 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, May 18, 2006, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 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 Vice Chair Royce Pollard at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Charles Becker, Gresham City Mayor
Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Doug Ficco, WSDOT Alternate
John Gillam, City of Portland, Alternate
John Ostrowski, Interim C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Rod Park, Metro Councilor, Alternate
Royce Pollard, Vancouver Mayor
Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Jason Tell ODOT Region One ManagerStaff Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Lynda David, RTC
Kate Deane, ODOT
Adrienne DeDona, City of Battle Ground
Kim Ellis, Metro
Pat Emmerson, Metro
Jay Lyman, Columbia River Crossing
Steve Matthews, WSDOT
Jim Mayer, The Oregonian
Robin McArthur, Metro
Brian McMullen, WSDOT
Tom Miller, City of Portland
Dale Robins, RTC
Marty Snell, Clark County
Jim Switzer, Citizen
Walter Valenta, Citizen
Susan Whitney, ODOT
Rex Wong, Columbia River Crossing
Phil Wuest, City of VancouverA MOTION WAS MADE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 16, 2006, MEETING REPORT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kate Deane, ODOT, had display posters of the four Delta Park project alternatives. Ms. Deane said a lot of time has been spent on this project over the past three years. The project is on I-5 just south of the Interstate Bridges. The project came from the I-5 Partnership Strategic Plan that was developed in 2002. This is the first project that has gone to implementation. There has been a quite extensive public involvement process, including two citizen advisory committees, one a traditional committee and the other an environmental justice work group. Through the process they have also taken a lot of input from the public through design workshops, open houses, and smaller neighborhood type meetings. Two years ago, they narrowed it down to four alternatives as the alternatives that would be studied in their Environmental Assessment. Last year, their advisory committees recommended alternative 2 and alternative 4 as their preferred alternatives, and they said go forward with public hearing and get comment on all of the alternatives, knowing that alternative two and four were their preferred alternatives. Their public hearing was held in February. The hearings panel included Mayor Pollard and Councilor Burkholder from the Bi-State Committee. Also included was Commissioner Adams from the City of Portland and Director Keil of the Portland Office of Transportation and two of ODOT’s senior managers. The totality of the public comment, ODOT Project Development Team, the Cities Technical Advisory Committee and the Project Advisory Group recommended Alternative 2, and that is the recommended preferred alternative from the hearings committee. The Bi-State Coordination Committee is the second group to be presented to for approval of the recommendations. Those recommendations were included in the meeting packet. Ms. Deane said two days ago they went to their Environmental Record Regulators, and they approved those recommendations. They will also be going to City Councils, and after that to JPACT and Metro Council.
Ms. Deane highlighted each of the alternatives and explained the reasoning on selecting Alternative 2. This project will widen I-5 to three lanes southbound and improve access between Columbia Blvd. and I-5. There will be some improvements in the northbound direction on the bridge over Columbia Blvd. and the bridge over the Columbia Slough to get appropriately wide shoulders. Currently, there are no shoulders, given that the lanes were re-striped for the HOV lane. These items are common to all four alternatives. Where the alternatives differ from one another is how they treat access to and from Columbia Blvd. She noted that Columbia Blvd. is not a full interchange. She said you can get on at southbound, and get off if you go northbound. If you are coming south, from Delta Park or Vancouver, you can’t get directly off south and you cannot if you are at Columbia Blvd. get directly on. So in the absence of a full interchange here, people are using Argyle Way and Denver Avenue interstate ramps to get to and from Columbia Blvd. They did look at the alternative of making Columbia Blvd. a full interchange in Alternative 1, which they did not select. It has some benefits in terms of it’s easiest for them to construct, it’s efficient, and doesn’t take up much land. They did not select it because what they found was they had a difficult time to get people to actually use that interchange. She said this would be a very costly improvement and yet the route that they currently use would remain very efficient, and not something that they could easily take away. The route not only serves Columbia Blvd., it serves the Kenton neighborhood and the area south of Lombard. They also had concerns from the trucking industry about the operation of the interchange. This option also had the most traffic impacts on the east side. That alternative was not recommended although it is efficient, and to an outside user, it is the most traditional kind of interchange configuration. There was a lot of public comment on Alternative 1, and it made sense to make the interchange a full interchange.
Alternative 3 received about 200 public comments, and 3 comments of support of the option. She said Alternative 3 was not well received by the public.
