Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, January 12, 2006, 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.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of November 3, 2005, Meeting Report

The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Chair Rex Burkholder at 7:35 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver Alternate Cathy Nelson, Interim ODOT Region One Manager Dennis Osborne, City of Battle Ground Alternate Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
Staff
Andy Cotugno, Metro Dean Lookingbill, RTC Mark Turpel, Metro Diane Workman, RTC
Interested Guests
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland Kate Deane, ODOT Rob DeGraff, Columbia River Crossing Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing Stuart Gwin, City of Portland Bob Hart, RTC Jay Lyman, Columbia River Crossing Sheila Martin, Portland Institute for Metropolitan Studies Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County Tom Miller, City of Portland Sharon Nasset, Economic Transportation Alliance Laine Smith, ODOT Marty Snell, Clark County Rex Wong, Columbia River Crossing Bill Wright, Clark County Phil Wuest, City of Vancouver

Chair Rex Burkholder welcomed everyone and introduced Cathy Nelson, Interim ODOT Region One Manager. Ms. Nelson said her permanent position with ODOT is Technical Services Manager and Chief Engineer at the Salem headquarters office. She has been with ODOT for quite some time. She is serving as Interim Manager in Portland until they are able to fill the position. They hope to have a new manager on board within the next two to three months. Chair Burkholder also introduced Dennis Osborne, Deputy City Manager for the City of Battle Ground who served as the alternate for Eric Holmes who was not able to attend.

THE NOVEMBER 3, 2005, MEETING REPORT WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

Chair Burkholder moved to agenda item 3, while waiting for more members to arrive.

II. Review and Coordination of Forecasts of Households and Jobs for Year 2030 Transportation Planning Purposes

Chair Burkholder noted a request from Steve Stuart. Steve Stuart said the request is to postpone a decision on the 2030 Forecasts until the March meeting. He said by the March meeting, Clark County will have a better idea of what their population growth forecasts are and how they will be allocated throughout the TAZs through their growth update process. He said in going over the numbers, the numbers that Metro has and the numbers that RTC have are not that much different in the population forecast. The problem is that in their growth forecast that they are using now for their Growth Update which will be completed by the end of this year and will have a draft EIS by the end of the first quarter. They are looking at numbers that will be much bigger than either of the sets of numbers. He said the numbers that Metro and RTC have for 2030, they are seeing in 2024. That is an extra six years of planning. He said they do not want to undersize their infrastructure. He said they want to make certain of this especially with a major project like the Columbia River Crossing.

Chair Burkholder said what is anticipated is a coordinated forecast specifically for the Columbia River Crossing project. He asked WSDOT and ODOT if a delay of two months for the forecasts recommendation will impact the project schedule. The project has been waiting for these recommended numbers.

Don Wagner said while March is later than he would like, but if the answer actually came in March, he would accept it. The 2030 forecast is in the critical path in order for the project to move forward. Another delay of two months in getting the data will have some effect on their ability to meet the projects 36-month schedule. By the same token, good data is critical to a project of this magnitude. He said his fear is that when they see the numbers from the Washington side, there will have to be some discussion about the difference between them and bringing that together in a short period of time will be a challenge.

Chair Burkholder said he would like to have the committee have discussion, because they are charged with recommending the number to use. There is a margin that is not important, but the employment numbers were far enough apart that it did create problems to actually do the modeling work. He said there is also concern of moving the project forward.

Steve Stuart said that he just discussed with Marty Snell their Long Range Planning Director. He said to have perfect numbers, they would have to wait until the end of the year when they adopt the new Plan. He said by March 1 to 15, they would have the numbers for alternative 2, which is the Board’s alternative. That alternative will be closer to what they will end up with than the 2004 Plan. He said he discussed this with the Board of Commissioners the previous day. He said the Board of Commissioners will have a letter for JPACT asking for this extension for a couple months and committing they will have something that is much closer to reality for Bi-State. (Note: A letter was not needed after the discussion and decision by the Committee to allow the extension.)

