 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, November 3, 2005, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Clark County Elections/Auto Licensing Building, 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Chair Rex Burkholder at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Elections Building Conference Room 226, 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland Alternate
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Doug Ficco, WSDOT SW Alternate
Matt Garrett, ODOT Region One Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Eric Holmes, City of Battle Ground City Manager
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Steve Stuart, Clark County CommissionerStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Ed Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner
Richard Brandman, Metro
Pam Brokaw, Representative Brian Baird’s Office
Justin Clary, City of Ridgefield
Kate Deane, ODOT
Chris Deffebach, Metro
Walt Evans, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
David Forte, WSDOT
Stuart Gwin, City of Portland
Bob Hart, RTC
Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver
Jim Leahy, Bechtel
Alan Lehto, TriMet
Steve Matthews, WSDOT
Brian McMullen, WSDOT
Sharon Nasset, Economic Transportation Alliance
Joy Overstreet, Citizen, Vancouver
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver
Jeanne Stewart, Vancouver City Council Member
Rex Wong, Columbia River Crossing
Bill Wright, Clark CountyTHE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, MEETING REPORT WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
Rex Burkholder said that Metro is looking at their growth concept and whether or not it needs some revision, impacts of the current policies and how that might affect the region. A key issue is the Vancouver - Clark County area, with about one-quarter of the population of the region, an area of very high growth, and the challenges of trying to coordinate the governing systems from both states, yet the issues facing both sides are very similar. This presentation will go into some of the forecasting that Metro has been working on for the Metro side, and then some discussion of how this connects to the Clark County side.
Chris Deffebach, Metro’s Manager of the Long Range Policy Planning Section said it was nice to be back with the Bi-State Committee. She said since she left the work with the Bi-State Committee, she has been working on the Growth Management side of the Planning Department. She said they are now undertaking the scoping of a new look of their overall growth concept with close involvement with their Metro Councilors. Ms. Deffebach said the start for this work is the recognition that as they do review their new growth forecast, they have 1.1 million more people coming to the five-county region over the next 25 years. She said this is about two more cities the size of Portland or 14 more cities the size of Hillsboro, or about 54 more the size of Milwaukie. As they look at how they want to grow from here, they are looking at the 2040 Growth Concept Plan and what they have already accomplished. She said it has been ten years since the 2040 Growth Concept Plan was adopted. She said the major 2040 fundamentals of the Growth Concept Plan emphasize on: encouraging a strong local economy, efficiency in using their land within their growth boundary, protection for the natural environment, balance in transportation system modes, maintain separation between the Metro UGB and neighboring cities, enabling communities inside the Metro UGB to enhance their physical sense of place, create diverse housings, and overall create a vibrant place to live and work.
Since 1979, Ms. Deffebach said they have grown in terms of the UGB expansions, and highlighted that incremental growth. She said the question is where they expand in the future. Clark County and West Washington County are neck-and-neck in terms of carrying the major part of the household growth for the region. She said even though the numbers are relatively small, there is increasing trends of growth in their neighboring cities over the past ten years. That means increased traffic on the bridge crossings as well. She said where they have not grown as much is I-84 to the East. All this leads them to look at how they have been doing at accommodating this growth in the communities. She said they feel that they have accomplished quite a bit with a lot of new communities, mixed use communities, and the new revitalized communities. She said they have also seen extension in their transit system as well.
Even so she said they have grown much more than they expected to grow when they adopted the 2040 Growth Concept Plan ten years ago. She displayed what their population is currently and what the 2040 Concept is. Their current forecast shows that where they thought they would be in 2040 they expect to get to in 2020. This growth rate is much more than they predicted. Fred Hansen said in another presentation the population numbers 30 years out in 2035 showed 1.1 million people, 650,000 jobs, and 450,000 households. He asked if those are the same numbers. Ms. Deffebach said that yes, those are the same numbers being used. Ms. Deffebach also displayed the job forecast with the same growth, showing the change at about 2015 with the people they thought would be in 2040 and 650,000 jobs.
