 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, April 21, 2005, 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.
Chair Rex Burkholder called the Bi-State Coordination Committee to order at 7:30 a.m. in the Metro Council Chamber and welcomed everyone. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Peter Capell, Clark County Alternate
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Matthew Garrett, ODOT Region 1 Manager
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland Alternate
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional AdministratorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Jan Faraca, MetroInterested Guests Edward Barnes, WSDOT
Kurt J. Bolser, Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.
Richard Brandman, Metro
Mike Clark, WSDOT
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield, WA
Kate Deane, ODOT
Rob DeGraff, ODOT
Doug Ficco, CRC
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Jim Howell, AORTA
Tom Markgraf, CRC
Ed Pickering, C-TRAN
Kris Strickler, CRC
Bridget Wieghart, Metro
David Zagel, TriMetThe March 31, 2005, meeting report was approved as submitted.
Kate Deane of the Oregon Department of Transportation, presented key information about the findings of the I-5/Delta Park-Lombard Project Alternatives study, included as a part of this meeting record. The proposed recommendations to ODOT reaffirm that the four alternatives under study, which would improve I-5 between Delta Park and Lombard, include a sufficient range of choice and that sufficient analysis has been completed to be able to choose from among them. Each of the alternatives would improve I-5 in the project area by adding a third lane to I-5 southbound, widening the freeway median and shoulder throughout the area, and providing improved connections between I-5 and Columbia Boulevard. The differences between the four build alternatives center around the proposed changes in access between I-5 and Columbia Boulevard. A no-build alternative was studied to provide a baseline for comparison to the build alternatives.
Transportation
The impacts of the no-build and build alternatives in terms of reducing congestion and delay were detailed in analysis of the project corridor's operations during weekday morning, mid-day, and PM peak hours and weekend daytime hours. The primary congestion relief benefits of this project would occur in the mid-day and evening. The findings indicate that future congestion will cause increasing delays in freight and passenger vehicle movement.
The transportation analysis also focused on
- Improving Safety and Efficiency
- Impacts of I-5 Widening on Other Highways and Streets
- Corridor Reliability
- Potential to Attract Traffic to the New System
- Potential for the City of Portland to Reconsider Street Classifications and Implement Traffic Calming on Argyle Way
- Access between I-5 and Columbia Boulevard
- Access between Columbia Boulevard and Interstate Avenue
- Access Between I-5 and Interstate Avenue Corridor
- Access Between Columbia Boulevard and the Hayden Meadows Area
- Investment in Existing Infrastructure
- Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Other key areas for study included the following topics:
Neighborhood/Community
- Impacts to Residential Property
- Other Impacts to Neighborhoods/Community
All build alternatives may require the purchase of three homes in the Kenton neighborhood for right-or-way or easement purposes. Alternative 1 has one additional displacement.
Business/Economic
- Impacts to Business Property
Each alternative has business displacements. The ODOT staff has been working with the Portland Development Commission to locate other available suitable business sites. In Alternative 3, two businesses would be more difficult to relocate. One is a foundry that would be very difficult to relocate. Also in the area is a commercial laundry that employs about 125 persons and many live within three miles.
- Change in Property Access
All build alternatives have at least one access change, and the impacts of the changes vary by alternative. The most access changes would occur in Alternative 4 with eight access changes.
- Affect on Development of Medium/High Density Housing Along Argyle Way
In Alternative 2, the development of some parcels could be slowed until the new Argyle Way construction is implemented.
Air Quality and Noise
- Impacts to Air Quality
No discernable difference is anticipated.
- Noise Impacts
The overall differences in noise levels would be barely perceptible between the No Build and Build Alternatives. There could be a noticeable decrease in noise levels for at least one residential and mixed-use area.
Biological Resources
- Impacts to Wildlife Habitat
There is small probability of impacts to juvenile and adult salmonids with the build alternatives due to pier construction. In the short term for all Build Alternatives there would be a loss of mature trees but mitigation measures would require replacement. In the long term, these areas would gain a higher quality than presently exists.