Rex Burkholder asked Andy Cotugno and Dean Lookingbill if the numbers are significantly differently than what is seen today, does that mean that Metro’s numbers will be so much different than the new numbers that there is a reconciliation problem. Andy Cotugno said the approach that they take to come up with their numbers is one that attempts to model the real estate market for the whole region, and where growth is going to be attracted. In order to do that, they have to make assumptions about what transportation network will be available, and what land will be available. The land supply that they have assumed so far is what Clark County has given them. If there were a different land supply that would be available for the real estate market, then they would get a different forecast. Mr. Cotugno requested that they work closely with Clark County during the next two-month period so they can be revising their assumptions that they have incorporated in their forecast while Clark County is doing theirs. Steve Stuart said that would be possible. Mr. Lookingbill said RTC staff would link with Metro staff for this coordination.

Mr. Lookingbill referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet. He noted that what Commissioner Stuart is saying and what is important is that the distribution of land development might be different from the previous forecast. The RTC MTP forecast is based on the adopted 2004 Clark County GMA Plan, which had a forecast year of 2023. RTC is required to have at least a 20-year forecast. In response to this requirement, the RTC Board set 2030 as the forecast year. The adopted 2023 GMA land use plan formed the basis for the 2030 forecast. Clark County is currently in an EIS process to develop a new GMA plan and within several months will have draft household and employment forecasts for the new GMA plan. Early work on the 2006/07 GMA plan indicates that the county growth totals for the new 2024 plan may be close to the previous 2030 MTP Update totals. Not only may the total growth level be greater, but also the previous GMA comprehensive land use pattern will be changed per the new GMA plan process. In order to take advantage of the new GMA land use distribution, it may make sense to wait several months until the new land use allocation is completed. This new land use and its population, household, and employment distribution could then be substituted for the previous RTC MTP 2030 forecast.

Don Wagner cautioned that they are already struggling with some of those issues on other projects in their area. They are using the old model today, and they are in a NEPA process. Their federal partners are saying they must wait until the new numbers come out, so they are not approving their NEPA results knowing that new numbers are coming out. There is at least one project where those new numbers are likely to increase a project cost by about 50 percent. Mr. Wagner said from a project standpoint, and given this information, they may have to start running the models based on the information that they have. He said he doesn’t like running two models, because it will cost more money in the long run, but if the model is run based on the information that they have today, and then run it again, if it turns out on this project that this difference doesn’t create a need for transportation infrastructure, they may be okay. If it turns out that they do need it in this corridor, then there is a problem of having to go back and re-engineer. He cautioned that the project is not just a dollar budget. It has a time budget as well. We need to make certain that we come in on time for this phase to line up with the federal process for reauthorization. If we do not get in line early enough, we will be six more years out.

Steve Stuart asked if that meant that they would just use the numbers that they have now, or within two months get new numbers that are more real so they don’t have to rerun. Don Wagner said they would be doing some sizing based on the information that they have today. If the new numbers come in two months, they will be in a great position to use the new numbers or gauge them against the old numbers. He said the current numbers are not that far apart. They do not indicate that more lanes are needed one way or the other. In the long run, if the new numbers indicate that there are additional lanes that are necessary, that is when there are problems. Steve Stuart said it is not just lane capacity. It is also the component analysis. They are just getting in to Criteria to Screen Components of Alternatives. If that is the case, how their land use is situated throughout the county could make a big difference in the components that make sense within the alternatives, let alone capacity. Mr. Wagner said it is not just where the houses are, it is where the people go. He said his understanding is that it is more industrial opportunities up in that area also. So if all the housing and jobs are up north, that doesn’t necessarily have a great effect on the Columbia River Crossing. Mr. Stuart said he is talking about transit capacity. If there is some sort of high capacity transit and there are industrial nodes to the north that may affect people’s decision-making on whether they think high capacity transit is a viable option within the River Crossing project. Mr. Wagner said they are under the assumption that there will be some type of high capacity transit on the project.