Ms. Deffebach said the question is how they want to grow in the future. She said they have done a lot of work on the 2040 Growth Concept Plan in the past. This growth is more than what is accommodated for the next 20 years that was envisioned in that Growth Concept. She said they have state law that dictates how they can expand their growth boundaries. This process involves several things. To begin they are taking a look at existing zoning and vacant land and redevelopment opportunities to assess how much growth they expect to get inside the existing urbanized area. Then look at the gap, how much growth still needs to be accommodated. In order to locate where it is possible to expand under state law, they need to do a variety of assessments of forestland and farmland and rank the priority of land. If they follow the state policies and direction in place, these are the areas called exception lands, which are the areas that are hillier and aren’t the prime farmland. These are the areas that are the priority for them to expand on the Oregon side of the region. She displayed these areas also showing Clark County. One thing to be found in this is that this has got people’s attention. It has all kinds of implications. She said if this is not where they want to grow, where do they want to grow? With this forecast assumption, they can model those lands that they bring in and see how might the population and employment be distributed on those lands. She displayed the changes in households for that model, and it showed a lot of percentage of change in growth. There continues to be a significant of percentage change in growth in downtown Portland. She said the same goes for employment. Employment tends to locate along the major corridors in the region. She displayed a break out of this allocation by region and the implications to neighboring cities outside the metro area as well.
Ms. Deffebach said these forecasts raise questions about major transportation facilities and where they are located best to support the growth pattern. She displayed future transportation investments for the region. They want to take a new look at regional choices. The questions they ask are: 1) How do they create great communities within their urban growth boundary? 2) How do they create great communities as they bring in new land? 3) When expansion is needed, how do they proceed in a thoughtful way that balances agricultural and urban needs? and 4) How do they engage their stakeholders in this process. She said it is not an easy process to decide how to expand the urban growth boundary. There is a lot of interest to try and develop a way that is more predictable and less controversial over the long term.
Ms. Deffebach highlighted the process schedule. Currently, they are in a scoping phase. They are checking to see if these are the right questions to ask, how to answer them, and determine who should or wants to be involved as they move forward answering them. Beginning in January, they will have an overall work program and communications strategy. Most of 2006 they will research and develop recommendations. Ms. Deffebach said the legislature is back in session in 2007. If there are some changes that they want, they need to be prepared for that. According to state law, 2007 is also the time they need conduct their next needs analysis of population and employment. This means that they need to be able to look at the region, and see within the urbanized area how much of the growth that they forecast they can accommodate in their existing areas. In 2008 and 2009, Metro will be in the process of making a decision for expanding the urban growth boundary.
Ms. Deffebach distributed two handouts, one highlighting the new look at regional choices process and another with the process schedule. She asked the best way to work with the Bi-State Committee. She also noted that they are aware that Clark County is also looking at their population and employment, and they have been coordinating forecasts. She said clearly the choices that they make affect growth patterns on the Washington side as well as the choices that Clark County makes affects the Oregon side. She questioned the amount of involvement that was wanted in the process. Rex Burkholder said that this is a mutual concern. Mr. Burkholder said Metro is offering to share this information with other entities, and it is posted on their web site. He said this is about the region’s growth and how we coordinate. He asked members their thoughts on how to share this information and discussion to benefit both sides of the river.
Royce Pollard said he thought that it should go beyond just informing them of what is going on. He felt a thorough job would need to have someone from the Washington side at the table representing our County because it does have an impact. He said whatever Clark County Commissioners do will have an impact as well. Mayor Pollard said he felt someone from Clark County needed to be at the table for a connection.
Steve Stuart said he agreed with the Mayor. He said he would like to see a change to the presentation. He said when presented, it was said “to establish stronger links to neighbor cities in Clark County.” He would like to see it say, “to establish stronger links to Clark County and its cities” since Clark County is the entity that does the growth update and boundaries. Commissioner Stuart said they want to be more tied into the process. He said it is one of two things. They are either tied into the process, and they are at the table to help develop forecast for Metro, or they are not. He said if they are not, then don’t include them in the projections or any of it. He said what ends up happening from that is that if they conclude in their projections that they can use Clark County as an outfall for residential growth, then Clark County is stuck with that because they tighten their boundaries to the point that Clark County ends up having the affordable housing in the region, so that is where they go. That is what has happened. He said he thought it would be great to have Clark County included in the process. With that comes the responsibility to know that we need to balance our jobs to housing ratio and get back into balance on the Clark County side of the river and with that comes a catch up. He said Clark County is at a ratio of 3 to 1. The Metro region is at 2 to 1 for their population to jobs ratio. He would like to see them involved. He sees us as an overall region, and you can see the impacts of when we don’t plan together. However, he said if Clark County is just told what is going on, that doesn’t really help. Steve Stuart requested that it be more interactive and Clark County be more involved at a staff level.
Fred Hansen said he thought Mr. Stuart’s point was well taken, and that they could come back to it. He said his question is broader. He said it is not his view, but he could hear the argument being made at least on the Oregon side of the river that even pre ballot Measure 7 that the urban growth boundary wasn’t doing what was expected, the growth. He said he could hear the argument that it really didn’t matter much of whatever is being done in the urban growth boundary, because people are voting on their decisions on households and jobs are really just compounding the problem isn’t being controlled.
