 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, September 23, 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 Coordination Committee was called to order by Chair Rex Burkholder, at 7:15 a.m. at Metro Regional Center, room 370A-B, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland. He announced at that at 8 a.m., Bi-State Coordination Committee members are invited to join members of JPACT in welcoming Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Administrator Jenna Dorn in the Metro Council Chamber.
Those attending the Bi-State meeting are listed below:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor, Chair
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Matthew Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground Manager
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Alternate
Don Wagner, WSDOT, SW Regional Administrator
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor AlternateStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Bob Hart, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Jan Faraca, MetroInterested Guests Edward Barnes, WSDOT Commissioner
Jim Bernard, City of Milwaukie Mayor
Karen Ciocia, J.D. White Co., Inc.
John Cullerton, Metro
Rob DeGraff, ODOT
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Jim Howell, AORTA
Greg Miller, Associated General Contractors Sharon Nasset
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Lynn Peterson, City of Lake Oswego
Dale Robins, RTC
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Kristopher Strickler, WSDOT
Laurel Wentworth, City of PortlandMatt Garrett suggested that the word, reparation, be substituted for the word reformation on page 12 of the August 10, 2004 meeting report.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 2004 MEETING REPORT, AS CORRECTED BY MATT GARRETT, WAS MOVED AND SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chair recognized Lynne Griffith of C-TRAN who provided copies of an insert that was circulated via 190,000 newspapers in the Vancouver area and offers information about the affects of Proposition 1 on transit service in Clark County. Voters will determine C-TRAN’s future funding level in an election on November 2. She said that during public involvement efforts during 2003, individuals wanted to know what C-TRAN is doing with the money it currently has, and how new monies will be spent. In response to a question, she said that C-TRAN is not able to conduct community polling, but that employees have been involved in community outreach for more than a year and are getting positive response. On the other hand, Proposition 1 is a sales tax initiative, and there is a lot of resistance to that type of taxing. Unfortunately, there are no other choices but she believes that people understand that. Many people think it drives people to Oregon, she added. She mentioned recent endorsements from the Vancouver Chamber and from the outlying areas—Camas and Washougal.
Don Wagner of WSDOT introduced Bob Hart, RTC, and Mark Garrity, WSDOT, to provide findings to date of WSDOT’s Urban Areas Congestion Relief Assessment mandated by the Washington State Legislature. The study addresses the question, “What would it take to eliminate congestion on the State Highway System?” The study looks at the elements separately and at combining modes to resolve congestion issues, and further, at the costs. The report is due for the legislature, which starts in January. (Please see an introductory memorandum from Dean Lookingbill, RTC, which was part of the meeting packet, and the printed version of the presentation, attached.)
Rod Monroe of Metro, asked if analysis considered the impacts of no highway expansion on the Oregon side of the river. The response was that those conducting the study recognized Oregon highway expansion appears unlikely. Mr. Hart explained that the study aimed at a better understanding of the Washington state transportation system. Mr. Monroe commented that all of the businesses and homes that would have to be replaced by widening highways would create a tremendous political problem, wherever that is attempted. He described as a “telling statistic,” the relatively small displacement in the transit option versus the huge displacement in the highway option. What this study is doing is showing the trade-offs in doing different kinds of things, said Mr. Hart. The purpose of the study is to lay out the information and the costs.
Chair Burkholder said this study helps to point out that there are no simple solutions to the problems. Sometimes we hear that all we need to do is . . this! . .and everything will be solved. Part of the value of this study is that it demonstrates that solutions are not simple, never cheap, always have impacts and that we have to make difficult choices.
By the year 2025, we could spend $13 billion and end up where we are today, added Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver.
Lynn Peterson, City of Lake Oswego, asked for a clarification on a Findings statement, “Some mixed-mode options have greatest right-of-way and other impacts.” Mr. Hart agreed that this bullet should be revised to specify the High Highway/High Transit category.
Jim Howell, of the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA), asked what assumptions had been made for commuter rail. No assumptions for commuter rail were included—the focus was on high capacity transit, said Mr. Hart.
Chair Burkholder reported that communications have been exchanged with the state transportation commissions and the joint subcommittee regarding the role of the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Task Force, which will include the members of the Bi-State Committee. On Sept. 2nd, the Oregon and Washington Transportation Commissions Joint Subcommittee on the Columbia River Crossing approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the proposed charter for the CRC Task Force, which describes the project’s purpose, membership and management. The charge of the Task Force is to provide advise to the joint Project Team on technical data and its policy implications and provide advise to the Joint Commission Subcommittee throughout the EIS process. Mr. Burkholder said that because the Bi-State Committee proposal regarding the role of the CRC Task Force was adopted, he believes that as part of the larger CRC Task Force, Bi-State committee members have been assured a meaningful seat at the table.
Mr. Burkholder noted that the CRC project will be one aspect of the Bi-State committee’s work. The Bi-State committee will be dealing with other issues as well, specifically land use and other coordination issues. There will be consideration given to the scheduling of the two groups with the objective of providing opportunity for Bi-State members to develop positions on issues before the Task Force considers them.
Matt Garrett of ODOT agreed that the Joint Subcommittee had adequately addressed the concerns of Bi-State committee members. The next steps in moving forward will be to identify the Task Force co-chairs. He hopes they will be determined by the end of the year, and then letters of invitation for Task force membership will be extended to the various organizations, as indicated in the charter. Probably, the first meeting agenda will include items to determine the schedule and logistics, and background material to set the stage for the work to come.
Don Wagner commented that the intent is for a smooth flow of information from one group to the next and a quarterly meeting as a minimum, although the final determination would be at the discretion of the co-chairs, depending upon the need. The hope is to bring the task force together before the end of the year. Various neighborhood and community groups could be invited to provide suggestions for members. The chair suggested that the Regional Freight Committee or the city of Portland’s Freight Advisory Committee could be tapped as well. He mentioned that a work plan is being developed.
Jim Howell representing AORTA, said the direction the whole process is going is clearly a case of trying to deal with the symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself. The symptoms show up on the freeways. Both freeways are crowded, because more ways of getting across the river are needed on both sides of the river. The transportation issue is how to get across the river. Today, the freeways are the only way to cross the river—there is no other option. Why just focus on the freeway? He suggested focusing at arterial connections, public transit, commuter rail, and regional rail. He said he is bothered that the focus continues to go in this direction, and perhaps it is because WSDOT and ODOT only know how to build freeways—they don’t really know how to solve transportation problems.
The Chair responded that there will be an opportunity to look at all of the alternatives during the EIS process.
8:00 a.m. with Jenna Dorn, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.The meeting adjourned so that members could join the informal JPACT meeting at
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|