Chair Burkholder said this type of debate is happening at the Task Force as well. He summarized by saying that Commissioner Stuart will take this to the Clark County Board and come back to the March meeting with numbers. The recommendation was to postpone action on the recommendation until the March meeting based on Commissioner Stuart’s pledge to bring the numbers at the March meeting.

III. 2006 Bi-State Metropolitan Forum, March 16

Chair Burkholder introduced Ginger Metcalf with Identity Clark County and Sheila Martin with the Portland Institute for Metropolitan Studies. Ms. Metcalf sits on the Board of the Portland Metropolitan Studies and Portland State University. She said in 1997 and 1998, the Institute hosted, in conjunction with WSU Vancouver, the Bi-State Governors’ Conferences. The objectives of those conferences were to bring us together with an opportunity to think and act collaboratively for the benefit of continued prosperity and quality of life in the bi-state region. She said many of the challenges that they face were discussed. Some of those issues have been addressed and continues on issues that need to be looked at and worked together on to enhance what is there. This is not only economic development, but certainly transportation. Out of those discussions emerged some of the Bi-State efforts of today. The Bi-State Committee formed in 1999 was one of those efforts in part. The Channel Deepening efforts have been a good example of how we can work together as a region, as two states working for the benefit of one region. Another effort includes reciprocal tuition efforts between Portland State University and Washington State University Vancouver along with numerous other efforts. Ms. Metcalf said they have a Bi-State Governors’ Conference planned for March 16 and have made an effort to have transportation be a part of the discussion.

Sheila Martin, Executive Director at the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, said she knows several people from her previous position as Governor Locke’s Economic Development Advisor. She said this is an interesting effort for her as a former Washingtonian in Oregon and now looking at solving problems from a regional perspective. Ms. Martin said they are working on finalizing the agenda over the next few weeks for the forum. She said they are asking members for their ideas on a few issues. She asked for some of the key successes in transportation that could be highlighted at the forum and some of the key challenges that might be discussed and addressed.

Ms. Martin said the outline for the Forum would begin with both of the Governors addressing their vision of what a regional economy that as much as possible ignores the border between us would look like and how that kind of region would function. With that as an objective, look at how that would improve our vitality in our economy, and the kinds of challenges and potential successes that kind of cooperation could bring. Ms. Martin said they are focusing on four areas in which the two states could cooperate in this region: 1) transportation, 2) economic development, 3) education, and 4) energy (alternative energy and promoting the region as an innovator in alternative energy and energy dependence).

Ms. Martin said both Governors would address the forum, and both the Mayors are interested as well, but yet to be confirmed. After these addresses, the forum would then have a brief presentation from a panel of people who have worked in the trenches on each of the four issues and are familiar with the successes and challenges that are faced. Next would focus on identifying some of the key policy changes or even some programmatic things that could be cooperated on, a “to do” list for the next year. This would come back to the Institute to take the responsibility for making sure that things get moved forward. Ms. Martin said they would like one person from Oregon and one from Washington to be the representative to discuss issues at the conference, and asked members for their discussion.

Lynne Griffith said for 25 years, C-TRAN and TriMet have had good relationships and worked well together as an operational unit. The challenges are related to the policy side. Rex Burkholder said the same parallel would be for WSDOT and ODOT.

Rex Burkholder said a success is the Bi-State Coordination Committee. This forum allows for further cooperation and discussion of the broader issues relating to land use and economic development. He said governance is a challenge. The fact that we are two states makes it very complicated. He said he would like to see the two governors talk of their vision and how to make things function together more effectively.

Steve Stuart agreed and said the regulatory structures are the biggest challenge. We have two very different regulatory structures; even land use laws are different. Transportation funding structures are also different. He said the challenge is finding a way to work together in partnership as a region. It is difficult enough to try and work locally among cities and counties within your own state. He would like to see the Governors address the issue of creating bi-state cooperation in practice with specific policy objectives.

