 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, June 30, 2005, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 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 Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Sam Adams, City of Portland Commissioner
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Matt Garrett, ODOT Region One Manager
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground City Manager
Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate
Dave Shields, City of Gresham Councilor
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Regional Administrator
Bill Wyatt, Port of Portland Executive DirectorStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Chuck Becker, City of Gresham Mayor
Richard Brandman, Metro
Katy Brooks, JD White Company
Pete Capell, Clark County
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield
Todd Coleman, Port of Vancouver
Kate Deane, ODOT
Rob DeGraff, Columbia River Crossing
Amy Echols, Columbia River Crossing
Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing
Bob Hart, RTC
Bill Hidden, Citizen
Jim Howell, AORTA
Jim Leahy, Bechtel
Ann-Marie Lundberg, Port of Portland
Dick Malin, Columbia River Crossing Task Force
Tom Markgraf, Columbia River Crossing
Tom Miller, City of Portland
Sharon Nasset, Economic Transportation Alliance
Bill Stewart, The Oregonian
Kris Strickler, Columbia River Crossing
Laurel Wentworth, City of Portland
John White, JD White Company
Michael Williams, WSDOT
Rex Wong, Columbia River Crossing
Bill Wright, Clark CountyA MOTION WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE APRIL 21 MEETING REPORT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DON WAGNER AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dave Shields said that he would be stepping down from his position on the Gresham City Council. He introduced Mayor Chuck Becker who would be taking his place as the representative on the Bi-State Coordination Committee. Mr. Shields said it had been a pleasure working with the Bi-State Committee.
Kate Deane distributed large colored maps of the two alternatives along with two handouts regarding the Delta Park Project Community Enhancement. Ms. Deane said they are at the beginning of their Environmental Assessment. They are completing analysis of four alternatives. They have been working with their Citizen Advisory Committee. At the early part of June, the Citizen Advisory Committee made recommendations to ODOT regarding the four options. They recommended that their preferred alternatives were both Alternative 2 and Alternative 4. Alternative 2 was slightly higher than Alternative 4. They made some recommendations about Alternative 2 including: 1) Both the Denver Avenue bridge over Columbia Blvd. and the Denver Avenue Bridge over the Columbia Slough should be constructed as a part of this project, with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 2) Negative impacts to the community should be mitigated. The next step is that they will take the recommendations and make them a part of the Environmental Assessment. They will be holding a hearing on the Environmental Assessment in late October or early November. Between now and then, they are working on the Community Enhancement Fund. They recently had a community meeting that was well attended and successful. They worked with the community to identify criteria for the selection of projects. Throughout the public involvement process, they have been getting ideas for community enhancements. Ms. Deane referred to the handout titled “I-5 Delta Park Project Community Enhancement Ideas” with a broadly grouped list of ideas. They intend to form a new advisory board that will do quick work this summer and fall to vet community enhancement projects and make recommendations to ODOT so they can include those projects as part of the public hearing process. They anticipate that after the public hearing, based on the comments that they receive, they will most likely concert with the City of Portland to select a preferred alternative and have FHWA approval approximately June of 2006.
Rex Burkholder said he had attended the public meeting. He said the first thing that the group said was yes; widen the freeway to three lanes. The discussion was about the other pieces that go with that. Ms. Deane said there was a unanimous endorsement of the widening of the freeway. The discussion mainly surrounded what would be done at the interchange. Of the four alternatives that were analyzed, the freeway widening is the common element of the four. They really differ in how they treated local access between the freeway and the surrounding communities. Mr. Burkholder asked how the phasing of the project would take place. Ms. Deane said they have the money for Phase 1, which would be the widening. First, they anticipate the project out to bid in 2008 and starting construction for a couple years. The interchange alternative (Alternative 2 or Alternative 4) will come after that. They do not have the money for that at this time. It will be something that they will be working on.
Royce Pollard thanked Kate Deane for presenting the Delta Park information to the Vancouver City Council. He said it was reassuring to the Council, and it was on television for the citizens to hear that this project will happen.