Rex Burkholder said some of the numbers of the last urban growth report, of the four-county area, about 75 percent of the employment growth located in the Portland metro UGB and about 68 percent of household growth. There is a leakage of about 7 percent. Andy Cotugno said that was correct. He added that what is different with the urban growth boundaries in Oregon versus elsewhere in the country, is there is growth that jumps to the next ring of cities, but doesn’t incrementally sprawl out across the farmland. There is an end to their urban growth boundary and a beginning to Clark County’s boundary. He said there is a shifting to those places, but elsewhere, it shifts in a random farmland sprawl pattern. Here it shifts to the next city. Also, he said we have contradictory objectives. He said they want to keep a strong tight urban growth boundary, and the result of that is more investment in centers and around transit, resulting in higher transit ridership. They have the 13th highest ridership in the country for the 25th highest metropolitan area in the country. This is in part because of that. That tightness does push it to Clark County and to those neighboring jurisdictions. He questioned what the right balance was between how tight and how good the transit ridership is versus how much gets pushed in the other directions. Fred Hansen asked if the same thing was happening in Clark County, the moving further out to the smaller cities.
Eric Holmes said yes, that Battle Ground’s 2015 projection was 15,000 people. Their population this year is 15,500. He said that over the last five years about 13 percent of all growth in Clark County has been in Battle Ground. Steve Stuart said there has been incredible growth in the small cities in Clark County. He said their urban growth boundaries as of today are not smashed together, and they do have corridors, some separation between the cities. They actually have requirements under the Growth Management Act to maintain buffers between communities, but there is still a lot of growth in the small cities. People are doing the long commute. Lynne Griffith said this is causing a challenging dynamic for public transportation. That will be even more so as the county continues to grow, the further the people move out, the more challenging it will be to provide good service. It is a whole challenge to the infrastructure. Steve Stuart said the conversation about transportation infrastructure is good to have in this process. That is the integration that needs to be addressed. Eric Holmes said another anomaly in Clark County though is the land use pattern that emerged pre GMA in 1990, with most of the rural area in 2 ½ and 5 acre parcels. It has been filling up over time, but Battle Ground has almost 65,000 people, and 7,000 kids going to schools, but only 15,500 in the population proper. There is a huge rural population. Lynne Griffith said in those 2 ½ acre parcels and the infrastructure that is out there, you are actually seeing traffic jams. She said the good part is that while you are sitting in traffic, you get to see the cows and llamas.
Matt Garrett said to Chris Deffebach that early in her presentation she spoke to the issues of the goals and objectives of 2040. He said it seemed that there is a base knowledge that needs to be understood. For lack of a better word, he said a report card. He said we need to look if we had met those and if we are doing well. He said you either try a new course or you stay to your course. He said it seemed that when you are educating all the stakeholder groups with different depths of levels of knowledge, it is good to have a foundation to judge by. He said if we have we can acknowledge and celebrate that. If not, that may be where the new chart to the course.
Rex Burkholder said he felt the Metro Council feels pretty strongly that they are not throwing out anything. It is really how to build on the successes that they have. They have enhanced value in existing communities versus having disinvestments going on in the communities. Another is the fact that the cost of transportation as percent of family income has dropped to 20 percent less than the national average. There is a value in that. Matt Garret said some of that is intuitive and some is not, and that needs to be shared.
Steve Stuart questioned Metro about an article that he read about how the growth rate has exceeded projections, and asked if that was a part of this new look process to figure out what to do about that. He said he was concerned that when you exceed the growth rate over a short period of time, five to ten years, that there is a knee jerk reaction to immediately blow the boundaries out as opposed to realizing that everything is cyclical. He asked if they were taking a longer term view to see the trends. Chris Deffebach said that they have to remember that the numbers that they forecast here are not going to be right either, but it will be within the ballpark. She said we really don’t know for certain how these will change in the future. She said one thing they have talked about is looking more than 20 years out, looking 50 years out, and how much land they need to accommodate 2 million. Not looking at when they reach that 2 million people, to just get people looking at just how they want this region to look in the future. Steve Stuart said they are looking at the same thing in Clark County, trying to do a 50 year visioning process to look at what they want to look like when they grow up, and where the transportation corridors are located that they will need. Ms. Deffebach said that is similar to what they are doing as well.
