 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, November 16, 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 (Chair)
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County
Doug Ficco, WSDOT (Alternate for Don Wagner)
Fred Hansen, TriMet
John Hoefs, C-TRAN
Dennis Osborn, City of Battle Ground
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver (Vice Chair)
Elaine Smith, ODOT (Alternate for Jason Tell)
Steve Stuart, Clark County
Bill Wyatt, Port of PortlandStaff and Public Richard Brandman, Metro
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland
Jeff Cogen, Multnomah County (Commissioner Elect)
Andy Cotugno, Metro
John Gillam, City of Portland
Jim Howell, AORTA
Dean Lookingbill, SW Washington RTC
Susan Sale, Metro
Mark Turpel, MetroChair Rex Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m.
Chair Burkholder congratulated everyone present who won an election or re-election or whose agencies had measures passed in the November 7th election.
Serena Cruz introduced Jeff Cogen (Multnomah County Commissioner elect).
Minutes of the July 20, 2006 meeting were approved as written, with two abstentions.
Chair Burkholder wanted to raise some issues regarding the Columbia River Crossing and see if this committee would like to start talking about taking a position, or at least share the members’ perspective. This committee has not had a chance to discuss the alternatives moving forward. That is an issue that concerns the committee.
Chair Burkholder and Vice Chair Pollard sent a letter, dated November 8, 2006, (green sheet in handout package), to committee members outlining their thoughts regarding the future of this committee.
Issues that need to be resolved for the Columbia River Crossing are many, including the size of the bridge, the monetary size of the project, the transit mode on both sides of the river, the sponsor of the project, management of the project and involvement by both states. Are these the key issues? Does the committee want to be involved in any issues?
Chair Burkholder opened up discussion on the issues outlined in the November 8 letter. The goal is to discuss and identify key issues.
Royce Pollard says he agrees with the items outlined in the joint letter and stated that this body has done very good work. There are meaningful things to be done and we haven’t gotten involved when we should. We should deal with some of these issues one on one or through coordination. This body adds value for our region and he is willing to commit to it. There are some very important issues coming up. This committee should give its views to the people/organizations who are going to make the decisions. There are major organizations/commissions with representation on this committee.
Steve Stuart indicated that these are five great issues. Steve is concerned that this group will get locked into the component pieces, including transit mode, the appearance of the bridge and/or how many lanes. In examining those individual pieces, we can lose sight of the committee’s goal. What do we want to accomplish? What are we trying to get out of the project? If local governments had an understanding of what our shared goals are that would help. Sometimes we become too focused with the appearance of the project. Mr. Stuart indicated he wants to agree with what it is, as opposed to what he wants. People should remember that concept.
Chair Rex Burkholder commented that there had been some review of economic development and land use forums. There was also a review of a commuter tax. Is that a good starting point?
Mr. Stuart explained he didn’t want to redo what is going on with the Columbia River Crossing project. Accordingly, there are several items that are extremely important to us that we think may not be getting the kind of focus or attention they deserve. The City of Vancouver’s design is going to be very important. Steven is concerned about design and believes everyone should be.
Rex Burkholder questioned Steve as to whether he wanted the committee to go over the entire CRC 19 options?
Steve answered “No, No!”. For me that is a goal. I think that is something that could be a shared understanding among local governments. Whatever the design is, it should enhance the revitalization of downtown Vancouver. Whatever we do has to be something that works for moving trade through the region. That’s what I meant by a shared understanding.
Mayor Pollard stated we will be looking at many big issues. The Mayor didn’t think they apply only to Vancouver.
Doug Ficco commented that he liked what was being said, but everyone needs to start coming together on this project and we are going to have to start moving fast. We are on a tight schedule, so it is important to have more of these meetings rather than less. The process is based upon land use, transportation, number of people moving, etc. It is important that people understand why we are doing this project. Everybody seems to get lost in pieces of the project. There is concern about how to keep the bridge, how to determine the transit mode, how to move freight, etc. Everyone has their own little piece of the project and become concerned over their segment. They forget the big picture. The participants in this meeting seem to be saying the CRC project participants/organizations/commissions haven’t done very well communicating. There are people still focused on pieces of the project.
Chair Burkholder interjected that the project needs to go through a period of study and development before comments can be made. Now it is time for us to start commenting on the issues.
John (from Commissioner Sam Adams’ Office) stated that Commissioner Adams would probably agree with the items being discussed. There isn’t enough time to get into all the important issues. The participants in the project need to be sharing details. The bridge influences urban design and it is important how the bridge looks, but we should also be interested in healthy development concept issues associated with the project. That would require more elaborate discussions for which we don’t have enough time.
One of the committee members indicated that we should try to move the process along. The group of 39 is not moving very fast. It does seem that we also have to be aware that we can’t read too much into the election results. We have to assume Senator Murray will remain on the Senate Transportation Subcommittee. That really makes a difference in the ability to move this project forward and we should take advantage of it. Ultimately, we will have to make a decision. We could use this group to get a consensus. I think that would be terrific.
Rex Burkholder said the committee needs to at least comment on what we agree on, so that we know what each other is thinking before we show up at the Group of 39 and say nothing. Our focus is to have this committee to establish and maintain a key role in the project and to understand why we are moving forward.