Sam Adams asked if they had been working with neighborhood associations. Kate Deane said she attends the Kenton Neighborhood Association meeting every month. Mr. Adams asked the response from the neighborhood association. Ms. Deane said it is a mix. With Alternative 2, some folks are very opposed because they feel it has the potential to impair some of the development opportunities at the intersection of Denver and Argyle. On the whole, the characterization is that of concern about potential impact of the project and its relationship to potential redevelopment at Argyle and Denver. On Alternative 4, there are also some concerns because that envisions making Denver Avenue an extra road into an arterial with some long-term vision to extend that road over to Hayden Island, which people do like, and potentially to Vancouver, which the neighborhood is concerned. The potential future of basically a parallel arterial crossing the Columbia River next to I-5. She said there is mixed support within the neighborhood for both alternatives. Mr. Adams asked what was anticipated for the role of the City in the decision-making process. Kate Deane said they anticipated having a joint City- ODOT hearing. She said that would need to be worked out, because they do not want to propose something that the City Council is opposed to. They will be working closely with staff. Ms. Deane said the hearing would be late October or early November. The City Council and ODOT will receive the public comments together and share any written comments that are received. This will allow both to be very well informed in order to make the decision. She said she is hopeful that after the first of the year, they will have the decision.
Phil Selinger said that TriMet together with PDC is working with a potential developer at Denver and Argyle and to the coordination between that development activity and this project to make sure that impacts are mitigated. Kate Deane said ODOT has spoken with TriMet, with PDC, and one of the most active developers about Alternative 2, which has the greatest level of concern about the impact. The one thing that people agreed upon is that it is not a deal killer for development there. They are looking at how they can actually make it work better.
Rex Burkholder said another issue that will face this group in the long run is the enhancement fund idea. This is a first step from the I-5 Partnership recommendations. One of the recommendations was to establish a community enhancement fund, and this is just the start for benefits to the community in exchange for those communities affected by transportation projects on I-5. Mr. Burkholder referred to the list of Community Enhancement Ideas. Ms. Deane said the list of ideas began with the I-5 Partnership and has been developed by the community. It has been narrowed to specific projects to the Delta Park area. She said no dollar amounts have been assigned to the projects on the list. Mr. Burkholder asked if there was a long-term structure for the enhancement funds. Ms. Deane said the creation of the fund and putting money in some bank account to use is difficult with the type of funds available. They are committed to doing community enhancements, so their approach is to work to identify the list of appropriate community enhancements. Have a community based selection process, and ODOT and FHWA willingness to negotiate some limit of how much enhancements will be done. More importantly, to say it can be funded and there is a connection to the project, or no it is not fundable and or they cannot see a connection. This summer, they hope to put together an advisory committee to put together the list of projects. On June 20 they had an outreach meeting with the community and began looking at criteria for the selection of projects. They will take that feedback to the advisory committee and identify draft projects this fall for inclusion in the public hearing.
Dean Lookingbill asked Ms. Deane when ODOT would anticipate any formal action from the Bi-State Committee on the Delta Park project. Ms. Deane said that after the public hearing when they have all the public comments in, they will come back to the Bi-State Committee with the comments. They will have been in communication with the City, and inform the Committee at that time what direction they are headed in and have them weigh in on the recommendations. Rex Burkholder said this bi-state venue is important to let both sides of the river know the direction of the project.
Chair Burkholder said the full Columbia River Crossing Task Force met for the second time on May 4. He said the purpose of today’s discussion is to review the last Columbia River Task Force meeting and to initiate a discussion of the project’s Purpose and Need Statement. Mr. Burkholder said there have been a number of people in the group expressing concern about feeling that the work done by the Partnership was not going to be integrated into or used as input in the project.
Matt Garrett said he did not think at any time that anything other than the I-5 Strategic Plan as the foundation for the next step. It was a lot of hard work, effort, and energy that went into it. He said to him it was always the guiding document. He said that has been reaffirmed. In conversations with FHWA and FTA, they see that the work that was done in that effort as a foundation as they move into the NEPA process. There are ideals that will pop up, but fears that they would disregard the work that the committee did should not be so. He said they should be standing on the shoulders of those folks. They felt they received positive information from the federal agencies, and can use that as a foundation as they move into the more formal process. He was grateful of the solid foundation that was set; it is not lost, and enforces the future.
