 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, July 20, 2006, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. at the Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
Committee Members Sam Adams, City of Portland
Rex Burkholder, Metro Council
Fred Eberle, ODOT (Alternate)
Fred Hansen, TriMet
Eric Holmes, City of Battleground
Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland (Alternate)
John Ostrowski, C-Tran
Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver
Don Wagner, WSDOTStaff and Public Barb Chapman, Metro
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland
Andy Cotugno, Metro
Kim Ellis, Metro
Pat Emmerson, Metro
John Gillam, City of Portland
Jim Howell, AORTA
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Kelly Love, Congressman Baird’s Office
Robin McArthur, Metro
Sharon Nasset, ETA
Jennifer John, Metro
Steven Matthews, WSDOT
Thayer Rohrbaugh, City of Vancouver
Kris Strickler, CRC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Rex Wong, CRCChair Rex Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:34 a.m. Minutes of the May 18, 2006 meeting were approved as written.
Sam Adams presented a draft resolution (blue handout), for Bi-State Coordination Committee consideration and recommendation to the Portland City Council that the City consider the adoption of a 45-day public notice for the City Council to consider a temporary moratorium in the Hayden Island area. Councilor Adams stated that in voting to support the resolution, the Committee will not be supporting the moratorium, but the City Council’s consideration of a 45-day Notice of a possible moratorium. In the estimation of Commissioner Adams, the Columbia River Task Force (CRC), and JPACT, this is a regional transportation issue. This is not about business practices and particular companies; rather it is about the impact a development of this kind would have on traffic congestion on Hayden Island. According to the 2004 traffic data for I-5 at Hayden Island, one “big box” store would add 13,000 trips per day to the approximate 10,000 trips per day now experienced. The Committee also needs to consider the plan by the State of Michigan, owner of the Jantzen Beach Center, to redevelop their site into a combination of large and small retail stores; and the future plans for the mobile home park (800 trailers), which is owned by another out-of-state developer. The potential impact on traffic from these two projects is not available at this time.
City of Portland is currently considering initiation of a neighborhood plan for Hayden Island, which will take 18-24 months to develop. This will be the first neighborhood plan for Hayden Island, whose zoning dates back to the 1950s.
Fred Hansen said that, although traffic impacts are a concern, the CRC project makes it important to choose where a new bridge would go. TriMet is concerned about this and does not want to compromise on a location.
Parallel concerns on the North side of the Columbia River were discussed. Mayor Pollard and City of Vancouver Transportation Director, Thayer Rohrbaugh, described development plans west of the Red Lion in the former Boise Cascade land. Mayor Pollard noted that this development did not directly rely on I-5 for access. The City of Vancouver’s coordination with Port of Vancouver has been outstanding.
The proposed mixed-use development on the former Boise Cascade property will have 3,000 housing units, and 25,000 square feet of retail and restaurant area. This redevelopment will be funded by millions of dollars from the state and federal governments, and will encompass land and rail development. The site, going from the far right side of the map (just south of Esther Short Park) to the LaFarge area, will be developed into a new “city” of approximately 20,000 on the waterfront. There are several proposed projects as part of the redevelopment, such as the Grant Street realignment which would create a western major access to serve the development area connecting north to Mill Plain Boulevard (approximately 16,000 trips a day); parts of Franklin and 6th Streets going under the intersecting rail lines; a roundabout adjacent to the new hotel; and relocation of the Columbian newspaper offices from its current location on 8th Street, and redevelopment of that site. This development will bring 5,000 additional jobs to the area. Timeline for the development is to break ground in 2 to 2-1/2 years.
The City of Vancouver is working closely with the Port of Vancouver to make sure rail service works well with the city. The plan is not only for urban city development, it includes marine development. The latest survey of Port employees shows that 75% live in the Clark County and Vancouver area.
Commissioner Adams consulted with the CRC folks and will have an LPA within 18 to 24 months. In Oregon, the maximum length for a temporary development moratorium is 24 months. It will take the City of Portland approximately 18 to 24 months to create a neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plan should be ready before any decision-making about the CRC takes place. Once the issues are identified in the moratorium, the moratorium will be lifted.
Chair Burkholder expressed appreciation to Commissioner Adams for his courage in bringing this to the Committee.
MOTION: Hansen moved, seconded by Pollard, to approve the resolution. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Burkholder gave an overview of the letter and list of questions he and Mayor Pollard sent to Committee members dated July 12, 2006 (green handout).
Robin McArthur introduced Kim Ellis, the Project Manager for the RTP for the Oregon side of the Columbia River, and distributed a handout (the New Look RTP Update, dated June 2006). She commented it’s important to integrate on all levels of planning, from the policy/political level to the staff level.
Everyone was asked to read through the questions attached to the joint letter from Mayor Pollard and Councilor Burkholder to see if these are the right questions to be addressing and to have staff be addressing.
The Port of Portland indicated that it is involved in a trade capacity study looking at what we see long term as trade activities at Port facilities and public trade terminals, and how these activities have a direct impact on bi-state infrastructure and land use. The activities will be integrated into the New Look. The timeframe for results is September.
The Port of Portland is also in process of planning the PDX airport master plan update. Invariably, it will have an impact on both land use and transportation facilities. This is also a joint project of freight movement involving both Ports. There is a regional freight plan, a statewide plan, and Washington is currently involved in some substantial freight studies. Those kinds of things need to be factored in more directly, and warrant some conversation.