Fred Hansen said when he is speaking with the public and what is coming; he said from a transit standpoint, they have to deliver service against the population. He referred to the presentation representing the number of different sizes of communities and the example of being the size of two more Portland’s in this region by 2030. He said that is helpful, and more tools such as that need to be found. He said the one that is difficult is when you talk about 1.5 million people; there is a sense that folks don’t want that growth. It is hard to get past the fact that whether or not you like it, the question is how to plan for it. He said from a broad Bi-State sense, this is something that we need to find a way to start communicating better with the public and get that word out there, and it is coming and a chance to make a difference. He said the time to get involved is at the start. Rex Burkholder said he remembered as a citizen participating in the 2040 piece. One of the things that Metro used effectively at the time was saying “What was Gresham like 50 years ago?” If you don’t believe that Gresham is going to be 100,000 population in 2040; in 1940 it was 4,000 people, and at the time it was 70,000. Change happens, and we can either let it happen or make an impact on it.
Fred Hansen said that he saw some of the land use work that has been done in Salt Lake City was creative in how they planned around a very tight, physically constrained urban growth boundary. They really got the citizens to come in, and use poker chips to represent the population. They said this is what is coming, how do you want to spread it? If there were places where they did not want to spread it, they had to go up. It kind of gave you no choice in the matter. There are other communities that have found ways to be able to engage their citizens that we may want to build upon as well.
Ed Barnes said the Transportation Commission for the State of Washington has been mandated to do three studies (The Tolling, Rail, and Private-Public Partnership Studies) plus the Washington Transportation Plan. He said members of the Commission have been traveling across the state in order to get the feedback to put in their 20-year plan. This will assist them in determining where the roads and rails and transit will be. He said this information is interesting. He said that Dean Lookingbill would see that the Commission gets the information that was passed on today so they can incorporate it in their plan.
Rex Burkholder said they would pursue some discussions on how they coordinate with Clark County as the Growth Management Area. He said maybe in the 50 year scenario planning, it might be very useful to look at performance measures, too and tools that can be shared back and forth for communication as well. Andy Cotugno said to use the Bi-State Committee for some of the dialog. He said Mr. Stuart has a seat at the MPAC table. He said for Metro, that is where a lot of this discussion will take place. He said on MPAC, there are 2 seats for Washington on a committee of 27. The Bi-State Committee is balanced. He said Metro has the same request of Clark County. If they were doing a 50-year visioning plan, they would like to talk about it as well. Eric Holmes said that if there is a way to structure that kind of process that transcends the political hurdles of Oregon and Washington and truly look at the physical qualities of the region, then people can talk about what really matters and values are preserved and protected. Then once those things are identified, translate it.
Chair Burkholder said another key issue that is related is how to support the infrastructure. A particular area of concern is transportation funding.
Andy Cotugno said that Oregon has a Highway Trust Fund. The funds that go into that Highway Trust Fund are a 24 cents gas tax, which has not changed since 1993, and a fairly modest $50 a year vehicle registration fee, collected every two years. This makes up about 60+ percent of the Highway Trust Fund. The other 38 percent is from a weight/mile tax on trucks. The heavier trucks pay much more than the lighter trucks, and the heavier trucks pay much more than what would be an equivalent diesel tax. That is what makes up the substantial share of their Highway Trust Fund. Out of that total fund, ODOT retains 60 percent for their purposes and 40 percent is distributed to cities and counties, with 25 percent to counties on the basis of registered vehicles and 15 percent to the cities on the basis of population. As cities annex, their population goes up and their share goes up, but their share comes out of the other cities in the state, because it is based on population, and the county share is unchanged. The county and city distributions are independent of one another. For the funds that are retained by the state, the 60 percent of the trust fund, that plus the federal funds that the state receives is largely spent on maintenance and preservation. The only substantial modernization account that the state has represents about $25 million a year available statewide. That number was cut in half from $50 to $25 million per year after the last legislature because it was bonded. Mr. Cotugno said their experience with modernization and the legislature has been for the last couple sessions, they have raised money or bonded money to pay for modernization purposes. There have been two rounds of $500 million each to do modernization throughout the state. As a result of that, a lot of the ongoing resources have been used up and are used to pay for debt. The federal funds that just got adopted represent an increase for the state. The current expectation, which has not been decided yet, is that they would restore that modernization account from $25 million back to the $50 million that it was before. That is good news, but it is still a very small number for any substantial project. He said one interchange can cost $25 million, and that is the total amount for statewide. He said their experience in doing anything substantial in the way of modernization has been through special measures.
In the way of transit funding, the state funds toward transit are pretty small. There is a couple million dollars a year of flexible federal funds that go into bus replacements statewide. There is 2 cents on cigarette tax that goes into elderly and disabled transit services operating. Most of the transit funding comes from local payroll tax, not state shared revenues. There are some local highway related sources. There has been a substantial movement in the last decade toward a higher systems development fees.