Ms. Martin said ideally during the conference, some of those hurdles could be identified with some potential policy changes or operational changes that would reduce those barriers. She said one of the things that might be helpful in terms of making sure that the Governors are more specific in their comments is that she plans on getting an issue paper to them prior to the forum to allow them time to prepare a response.

Steve Stuart said as for the energy issue, the Governor talked about a bio-diesel initiative at the State of the State Address. This may be an avenue for discussion.

Addison Jacobs said something to note for successes is the Washington Transportation Plan and Connect Oregon. From the Port’s perspective, there is a lot of coordination with the Ports on the Columbia River. Ginger Metcalf noted that at the first Bi-State Conference, Byron Hanke was the Key Note Luncheon speaker. The message he sent was that the Ports have set the example, the others need to get on board, and they have done a good job of that. Rex Burkholder said a challenge that goes with that is the issue of freight movement. He said the Ports may cooperate, but if it comes in on one side of the river and has to go to the other side, it is another issue. Steve Stuart said Clark County recently had a presentation from rail folks saying how much more efficient it is to move freight by rail than it is by truck, and the amount of energy that is saved with trains versus diesel trucks. It is a transportation issue because of the roads, and it is an economic development issue because more money can be put to our regional rail system and heavy rail system then we are able to move freight more freely through the corridor. Addison Jacobs said 85 percent of the Port of Vancouver’s traffic goes by rail. It is very important. Lynne Griffith said it should be noted funding options are a challenge particularly in transit, with both states being different.

Chair Burkholder asked who they were looking for to be on the panel. Ms. Martin said they are looking for someone from each state to have conversation with each other in front of a couple hundred people. She said they need a fairly broad knowledge. Ginger Metcalf said it needs to be someone who can sit on the stage and get down to the nitty-gritty of specific policy. Rex Burkholder offered to take that role, as did Steve Stuart. Phil Selinger offered that Fred Hansen has a lot of experience in this department as well. Chair Burkholder said he and Mr. Stuart could be contacted about the presentation.

Andy Cotugno noted that if economic development is one of the key themes, he felt that should tie in to the Regional Partners for Economic Development and their recently completed consolidated economic development strategy.

Ginger Metcalf asked members to contact them if they had ideas. Phone number and e-mail were listed on the distributed fliers. Registration will be available by February 2. Rex Burkholder requested copies of the fliers to distribute at JPACT.

The meeting returned to agenda item 2.

IV. Transportation Priorities for Legislative Consideration – Federal and State Agendas

Dean Lookingbill referred to a memorandum distributed for members. Mr. Lookingbill said at this time of the year both entities have conversation with their state legislators. On the federal side, there is also conversation in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lookingbill said the RTC Board has begun the process to identify and prioritize the Clark County region’s FFY ’07 transportation appropriations request. The Board has discussed a policy framework to guide their ’07 recommendations and is expected to adopt their list of projects at the February 7, 2006, RTC meeting. Discussions to date have produced a preliminary list of projects. Mr. Lookingbill noted that the projects were not in ranked order, but were separated into categorical requests. An example of this is the I-5 Columbia River Crossing project. WSDOT is seeking funds for the CRC from the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program. It is eligible out of the program, where other requests that we have would not be eligible under that program. The transit request is just for transit funds. The other requests are for a variety of sources.

Steve Stuart said WSDOT is requesting $10 million for the Columbia River Crossing and asked if ODOT would be making a similar request. Mr. Cotugno said yes they would be asking for $5 million. Don Wagner said the amount of WSDOT’s request is not yet set. That amount could come down to $5 million as well. The requests would be separate requests, but once the money gets here, it is one combined budget.