Doug Ficco said they have not yet had a complete buyoff of the project. They have been working with FHWA over what has happened in the past. They want to be reassured that the issues were vetted publicly. They are still bringing more data. Mr. Ficco said it is pretty positive that they will buyoff on the project, but wanted to emphasize that that is their starting point. He cautioned that there are still other things that need to be brought in that was pushed off the table early in the last process.
Royce Pollard said the Partnership Committee spent 18 months working on this. He said the whole purpose is to provide for the future of economic vitality to our region. He said that he is not really interested in providing freeway for the citizens who want to spend money across the river. He is focused on a project that provides for a Washington-Oregon flow of trade and commerce. He said there are people on the Board that were not on the previous committee, but he feels that we need to move forward with the project and not re-plow the same fields that have been plowed in the previous Partnership. He said his concern is that we need to move on. The whole purpose is to improve trade and commerce.
Steve Stuart said he appreciated what Mayor Pollard had said. He said for him it is taking your vision for what you believe and a lot of the work that has been done and bringing it back to say now lets create the problem statement and the elements of the purpose and needs statement. He felt that would help focus us to be able to have the discussion of what are we talking about: trade and commerce, commuters; is it tied together, those kinds of questions. Those kinds of questions would be identified in the purpose and needs statement so we know where the starting point is to go through the process before moving forward. All the previous work does not need to be scrapped; it can be used to help create the purpose and needs statement.
Royce Pollard said he understood that everyone needed to be up to speed, but asked how we move forward. Rex Burkholder said one challenge is that the meetings are a long time apart. He questioned if smaller groups would be helpful. Matt Garrett said that all the ideas would be taken and explored.
Chair Burkholder referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet. Dean Lookingbill said the Purpose and Needs Statement should represent what it is we want the project to do. An example: Is the problem limited highway capacity or is the problem limited economic and freight development? He said there would be a number of perspectives. The Bi-State Committee includes the key representatives from the region to bring bi-state public transportation policy perspectives. There will be other groups that will also bring neighborhood and business perspectives. He asked members for any key policy perspectives. Steve Stuart said he would have a concern in having a policy discussion about purpose and need in that the need is not based on policy. The need is based on what is on the ground, and use data to help define what is going on on the ground. To have the baseline data in hand, we would be able to say here are the traffic flows and the number of freight trips and where they start and where they stop. All this information then can be put together, and that is how you determine your need. It is not about having a policy discussion of what we think the data is; we are defining our need based on our own anecdotal experience, not on the actual need. He said he has had discussions with DOT in getting the baseline information to have a reasoned discussion of what the actual need on the ground is. He said for himself, it would be premature to be discussing what the purpose and need is for the river crossing until the baseline data is in hand to actually know.
Mr. Lookingbill re-phrased his request and said he was looking for some of the policy context that came out of the previous work, some of the data and how that would be stated to guide the current Columbia River Crossing Project. For example, one of the clear policy statements from the I-5 Partnership Project was that in terms of public transportation, the project needed to be a multi-modal project.
Phil Selinger said that the purpose and needs statement needs to serve the federal process and both DOTs as well. We need to have some local consensus but also need to be mindful of what is going to serve federal and state requirements as well.
Rex Burkholder said that the Bi-State Committee is made up of elected officials with multiple responsibilities, not just transportation. With all the other concerns, we need to look at all aspects of broader concerns.
Sam Adams said he looked forward to agenda item 5 discussion, and also said that our economic goals need to be looked at. He was not sure how it was tied to this project, but concrete goals that we establish for ourselves and collectively seeking to achieve those economic goals should be addressed.
Eric Holmes said the relationship of the region and land use transportation commissions on both sides of the river is going to be extremely important.
Dave Shields said in the regional area, the expansion of the urban growth boundary and the industrial lands would cause further impacts. We need to look at the regional area, not just a corridor. There is a need to look at the economic base here.
Rex Burkholder said they have tried to set up the Bi-State Coordination Committee meetings in coordination with the larger Columbia River Crossing Task Force to have better understanding of the information discussed.
