 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, December 2, 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 7:35 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
Rebecca Eisiminger, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Robin McArthur, ODOT Alternate
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Alternate
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Sonia Axter, Cascade Station Development Company
Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Debbie Bischoff, Portland Bureau of Planning
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Michelle Danley, Washington Governor’s Office
Kate Deane, ODOT
Rob DeGraff, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Chuck Green, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Bob Hart, RTC
Jim Howell, AORTA
Jim Leahy, Bechtel
Tom Markgraf, Markgraf & Associates
Sharon Nasset, Economic Transportation Alliance
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Dale Robins, RTC
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Paul Ryus, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Phil Selinger, TriMet
Dave Shields, City of Gresham
Karen Shilling, Multnomah County
Kristopher Strickler, WSDOT
Steve Wells, Trammell Crow CompanyTHE SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, MEETING REPORT WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Rex Burkholder introduced Rob DeGraff, ODOT, one of the project directors for the I-5 Columbia River Crossing project. Mr. DeGraff said that Doug Ficco, WSDOT, is the other project director on the project but was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. DeGraff said they are making good progress in putting together the Columbia River Crossing Task Force, which includes the Bi-State Committee members. The two Task Force Co-Chairs, Hal Dengerink and Henry Hewitt, will be getting together soon for the first time prior to the next Joint Sub Committee of the Washington and Oregon Transportation Commissions. They will discuss when the Task Force will meet and how they want to manage the group. It is anticipated that the Task Force will meet for the first time in January.
Mr. DeGraff said the communications team has been assembled and have started work. The group includes EnviroIssues, the JD White Company, Jean Lawson and Associates, and Tom Markgraf. Mr. DeGraff said they have started early consultation with the Federal Highway Administration.
The technical work is moving along. The feasibility study on the question of how to pay for the crossing and using tolls has progressed significantly. The Strategic Plan suggested that the region’s need to look at tolls as an option for funding among a variety of options. A team of nationally known consultants has been brought together to look at tolls and have suggested that tolling is a feasible strategy for financing all or part of the proposed I-5 river crossing.
Mr. DeGraff said toll facilities have existed in this country since the country was established. Part of this work is to look at the history of tolling. He said even though tolls have existed for 250 years, there are really no standards for how they are done. Every jurisdiction that has a toll facility does it their own way in terms of how they set the tolls, the underlying policy, and the goals. The design of the toll plaza facilities has no recognized standards, unlike the rigid standards for building and designing highways. This does allow creativity in order to make it work.
Mr. DeGraff said the data that is underlying the analysis is still subject to further refinement. Mr. DeGraff said the capital costs that they are looking at are for the bridge itself. The crossing is only a piece of what needs to happen in order to see the gains of capacity improvement. At this point, tolls are a feasible alternative to fund all or part of the crossing. He said they focused on the bridge itself and not a lot of the interchange work that will take place on either side.
Some of the factors that were included in the assessment of tolls were: trucks will pay more than cars, usually a tiered system. Mr. DeGraff highlighted some of the options that are used to allocate and collect the tolls. They are assuming a combination of electronic toll collection and manual toll collection, which has generated a lot of discussion. They are assuming an inflation factor. There will also be discounts or incentives for those who acquire a transponder, along with transit/buses. Diversion will be an issue. The model shows there is some traffic diversion from I-5 to I-205, but again, with the assumptions, tolls will generate enough resources to substantially cover the cost of a new Columbia River Crossing. That is true if the toll is just on I-5 or another option of tolling both the I-5 and the I-205 bridges.
As part of the conceptual engineering, a boat survey was done. This was a detailed analysis of how often the lift spans of the current bridges are raised to accommodate river traffic. There is only one option in the I-5 Strategic Plan that talks about a bridge that does not have a lift span. Lifts on interstate highways are fairly unusual and it is something that everyone would like to see go away if possible. There is the challenge of the railroad bridge down river, and if a high bridge is built highest in the center of the river, you are over the center channel and the north channel is where the railroad bridge opens and that creates problems for river traffic. The boat survey has said that there are very limited users that actually require an elevation on the bridge over about 100 feet. The current bridge opens to almost 200 feet, and the I-205 bridge is 175 feet. The number of users who require over 100 feet is so small that it has caused them to look at can something be engineered that is just over 100 feet to accommodate those users. Conceptual engineering is also being done on this design.