Mr. Lookingbill said the state legislative agenda is still being developed, but is focused around thanking the legislature for their leadership in passing two major transportation revenue packages: the 2003 five cent Nickel Package, and the 2005 nine and one-half cent Partnership Package. The state legislative agenda also includes key transportation issues such as: support local funding options that may be used to fund local transportation improvements, support ongoing efforts to fund the Columbia River Crossing, support a state commitment to a complete transportation system that included public transportation that is accessible and flexible and meets the rising level of need for specialized paratransit services, and support increased visibility and priority for freight system capacity needs.

Lynne Griffith said that Tim Eyman has an initiative that will repeal transit funding and impact WSDOT and the Ports. All of the funds that Dean had mentioned for paratransit and also mobility grant option funds could all be in jeopardy. She said this would have a great impact to transit. It would also impact freight mobility projects.

Andy Cotugno said Metro would be adopting their list of projects at the January JPACT. They will be traveling to Washington, D.C. in February. They have a $5 million request for the Columbia River Crossing out of the Corridor Infrastructure Program as well. They also have a mirror image on the Transit request with an $8 million request from TriMet for bus replacement. On the New Starts side, they are seeking to finish the appropriation for the Commuter Rail project and start the appropriation for the I205 Downtown Mall project. Mr. Cotugno said there is also a TriMet request for funding mostly out of Homeland Security for communications equipment. Lynne Griffith said there has been some coordination with C-TRAN on this as well. There is a request out of the Clean Fuels category, which is a new category. They have several smaller highway project requests. Mr. Cotugno said they have intentionally avoided asking for funding out of STP, because their understanding is that if they do that, they are effectively earmarking the STP money that is coming here anyway. He said they would rather allocate those monies through their process, rather than get them pre-earmarked. They have asked for earmarks out of General Provisions, and requested that they don’t get earmarked out of STP or NHS.

Don Wagner asked if they could actually be successful in getting that done when the earmarks come out. Mr. Cotugno said that yes, but the numbers are really small: $1 million for I-205, $1 million for the Going Street Bridge.

Mark Turpel said he understood that this agenda item was to look at areas of interest in terms of mutual cooperation, an interest of a joint approach to the various different legislative congressional representatives. He said that is why he did not have a list together for the Oregon side. He asked the Committee if this was an issue they wished to discuss, and if so, what steps to take. Rex Burkholder said that could be formalized because there is a lot of natural overlap in shared interest. He said possibly more work could be done on that and bring it back to the next meeting.

Rex Burkholder said the following week there was a meeting of the West Coast Corridor Coalition in San Diego. The reason behind the West Coast Corridor Coalition is to raise the I-5 corridor and the issue of trade as a national interest, therefore deserving of dollars on top of what we already get. The projects that tentatively Oregon will go for are all in this area, the Columbia River Crossing project, the Portland Triangle Rail improvements, and the Columbia River Dredging. These are recognized as a national significance. He said the Columbia River Crossing is on Washington’s list.

V. Project Updates

Bob Hart, RTC, referred to a handout distributed from the Columbia River Crossing Project Team. He said the Bi-State Committee was updated on the Columbia River Crossing project last September, and a lot has taken place since that time. He noted the project purpose is to develop transportation improvements in the 5-mile segment of I-5 from SR-500 in Vancouver to Columbia Boulevard in Portland. It will address safety and traffic operations on the Interstate 5 crossings bridges and interchanges, public transportation connectivity, reliability, operations, and modal alternatives, highway freight mobility, and interstate travel and commerce needs, and the structural integrity of the crossing.

The visions and values statement provides the overarching community outlook on how the project is envisioned and provides the foundation for developing criteria and performance measures that will be used to evaluate the alternatives. It calls for a collaborative process to develop a solution that improves the community and addresses mobility and transportation needs, increasing its business success and family prosperity, protecting natural resources, and enhancing quality of life.

The problem definition provides detailed information and data on the identified problems in the corridor. It included information on travel markets in the I-5 Bridge Influence Area, current and future problems on vehicles and transit mobility and reliability, safety, freight issues, bike and pedestrian access, and seismic vulnerability.