Chair Burkholder said today’s discussion is the second half of the heavy rail presentation by the Port of Portland and the Port of Vancouver. Todd Coleman with the Port of Vancouver distributed two handouts: the Port of Vancouver Economic Development and Conservation Plan along with a handout of his Freight Rail presentation. Mr. Coleman said that one in every four jobs in Washington is trade dependent. That is almost $96 billion per year in trade, and $51 billion in waterborne trade, noting those numbers are just going to be increasing over the years. The Port of Vancouver has been a part of a couple studies through the Washington Public Ports Association: The 2004 Marine Cargo Forecast and the WPPA Rail Study. The Marine Cargo Forecast shows those numbers are going to grow. They expect waterborne cargo to grow by 2/3 over the next 20 years, and cargo containers will triple in 20 years. These are huge increases.
The rail system in Washington is actually limited. Mr. Coleman highlighted the main rail lines in Washington State, saying there are 80 trains a day through our area. That is 4 trains an hour going through one point. Mr. Coleman said the other passes are over 2 percent in grade. The line up the Columbia Gorge is a 1 percent grade. That means more trains are needed to pull the heavy loads of grain over the passes. That speaks dollars, so the most cost effective is through the Columbia Gorge. They are now taking double-stacked trains out of Tacoma and bringing them down to Vancouver and along the Columbia River, so we are seeing even more traffic. They are trying to alleviate some of that extra traffic by moving empties over the other passes, but it is still an issue of a lot of freight. Mr. Coleman said there are problems in looking at growth to the future. Using charts with trains per day from 2002 to 2024 he showed Stevens Pass estimated sustainable capacity versus growth. This shows capacity reached by 2010. There are solutions that need to be addressed quickly, given the amount of time these large projects take. He said if they could clear Stampede Pass, which means they could add double-tacked trains to Stampede Pass, which makes that another viable option. They currently cannot do that because of the tunnels. If they could clear that pass, that would build capacity and allow the Stevens Pass system to not reach capacity until 2018. The Nelson-Bennett Tunnel will reach capacity in 2010-2014. If Point Defiance Bypass Route were added, that would add capacity out as far as we can see today, past 2024. Mr. Coleman said these are regional issues that we need to deal with in the State of Washington.
Mr. Coleman said they like to talk about wheat, because they are one of their largest customers and huge in the State of Washington. Oregon, Washington, and Idaho yield 85 percent of all U.S. soft wheat. Almost all wheat exports are shipped via the Columbia/Snake Rivers. He said most folks don’t realize that nearly 40 percent of all U.S. wheat exports are going out the Columbia River. This makes us the 2nd largest export gateway on the West Coast with $14 billion of cargo.
The WPPA Rail Study findings show projected growth through 2025 for all train types to cause significant pressure on the rail network in the Pacific Northwest. This congestion impedes Washington ports’ ability to efficiently handle growing volumes of trade traffic. They need to deal with the chokepoints on the primary main line corridor segments. Chokepoints have far reaching impacts. A chokepoint in Vancouver is backing up trains clear up the Columbia River, clear to Pasco. Trains backed up in Vancouver are being backed up in Tacoma and even up into Canada. The study said we have a lot of main line capacity, and looked at ways to alleviate some of the congestion points. This is what ties into the Port of Vancouver.
The Vancouver WYE is where trains go east to Chicago, north/south to California, Canada, and Seattle. The Port of Vancouver is on the cusp of all of this. The annual rail car count for 2004 was 43,084. The Port of Vancouver has 1,600 acres they are in the process of developing. They hope to net about 600 of those acres after the environmental impacts and mitigation processes. This has the capacity to add a lot of rail to that system. They are looking at projections of about 80 – 120,000 more rail cars, which is in addition to the 43,000 currently handled today. This would add rail system within the Port. There is a plan to develop the east bypass. They are looking at different options. Mr. Coleman referred to the handout displaying some of the alignments that they are evaluating in their EIS process. He said they are looking at projects that not only impact the Port of Vancouver activities, they are looking at what happens to the main line as well. They are able to show the base case and projected out to 2025 with the additional 120,000 rail cars on the system. If they are able to create another access in the system that alleviates some of the chokepoints, they can actually decrease the delays from what they exist today. That is adding all the 2025 projections for freight (that is the 67 percent increase), adding the passenger rail, and adding the Columbia Gateway traffic.