They are still anticipating a Notice of Intent to initiate the federal process this spring. They are working on drafts of the purpose and need project justification, which are the fundamental pieces that go into scoping for the EIS. They are also starting the process for looking for a contractor consultant team to manage the EIS process. They hope to have that team selected by this summer when they will be into or through scoping and ready to launch the EIS.
Larry Haverkamp said he was under the impression that they would be looking further east of I-205, and asked if they were looking at a Troutdale crossing. Mr. DeGraff said they are focused on I-5, and the only reason that I-205 gets talked about is in regard to the question of tolls and whether both river crossings get tolled.
The next meeting of the Joint Commission is set for December 14, 2004, at WSDOT Vancouver at 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. Don Wagner said that all of this discussion is a possibility. No decisions have been made at this stage. This is a data gathering, and the information will go to the Task Force and then the Joint Commission for decisions. Mr. Wagner said if we do get a 2005 appropriation through Congress, it looks like there will be another $2 million coming to us for this project.
Rex Burkholder said this project is very important and of great concern to jurisdictions on both sides of the river. He said we do want to hear all about it. He said one piece that was not touched on was the transit element. Another was the governance issue in terms of how this is going to be managed in the long run. He said all options need to be looked at, the Ports and the freight rail issue. He said while we are in this process, we need to take advantage of those opportunities. Mr. Burkholder said letters have been sent inviting members to be on the Task Force.
Serena Cruz said since many of the members participated on the I-5 Trade and Transportation Partnership Task Force, she said if there was also some kind of acknowledgement of the prior work that has been done in this area that was pulled over to this new piece. She said that would be helpful to stay more engaged. Some discussion on the topics was made at that first task force. With a sort of historical connection. Rob DeGraff said it is their intent to provide the new task force with a notebook that summarizes that for the foundation, which will be the strategic plan. Ms. Cruz said just more than knowing that there is a history there, it is knowing that we are not redoing work that prior consultants already did. She said that was important to her.
Kate Deane displayed large maps of the four alternatives that ODOT is currently studying and referred to the colored copies included in the meeting packets. She distributed copies of Key Milestones for the Delta Park to Lombard Project. Ms. Deane said September 2004 to February 2005 they will prepare technical reports comparing and evaluating the four alternatives and a no-build alternative. In March 2005 they will share findings with the public and seek feedback about the alternatives. April through June 2005 they will use public feedback to develop draft recommendations for a preferred alternative. Ms. Deane said they would bring the findings to the Bi-State group in March and May. In July and August 2005 they will have a 45-day public comment period and hearing on EA and draft recommendations for a preferred alternative. September to December 2005 they will finalize recommendations for a preferred alternative and prepare revised EA. It is anticipated to have final recommendations for a preferred alternative and FHWA approval (FONSI) in January/February 2006.
Ms. Deane said the question has been whether to put together an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. She said they are very similar documents. They are not finding major differences among the alternatives, or significant impact that they cannot mitigate that would cause them to prepare an EIS rather than an EA. From a transportation performance standpoint, they are finding that all of the alternatives will operate similarly. So there are not major transportation differences that are going to necessarily make the difference. Some of the difficulty that is coming out is in terms of the Columbia Slough. Where there are new crossings at the Slough, there are both impacts to the Slough, the habitat, and the Columbia Slough Trail on the north shore. Other areas could be costs, and right-of-way impacts. Ms. Deane said that this spring, in addition to looking at the alternatives and their impacts, they also anticipate looking at the accompanying mitigation.
The four alternatives are 1) Full Columbia Ramps, 2) Argyle on the Hill, 3) New Road by the Slough, and 4) Columbia Connector (Jim Howell).
Rex Burkholder asked how this fits into actually getting the project built, given funding cycles. Ms. Deane said they already have a request for an earmark for about $32 million in reauthorization. Given cost increases, that may be a little short on the main line improvements. She said that does not include enough money to do the Columbia Blvd. improvements. Kate Deane said unless something changes, they are anticipating the project will be phased and do the widening of I-5 and the reconstruction of part of Columbia Blvd. to accommodate the widening first. Some of the Columbia Blvd. interchange options would need to be a phase two. She said the only option that makes Columbia Blvd. a traditional full interchange is option one. The other three alternatives rely on either the use of existing infrastructure and existing routes or new parallel local routes that get you to the freeway. Alternative one will be the most costly with the two crossings over the slough. Numbers two and three have a lot of reliance on Denver Avenue and utilizing existing infrastructure. Number four is a mix of both.