The evaluation framework and criteria will be used to screen the large number of transportation components and alternatives. It establishes criteria and related performance measures to: measure the effectiveness of components in addressing the problems identified in the Problem Definition and how components and alternatives address community values as identified in the Vision and Values Statement.

Mr. Hart said the project has many committees and citizen involvement. The Task Force is made up of 39 members, comprised of leaders from a cross section of the Oregon and Washington communities interested in the project, including public agencies, businesses, civic organizations, neighborhoods, and freight, commuter, and environmental groups. The Task Force has met three times since last September, and to date, they have approved the Vision and Values Statement and the Problem Definition.

The Project Sponsors Council is made up of executive staff or elected officials. Members of the PSC provide lead assistance in developing the project. The Sponsor Agency Senior Staff complements the PSC with the same member agencies. They are responsible for strategic planning for the project and meet prior to the PSC meetings to help set up agendas and prepare for the PSC meetings. It also includes ex-officio participation from Clark County, Multnomah County, Port of Vancouver, and the Port of Portland. The Sponsor Agency Senior Staff group is still being formed and has held two meetings. A series of public meetings were held in late October at Jantzen Beach Center, Clark College, and the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs. In addition, other public involvement has included more than 55,000 CRC project newsletters were mailed/distributed throughout the community in September and October. An enhanced project web site has been active since early October 2005 (www.columbiarivercrossing.org). A web based survey for the project page has had 650 responses. A draft scoping report has compiled more than 1,700 comments about the project.

The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for February 1 and anticipated to meet monthly through 2006. The Project Sponsors Council will meet in mid-February. The next round of public meetings is scheduled for April. Initial screenings of project components will occur between now and late April followed by the development of alternative packages which will undergo detailed study and analysis through the remainder of 2006 and culminate in the selection of alternatives for the DEIS by the end of 2006.

Chair Burkholder said the many of the Bi-State Coordination Committee members belong to one or more of these committees. He said key concerns that need to be addressed is that the Bi-State Group should be thinking of the bi-state issues that are important to us that we want to get addressed that are different than those for individual jurisdictions concerns.

Don Wagner said some interesting things have happened since September. The CRC project now has roughly $75 million in the bank, but the spending rate is about $1.5 million per month. That money goes quickly. Mr. Wagner said regarding the Project Sponsors Council, the term “decision” has come up several times. He said the Project Sponsors Council is not a decision-making body. It is a group that simply comes together to talk about key issues that will go to the agencies that will take a vote on something. It is a forum for key folks to get together to discuss very important issues at the local and state level to make certain that all of the teams have the opportunities to raise key issues and work through them. It was noted that the Project Sponsors Council is to work like the United Nations. Basically, if one of the members decides that they don’t like a preferred alternative or something, they can veto an alternative. Mr. Wagner said the agency that the member represents could do that. For example, if the Metro Council decided that something that came out of this project was not acceptable to them, the Metro Council could veto that, but there is no opportunity at the Project Sponsors Council because no vote is taken there. A Metro Board member could indicate that something would not be passed by the Metro Council and that would give the opportunity to go back and take another look at any specific issue.

Kate Deane distributed two handouts, a notice of the I-5 Delta Park Project Open House and Public Hearing on January 24 and a schedule of the Preferred Alternative Decision-Making Process. Ms. Deane said all members should have received a summary and CD of the Environmental Assessment. Ms. Deane referred to the schedule of the decision-making process. She said they are currently in the public comment period. The public hearing January 24 will be a joint ODOT/City/Bi-State Committee hearing. The panel will include Commissioner Adams, Councilor Burkholder, Thayer Rorabaugh for Mayor Pollard, Matt Garrett, Sue Kiel, and Charlie Sciscione. The Hearings Panel will meet three additional times. They will have heard public comment in the public hearing, but there are also written and e-mailed comments that come in. They will need to understand the totality of public comments. They will meet again in March to understand the recommendations from ODOT staff development team, city technical advisory staff, a project advisory group of regional staff, and state and federal regulator folks called CETAS. All of these people will be looking at the preferred alternative and looking at the public comment, and making recommendations. By April, they anticipate that group coming to a consensus recommendation on the preferred alternative. They would then bring it to the Bi-State Coordination Committee and on to the Portland City Council. In June or July, they will be completing the documentation on the project and submitting it to FHWA with the preferred alternative. ODOT makes the final recommendation, and it is ultimately FHWA’s decision. She said it is hoped that by the time it reaches each of these steps, all issues have been worked out. The schedule does not take into account a discussion about a high occupancy vehicle lane. It was noted that this could possibly be discussed at the March meeting. There was discussion of HOV just on the north side of the river and HOV just on the south side of the river and the impacts. Rex Burkholder said the project has a very broad support.