The cost of the Port of Vancouver rail project ranges from $50 million to $80 million. They have secured some funding, saying thanks to Senator Murray and RTC with help in the EIS process and in their partnership with the City of Vancouver. This also includes proposed 26th Avenue. In the longer term, they need more significant and expansive operating and capital investment initiatives. Mr. Coleman said there are a lot of projects identified in the WPPA Study: Stampede Pass, Point Defiance Bypass, Bayside Bypass, Vancouver Bypass, and Vancouver to Kelso.
Mr. Coleman said we should not assume that BNSF and UP will be willing and/or able to contribute significant capital. It is not necessarily a Railroad issue from their perspective. He said they need to identify a variety of current and potential stakeholders and develop a persuasive and compelling case for their participation. Stakeholders need to understand the long-term economic growth of the region.
Conclusions on what needs to be done: Must increase investment in freight road and rail infrastructure to take advantage of market opportunities. Funding for FMSIB-approved projects, funding for strategic freight projects on DOT system, increasing the knowledge overall of the impacts to the freight system, and where improvements can be made, what types of phases, and how to create the public/private partnerships for class 1 railroads. Mr. Coleman said the train constraints mean: increase in transportation costs, decrease in reliability, diversion of cargo, relocation, stress to national transportation system, loss of revenues, and ultimately, loss of jobs. Currently in the Vancouver area, particularly in November when the merchandise trains are up because of the Christmas season and the grain trains are up because of harvest, they are seeing their smaller customers who do not see rail switches for up to a week. That is very hard for small businesses to handle. He said if we do not find revenue for some of these projects, they would start to move out.
Mr. Coleman introduced Ann-Marie Lundberg with the Port of Portland. Ms. Lundberg said that Mr. Coleman had already done a good job of identifying what a lot of the existing issues are. She said she was going to talk about some of the potential solutions to some of those problems. Freight is doubling in 20 years by virtually every study that has been published today. They are seeing the effects of that already being felt across their state. They’ve been talking to a lot of people that are dependent on transportation deficient transportation dynamics, and they’re having problems, and they’re having problems getting their products from overseas, and also having problems just getting their raw materials from domestic sources. They are being impacted. Trucking capacity is an issue today, and they are looking to the rail to help alleviate some of their capacity issues. The railroads are already very close to capacity in a lot of instances. She acknowledged that when talking about on the ground solutions and talking about the role of this committee, there have been solutions identified, and some of those are already coming to fruition. As mentioned, one is the Vancouver Bypass. That was clearly identified in the Partnership Plan as a capacity fix, and the funds have been identified but not allocated at this point. Two other projects are identified. The 92nd Avenue Connector by the Portland airport, which is currently in construction. What is significant about this project is it’s a road and a rail capacity improvement. It did manage to leverage private dollars for part of the solution. BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad put $2 million into that project. When a strategic investment is made in this region, we can also get the private parties to be able to help make sure that it’s a long-term effective capacity improvement. The other project is the Ramsey Rail Yard in the Rivergate area. That is the number one priority project that will get funded if the TEA-LU gets out of Congress. Those projects came from the work that the Partnership conducted. They hope that all of the rail projects for capacity move forward. Those capacity improvements will probably help for the next 10 or 12 years.
She said they care about this because of jobs. Ms. Lundberg noted several businesses that are heavily rail dependent that have several hundred jobs, which are affected. If they don’t have affective transportation or affective transportation alternatives, (rail or truck), they will not get into certain markets and they will not employ people. She said they have many construction fixes that are crucial. Ms. Lundberg said if you don’t operate effectively over that infrastructure, you can plug it up as fast as you can build it. Another issue that needs to be taken care of is that it is being operated as efficiently as possible. So in addition to infrastructure fixes, they also recommend that operational fixes are part of the overall solution.