Don Wagner asked that if the funding is going to be there and the FONSI is completed, would they go right into design, how long would that take, and when construction is anticipated? Kate Deane said they would begin construction in about two years. She said they will try to make it less than that, but there is a lot that has to occur. It will then take a couple years to construct.
Dean Lookingbill said the earmark request was in reauthorization a couple years ago. That is still a topic of discussion at Congress. He asked that if Bi-State members continue to support this project, it needs to continue to be discussed in reauthorization as a project that both sides of the river strongly support. Mayor Pollard said he assumed it is still as high a priority as it was before at Metro. Rex Burkholder said that yes, it is on their list and discussions will take place at the next JPACT. Their priorities will be the topic of discussion to prepare for their trip to Washington, D.C. in March. Fred Hansen said he would make it stronger than that. He said that the belief that there is a need to be able to address it as a very high priority. He said he felt there is no need to change that. Mayor Pollard said when they go back to D.C., it is nice to all be on the same line. Serena Cruz said it does raise a good point about the changes in City Hall. It is important for us to make sure that our new Mayor gets up to speed as we go to Washington, D.C.
Fred Hansen said we all are worried about when these final investments are made that they get marginalized because of the type of development that occurs around the development. He said a big box activity nearby could take up whatever increases in benefits that we would get. He asked how we were to look at this in relationship to the work that is being proposed. Kate Deane said they are looking at that somewhat. The traffic modeling that has been done does presume the existing zoning that surrounds the interchange. She said mainly the area around Hayden Meadows. That zoning in many cases is actually quite robust at this time. She said they have some conservative transportation traffic assumptions built in terms of other development. Ms. Deane said they are working with the City and will be working with the property owners. They will look at managing access. They would want to begin talking with them about how the area redevelops.
Rex Burkholder referred to the 2005 Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting schedule that was distributed in the meeting packet. The schedule anticipates the meetings necessary for the I-5 Columbia River Task Force. With this in mind, the Bi-State Coordination Committee meetings are set up for every other month, with the opportunity to have the off month be used to schedule the Task Force meetings. He said the group would probably meet every month, but be part of a larger Task Force every other month.
Chair Rex Burkholder said the reason he had asked for an update from the transit providers is specifically what happened with the ballot measure for funding for C-TRAN and also to discuss the fact that we have two separate bodies providing transit service that interrelate at the border. Yet, again we have one population with the same needs. He said transit is a key issue, and is uncomfortable with the fact that there is a major funding challenge.
Lynne Griffith said that C-TRAN did loose its election 46 to 54 percent. By the way of background, C-TRAN was formed in 1980. It is a countywide system after being a Vancouver transit system. Other than King County and Sound Transit in the Seattle area, C-TRAN is the only urban system in Washington that is a countywide system. She said over the last four years since she has been with C-TRAN, it is very difficult to serve the parts of Clark County which are still very, very rural with areas between the smaller cities connected by void areas. It is a difficult transit delivery system to sustain. One of the objectives in working with the C-TRAN Board is to look at a solution to the loss of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax which was a great funding source for transit in Washington State. She said they knew they needed to go to the voters. Voters had created the countywide system, and if that was going to end, it should be weighed in by voters versus a decision by staff and Board. She said they had hoped they would win, but they came close. She said they did well given the circumstances, but it certainly was not enough. What it presents for the C-TRAN Board are some really tough decisions. A reduction plan was prepared as part of this process. This means about 46 percent of the transit system goes away. This is a great impact to transit service in Clark County. That is what you can expect when half of your funding goes away. She said that some have forgotten that losing the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax was a driving factor that has put C-TRAN in the situation it is in. It is not really an anti-tax climate; it is just a huge void to fill. The Board supported the reduction plan. It is in front of them now, and it is phased over four separate phases with the first beginning in January. They held a public hearing at the last Board Meeting on November 16, 2004, with a turnout of about 400 people. There were 100 people who testified and 300 written statements. She said at this point, they do not have an implementation date, possibly the end of February. The first phase is pretty paling for the bi-state relationship, but she said she though it would be one supported by this group. It moves them from downtown Portland single seat trips for their commuters to them feeding light rail at both the rail heads, Park Rose and Interstate MAX. This means that anything bi-state would go to these two locations. She said they have had discussions with TriMet. Until they land on the implementation date, it is hard to give a definitive idea of what the service looks like. The other reduction that is planned in the first phase is that Sunday service ends. May is the second phase of the reduction plan. Saturday service ends and a lot of local routes that are poor performers would also end. Pushed out as far as they can because of the impact to transit dependent is the outlying areas like Battle Ground, Camas, and Washougal allowing them an opportunity to look at other options and decisions.