- Impacts to Water Resources
The Build Alternatives would reduce slightly the pollutant loads in the Columbia Slough with the required treatment measures. Water quality could be improved because of the change in the way the overpasses are constructed. Build Alternatives also have a potential risk of accidental discharge of construction chemicals and debris during widening of the I-5 Columbia Slough bridge.
- Impacts to Wetlands
Build Alternatives would improve the quality of the existing wetlands in the project area due to required mitigation measures.
Historic and Cultural Resources
- Impacts to Archaeological Resources
- Impacts to Historic Resources
All Build Alternatives would impact the Columbia Slough Drainage Districts Historic District but not adversely. Further, all Build Alternatives would affect the existing setting of the Columbian Cemetery but not adversely. A retaining wall, appropriately landscaped, would be necessary in Alternative 1 and a fill slope, also landscaped, would be included in Alternatives 2, 3 or 4.
Impacts to Visual Resources
Construction Impacts and Costs
- Freeway Widening - Construction Impacts
Alternative 1 would be the best to build in terms of impacts, but the freeway widening would present impacts to all four alternatives-- these impacts are common to the widening construction. Alternative 2 would impact the neighborhood more directly due to road closure. Alternative 3 is by far the most difficult to reconstruct. Columbia Boulevard would be down to gravel and mud and there would be lane closure. Alternative 4 would also have significant impacts to Columbia Boulevard. Once that phase is complete there would be minimal disruption.
- Interchange Improvements - Construction Impacts
- Costs in 2005 Dollars
Ms. Deane described some of the distinctive characteristics of each of the four alternatives.
Chair Burkholder suggested that the goal for the day was to provide committee feedback on the Project. He noted that there seem to be two projects, lane widening and interchange changes. Are they interdependent but separate projects, or can they be separated? Further, he asked, should the Bi-State Committee be concerned about and discussing both elements, or should the committee focus on the through movement and leave the interchange issues to the individual jurisdictions? This material is made up of very complex issues said the chair, who questioned if the Bi-State Committee should be considering the interchange options.
Susie Lahsene commented that the Port of Portland is concerned about the interchange issues and wants to talk about them because of the importance of I-5 in serving both the Bi-State market and Port facilities. The grain terminals are located on one side and the Portland Airport on the other, she pointed out. Having access to those facilities from SW Washington and Oregon is fundamental to their working and being competitive. In looking at I-5, there are a lot of ons and offs in that area, and Marine Drive is classified as a low level-of-service (F) street. Columbia Boulevard offers another access point to serve those facilities for those who may be interested in moving their products out of this region to other markets. While the focus may be on I-5, the committee would be remiss if it ignored the access piece, which ensures that the regional economic engines continue to function, and she suggested that the Port of Vancouver also would view access to their facilities as important to their functioning. Without Columbia Boulevard, the Port's assets would be choked off because Marine Drive would be inadequate to meet the need.
Chair Burkholder suggested that a sub-committee or technical staff could provide some evaluation factors that would help to guide the development of the Bi-State Committee's recommendation.
Ms. Deane said staff will be working on draft recommendations in June and next summer there will be a public hearing on the Environmental Assessment and draft recommendations. She agreed with the chair that comments should be offered in the next month or two. She suggested that a broad set of evaluation factors could be provided by ODOT staff for committee members to review and prioritize.
John Gillam of the City of Portland, said that the city would recognize that the I-5 improvement is the priority improvement, but part of the purpose and need of this project also is to provide northbound access to I-5, which is not very effective currently. The freeway project is going to have a lot of impacts and opportunities, depending upon the alternative, for the local community. Although from the Bi-State Coordination Committee's standpoint, the community aspects of the project may not be high priority, they would be very important from the city's perspective. He agreed with Ms. Lahsene's comments about the importance of the connectivity of Columbia Boulevard. The chair indicated that Multnomah County also has similar concerns.
Mayor Royce Pollard said he agreed that the two elements could not be separated. Although the main interest is in the I-5 widening component, there should also be awareness of the access piece. He expressed his appreciation for the presentation of the detailed material about the project, which is very important to the region. He said the committee should spend more time reviewing information like this.
Don Wagner said he could not support moving ahead with the projects separated. He suggested the adoption of a phased approach because of the practical fiscal realities. Mr. Garrett agreed with the concept of a phased approach.