The Port of Portland is currently working on a project, which is a third-party situation. She said they have talked with the Port of Vancouver about this, and ultimately, the scope could grow to include a good part of the region. Basically, the larger railroads, the class one carriers, are very good if they just have to take one long train from one part of the country to another part of the country. Where their service often really falls down is once the train lands in its destination city, and it has to be taken apart and switched out to the various industries. They are not particularly effective at that. The Port is recommending that they take them out of that business and put a company in that specializes in that type of operation. This will help car turn over, and equipment utilization. It will get shippers their products, therefore, emptying the equipment that they need to get the product out, as well as getting their loads more effectively and more efficiently. It will also mean that the infrastructure that we have today will be used more effectively, and you delay the expansion of the build-out of that infrastructure. Things are growing and velocity is the key to capacity. So if you’ve got infrastructure that is key to capacity and also velocity. How quickly products move over that infrastructure can advance the capacity as well. A question was asked in regard to the process of making the recommendation and getting a private company to do the switching out. It was said that it is a negotiating process. Ms. Lundberg said that in looking at the infrastructure, one of the things that was discussed by Mr. Coleman is that decisions that are made hundreds or even thousands of miles away are going to affect our region. When they look at capacity fixes for the state of Oregon, the Portland/ Vancouver metropolitan area, they really need to remember that they are part of the northwest regional rail network. Anything that happens in Seattle, Tacoma, or even Spokane is going to affect our rail system in the Portland/Vancouver area. The State of Oregon is more or less Union Pacific territory. UP has the highest volume east-west corridor in Oregon. Burlington Northern is the larger rail carrier in the state of Washington. In the state of Oregon, the mainlines are fed by a network of short-line railroads. They have in southern Oregon a special Oregon Pacific. In the valley, they have several including the Portland Western Railroad. This short-line network is crucial to making sure that the mainlines and mainline capacity is going to be effective in moving forward.
Ms. Lundberg said the Oregon Governor set up the Connect Oregon Program. She said they are looking at how to get the private sector to the table. She said short-line railroads are not as wealthy as the class one railroads. The Governor’s Connect Oregon Program is looking at strategic investment specifically projects along the short-line network. With these types of strategic investments and even discussions about them, what that has triggered is the Union Pacific has come to the table with capital to fix some of their mainline issues. When they saw that the state is making strategic investment for the short-line network that lead to the mainlines, they have dedicated now $30 million over the next two years to fix some of their tunnel problems on their mainlines in Oregon. Making partnerships means making sure that strategic investments are made and that we can leverage dollars public/private sector and bring them to the table as well. That is really also part of the solution.
In discussion of freight overall, Ms. Lundberg said we are part of a regional network and part of a road and rail network as well. Trucking companies are facing the same issues that some of the railroads are. Fuel costs are going up. It is very difficult to hire and retain truck drivers. Now, they have more cargo than they can handle. The trucking companies are saying in order to meet drivers’ needs, stay close to home for example, and to mitigate some of the increasing fuel costs, they are saying they need to be able to partner more with the railroads. It is a part of the solution for them. She said we are going to see pressure from the trucking industry and railroads moving forward. If freight is going to move efficiently and effectively through our region, that partnership is going to be part of the overall solution as well.
Ms. Lundberg referred back to the third party infrastructure. She said when they go to increasing their mainline capacity for the future, one of the ideas for 6 to 12 years down the road, is the idea of directional running along the Columbia River Gorge. Current capacity is about 90 trains a day for both railroads going east and west on that particular route. What is starting to be discussed is if you take all the freight for both railroads and run eastbound on the Union Pacific (south) side and westbound on the Burlington Northern (north) side, you can effectively double the capacity, up to 180 trains a day. There has been some precedent for this. The Canadian Pacific (CP) have what they call a co-production group arrangement where they also run through British Columbia directionally on each other’s railroad. Ms. Lundberg said this is just something that they have brought up for discussion. They have talked with the Port of Vancouver and the Washington Public Ports Association, as well as some of the partners in Oregon, and ODOT. She said currently, the feedback has been that they recognize capacity as they move forward is an issue. Anything that they can do to improve that, they need to be talking about it.
The Partnership identified the need for a rail forum. In order to realize directional running along the Columbia River Gorge to happen, a forum would need to be established. Ms. Lundberg displayed a map of the rail lines and sidings along the Columbia River Gorge. The sidings are the areas of double tracking, which adds capacity. When you run a railroad along a piece of track and trains going in both directions, when they meet, one train will have to go off onto a siding to let the other train proceed. Sidings are also used to let a faster train get around a slower train. These are issues that would need to be discussed by a large sort of stakeholder group in order to consider directional running.