Mr. Cotugno said their constitution is more restricted than Washington’s constitution. The highway related sources or the local gas taxes or even tolling, anything that is auto related use can only be used for auto related purposes or highway related purposes. That can include some limited things that are multimodal. Matt Garrett said the constitutional language and the restrictions have been validated by the Oregon voters. He said this includes enforcement; the Oregon patrol troop is cut in half over the last 25 years. They were removed from the Highway Trust Fund. They have to compete for the general fund money with public education and health. The last time there was a raise in the gas tax was in 1993. An attempt in 1999 was repealed by the voters.
Dean Lookingbill presented an overview of Washington State’s Transportation Funding, and distributed copies of the slide presentation. Mr. Lookingbill said there are some similarities with Oregon, but there are also some significant differences. Transportation funds are user fee based: fuel tax, vehicle licenses, permits, vehicle registration fees, other fees such as ferry tolls, plate fees and tonnage fees. As of 1991, Washington had not had significant gas tax increase again until in 2003 the legislature increased the fuel tax from 23 cents/gallon to 28 cents. The 2005 legislature increased it another 9.5 cents spread over four years (3 cents, 3 cents, 2 cents, and 1.5 cents). This gas tax increase is currently being challenged via the initiative process. Initiative 912 will be voted on by voters across the state on November 8. The Initiative would repeal that 9.5 cents fuel tax if it were to pass.
The 18th Amendment to the State Constitution, 1944 is similar to Oregon. All gas tax and vehicle licenses, permits, and fees go to the Motor Vehicle Fund and are used for highway purposes. Ferries, State Patrol activities, and Department of Licensing have been defined as highway purposes. In some cases, certain activities with State Parks have also been defined as highway purposes.
Washington State transportation budget process has a biennial budget starting on July 1 of odd numbered years. Appropriations in the budget are not codified, so language lapses at the end of that biennium. The governor purposes a budget to the Legislature by December 20. The capital and operating transportation budget is separate from the State’s operating and capital general fund budgets. The Governor may veto whole sections of the budget bill or individual appropriation items.
The 2003 Nickel Package included a 5 cent gas tax increase, $4.2 billion over 10 years totaling $1.747 billion, 15 percent in weight fees equaling $.118 billion, 3 percent sales tax on motor vehicles equaling $.348 billion, and $2.6 billion bonds. Mr. Lookingbill said in Washington State, there is a revenue bill that sets the revenue increase and then there is also a budget bill that covers the Department of Transportation’s capital and operating program and makes the appropriations. Attached to that budget bill is a list of projects. Washington State has moved to identifying a project list that is essentially a legislative process.
The 2005 Transportation Partnership Package is $7.1 billion over 16 years. This is the 9.5 cents gas tax equaling $5.5 billion, vehicle weight fee equaling $.908 billion, light truck weight fee equaling $.436 billion, and motor home fee of $75/year equaling $.130 billion. There is a revenue bill and a budget bill. The project list is 274 projects statewide. It was noted the Nickel Package has a sunset (whatever it takes to pay off the bonds), and the 9.5 cents does not.
In Clark County, the combination of the two revenue increases total about $450 million with $200 million of projects in the Nickel Package, and about $250 million out of the 9.5 cents. The 2005-2007 Washington State Transportation Budget total is $5.8 billion.
Andy Cotugno presented Tolling in the Metro Area and distributed copies of ODOT’s Tolling Issues White Paper by Carter & Burgess. Mr. Cotugno said there is a lot going on related to tolls in Oregon. He said their first investigation in to tolling was a research type question they finished in 1999, with a Traffic Relief Options Program. That was undertaken from a demand management point of view of how you can use peak period pricing to manage how the various highways operate in order to have them operate better. They looked at a variety of approaches from tolling all the lanes on existing highways versus expanding a highway and tolling all the lanes versus adding a HOT lane and just charge for the HOT lane. They examined how this would work operationally and financially, what the public acceptance and perception would be, and how truck operations would work. As a result of that, they adopted a Transportation Tolling Policy in the Regional Transportation Plan in 2000. This year there has been a significant increase in that activity. They are currently finishing focus on the Highway 217 HOT lane proposal. ODOT has released a RFP soliciting private proposals for construction of projects in three corridors. ODOT also has two consultant contracts underway to advise them on making decisions related to those public private proposals. The Commission has authorized negotiations with a group called the Macquarie Group to have the concession for building the three projects, Sunrise Corridor, I-205, and Newberg-Dundee Bypass.
