we are already that list of public agencies. He said as Commissioner Cruz said, once a quarter, we would get the presentation along with the others on this specific issue. He said then when we meet on our regular schedule, we could discuss the issue more and have all the same players up to speed. Chair Burkholder asked for comments.
Lynne Griffith said it was an interesting suggestion, to put us in as the public agencies aspect. She said as Phil Selinger said, as part of the recommendation that we need to be sensitive to. One of the reasons the I-5 Task Force was successful and there was success with the individual agencies getting behind it for the 18 months. She said she thought there would be a huge void and probably a mistake if we start dissecting out those efforts. She said she heard this new group is just going to talk about highway and transit and the rest is going to go somewhere else. She said she thought that would compromise the 18 months that was spent together plus, it will erode the support of the agencies that were behind it to begin with. There is a principle in the process that was followed. The commitments that were made by agencies, and she said certainly for C-TRAN, were based on a truly broad mix of solutions, not just transit or not just highway, but the other cost effective methods to move people. She said in dissecting that, it causes risks. She recommended keeping the key elements of the I-5 Task Force recommendations together with the group that will carry the EIS forward, and that this body sit at a minimum as the public representatives of the two states.
John Gillam said that may be a good solution, but there may also be a circumstance where there might be additional public agencies beyond that. Agencies such as, when we proceed with this major project, DEQ. He said it might be Bi-State and other public agencies. Also, this group reports to JPACT so Mr. Gillam asked Richard Brandman if the feedback would come back from JPACT. In the structure that is set out, that coordination brings the feedback from Metro. Richard Brandman said JPACT and the Metro Council along with the RTC Board will have to adopt or not the recommendation that moves forward. Typically, in a process like this, JPACT would be kept informed on an intermittent basis, as well as the Council and the RTC Board on the progress that is being made and the direction that it takes. That will allow those bodies to give feedback at an early process and not at the end. No one wants to be the public body at the end of a process to say they don’t like this and start over or change your course. It will be very important to have constant feedback from all government agencies that will have a say in this. Whatever comes out in the end will have to be in the Transportation Plans for both sides of the river, which is an important part of this process.
Mr. Brandman questioned Don Wagner saying when he described the mission of the task force in the charter section noting that they don’t recommend, they advise on technical data. Mr. Brandman asked who would recommend to the Commissions, if it were not the task force?
Eric Holmes added to that saying with the concerns around the table and the group starting at 40 members and possibly continue to grow, why the structure was set up as it is. There may be other structures that we can introduce the interest groups that make it more effective.
Don Wagner said the Joint Transportation Commission is the ultimate group that makes the recommendation as to whether or not something moves forward. The piece about providing advice is just that. The Joint Commissions is looking for the voice of the people most affected by the project. It is not, as he understands it, going to take a vote or come to a consensus on this is what must move forward. Mr. Wagner said as seen with the I-5 Trade Task Force, they did not come out with a consensus on that, a majority resulted on the Strategic Plan, but not a consensus. He said there really is one for getting the information out, getting information back in. The technical information that is referenced is virtually the same type of information that went through the Strategic Planning process. It is really about sharing the information and getting the input back to the Joint Commissions for them to decide whether or not this has the support to move forward and meets all the roles. The individual decisions are turned back to those agencies that have to make an individual decision, whether it is to include something in the Plan or whether it is to put something in a local agency Plan.
Matt Garrett said that does address it, but said that is exactly what this Bi-State Committee is. They are advisory in nature. We go back and inform our individual agencies. The Task Force gives advice and becomes a political and policy bellwether committee. He said he sees it mirroring the Bi-State Committee activity. Mr. Garrett said in answering Mr. Brandman’s question, said specifically as to who gives advise on the technical information. That group already exists, the senior group of staffs that have already been looking at information for review. He said he felt the appropriate technical members are in place.
Royce Pollard said he understood the process that is drafted for the task force and its advisory role. But he said it does not allow the Bi-State Committee to be a part of it. He said he agreed with Chair Burkholder in that we should make a recommendation in some form to the Joint Commissions that the public agencies membership should be the Bi-State Committee. He said if there are shortcomings, other public agencies that should be involved, they could be assigned to this group for those specific needs. He felt that was a valid suggestion and supported it.
Craig Pridemore said he felt less of a concern after discussion. If the role of the Task Force is just advisory, it is probably not the level that he had thought. The Bi-State Committee is already advisory to the RTC Board and JPACT. RTC has local state legislators serving on the Board. If all this is going to do is advise on technical data leading to the EIS, that is something that staff can attend. He suggested dividing this and stop thinking the task force was the policy arm, and stay with the MPOs for policy and this project can go forward. Royce Pollard said he agreed. He said we try to influence the decision as best we can, and when the decision is made he will support it in what ever form it is appropriate for the City of Vancouver. But he said he thinks we have concerns that need to be expressed.