Alternative 4 is one that had a lot of attention. While it does have a number of positive attributes, it puts a very efficient connection from Columbia Blvd. under a newly constructed railroad bridge, a new bridge across the river and onto I-5. It does a very good job of serving traffic going from I-5 to Columbia Blvd. and very near the interchange. It also creates an arterial road that is of interest of many people that cleans up the connections between Denver Avenue and Expo Road. While it has those benefits, they did not select that alternative because while it is an efficient connection, only 30% of the traffic getting off I-5 was trying to go to Columbia Blvd. The remaining of the traffic would need to take a jog onto Denver Avenue because they were destined for neighborhoods south of there. They were also concerned about the potential for additional cut-through traffic in the Kenton neighborhood as people seek the most direct route. It had impacts on traffic management for PIR and Expo. Most importantly, while it did replace the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge with a new double track bridge, they had a lot of potential business impacts that were much more than the impacts that they potentially have with Alternative 2. The intersection was not ideal from a safety standpoint.
Alternative 2 actually makes very few changes in the overall transportation system. It takes the road that is the connection between Columbia Blvd. and Denver Avenue and moves it one block to the north. They will be reconstructing Denver Avenue bridge and putting in a new better connection between Schmeer Road and Denver Avenue. They believe that Alternative 2 has the benefits of the least environmentally impact of all the alternatives. Number 2 minimizes the business impacts. They believe there will be very little traffic then on Argyle. The area in the Kenton neighborhood is the subject of redevelopment. They believe it will provide a good access to Kenton Park, the downtown area, and the light rail station. Ms. Deane said there had been much discussion about what is best for redevelopment, and this alternative had a slight edge over the others because it does the best job of reducing the overall traffic on the front side of the redevelopment, and it provides better connections to the neighborhood character. Colored copies of Alternative 2 were included in the meeting packet.
Ms. Deane noted that it was recommended by the citizen committee that if they were going to the trouble of addressing the community to rebuild that they just take care of all the needs in the corridor and replace both of the bridges. They have accepted that recommendation and are recommending that both bridges be replaced. That also provides the opportunity to relocate Schmeer Road further to the south and minimize the impacts to the businesses.
Ms. Deane referred to the Staff Report included in the meeting packet that listed the project recommendations. She said the High Occupancy Vehicle lane recommendation is to continue to state that ODOT may choose to operate one of the lanes as an HOV lane. ODOT will make a decision if it will be an HOV lane or not by the time the I-5 construction is completed and they are ready to open the lane. Ms. Deane said a tremendous amount of time was spent at staff level analyzing the HOV lane and discussing the results. The conclusion they came to is that because of changing conditions in regard to transit service levels on both sides of the river and other factors, along with the new Columbia River Crossing Project coming forward, it would make sense to continue to look at data and coordinate their decision whether or not to put HOV on the corridor with the outcome of the Columbia River Crossing Project. The further recommendation is that before ODOT, who will be the one to make the decision about the operation of the lane, they will come back with their recommendation to the Bi-State Committee and ask for their recommendation, and they will also ask for recommendations from JPACT and Metro.
They anticipate going to construction with the first phase of the project, freeway widening, in 2008. They do not have the funding for the second phase, but they will be working very hard with the City of Portland to get that funding. They do have in their most recent draft of their capital program, their State transportation Improvement Program, about $9 million allocated to the project on their 150% list. That list will need to be cut down to a 100% list, but she was hopeful that some amount of money will continue for phase two so they can continue to do right-of-way acquisition and engineering to continue to advance the project. It is important for the redevelopment of that to occur.
Ms. Deane said there are other recommendations listed, mostly having to do with how they work with the City of Portland, and mostly in phase two. Phase two has much more connection with the local system and the need for coordination of design, etc.
Steve Stuart questioned how this project would tie into any river-crossing project that is moved forward through the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) group and asked if there were any limitations that members should be aware of that Alternative 2 might have on any of the options that are still on the table for the CRC. Ms. Deane said she did not think that anything that the Delta Park project was doing would preclude any of the options being considered in the Columbia River Crossing project. She said they tried to set it up such that there won’t be anything that prevents what needs to be done for the CRC project. She said the CRC might consider things that still require some rework in that area, but that doesn’t mean that option cannot be done.
Phil Selinger pointed out that there was a fair bit of interagency discussion at staff level in regard to Commissioner Stuarts question. The discussion was the question of whether to keep the HOV option open. An important part of that was that there might be a bus solution in the CRC process, and the HOV function might be critical for bus operation success.