Ms. Griffith said this is a huge issue, and there has been a strong outcry from commuters, transit dependent, and the elderly and disabled communities and advocates. Saying they cannot do this. She said they have to also factor the loud voice that came from the voters that said you are going to have to because we are not going to fund it. She said it is opening an opportunity to look at district definition. They have some clear ideas of where support is strong or borderline, or near majority versus the opposite. Part of the reduction plan strategy was that they would have to modify the transit district. In looking at other areas, they have a PTBA boundary that is something that is less that countywide. It tailors itself to where transit can successfully deliver fixed route service. Discussions will take place as they move into the new year. She said they will leave it to the swelling of public support and some of the homework they have to do in reconfiguring the system to define if there is another ballot in the future.
Fred Hansen said about 20% of C-TRAN riders cross the river each day and most of it is express to either downtown or OHSU. The reduction plan will stop these trips at either PIR for Interstate MAX or at Park Rose. There is a lot of debate and no survey has been done to see what that affect will be. Generally speaking in the transit world, if you have to wait for the next vehicle, it is worth about two to three times the amount of time as if you are on a vehicle. So if you care about riding and the amount of time it is taking, the wait time is about two to three times more important than the actual riding time. When you force transfers as opposed to a single seat, you will loose a lot of people. The question is how many. Mr. Hansen touched on some of the other issues that are important to the Bi-State issue. He said he is pleased that C-TRAN is looking at a fare increase, because currently the two are not at the same level, about ten percent less. He said TriMet currently provides service to downtown Vancouver, and because of the nature of getting reimbursed for that. A large portion of the people that come across on that are transit dependent, about 80 percent are transit dependent. He said they do not know how the stopping of Sunday service will affect as well as Saturday service. It appears that a number of those people are service workers that work on weekends. TriMet is self insured as most Oregon governments are. By the fact that they need to go into Vancouver, means they have to have a common carrier insurance policy. This is about $150,000 for them to just come into Vancouver and back out. This does get costly. He said that historically, they have been reimbursed by C-TRAN with a formula. This only adds more cost and will need to be worked through. A bigger issue is what is going to happen to the park-and-ride lots that are essentially on the Oregon side. He said currently, about 20 percent of Gateway has Washington license plates. Park Rose is about 80 percent Washington license plates. Currently at both Expo and PIR, going south on I-5 getting off is easiest at PIR because you have to back track at Expo. He said their expectation has been that when PIR fills, they will then use Expo but probably not before that. Those lots are generally underutilized. He said they would expect that when the change begins, those lots would probably fill completely from Washington folks. He said about $5,000 per parking space; about $4 million in capital have gone in to create those spots and about $300,000 to maintain each year. How is that looked at in a Bi-State way? We all want more people to use transit across the way, but all angles need to be looked at. How do we make the system work when there isn’t enough money? Mr. Hansen said assuming that 50 percent of the people who have been on their express service remain using transit, being optimistic, current capacity on the Interstate and the Red Line, they can accommodate that. If it goes over 50 percent, they start to have problems. What ever it is, during the peak hours there will be standing room. Some thing to consider is charging for parking and using some of those assets to offset the service to downtown Vancouver.
Fred Hansen asked what the margin on the tax measure was in the City of Vancouver limits. The measure passed with 52%.