In trying to conclude the discussion, Dean Lookingbill summarized the points made. He said he understands the two DOTs objective is to move a Columbia River Crossing project. They want to do so into what is defined as the bridge influence area, and they want to focus on the transit and highway component of that Columbia River Crossing Project. The Bi-State Committee was put together to be a policy group to make sure all the transportation components were put together, TDM, environmental justice, etc. The Bi-State Committee also has a clear federal MPO responsibility to make recommendations back to the two individual MPO’s and we still need to figure how that fits into the proposed task force. He said by way of the decision process, it seems like the I-5 Columbia River Crossing Task Force is a project committee. It has a role in the decision making process that is with the technical staff. Their findings still need to come back to the Bi-State Committee in a broader policy context and meet the MPO federal role as well as meeting the broader policy issues. He said we are discussing I-5, but if there is a toll on both bridges and tolls are collected on I-205, and there are subsequent projects in the I-205 corridor funded by those tolls, there would now have to be an EIS that needs to address both corridors. If we have an EIS that deals with both corridors, we need to deal with how east-west traffic crosses between the interstate bridges and hence address the full regional transportation system. Under this scenario the role of the Bi-State Committee continues and there are still the responsibilities back to the MPOs.
Richard Brandman said the former I-5 Trade Partnership Committee did far more than give advice on technical issues. They set a framework for which this project is going to proceed. That borders on policy, as opposed to just technical advice. He said his question is specifically that if this proposed task force will have less of a policy role than the former task force, he felt that was hard to believe. There are a lot of questions that will come forward, such as are we tolling, are we tolling one bridge or two bridges, are we tearing down a bridge, or building a combined light rail bridge and a road bridge, are we not building light rail or just high capacity transit? These are mostly policy issues to be settled before going to the EIS. He said he felt that proposed task force would be the recommending body on issues of this nature. He said that suggests that there will be policy issues coming out of that task force, not advice on technical issues. He said the issue that is heard around the Bi-State table is what is the role of the policy making body that is formally advising the MPOs in making those preliminary recommendations about what moves forward. He said it is hard to imagine a 30 to 40-member task force not having that responsibility of recommending to the DOTs, Bi-State, Metro, or RTC. They will not feel that they are making valuable use of their time, if they are just reviewing technical data. That is the crux of who is making the recommendations to the DOTs and the Commissions. That is what this group is suggesting that they would like to be in the role of, or a part of this group in its entirety making that recommendation. He said that is what would be important to get a response on how those policy recommendations will be made to the Commissions and what role does this body have.
Don Wagner said the first Task Force put together a Strategic Plan, which was very broad, with a lot of policy issues involved. It also specified certain projects to move forward, Delta Park, Salmon Creek, and a new Columbia River highway and transit crossing. This task force is aimed at one project in that mix. It will be data driven, addressing the many issues that Mr. Brandman listed. There will be a lot of data helping to determine what should happen, such as tolling. This new task force is to help put together and screen that data. The policy decisions about whether or not to implement something, those will have to come back to the individual agencies for more significant input into the Commissions deliberation on how they want to move forward. It is a project like other significant projects they have moved forward in the Metro area, saying Westside light rail is an example. Richard Brandman said there was a group of elected officials that decided in the end what moved forward. That is the distinction that is being suggested here. Mr. Wagner said in the end he believes how the go or no go decision on any crossing will be made. It will not be made by the Transportation Commissions independently. It is going to have to be a very broad group that does that. He said the recommendation of Mr. Burkholder is something that we want to take serious look at.
Mr. Burkholder said a letter could be drafted with three issues. One, address the scope to reinforce the fact that this is a piece of the broader picture, that there are the other pieces there that the Bi-State Committee would like to have looked at, TDM, environmental justice, etc. should be a part of this discussion. The second recommendation is that the Bi-State Membership would be incorporated into that group.
Matt Garrett asked if everyone at this table was asked by letter to be on the task force, that the same players get to the table. He questioned the necessity of sending letters if that was not needed.
Mr. Burkholder said he felt there should be a statement from the DOTs that they actually endorse the Bi-State Committee, which they have signed a charter as part of. He said to pretend that it does not exist, is a difficult thing. This is not an isolated independent group. They were brought together to work on this issue and to be recognized makes sense. He said he heard a consensus from this table in that regard. The last issues to be addressed in the letter are the issues that Mr. Brandman brought up. It needs to be made clear that there are some policy level decisions that will be made that are critical. It is not just technical, and it needs to be recognized that there are major issues that will need to be addressed. Mr. Burkholder asked members if they agreed to the letter.
Craig Pridemore said his sense is that staff could be on the proposed task force if they are just going to review data. Then the Bi-State Committee could continue to uses as our policy recommending body to the MPOs and they have their direct charges from state and federal agencies to provide their input regardless of the task force process.