John Gillam said the City of Portland is very supportive of the project. The Portland City Council will be holding a Public Hearing on May 24 and take formal action. He said they have worked very closely with ODOT to try and move this project forward, and supportive of Alternative 2. He said Alternative 2 had less impacts than any of the other alternatives might have to the Columbia River Crossing options. He said they are looking forward to having the Community Enhancement fund move forward and fund those projects as well. Mr. Gillam said they would really like to see phase two move forward to the extent it can, because there are some development opportunities that are on hold until that becomes more real. Having some right-of-way and design work move forward would make that more of a certainty.
Rod Park said Rex Burkholder sends his greetings from Brazil. Councilor Park said he was not sure how the connection further north along Denver works, but that apparently there is some truck movement traffic that goes by the Expo Center now that somehow the truck traffic is out movement. It is using the access road to the Expo Center as a way to apparently save several minutes in the traffic pattern. He said he was not sure if this project addresses that, but the concern is that apparently the road was not designed to handle trucks of that weight. Through the agreements, Metro owns that as a private road. He said it is his understanding that it is about a $2 million project to repave that road. He just wanted to note this issue that needs to be addressed. Kate Deane said that Chris Bailey, the Director of Expo, was on the Advisory Committee. She said many members present are on the Columbia River Crossing project. She said that concern would be good for the Columbia River Crossing project to know. As the options are looked at for crossings for the river, there are some important issues. The concern at Expo does not really relate to the Delta Park project, but it is an issue that should be discussed further.
Katy Brooks who was sitting in for Larry Paulson at the Port of Vancouver asked in looking at Denver Avenue and Columbia Blvd. as it relates back to the Columbia River Crossing, what percentage of freight traffic is expected to use Denver Avenue access comings north as apposed to those coming from the south for all of the freight using Columbia Blvd. from I-5. Kate Deane said she did not know that percentage split at the top of her head. She did say of the overall traffic, 30% is using Columbia Blvd. Ms. Deane said geography has a lot to do with the area in discussion. She said in terms of the overall traffic, the splits between cars and trucks are not going to be any greater than what they are on the freeway at this point, which is about 8 to 10%. Even though the community sees this as a truck problem, there are many more cars using the interchange than trucks.
Royce Pollard said he was very supportive of the project. He said this has been a painful and grueling process over the years, but he said he has come to the conclusion that it was necessary because of the concerns of the citizens, neighborhoods, and businesses on the Oregon side. He said it is not their position to interfere in that in any way. He said this project has been very well done. He told Kate Deane that she had done a great job. Mayor Pollard said there was a resolution before the committee for recommending the approval of the I-5 Delta Park to Lombard Project and for those recommendations to go on to JPACT and Metro.
STEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 06-05 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE 5/DELTA PARK TO LOMBARD PROJECT AND DIRECT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO JPACT AND THE METRO COUNCIL. JASON TELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
John Gillam echoed what Mayor Pollard had said. He said this project has been a huge effort that they have worked on for a long time. He said it is really good to take some action on this project. He said this project has been a priority for the department and they have done a lot more outreach and engaged the community that are involved more than any type project like this. He said they are learning a lot through that process, and made a better project as a result. Mayor Pollard said some people on the Washington side of the river thought this would never happen because Oregon would never do it. He said it is a piece of cooperative work that is outstanding.
Serena Cruz said it did take a long time, but it makes for a good job. It has taken the ability to pull together the wide range of opinions, perspectives, and bring them all together in this project. She said she was excited about the new steps in the community enhancement funds.
Phil Selinger said he echoed John Gillam’s comments. He said the process has not only been extremely thorough and engaging in the community, it really respects the needs of the Kenton community, which is an emerging community with great potential. He said we also want to keep an eye on the next phase to make sure that engaged redevelopment can anticipate exactly what is going to happen with the system. He said TriMet thinks it has been an excellent process and are fully supportive.