An inference of jobs and housing appear in both columns – rather than look at these issues individually for Metro/Multnomah County vs. Vancouver/Clark County; see if they fit together and, if they don’t, have both sides come back with ideas for better jobs/living balance; then go back to the individual agencies and think outside the boxes.
Over the past 20-30 years, Clark County and Vancouver haven’t created nearly as many jobs as Oregon. A lot of people moved to Clark County because of lower housing costs. One way to relieve the transportation problem is to create more jobs in Clark County. The problems are easy to identify, but solutions are difficult. Oregonians need to understand this issue and the price they pay for this imbalance in transportation and other areas, and assist in finding a solution. It was suggested other governments in the region could assist.
There are significant land use and transportation issues, especially in the I-5 corridor. If there wasn’t a river or a state boundary, what are the issues that should be looked at? Is there a duplication of things such a jail facilities, entertainment and convention venues? Are residency requirements for out-of-state residents affecting the higher education facilities? Look at how neighborhoods work together. What are the overall transportation and land use issues being faced on both sides of the river? How well are the transit systems working on both sides of the river? Think in terms of a regional transportation system plan, rather than just I-5 and I-205.
It was commented that the focus seems to be on just Clark County and Multnomah County, with a tendency to forget the outlying areas like Clackamas and Washington Counties. The Big Look is looking at other areas like St. Helens, etc. This is important because there has been discussion of a Columbia River bridge between St. Helens and the Washington side.
Commissioner Adams suggested the group review the transportation assets, 5-year plans, expenditures, and budgets for both sides of the river for accountability and to determine if local money is being spent appropriately or not.
Dean Lookingbill commented that projects like the two listed for Clark County are usually approached by staff in terms of what can be done for Clark County and then how to connect the project to Oregon. The reality is that each agency works in a similar manner. Chair Burkholder would like to seek funding for coordination of staffs vs. each agency looking at projects internally and then externally, based around the river crossings.
It was suggested having Portland State University do a study on this, compiling a list of all the studies that have been done and their implications. The focus of each study is driven by the organization; the Committee needs to see the totality of all these studies. PSU has effectively been used in evaluating projects for the region.
Toll Roads/Tolling: It was noted that there is a research study being conducted on the effects of a toll road, which addresses:
- the land use and economic implications;
- how to handle the diversity in income, sales and property taxes between Oregon and Washington;
- what challenges need to be overcome; and
- the impact, positive or negative, of a toll road.
John Ostrowski noted that tolling should be an interim issue on the way to other solutions. The study would need to be quick and focused.
Larry Paulson reminded the group not to lose sight of freight rail issues. Port of Portland is looking at building a potential rail yard in the eastern part of the region. There are two rail corridors going through the region – Burlington North Santa Fe (BNSF) and Southern Pacific Rail lines.
What is the next major land use area we’d like to see connected from a bi-state corridor? The solution we create now should be looking ahead to the next 25 years. Don’t look at river crossings as exclusively for interstates, look at them in connection with more interior systems. Several cities are looking at connections across the river/border. Scappoose is already talking about a new bridge. A Woodland to St. Helens bridge has been discussed. The mayors of both Gresham and Troutdale have recently expressed interest in discussing how a bridge crossing in that area would work. What effect would a bridge in any of these areas have on jobs and housing? When the I-205 bridge was built, the eastern part of Clark County boomed with housing.
Mayor Pollard stated a concern that efforts to talk about Columbia River crossings should keep focused on the significant problem of right-of-way for the I-5 bridge.
Chair Burkholder summarized the new ideas the group needs to wrestle with are:
- Funding – a lot more analysis, more than what both sides are doing individually.
- How do we talk about the region? Our boundaries are way outside of the Metro region.
- Freight rail.
- Passenger rail - how to increase long distance passenger rail service.
- What do we need to do and what are our resources?
We will come back to the next meeting with a work plan.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2006 at the Clark County Elections Building. There may be a conflict – the ”Get Centered” study tour to look at suburban elements in Vancouver, B.C. is scheduled for September 14-15, also. Members will be informed of the new meeting date as soon as possible.
Jim Howell shared recent newspaper articles from the Vancouver (B.C.) Sun, titled Commute Times Decrease: Defying National Trend, and BC Residents are Driving Less, Provincial Figures Reverse National Trend. About 50 years ago, the U.S. was on a freeway-building boom. Vancouver, B.C.’s federal law didn’t provide any money for building freeways, while we were getting lots of funding (approximately 90% of the cost). As an alternative, they devised a sea bus system to go across the inlet with huge bus hubs on either end. Today our funding is really limited, so we have to do something different. After 50 years, Vancouver, B.C. still isn’t dependent on autos like we are, they have built a bus system, sky train, commuter rail, and improved their freight rail service. In 50 years, are we going to look back and ask if we did the right thing in just building more freeway bridges?
Sharon Nasset pointed out that one of the transportation options on the green handout was “the BNSF rail bridge could be replaced with a two level structure for rail and truck traffic”, presented as a new idea. In 1908, when the railroad was built, the railroad and the citizens fought over putting traffic over the bridge. Similar size cities have at least two bridges more than Portland. Transportation corridors are meant to be used for hundreds of years, and the current corridors we use were those of the Native Americans and they were not using fossil fuels. Our historic bridge was an engineering marvel 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago, but its time to fix the historic bridge and move on. I’m hoping you will look at building a new corridor, and not be stuck on the use of fossil fuels, which damage our economy as well as our environment.
There being no other comments or business, Chair Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 8:54 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|