Mr. Burkholder said if the task force is a technical committee, he agreed that staff would attend and the Bi-State Committee would be a separate review on policy level. It seems that at this point the Commissions have been headed in the other direction.
Serena Cruz said if the letter is pursued that this needs to be a policy recommending body, it makes no sense for it not to be a policy recommending body given that there is a hope for elected officials, and business interests, and neighborhood and environmental folks to all be together. The whole point of bring together a group that broad is to get their perspective on policy. It is not to get their perspective on specific technical recommendations. She said she thought it made sense for the Bi-State Committee to ask for clarity about what it is they are really seeking out of this body. If it is policy, and that is why it is so inclusive, then it needs to have Bi-State on it. If it is not, then we recommend to them that re-look the makeup of the group. She said it made no sense to have it be so inclusive for a body who is just looking at technical data. Ms. Cruz said we could make one more step before we walk away. She said if it is purely technical, then we should stay away. That is not our role; our role is policy.
Lynne Griffith said some of this just feels like we are just going through the motions to be able to say we had a public process. She said we need to understand what this task force is intended to do. Because it is a huge project implicating highway and transit, she has concerns because decisions will be made in that process and by a DOT Commission who does not oversee the decision-making process on the transit side. That is Transit Authorities and Federal Transit Administration, and the Regional Planning Process that guides those principals. It seems that is outside the process. In order for it to succeed, you need the right participants to be at the table in order to advance it to realization. It seems the Bi-State Committee is critical.
Susie Lahsene asked if the recommendation of the MPOs, RTC and Metro was necessary before a project is moved forward. It was confirmed that yes, that was necessary. Ms. Lahsene said that meant to her that the Bi-State Committee provides the input to the MPOs on policy issues. She said this body still has that control.
Mr. Burkholder said he thought the suggestions by Ms. Cruz were good in just asking the clarification of the purpose and recognizing the role. He said a follow up of these comments would be presented to the Commission at their September 2 meeting.
Rex Burkholder introduced Pat Egan with the Port of Portland. Mr. Egan distributed copies of ORULE’s mission statement and a presentation overview. With the short time, Mr. Egan gave a brief summary of the Oregon Rail User’s League. He said rail is an important asset in the state of Oregon in all types. In order to maintain that asset and improve that asset, that will require additional resources of all types, public and private. The formation of ORULE resulted out of the need for a rail community. The purpose of the ORULE is to focus all the different stakeholders to have a unified approach to a legislative package in the 2005 session to bring more resources for all types of rail. The stakeholders include: Class 1 representatives, shippers, short line representatives, Amtrak and passenger rail advocates, ports, transportation service brokers, construction firms and associated service providers, Oregon Highway User’s Alliance and individual members, and rail car manufacturers.
Mr. Egan said the group has had three full meetings and two sub-committee meetings. They have also had contact with legislators and a press outreach by way of a rail tour and plan to do more. Mr. Egan said the basic ORULE principles are to recognize every element of rail and every opportunity that exists. He said rail, as a transportation mode, must speak with a unified voice in working with other transportation modes to achieve a more robust and vibrant transportation network throughout Oregon. He said they would welcome any business or public entity in the state of Washington.
He said their legislative interim goals include organizing and focus rail advocates to create and pursue a legislative agenda for the 2005 legislative session. Their second goal is to raise the profile of rail services and needs with the Governor, legislators, in the executive branch and among transportation stakeholders.
Rex Burkholder said in reference to other transportation stakeholders, the Port did agree to take on developing a rail forum, which is different that ORULE. ORULE is an Oregon based advocacy for more rail funding at the state level. It is connected to the projects that we were looking at in the I-5 corridor that were rail based. He said the Bi-State Committee would be more interested in how this evolves in providing us information on the rail needs in this region, and also helping us recognize and recommend projects for funding at the federal and state level.
Mr. Egan said in Oregon there has not been one singular voice. To be productive and successful, you need many groups with a consensus. They have started with an inventory of projects that will be presented to ODOT Rail for consideration and how they move forward in the 2005 budget. He said now that they are a singular group; they can also look at how this works regionally and how it works for other states. He said he could bring before ORULE the idea of the I-5 study group. He said ORULE is really a statewide entity and the I-5 forum really starts at the region.
Phil Selinger said that TriMet anticipated the introduction of Washington County commuter rail who will also be another stakeholder.
Mr. Egan said with the anticipated double amount of freight, in order to absorb that amount of traffic and freight movement, it will put demands on the state highways systems. It cannot absorb that much volume.