John Gillam said that the Portland Freight Committee is in support of this project and have gone on record stating that support of Alternative 2.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Vice Chair Pollard stated the Committee was going to take a short break and asked Kate Deane to return to the front of the group. Mayor Pollard said today is the last time that Kate would be appearing before the Bi-State Committee as an ODOT employee. She has taken a position with the Portland Development Commission. Mayor Pollard said he is very impressed with her work, that she is always very professional in her approach, very open, and has an amazing ability to get along with almost anyone. Mayor Pollard presented Kate with a resolution signed by the Bi-State Coordination Committee Members stating the following: “Whereas Kate has served with the highest distinction in her work with the Oregon Department of Transportation; and Whereas, Kate has faithfully provided project information, updates, and materials for the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Project and the I-5 Delta Park Project; and Whereas, Kate has accepted a new position with the Portland Development Commission; now therefore, be it resolved, That the presentation of this resolution and $1.75 shall be provided the bearer with at least a cup of coffee at any respectable coffee house on either side of the Columbia River in the proximity of Interstate 5. That the Bi-State Coordination Committee members, alternates, staff, and public proclaim their utmost respect, admiration, and best wishes. Congratulations.” After a round of applause, a cake was presented to Kate and served to all. The meeting continued.
Dean Lookingbill referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet, and a letter distributed to members that was addressed to the Columbia River Crossing Task Force Members from RTC regarding RTC’s policy statement on guidance for the Transportation Corridors Visioning Process. Mr. Lookingbill said this states as Clark County looks forward in the 50-year vision to new corridors and where some of the corridors would make sense for possible connections across the river, the Bi-State Committee and Oregon partners would be engaged in the process.
Lynda David said this agenda item is about the Clark County Transportation Corridors Visioning Process. Included in the meeting packet, was a generalized scope of work for the Visioning Process as well as the RTC Policy Statement, which will guide the study. Ms. David said this has evolved over three months of discussion at the RTC Board meetings. It acknowledged that they have a 20-year Growth Management Plan for the County and the jurisdictions within Clark County. They also have a 20-year plus Metropolitan Transportation Plan, but it was acknowledged that growth is not going to end after 20 years, and it was also recognized by the RTC Board that there were no new corridors noted in the Plans. The Board suggested that staff should look forward to what will happen in the 50-year future for Clark County. This is included in the problem statement. As for Purpose, the Board decided that staff should be conducting a study to answer the question “How would we get around in Clark County 50-years from now?” This is the starting point for discussion in the community. Ms. David addressed the Scope of Work
Task 1 will study organization, administration, and public outreach. The study is to be guided by the RTC Board members as well as their staff. They would initiate the process and determine a policy perspective. It will be shared with the larger community, committee groups, and elected officials. The other key piece is that this visioning process really takes off from the direction provided in the 20-year Comprehensive Growth Management Planning process and carries it another 30 years into the future to make it a 50-year visioning plan. There will be a lot of assumptions built in to this.
Task 2 deals with land use assumptions. They recognize that land use and transportation drive each other. To carry forward the plan, they need to acknowledge a sense of growth over the 50 years in Clark County. They are looking at providing transportation between nodes of growth in Clark County. They will be using the Vacant Buildable Lands Model as a base.
Task 3 is transportation analysis. The key points shaping this study will focused on new corridors and a level of transit service will be assumed in the study. The idea is to serve nodes of growth within Clark County and transportation between these nodes of growth. They also began the study because the RTC Board recognized that we don’t want to preclude any short-term improvements within the study, and they may also want to look at where there are existing rural arterials that will need to be improved to facilitate the transportation between the nodes of growth. At the point where they may want to consider crossing the Columbia River, they will include their Oregon partners if they look at additional Columbia crossings. The RTC/Metro travel model will be used to build travel demand for the 50-year future.
Task 4 is mapping and report preparation, and connection with other planning efforts in the region. Ms. David said they are using the word policy framework, because they are not sure at this stage whether they will be getting to alignments for new corridors, but they do want to formulate a policy framework for transportation in the 50-year future. This will need to be linked back to their 20-year land use and transportation plans so they will be supplementing the strategic element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for Clark County with any new corridors that they come up with in the decision process. They will also be looking at how this will then be incorporated into the Clark County Arterial Road Atlas.
In terms of timelines and staffing, they intend to get going on the study in June of this year. They will be doing data compilation land use visioning this summer and fall. In winter 2006/spring 2007, they will be doing the travel demand analysis. They anticipate the recommendations and report will be complete by summer 2007. Letters will go out this week to all the Mayors of the jurisdictions in Clark County as well as transportation and planning agencies asking for their help in partnering to make this study a success.