Rex Burkholder said the Partnership had recommended a forum be set up for rail. The presentations today and the previous presentation at the April meeting were to set a basis for establishing the forum. Chair Burkholder asked members their opinion on how the rail forum should be formed along with the role of the Bi-State Committee. He said it seems natural to have the Ports to hold that role, and then have them report back to the Bi-State Committee.
Addison Jacobs said the Port of Vancouver has a huge interest. She said their project and issues on the Vancouver side are so significant that they need to be involved in the discussion. She said it is a Port issue, but felt it needed to extend to a broader forum. She said Larry Paulson serves as chair of the Washington Public Ports Association that did the rail study. She said some of the studies and resources on the Oregon side should come together with those on the Washington side perhaps in a more structured fashion. She said there are lots of pieces moving around, but maybe there is a way of helping that and bringing it all together. Ms. Jacobs said that Ed Barnes would be Chair of the Rail Study for the Washington Transportation Commission, which has been given as part of the last legislative session. It is a $1.5 million rail study. She was not sure of the structure, but felt it would need to be a part of this discussion as well.
Bill Wyatt said on the Oregon side there is the rail group ORULE. He said that depending on the legislature, they could be spending $40 million, which is significant for them. He said as they move forward with projects like the I-5 Crossing and others, it would be beneficial to have presentations such as this on a periodic basis to help keep everyone in the region aware of what is taking place rather than try to replicate what already exists. Mr. Wyatt suggested that the two Ports have moved forward with the recommendation of the Partnership Committee.
Chair Burkholder said that it does make sense to have the Ports continue and consider the Bi-State Committee a Forum of its own and have presentations as they move forward so elected officials on both sides of the river are aware of what is going on.
Don Wagner said that we can’t forget passenger rail in this conversation. He said the major conversation is around freight rail and its importance. He said of the $100 million that the State of Washington is investing in the freight /rail system in his region over the next six years, all $100 million is based on passenger rail. He said that is how we can get our money into the system. He also noted the Grain Train pictured in the presentation by Mr. Coleman, which is 1 of WSDOT’s 100-car fleet. WSDOT purchased the Yellow Grain Train to make sure the grain cars were available for their Ports. He encouraged folks not to forget passenger rail, because that is how the state can be a partner.
Matt Garrett said that the theme is partnerships. He felt that what we are looking at is attainable if we work together.
Dave Shields asked in regard to the east/west directional trains that would double capacity, why the delay in putting that in place. Ms. Lundberg said several infrastructure pieces need to be in place prior to that. It is not just improvements, but negotiations need to take place. Bill Wyatt said that Union Pacific and Burlington Northern have very different commercial stakes and different needs and wants. It is a delicate conversation. They have to engage in this without threatening their financial situations.
Chair Burkholder said coordination of the 2030 forecasts for jobs and housing is a critical issue, especially in light of the analysis that needs to be done for a project the size of the Columbia River Crossing. A memorandum with forecast information was distributed. Andy Cotugno said at last month’s meeting, Committee members directed staff to move forward in finding a way to coordinate a single set of 2030 forecasts. Mr. Cotugno referred to page two of the memo listing a table comparison of projections of population, households, and employment for Clark County and Metro. Metro does the forecast for the Oregon side. Clark County for the County GMA responsibilities, and RTC does the forecast on the Washington side for the transportation planning purposes, which they derive from the County’s land use forecast. They are all in different methodologies. The Washington requirement by the state is to have the County select from among a range of population forecasts and then determine whether appropriate to include forecast for employment to go with that. The margin is a 20-year target year. The comparison table listed Population, Households, and Employment for Clark County’s 2000 US Census, the Adopted 2023 Clark County GMA, the 2024 Proposed Draft Clark County GMA, the 2025 Adopted Metro RTP, 2030 Proposed RTC MTP, and 2030 Proposed Metro RTP. Mr. Cotugno said Metro forecasts were developed by using an economic model of the larger region (a six county area including Clark County) and then allocating the location of growth using Metroscope, an integrated economic and transportation model. The 2030 projections are a moving target for both Metro and Clark County. The draft forecasts clearly produce different results for population, households, and employment.