From the Traffic Relief Options Study, while they looked at a variety of options, they really concluded that the only viable approach is if in a long highway corridor that is five to ten miles, not one or two miles, it is feasible to add a lane and charge for that lane, but the public perception that they received was that having a choice available is really essential. If you leave the current choice of existing lanes, but you add a lane and charge that lane, it gives the motorist a choice to continue what they have been doing or pay to use the added lane. The policy that they adopted was for any new major stretch of highway, they should consider that approach in that corridor where they are adding capacity. Equity was a serious issue, but they also found there was a very broad cross section of individuals across economic spectrum that would use the facility and you have to consider relative to the alternative. The alternative is a gas tax, and a gas tax hits individuals pretty hard too. He said the peak period capacity that is built to benefit people during the peak hour is higher income people because they are working. The lower income people that drive are not working or driving off peak are paying for that capacity in the peak hour if you use a conventional gas tax approach. Whereas, a tolling approach, the person using it during that peak period is paying for that added capacity. They adopted a policy in their Regional Transportation Plan that concluded that peak period pricing would be a useful demand management tool and provide for a raise in some revenues toward the needed facilities. He said they should consider peak period pricing in any corridor where major new capacity is under consideration. They found that trying to look at an overall regional system is pretty abstract and hard for people to relate to, but if you are dealing with a specific project and a specific corridor, the choices can be weighed and compared.
Fred Hansen asked if a corridor was going from a four lane to a six or eight lane facility, if those new lanes are coming on, is there a sense that you cannot toll the whole of that corridor or just the HOT lane. Andy Cotugno said their conclusion ten years ago was that you could only toll the HOT lane. The recent advice that they received from the Macquarie Group and their experience on toll roads across the world is that it is really not feasible to just go out on existing facilities and add tolls for something that is already there. It is feasible that if you are dong a major upgrade in a corridor that you toll the whole corridor, not just the added lanes, because the entire stream of traffic that uses that corridor receives benefit from that facility. It is still a careful conversation with the public. Mr. Cotugno highlighted the major corridors that they identified in the Regional Transportation Plan at the time they adopted the policy. At that time, the I-5 Columbia River Crossing was not on the table. Clearly, it is on the table now. That was 1999. Serena Cruz asked if that was why Sellwood was not listed. Mr. Cotugno said Sellwood does not actually fit the definition of what they have called for. Bridges do make sense, but they were looking at long stretches of corridors. Steve Stuart asked regarding HOT lanes if this meant an additional lane and make that a HOT lane. He said that was what they were contemplating when they adopted this direction in 1999. More recently they are asking the question that if they do add capacity in one of those corridors, should they charge for all those lanes in that corridor. That has not been decided yet.
Aside from the Columbia River Crossing, the next corridor they took up is Highway 217. They are now concluding that study. That was initiated as a result of the study a decade ago that said don’t build a western bi-pass from I-5 south of Wilsonville connecting into Hillsboro, rather, focus on the Highway 217 corridor. When undertaking the study, they looked at a broad range of possibilities from not expanding Highway 217 and focusing on adjacent arterials and transit to widening it to six lanes versus eight lanes as general purpose lanes versus that lane as a toll lane. They also looked at the possibility of putting tolls on a ramp meter, so that the traffic waiting for the light has the opportunity to bypass those lights by paying a toll. They are now concluding that study and recommending that the project go into an EIS phase and carry into that process both a general-purpose lane option and a tolled lane option. Mr. Cotugno said the public participation in this project has been pretty constructive. There has been a thoughtful reaction by the public to their choices. They can add a lane and be just as congested in ten years as today, or not add a lane and have a lot of impacts to surrounding neighborhoods as a result of arterial improvements, or wait until 2089 when normal revenue streams would produce a project, or they can get something sooner if it is a tolled project. Mr. Cotugno highlighted the financial numbers for the 217 improvements.
Oregon Innovative Partnership Program (OIPP), ODOT’s solicitation for public/private proposals, they specifically asked for proposals for the Sunrise Corridor, the I-205 Corridor, and just south of the metro region, the Newburg-Dundee bypass corridor. Mr. Cotugno highlighted those project proposals. He said Wilbur Smith Associates is one of the consultants that ODOT has under contract. The Macquarie Group who is proposing who has a lot of experience in building and operating tolls across the world and bring much expertise, however they are in negotiations to have a contract, and it is important to make sure the public sector side has expertise from around the world as well. Wilber Smith is one group that has been contracted for. Carter-Burgess is another consultant group that has been contracted as well. Both groups have good expertise in tolls across the country. There are major issues to be decided over the next couple years.