Ms. David noted that included in the meeting packet is the RTC Policy Statement regarding the Transportation Corridors Visioning. This evolved from a letter that Port of Vancouver Commissioner Arch Miller distributed to the RTC Board at their March meeting. It was adopted by the RTC Board at their May meeting, because it is a policy statement to help shape the visioning process as well as provide the context for addressing any new Columbia River crossings. It also clarifies RTC Board’s thought on addressing the I-5 Bridge and the need to supplement or replace the I-5 Bridge.
Royce Pollard said at the Columbia River Crossing meeting the previous day, the RTC Policy Statement was presented and discussed by Commissioner Stuart. Steve Stuart said this is an opportunity to take the first step in looking at longer-term vision at how we are going to move around not only within the county but also between Clark and Multnomah County. For Clark County, they look at it as a way to look at moving between their nodes of growth, but there is a huge opportunity to look at how that might connect up with the Oregon side of the river as well and to funnel into the Regional Transportation Plan that is happening on the Oregon side as well. There is good opportunity as a Bi-State group to be able to feed into this process and come up with something.
Rod Park referred to page one of the memorandum under Problem Statement and Need for Study. When it states envisioning a 40 to 50 year timeframe for new growth areas, he questioned what was meant by new growth. Lynda David said the discussion of the study process evolved over a three-month period at the RTC Board of Directors meetings. Mayor Idsinga of Battle Ground first came to the RTC Board of Directors suggesting that we should be looking at new corridors such as a corridor linking Battle Ground to the east county area in Camas/Washougal. That might be one of the potential new corridors. What the study is going to look at is if this is feasible and is it needed. Mr. Park said his question was more of defining what is new. He said he assumes from this that there are new growth areas planned. He questioned if new meant new areas or new meant growth areas all over. Dean Lookingbill said in looking at the 50-year vision, new growth relates primarily to the outlying growth nodes. It’s not all new in that it may be farm land/green land today as much as it is the beginning of a node of a small amount of growth that is going to be forecast to see a lot more. Mr. Park asked what this meant in terms of the new development that is occurring in downtown Vancouver, if those things are a part of this strategy of moving people around in a more in-filled environment. Steve Stuart said one of the things that Clark County is looking at is that they would like to have more jobs on their side of the river. Part of this is to look at the downtown redevelopment and infill that is already happening in the City of Vancouver, looking at some of the job growth and development in some of the county’s other cities and ask how we would move between those for the citizens who are living in Vancouver who would take a job up I-5 or a job in Battle Ground, or the people in Battle Ground who would take a job in downtown Vancouver. They would be looking at how they would be moving them around between nodes. They would still recognize that there would still be people crossing the river to go to work. For those people, they would be looking at ways to provide them to connect as well. Mr. Stuart said there has not been an assumption made as far as further densification over the long haul. They have data over the next 20 years that they expect, and they would follow those assumptions out over time to a 50-year timeframe. That will allow them to see how things may look and possibly not be what we want it to be. That would open the discussion to ask if we want that development pattern to continue or not.
Royce Pollard said he understood what Mr. Park was saying. He said he felt this policy statement was generally saying new areas outside the developed areas of now and the interconnection between those developed areas. He said if the discussion is 30 to 50 years out, there is going to be a lot of new redevelopment inside built up areas as well. That is the point that Mr. Park is saying; that in 30 years downtown Vancouver may not look exactly like it is today. He said an open mind needs to be kept since this is a very long-term approach. Steve Stuart said that they are not precluding any options for what those corridors might be. They could be multimodal corridors or high capacity transit corridors. If we densify and create those different patterns of growth that could support different modes of movement, we may say that we do not want to build that many new lane miles and we should think about densifying in support different kinds of modes.
John Ostrowski said he has been watching transportation planning in Clark County for almost 30 years, and this was not done 30 years ago. He said we have spent a lot of time over the last 30 years reacting to try to fit routes through where neighborhoods were already established. They really had not done any advanced planning of looking at what might happen. There were plans done, but not to the level of really trying to get a future look. He said he felt it was obvious to him that this really needs to be done. He said he has a lot of hope for it.
Rod Park said Clark County’s visioning Study ties into what Metro is doing. He said in 2002, they had an intense UGB expansion process that continued into 2004 and 2005. He said they learned a lot and tried to further learn what the citizens want out of the systems. They purposely delayed the RTP update by two years in order to link better with the transportation. He said they did not want to do an RTP update of a land use that wasn’t decided. Mr. Park said they have launched the New Look at Regional Choices through which they will reexamine the way they carry out the region’s long-range plan. Robin McArthur and Kim Ellis would present the project.