John Gillam with the City of Portland distributed a handout and referred to the information included in the meeting packet with a summary of the Cascade Station / Portland International Center Plan District along with maps of the area. He said he wanted to let the Bi-State Committee know what was taking place with this development proposal, and how it is the same and how it is different than what is already in approved plans. Mr. Gillam introduced Sonia Axter, Project Manager with Cascade Station Development Company; Steve Wells with Trammell Crow; Debbie Bischoff, City of Portland Bureau of Planning; and Paul Ryus with Kittelson and Associates.
Cascade Station is essentially a 452-acre site divided into two sub districts. Sub District A is the northerly part of the site is a mixed-use center with retail, office, and hotel use. Sub District B is exclusively industrial uses. In 1997, public/private partnership formed to bring light rail (LRT) to the airport. In 1999, development rights were approved for Sub District A in exchange for airport LRT construction and other infrastructure construction and site maintenance. The City of Portland then created a Plan District for Cascade Station/Portland International Center (CS/PIC) in zoning code to help provide direction on how the site would develop. In 2001, the Airport LRT and Cascade Station park blocks were completed.
There are several reasons why a new proposal has been brought forward to amend the Cascade Station Plan district. These were identified in the handout of the Plan District Amendments. Even though there has been substantial investment and infrastructure in Sub District A, there has been no development response. Part of the reason is that there are weak numbers for projected market on office development, and hotel and theater. The site is also somewhat isolated, so it does not have dense residential area surrounding it and the site cannot accommodate residential areas because of air flight restrictions. A lot of the mixed-use characteristics that would normally support a community station are not possible here. Because of that, in order to attract any kind of local scale of development to the site, there needs to be a more traditional approach of having a few large anchors to generate some traffic for the other smaller scale retail. Mr. Gillam referred to the handout listing the change to the overall land use mix. Generally, there is a little more of a retail component under the proposed plan, a little less office, and less hotel. The proposed plan also allows for what is currently prohibited for 60,000 square foot per story retail uses. Also, a proposal for a new Master Street Plan and development standards that would support pedestrian and transit-oriented design. The new Master Street Plan is going to be incorporated into the City’s Transportation System Plan. Through cooperative arrangement, they have a site plan and a street plan that the development community and the city agree upon.
The transportation impact analysis shows essentially the same as what is currently allowed in the zoning code. There are some slight differences. There are fewer transit trips, but the traffic trips are essentially the same. The site meets maximum permitted parking requirements. The original vision of the Plan is preserved. The site will still feature quality development and a high scale pedestrian environment. They still anticipate a significant number of jobs being able to be developed on site. There is no reduction of industrial land. Subsequent to this, there is going to be development agreements between the property owner and the developers that will work on the details. The Plan District amendments are currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. They had their first discussion and testimony about two weeks ago. It will be back before them on December 14, and then on to City Council and end with a development agreement.
Mr. Gillam said he wanted to bring this information to the Bi-State Committee to keep them informed of the situation. The traffic impact is more or less the same as what is already allowed by code and zoning. There was question of the specific requirements that is required of the airport in relation to the traffic impacts. Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland, replied that there are specific requirements. She said that they still have design review oversight responsibility. She said their concern will always be the quality of the development, because this is a gateway site to the state and to the airport. That will be very important to them. She said secondarily, and maybe most important is the traffic impact and ensuring good access to the airport will always most important to the Port.
Rex Burkholder said the traffic impact is a big issue. He asked what the impact would be to I-205. Robin McArthur, ODOT, said there is a team meeting and was under the impression that there is still more assessment that needs to happen regarding the interchange. There are some improvements being proposed for the I-205 interchange with Airport Way that are, at this point, perhaps not consistent with FHWA standards and ODOT standards. She said it is important for them to resolve that before they get to far along with the approval of the City Council level. She said the improvements are very expensive improvements as interchange projects can be. She said the next steps should include a detailed review of interchange improvements and impact. Ms. McArthur said the improvements that are being proposed are not in the financially constrained 20-year Plan. If there is a need or desire to make those interchange improvements in order to make the development work, that will need to be a larger regional discussion of where that falls in priority.