Fred Hansen asked Andy to explain regarding on the Newburg-Dundee Bypass how a toll would work and where it would go and how affect local traffic. Mr. Cotugno said just southwest of the metro region as you exit on 99W going towards Lincoln City, just outside the metro region you go over Rex Hill. A costal mountain range essentially separates the Portland metro region from the Yamhill County territory. The consultant proposal is to build that bypass but to just have a tollbooth location at the northeast corner. Basically, just as you exit the McMinnville/Newberg/Dundee area and cross the hills to get to the Portland metro area, have a single tolled location at the northern end and toll both the new bypass and existing Highway 99W. This would be one point where the toll is paid, and no other toll collection along the system. This captures the traffic movements from the metro region to the vineyards, the casino, the coast, as well as any commuter traffic. It would allow for the whole community to do all of their business on a free system. It was recommended to toll in only one direction.
Matt Garrett said from an agency perspective, because they have not had the conversation with the public, they know tolling is a feasible financing mechanism, but the issue is will people accept it. He said that conversation has not yet taken place. They do know, that the revenues that they have are not enough to deliver the projects in the timeframes that they need to deal with. He said with that, is the situation bad enough that people will accept a menu of options, if gas tax and vehicle registration fees are not an option that they want to pursue; you have another innovative option in tolling. No decisions have been made, but it is an option. Mr. Cotugno noted a lot of the questions are addressed in the Tolling Issues White Paper handout.
Chair Burkholder introduced David Forte with WSDOT’s Urban Planning Office in Seattle. Mr. Forte said they conduct planning and policy analysis with the Puget Sound region and some statewide efforts. He said that Washington State has had a long history of using tolls for transportation purposes. Mr. Forte distributed copies of the Tolling Study Purpose, Objective, and Outcomes along with a handout titled Tolling for project finance has a long and respectable history, and New technology brings new opportunity. Washington has used tolling as a means to advance projects and to construct projects for many years. The handout listed the history of tolling projects, mainly bridges. WSDOT has used the model of tolling for many years, and it has been very effective. Their latest project is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It is the policy of using tolls to finance construction of a bridge. They also have the largest ferry system in the nation that is publicly owned, and it is also a toll system. They also have another authorized project in the state, the SR167 HOT Lanes Pilot Project. This is a nine mile conversion of an existing carpool lane to a HOT lane on SR 167 just south of Bellevue between Bellevue and Puyallup on the east side of I-5. As they move forward with this, the state has come to a tipping point. As Oregon said in 1999 they started talking about using congestion management, Washington State is starting to look at the whole spectrum of tolling. Going back to the basic question of is tolling a viable option for Washington State and if so what is the policy structure that we want to take us forward in that objective. In looking at the near, mid, and the long term, how do they want to structure that. Historically, they have been going in an ad hoc manner. They have had projects that have shown up that were needed that they could not fund, and they just happened to fit perfectly in the traditional manner of a captured market on both sides. In example, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, there is only one way across. They needed to advance the project, and they used the traditional tolling method. That is very limited ability. He said even now, they do not always finance a full project. That asks a lot of policy questions. The traditional method of using tolls has a limited applicability, and even when they work, can they generate enough money for these huge projects. Bridges such as the Columbia River Crossing are huge capital investments, and tolling typically will not finance the whole project. This brings the public debate that tolling may advance the project, but if you have to put other money into it to match, how does that fit in to your normal funding mechanism and is that a way to go? Technology has given us some advantages. With the ability to do what they call open road tolling, the ability to do away with or almost do away with toll booths to have a transponder or a device in the car that can charge or assess a toll as you go by at 60 miles an hour, it opens up many possibilities for the use of tolling. The use of it for congestion management has very good possibilities. WSDOT is starting to look at those possibilities. Recently, the last legislative session asked the Transportation Commission to do a comprehensive tolling study for the state. The Commission asked WSDOT to provide technical advice and to manage the program for them. The Commission also asked that basic question, do we even want to go down that road, and if we do, let’s set up a framework to do it. They are looking at a very fast pace policy analysis/policy framework. They are looking at what tolling options, policies, strategies, and tools are available. They are looking at the pluses and minuses of each one of those tools, and how would they be applicable to Washington State.