Robin McArthur is head of Metro’s land use planning and transportation planning sections. She said Kim Ellis would discuss the Regional Transportation Plan update, but that should fit in the context of land use. They are in the scoping phase of the Regional Transportation Plan update. As they update their 2040 Plan and their Regional Transportation Plan, they want it done in a very comprehensive and broad regional perspective. They are also taking a New Look at Region 2040. Region 2040 was adopted about 11 years ago. She said they have had many successes on that project. They have a number of great transportation improvements that have been put into place, on the highway, as well as light rail transit, bike, and pedestrian. They have also seen a lot of progress in many of their town centers and regional centers and corridors. They find that in many areas there hasn’t been enough development in the way they want the development to make things grow over the long haul. They also find that a year ago they did some new population and employment projections and realized that they are growing faster in the collective region than they thought. They expect another million people in about 25 years. That was a much higher rate of growth than they had projected ten years ago when they first began 2040. She said this made them realize they need to be more assertive and aggressive about their tools to implement Region 2040 in a way that builds on the regulatory framework. Now they are focusing on what incentives they can use to spur development that will build along their corridors and town centers.
Ms McArthur distributed a flow chart of the New Look at Regional Choices from January 2006 to December 2008. Currently, they are in the Research and Policy Development phase. She highlighted each of the three Work Plan activities: Investing in Our Communities, Shape of the Region, and the Regional Transportation Plan. Ms. McArthur said the next time they make an Urban Growth Boundary decision they want to do it in a very thoughtful way that balances agricultural needs and urban needs, and also works with the natural resource issues. Also as they grow and take land in, they need to make sure they know those lands can be developed from a planning standpoint, for jurisdictional government standpoint, and from a land use standpoint. Ms. McArthur said it is important to get their research and development done this year. They plan to have a decision by Metro Council adopting the policy direction and initiate implementation in January 2007. She said they have three things moving them forward. First they will begin a legislative session in Oregon in 2007. They also have the RTP update, which needs to be completed by November 2007. That means they need to have their land use framework in place to match up with transportation investments with the other things they are doing. The final thing is that under Oregon land use law they need to produce by the end of 2007, Urban Growth Report. That report outlines the employment and population needs, land needs. In December 2008, they are required to consider whether they put more land in the Urban Growth Boundary.
Ms. McArthur referred to the flow chart and the points that include connection with their regional partners. They started the Mayors’ and Chairs’ Forum about a year ago. It is a group that meets two or three times a year to bring all the Mayors of the Cities throughout the jurisdictions including Vancouver and Clark County. It is also the County Board Chairs as well as the neighbor cities, because what ever they do in the Portland/Metro area, certainly affects those areas and visa versa. The purpose of the Forums is to engage on all the issues and provides the table to come together to talk. This is to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
Royce Pollard said the connection with the New Look and RTC’s Visioning process will be helpful to both sides of the river. Steve Stuart asked given the Supreme Court’s decision on Measure 37, how this tied in with a post Measure 37 world. He said they are facing their own issues with a land use Initiative similar to Measure 37. He asked how they could use this process to help them. Ms. McArthur said they are aware of Measure 37 and working with that. There are so many ways to address Measure 37. She said she did not have a simple answer. They are aware that that affects the shape of the landscape and how they grow. They need to make sure that as they plan for the future, they incorporate those areas.
Rod Park said the easiest answer might be to look at your service provision and how you provide it and your requirements. He said some claims are asking for fairly high densities. Current state law does not require a lot of them to provide services, except for special circumstances, outside the Urban Growth Boundary. That will have an effect on the size of those particular claims. He said it is an excellent point and a lot of ideas floating around as what to do. He said that is one of the key things.
Ms. McArthur said in closing that they do not expect a lot of regulatory change. They already have a regulatory base with the first round of Region 2040. What they are trying to do now is to remove barriers in codes to the good kind of development, mixed use, transit friendly development. They also want to provide incentives to spur development to work with the market forces as opposed to providing regulation that might limit development of land.