Mr. Cotugno said they want Board Members’ staffs to understand the numbers that are being brought back to them. We need to agree on which number to use for a coordinated forecast number. He also suggested that he did not think the Columbia River Crossing EIS could be based upon a single forecast. He said along the way, because of changes, forecasts would change.
Rex Burkholder asked if there were any other multi-state areas similar to our region. Don Wagner said there are bridges being built now between other states, and WSDOT has visited some of them, primarily on the east coast. He said they were hoping to learn of a good way of doing this planning, but they found that we are ahead of the curve. He said we are about as good as anybody, and better than most in what we are doing right now between the two states. He said a bridge between Mississippi and South Carolina the end product was one state built 120-foot median to the border and the other state had a 30-foot median to the border on the other side. It did get resolved, but he said that is not where we want to be.
Rex Burkholder said the Committee is being asked to direct staff from both sides to get together and resolve the forecast number issue. Phil Selinger said the 2030 numbers shown in the table are quite close. Eric Holmes said it is not a science, not a guarantee, and perfection is our best guess. Steve Stuart said he liked a high/low option. He asked what numbers the 2030 forecast was based on. Dean Lookingbill said the 2030 forecast is based on the 2023 Plan (September 2004) and carried out to 2030, which will be used for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. He said to recognize that as the Comprehensive Plan were to change, that would need to be updated. He said it is a matter of timing, whether waiting until a new Comprehensive Plan comes forward, or recognize that there will be change but still go ahead and use the best Plan we have. The numbers for growth are necessary along with where the growth occurs in order to do the analysis. Eric Holmes asked if it was worth looking at the projections for 2030 to see how it matches up. Mr. Lookingbill said it was up to the Commissioners. There was further discussion of the forecast numbers. Chair Burkholder asked if there was a timeline issue. Mr. Lookingbill said there would be a travel model exercise as part of the Columbia River Crossing. By late this fall, we need to have a set of numbers to begin the process.
Steve Stuart said he needed to leave for another meeting, but asked if this issue could be brought back to the next meeting. He said he would do some research and asked that staff do the same. Royce Pollard said that we have valid numbers now. He said RTC made a decision to use the 2030 numbers, and he had some concern in using other numbers. He said as Eric Holmes had said, it is our best guess, and our best that we can do now. Steve Stuart said they would not be done with the Comprehensive Plan process by the time it is needed in the fall. Solid new numbers will not be available.
Richard Brandman said these numbers are estimates for 25 years out for both RTC and Metro, but one to use needs to be selected for this particular project. He said the difference in the numbers on this particular type of forecasting will have a significant affect on both the transit demand over the river as well as highway demand across the river. He said folks will want to weigh in on whether or not they think it is reasonable before the modeling begins, because it will affect the number of lanes, the number of trains, and how the projects fare. He said staff could bring back more information about the implications of these. Members agreed to have staff provide that information at the next meeting.
Jim Howell said he had comment to the Columbia River Crossing and the relationship to the Public/Private Partnership. Mr. Howell said the Purpose and Need Statement lists choice of modes, yet several years ago, the Partnership eliminated commuter rail as a choice for several reasons. He said some of those reasons have changed over the last few years. There is talk now of public/private partnerships, and at that earlier time, there was no money available for that. Now there is talk of getting private money. He said the railroads in the 20th century were all private. Railroads are the only form of transportation in this country that is private; everything else is public. In the 19th century, railroads were public/private, and that was when our railroads were built. He said the public gave them money, land advance, and they built many railroads. He said he thought that the 21st century would see that return. He said he thought you would see public money put into the railroads, because it is technically the most cost efficient, energy efficient form of transportation. Mr. Howell said he thought it would be unwise at this point in talking about a third crossing corridor assuming that commuter rail is still no longer a viable option. He said he thought it needed to be looked at again in the context of how commuter rail could operate if some of the bottlenecks that freight rail now has were taken care of since the commuter rail operates on the freight rail lines. He said a commuter rail line from Washougal to downtown Portland would have an impact on reducing traffic on SR-14 and the bridges. He said he felt potential commuter rail needs to be looked at not as an alternative of light rail, but in addition to light rail.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting will be held on September 29, 2005, at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|