An example is a small new construction south between Olympia and Tacoma called the Cross Base Highway, a new alignment that makes an east-west connector as part of that $2 million project. They are going to do a tolling feasibility study on that project and use that as an example along with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to show the pluses and minuses of that policy and those tools and strategies. He said they would also study one for congestion management and look at a large corridor as a managed lane facility. He said these examples would be brought back for the policy discussion. Another that they will do, which will come up with the Columbia River Crossing, is that the state is not looking at individual projects. They are looking at systems management. It is not the project that will determine where they will go; it is a whole system. In looking at the I-5 Bridge and the I-205 Bridge, if you try to toll the I-5 Bridge, what does that do to the I-205 Bridge? Are these really individual routes, or are they a system to cross to Columbia River? He said they have the same parallel across Lake Washington on I-90 and I-205. They need to replace the 205 Floating Bridge. If they can find a way to balance the system, and control diversions, is that a better system than just using the traditional way of toll. He said this is the look at the near, mid, and long term. They are not looking at what the state or federal government allows now, that is in the near term. They are looking at the mid and long term of what their needs will be, and what authority should be out there to allow them to do what they want to do not what they are constrained to do. He said they also have to look at how they are maintained over the years. Mr. Forte said that equity is a huge issue. He said the equity question would be a key driver of policy. It will probably outweigh the financial aspects. If the financial aspects of the tolling come through, they will have to be so manifest that they can override or shift the equity questions.
Matt Garrett said in looking at the listing of past toll projects, it appears that they all have sunset. He said when you get into a policy conversation, you can extend that argument that it doesn’t have to go away. You can use that toll for operation and maintenance. He asked if that was part of their analysis. Mr. Forte said that is a very key question. Tolls may never come off. He said if they would not have taken the tolls off the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, they would have had money to rebuild it.
Ed Barnes said the study would be reported to the Commission in December. He suggested inviting Mr. Burkholder or any interested party to come to the Commission meeting to hear that report. Mr. Forte said they would be providing an interim report that will be the speaking piece that will go to their Legislature and Governor for discussions. If they decide to take up tolling in this Legislative session, this will be their background piece and policy to help guide them.
Rex Burkholder said there was interest in getting copies of the report and attending as well.
Chair Burkholder said due to the limited time and the fact that this agenda item was self-explanatory, there would not be a presentation. Copies of the slide presentation were distributed along with the letters supporting the action.
Kate Deane gave a quick update on the Delta Park Project. She said the Environmental Assessment is almost complete and ready to send out. They anticipate having a hearing in January, potentially the second or third week of January. They have been working with the City of Portland and others to put together a hearings panel that would be a joint City of Portland, ODOT, Metro, and potentially the City of Vancouver hearings panel, so they have broad regional representation. That hearings panel will then meet a couple times after the hearing to help them come to a conclusion as to which of the four alternatives they will move forward with. Following that coming together around that decision, they will have actions before the Bi-State Committee, and the Portland City Council. She said there are a number of permitting kinds of issues that may delay the ultimate signing, but they anticipate the preferred alternative identified by this spring. Rex Burkholder asked as part of the hearing process, if they will be doing some outreach and advertising north and south of the river. Ms. Deane said they will be doing advertising not only in the Portland area and the Oregonian, but also in Vancouver and the Columbian. She said they can work with different groups as they move forward.
Royce Pollard said that Kate Deane presented the Delta Park Project to Vancouver City Council several months ago. He requested that Ms. Deane work with Thayer Rorabaugh to make arrangements for the appropriate time to come back to the City Council.
This agenda item was not discussed.
Sharon Nasset with North Portland said she was glad to hear that Metro is taking a new look at their growth boundaries. She said she hopes the new look is looking at the fact that people come here because they love the area, and they are coming here because of the economics. She said we really need to go to the outlying cities and take care of their infrastructure and help them provide an economic base so they don’t move here, they don’t want to move here, or have to move here, and they don’t have to come here for a job and they can stay in the communities that they have grown up in and love. She felt that is the bigger issue. She also said she felt it is short sighted to continue to look at single occupancy as how we are deciding what we are doing with our transportation corridors. She said in 25 years, we will not be traveling in the same type of vehicles and the same manner. She said we are the citizens that are putting in the infrastructure for the next several hundred years and need to look at transportation corridors.
Joy Overstreet from Vancouver said a thought she had on tolling is the question of is it an idea that is to pay for road improvements or is it a disincentive for people to use the highways. She said she is concerned about the disincentive and what this will do to business that might want to work here. If everything were tolled, why wouldn’t companies go to some other place to do their work? The prices of the things that we are buying that is produced here will go up and the price of construction and the workers going back and forth from their job sites. She said she felt tolling is a much deeper issue than we are thinking. She said she thought we should be looking at multimodal transportation for the future.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting will be held on December 1, 2005, at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|