Kim Ellis provided a slide presentation regarding the Regional Transportation Plan update. The RTP is a 20-year plan that is updated every four years. The RTP is the threshold for federal and state funding in the region. This update will be addressing the 2005 SAFETEA-LU transportation bill. They are in the process of consulting with Federal Highways and FTA staff to ensure the work program that they have developed incorporates all the pieces necessary. At the state level, the RTP is also guided by the state planning goals. The RTP needs to be consistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan and both plans need to be consistent with the RTP. A lot of the work that they do is in cooperation and coordination with all the various levels of government. The Transportation Planning Rules also has the requirements for linking land use and transportation. The Regional Transportation Plan is a key tool for implementing the 2040. The policies that are in the current RTP really go a long way towards the 2040 implementation. The work that they will be doing as part of the update is really refining the policies and key tools for the broader New Look effort. They are taking a new approach and trying to get input much earlier in the process. The New Look integration piece is very significant. When the last major update to the RTP occurred in 2000, they were following up with the 2040 Growth Concept. Another piece that has been brought into the process by Councilor Rex Burkholder is trying to focus the plan based on outcomes and more tied to the fiscal realities the region is faced with. She said not only are they experiencing much growth, but revenue for transportation funding is continuing to decline overall and what are the priorities that they should be focusing on to achieve the broader region vision that they have. Another piece of the process is that they are not having an Advisory Committee and more targeted engagement with significant consultation and coordination with key stakeholders. The stakeholder engagement is three-part. Part One is Outreach and Education, Part Two is Coordination, Collaboration and Outreach, and Part Three is the Formal Review and Comment.
Metro is currently in the Scoping Phase of the process where they are engaging the stakeholders and identifying issues. (February to June 2006). Phase 2 is 2040 Research and Policy Development. The work being done will feed into the New Look policy direction. There will be extensive financial analysis looking at trends and options. They will identify public priorities and desired outcomes, and end with a decision in December. (June to December 2006). Phase 3 is System Development and Policy Analysis. They will use the research and the New Look policy direction to update the RTP. That will involve a project solicitation process that reconsiders current projects based on outcomes and revenue forecast. They will update the policies, and implement strategies and benchmarks, and develop a discussion draft RTP by September 2007. (January to September 2007). Phase 4 is the Adoption Process, which includes a formal 45-day public review and comment period on the Plan. Plan refinements will take place based on input. Adoption is planned in November 2007, pending air quality conformity determination. (September to November 2007). Phase 5 is Post-Adoption: State and Federal Consultation. This phase includes the air quality conformity analysis and public review methods and review. Final adoption of the 2035 RTP is early 2008. They will then submit conformity determination, federal findings, and new Plan to FHWA/FTA for certification along with submitting documents to the state. They will also update their federal functional classifications and National highway systems designations. (December 2007 to March 2008).
Key issues to address as they go through the scoping phase include: regulatory changes and New Look policy direction, unprecedented growth, impact of congestion on regional economy and livability, revenues not keeping pace with need, and aging system that competes for same resources as capital projects, serving new urban areas, significant growth in neighboring cities, integration of Regional Freight Plan and Transportation System Management and Operations Plan efforts, and match fiscal realities with desired outcomes and public priorities for transportation to better implement 2040.
On the capital side, Ms. Ellis highlighted the 2004 RTP projects unfunded gap. The streets/bridges and transit are the largest unfunded projects. The total project list is close to 1000 different projects and $10.5 billion in the 2025 preferred list with $4.2 billion in the 2025 in the financially constrained system. This is a significant gap.
The next steps include going before the Metro committees review process. They hope to have JPACT and Council consideration in June. They have a project Web site at: www.metro-region.org/rtp.
Rod Park said this is a big effort, and they are looking for additional help. Rex Burkholder has been in contact with Steve Stuart, and they want to keep good coordination between both sides of the river. There has been discussion of population and jobs coordination. Mr. Park said he hopes as these processes progress, they keep each other informed.
Royce Pollard said they are in the process of developing their Regional Transportation Plan. He said there are opportunities and the need to engage. These Plans affect each other, and they plan to keep folks informed.
Jason Tell said the funding piece of this is critical. He said that Robin McArthur had mentioned that the last update that was done was a big expansion with good planning and good land use and transportation planning, but there is no funding mechanism in place to make sure that transportation follows the way that was planned. That is a huge problem they are struggling with now. He said he was glad to hear that discussion will be a part of this process.
There were no issues raised by members.
There was no citizen comment.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2006, at Metro.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2006, at Metro.
The meeting was adjourned at 9 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|