Steve Stuart asked if anyone had appealed the Determination of Non Significance that made it so that only an EA was needed. Kate Deane said no, that once they get a completed document, they will know if they will appeal that. She said they are not finding anything that appears significant to them. They have done a good job of documenting the support for that. Steve Stuart asked if there was funding available for construction. Kate Deane said there is funding for Phase one, the freeway widening. They are separating that from the interchange options. They anticipate going to construction in 2008 with completion in 2010.

Don Wagner asked if there had been any indication from FHWA, that if the model were to change on the traffic demand on I-5 before the completion of the EIS, that they would need to go back and re-model. Ms. Deane said no, that they have already crossed that bridge with FHWA, and they do not anticipate that happening.

VI. Annual Report

Mark Turpel referred to the 2005 Annual Report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee that was distributed. The Report began with a summary of 2005 accomplishments including:

• Determined that the two MPO forecasts of future jobs and housing should be coordinated and that 2030 should be the forecast horizon year for bi-state transportation projects.
• Made recommendations concerning alternatives for the I-5Delta Park Project.
• Provided additional time for discussion and coordination of issues concerning the I-5 Columbia River Crossing.
• Discussed high occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 in southwest Washington.
• Kept local officials up to date on Heavy rail/freight movement in the bi-state area.
• Discussed the Cost of Congestion Report and possible actions to address this issue.
• Discussed the West Coast Corridor Coalition and implications for the Bi-State area.

Mr. Turpel said the report contained a month-by-month listing of the activities of the Bi-State Coordination Committee meetings. Chair Turpel said as part of the Charter of the Committee is that each member jurisdiction would present the report to their agency to share what the committee has been involved in and ask if there are issues to address. Mr. Turpel distributed a handout of Possible Bi-State Coordination Committee 2006 Agenda items. Chair Burkholder asked members to coordinate with Dean Lookingbill or Mark Turpel if there are additional ideas for agenda items.

VII. Public Comment

Sharon Nasset said at the November Columbia River Crossing meeting, she said she has heard talk that the process is not supposed to be just the bridge influence area. It is actually supposed to study the entire study area. She noted one of the co-leaders asked that staff come back to the January meeting and tell them where the study area is and if they should be looking at third bridge options, and so forth. She said staff came back and said it is not just the bridge influence area; it is the entire scope and does include a third bridge, heavy rail, and citizen comments. She said the maps that do not include the neighborhoods, should be included. The needs and purpose statement cannot be identified if the whole meeting group that met for an entire year had no idea of the boundaries that they were looking in. She said they did not have an idea of the citizens that attended. She said it should include heavy rail, commuter rail, and the overflow of traffic from I-5 that goes through neighborhoods. She felt this was an issue. She said it needs to go out to the public that all options are open and citizens have the right to participate in a full process for a third bridge. She felt the issue needs to be addressed and corrected.

The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting will be held on March 16, 2006, 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. just prior to the Governor’s Forum in order to adopt the 2030 Forecast numbers.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.

More Information

Dean Lookingbill Transportation Director, RTC 360-397-6067

Andy Cotugno Transportation Director, Metro 503-797-1763

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2008, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated January 16, 2008.