Sonia Axter, Cascade Station Development Company, said to clarify the proposed amendments, the incremental change in transportation is not material. She said they have worked with Michael Ray, ODOT, on the incremental changes. She said her understanding was that there was no impact on I-205 in the proposed changes. The City land use process is one of the processes, but they are also doing an Environmental Assessment through the NEPA process with the Port. This is an ongoing jurisdictional participation analysis. That will conclude in March or April subsequent to the land use decision. The land use is focused on basically the four years that they have tried to stimulate the development of the site. It is not possible to develop with the land use standards of today. The incremental change with respect to the transportation and the vision and to the transit oriented development standards. The incremental changes have been made and proposed with those standards in mind. The transportation affects are more the p.m. peak hour and across a 24-hour period, there is a 25 percent reduction.
John Gilliam asked Paul Ryus with Kittelson and Associates to clarify the question of I-205 impacts and said that some interim improvements have been identified that could help the situation. Mr. Ryus said the difficulty with this is that in 1998 when the first plan came through, it was a public/private partnership. It was clearly defined on the private side what they were responsible for. It was identified that there were additional needs above and beyond that on the public side that never got into any plans. Those needs are still out there. That is what they are coming up with in the revised plan now. There isn’t any incremental change in the impact, but there are still needs out there that need to be funded one way or another. That is what is being heard in terms of the interchange impacts and what needs to be done to accommodate that. He said they have not specifically looked at I-205 and I-84, mainly because the process focused on pretty much the same study area as the first plan, and it did not go that far south. In terms of the bridge, it does not look at traffic in Washington State.
Ed Barnes said he would hope if there is change or modifications on I-205 or the bridge approaches, that there would be discussions with the I-5 Crossing staff for coordination.
Don Wagner said that he has some concerns as well. He said he heard the terminology incremental traffic is marginal on this. When he sees a 60 percent increase in retail across the river, he asks the question if this is model is based on a traffic flow that considers one state has sales tax and the other does not. He feels that there is going to be an increase in the interchange. Mr. Wagner said that an EIS is being done on I-205 from the bridge north by the City of Vancouver. He said he was not aware of any of this information as they move into that. It is more than just the Columbia River Crossing folks that need to be aware. He said he would hope that WSDOT and the City of Vancouver could be engaged in the traffic analysis that goes with this project.
Paul Ryus said that is a question that the Port of Portland raised a year and a half ago. He said they did a traffic count at Jantzen Beach for an entire day for a whole week. On a weekly basis, the number of trips that Jantzen Beach was generating (similar in that it is just across the river, no sales tax, some big box retail) was right in line with a shopping center of that size and occupancy at that time would generate over the course of a week. Mr. Wagner said his concern would not be the total volume generated but the distribution of those trips, which are going north and which are going south. He said they already know that there are some problems at the peak hour at this interchange.
Larry Haverkamp said when he was working, he used the airport a lot and paid a lot of dollars to park. He said he sees a lot of free parking and the fact that people will park in the free area and hop on Max to the airport. Sonia Axter said as part of the development agreement with the Port, a condition is that will be prohibited and policed.
Fred Hansen said there are ways to enforce that. He said the transportation issues are tremendously important and from a bi-state stand point. He said it is important to get back to what Susie Lahsene had said in terms of quality of development. He said the change in development patterns are not the ones we would have liked to see. They really wanted to have what they originally envisioned. There are some mitigating factors. One, the type of big box that they use or propose has to be a quality big box. Two, there are still large parts of service parking, which is a form of land banking. Third, on redevelopment if it is office, your payback for rebuild is really 50 to 70 years. If you look at big box retail, the payback periods are like 20 years.
Chair Burkholder thanked John Gillam and the City of Portland for presenting the information. It offers an opportunity for both sides of the river to coordinate their efforts. John Gillam said there would be some follow-up work for the EA process involving the Oregon and Washington DOTs. Robin McArthur asked if the EA boundary was big enough to address the question of I-205 and I-84 impacts. Mr. Gillam said he did not think the boundary covered that far. Susie Lahsene said the needs for traffic improvements both at Airport Way and I-205 end on I-205 and Columbia Blvd. and parallel frontage roads are in the RTP. They are not in the financially constrained plan. They have been a part of this discussion all along. It is just bringing them to the forefront in the timing of them.
The 2005 meeting schedule was included in the meeting packet and available at the meeting. The dates were discussed earlier in the meeting at the end of agenda item 3.
There was no public comment.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 a.m.
The next scheduled meeting will be on January 27, 2005, at Metro.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|