The chair asked if phased lane widening would affect other pieces of the project, and Ms. Deane said that the intention is to phase lane widening and that the access pieces would be unaffected by phasing, except for some minor differences in Alternative 1 and the freeway elements of all four alternatives would cost in the neighborhood of $50 million. While all four alternatives appear to have community acceptance, Alternatives 2 and 4 seem to be rising to the top in terms of community acceptability. She summarized some of the public perceptions about each of the alternatives.
There is much that could be said about the details at the community level, added Mr. Gillam.
The Chair observed that both the freeway widening and the interchange elements of the project seem to be important to this committee.
Don Wagner said he liked Ms. Deane’s offer to provide a list of criteria to help the Bi-State Committee develop a recommendation. The Chair suggested that the committee meet again to consider the criteria that staff has developed. He would like to see the committee provide some direction from the Bi-State perspective.
Mr. Garrett commented that the project must strike a balance in both serving the efficient and safe movement of commerce with the needs of commuters. The Chair mentioned that he was encouraged that there will be a project that comes close to meeting both of those needs.
Mr. Gillam stated that he has heard many complementary comments from the community about the project and way the process has been conducted. Mr. Garrett praised Ms. Deane for her management of the project. This is the first step in moving forward with the I-5 strategic plan, stated the Chair.
Chairman Burkholder said that the Bi-State Committee members would like to review the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Task Force materials in advance of the Bi-State Committee meeting so that if they have questions or concerns they can be prepared to discuss them. He expressed concern about timing, noting that some materials for the day's meeting had been provided with the agenda packet while others were not received until a day or two beforehand.
Doug Ficco of WSDOT, a member of the CRC study team, described the difficulties of preparing presentations for both the Bi-State Committee and the Task Force.
Dean Lookingbill of RTC, noted that this would be an opportunity to create a better-informed core for the Task Force. Mayor Pollard said he wants the Bi-State Committee to be better informed without prejudging the information.
The Chair said his hope was to better understand the material and that his intent was for the Bi-State Committee to have the ability to be more informed. He requested that the materials to be provided to the Bi-State Committee early enough so that members can review them before their meetings.
Don Wagner of WSDOT, said a consultant team with very strong credentials has been selected; the Washington State Senate passed a transportation grant for $50 million in Washington state funds and altogether there is $80 million available to move forward on the EIS work.
Mark Turpel of Metro provided a Powerpoint presentation of background information about the national freight rail picture, included as a part of this meeting record. In the presentation he noted that: nationally freight rail rates had dropped dramatically, however, more freight was being pushed onto the highways because rail capacity was not available. He noted that in the AASHTO report, there were options as to how to deal with the growth including: railways continue to finance all rail improvements and the public financing some heavy rail improvements to ensure more efficient movement of goods and to relieve some of the pressure on highways and roads. He noted that one study showed a 1:2 benefit ratio, that a $6 billion investment resulted in $12 billion in benefits. He also described the Alameda Corridor bottleneck in LA area where steps are being taken with multiple sources of funding - public and private - to build a $400 million project. He also summarized a Port of Portland report that shows that freight rail's impact in the Portland/Vancouver region is 100,000 jobs in this region are related to freight rail. He suggested that it could be useful to examine under what circumstances the region would consider investment of public money in private freight rail improvements.
Chair Burkholder commented that he would like to know about the process used in these examples to gain consensus and move ahead. Ms. Lahsene said that ORULE, a rail forum, has been pretty successful in raising money for rail. She suggested that the criteria should be considered here for “Connect Oregon.”
A companion presentation by the Port of Vancouver was delayed to the next meeting for lack of time.
Jim Howell, representing AORTA, said he wanted to draw attention to the connection between the presentations today. Kate Deane provided a fair and balanced presentation but did not mention the rail component of Alternative 4, and there is an interconnection between a rail and highway project, he said.
Chair Burkholder noted that the next meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee will be June 16. (The June Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting was later moved to June 30 at the Clark County Public Service Center). The I-5 Columbia River Crossing Task Force would be meeting May 4th.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|