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver said every commodity flow forecast that has been done by Metro, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Port of Seattle, or Port of Tacoma, all have said exactly the same thing. Within the next 20 years, we will double the throughput. He said if you look at the existing capacity currently on the rail, and the actual way the rail is used, specifically boxes that are east bound, and primarily Christmas gifts. The commodity that flows out of the Columbia River and the Pacific Northwest is primarily grain from Washington. It is harvest time in July, August, and October the same time all the gifts are headed east as well. The railroads will tell you there is not a problem because of the average number of trains. He said that is like saying the I-5 bridge does not have a problem based on the average number of cars. He said there is a chokepoint and it is here in the Pacific Northwest. If we are to maintain the number of jobs that we have in international trade in the Port system and the ancillary jobs that come here, we need to keep an eye on the railroad. Sometimes suggested help is necessary. The railroads need to be worked with and there are a lot of issues involved. He said it is the next big thing for the Pacific Northwest whether or not we can maintain the rail capacity that we have today.
Mr. Egan welcomed participation from everyone.
Kate Deane gave a brief update of the Delta Park project and distributed 4 maps of the four final alternatives. Ms. Deane said this spring they wrapped up the work they have been doing with their advisory committees, a citizen advisory committee and an environmental group. They now have their 4 final alternatives that they will take to the Delta Park Environmental Assessment (EA). It is an EA and not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the course of preparing their technical reports, if they run across any problems from an environmental standpoint that would point them toward preparing an EIS, they will then do an EIS instead of an EA. The four pictures distributed are the four alternatives they will be studying. Ms. Deane said they had a late replacement in alternatives. She recalled the North to Schmeer Alternative, but that basically replaced the Columbia Blvd. Interchange across the slew at Schmeer Road. Through their public process, two key things were heard and went into the development of the four alternatives. On the North to Schmeer alternative, the committees recommended not to study that alternative any longer. The key factors were there was too much out of direction travel involved, too much confusion about the route and driver confusion would be an issue. When they started looking at the right of way, the whole reason that they originally looked at the North to Schmeer was to avoid residential impacts from the other alternatives. What they found was the North to Schmeer actually had higher residential impacts than the other alternatives. It also had high business impacts, combined with larger impacts on the proposed Columbia Slew trail. For those reasons, the North to Schmeer was removed and replaced with the new alternative the Columbia Connector. Ms. Deane said it is sometimes called the Howell alternative. It came to them compliments of Jim Howell. They will be studying that alternative as well. There are the four alternatives going into the Environmental Assessment and in January, she hopes to be able to come back and report the specifics of each.
Rex Burkholder asked in terms of the Environmental Justice, he asked the progress in terms of figuring out how to create and administer that. Ms. Deane said Delta Park is the first place to test the development of the environmental justice or community enhancement. She said once they have the impacts of the alternatives and they know the mitigation that they will have is ultimately the time to address. It will ultimately be a negotiation about what community enhancements are necessary on the project in order to satisfy the community that this project should go forward. Ms. Deane said you need to think broadly when thinking of a community enhancement fund. It may be a fund that money is put into and then it gets administered by the communities for certain projects. She said she would like people to hold open the possibility that maybe a series of projects that are selected with the community that get funded and not an established fund per se. The objective would be the same; it is a community based project process that identifies the community enhancements that are appropriate. In terms of process, they need to develop that as they see what the impacts are and mitigation strategies are. If they go down the route of a fund, that may be a more challenging route.
Royce Pollard asked a time line for the Delta Park Project. Ms. Deane said they anticipate in January to have the results of the technical analysis. The preparation of the EA will happen and a draft recommendation by August 2005 with a hearing, and hope for approval December 2005. She said the alternatives development process took about a year longer than anticipated. Construction would be anticipated about two years after that. Matt Garrett noted that Kate Deane is one of the best and brightest at ODOT and is working to deliver this project. He said specific to the enhancement fund, it is still in the building. It is not a reparation fund. There are legal issues to address. He said that is a significant discussion that needs to be brought before the Bi-State Committee. As the projects are moved forward, they can mitigate the legal sense, and there are the expectations that go beyond that which will require other revenue sources. There is a price to deliver a project. The further that migrates away from the nexus of transportation, it becomes much more difficult to address. The revenue streams need to be identified in other ways. It will be a very important conversation that still needs to play itself out.
This agenda item was held over until the September meeting.
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County said as the Committee continues to deliberate the Task Force issue, she said she would question the level of enthusiasm that might be generated within the business community or private sector at large for review and advice on technical data which might be better left to the transportation professionals. When in fact the private sector most likely will be far more concerned with policy issues rather than the technical aspects.
Don Wagner acknowledged that this would be Mary Legry’s last meeting of the Bi-State Committee as a WSDOT employee. She will be retiring at the end of August. Mr. Wagner thanked her for all her work after a long career.
Rex Burkholder distributed a letter from himself to the Bi-State Members regarding research work. This would be addressed at the September meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
The next scheduled meeting will be on September 23, 2004, at Metro.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|