Elaine Smith stated that these are really important comments and that this could be a great venue for these actions. What does it take for a project to have credibility in a community? Also, if there is this continued forced decision-making process, that may ultimately undermine the project’s progress. How much are we willing to pare down and trust the process. We need to keep our vision broad on this process, so there is enough opportunity for the public to buy-in because of the broader view. I think that is important.
Doug Ficco said that the CRC project is on a tight schedule. How long do you study a problem when you know it is a problem? I left Vancouver (Ridgefield) at 6:00 a.m. this morning and it took me almost 1-1/2 hours to get here. That’s how bad it is and we continue to study the problem. We need to stop talking and do something. We spent over a year going through the process so far and have spent close to $20M. That is a lot of money and with little progress.
Serena Cruz suggested less narrowing of the alternatives and to quickly move to a more realistic approach. Let’s just move forward. The impression is that the project personnel want us to narrow the vision. Many people on the task force feel the project is being moved forward in such a way that it is taking a long time to move into the narrowing process. Commissioner Cruz believes we need to take less time getting through the elimination process and move forward as quickly as possible into the evaluation process. She does think that there is tension about how much the project commissions (boards, committees, etc.) want us to learn of the alternatives. How much time is going to be spent getting acceptance from the larger groups involved in the narrowing process or, alternatively, accept less narrowing?
Elaine Smith indicated that the committee has a valuable role to play in land use and economic development issues that are on both sides of the river.
Chair Burkholder stated we need to talk to each other in order to know what the issues are. One of the immediate issues is the credibility and success of the project. The committee has to make sure it looks at everything. Are we going to narrow down our review of the issues or study larger projects in order to make sure these questions are answered?
Vice Chair Pollard remarked that these meetings give us a chance to discuss the issues. The projects are wasting money and we should be moving faster. People in Vancouver are asking why we can’t get our act together and how many years were spent on the last study. We should know what is needed within certain parameters and let the people in charge make a decision. We are wasting time on these issues and being criticized for not making a decision.
Steve Stuart said that he shares Mayor Pollard’s frustration. Steve’s vision is the same as Commissioner Cruz. We need to get off this narrowing concept. Alternatives are needed. If you don’t have alternatives, there are lawsuits. It would be great if this group stated they are going to study the alternatives. Let’s deal with real alternatives, so that there is credibility. If the process has credibility, the people don’t feel like they are getting a single answer told to them. Stop spending a lot of money and a lot of time before the alternatives analysis is done.
Commissioner Adams suggested that this committee take on an issue that is not being discussed by other committees. There are three or four committees already focusing on the Columbia River Crossing. It seems that most of the organizations represented here are part of at least some of the other committees. The crossing should not be on this committee’s list of potential projects. What are the other transportation needs? We need to take on a different issue that is going to move forward.
It was indicated by Chair Burkholder that the organizations already discussing the bi-state issues are missing the informal discussions that take place in other committees. There is a need for this committee. We need to share information in this type of forum.
Sam Adams advised that he would recommend taking a piece of the issue that is not being discussed by CRC organizations. I don’t believe this is a good use of the talent around the table.
Fred Hansen stated the committee needs to reflect on adding value. Fred also indicated that the alternatives need to be narrowed. There are two areas we should discuss and that have value to participants around this table. The first one is three through lanes in each direction and whatever is necessary for merging/exiting. For the merging/existing lanes, there will probably be a need for another three lanes in much of the area, so it will actually be six lanes in each direction. After a while, a merge lane that goes for 4 or 5 miles becomes another lane. This committee could deal with the lane issue fairly fast. The second issue is whether the transit option should be light rail or not. We need to discuss how light rail would operate in the real world. There is a lot of angst I know about TriMet operating in Vancouver. There would be some value in discussing the mechanisms involved. We could share meaningful discussions on these two issues.
Vice Chair Pollard stated that we would not have this type of discussion in a larger group. We need to get information on options.
Steve Stuart said that Fred’s suggestion could help the operations side of the issues. Ultimately, this is a lightning rod issue that goes beyond operations. There are ways to get to a shared understanding that takes a lot of the heat off. If the City of Vancouver is the terminus for various transit modes and if the City of Vancouver is going to pay for it, the County doesn’t care as much. At that point, the County is not involved. The number of lanes is important for the Oregon side AND the Washington side. There are bottlenecks south of the I-5 Bridge that will never be gone. If there are going to be three through lanes, plus 2 or 3 lanes that end up looking like through lanes, a bottleneck is going to be created. We have shared interests on both sides of the river regarding the number of transit lanes and modes.
Chair Burkholder questioned how a transit mode is made viable. Also, should this committee be a forum to talk to the transportation commissions about their goals and our joint needs? Let’s have discussions about this region and how it is possible to resolve the issues. Is that something we would like to do? It has worked well in the past when we have shared these concerns.
Doug Ficco indicated that his organization (WSDOT) has reorganized so it doesn’t have a lot to do with development of this project.
Rex Burkholder stated that there may be some legislative issues too. This is going to be a big challenge for both states and their legislatures to agree. Does the commission know what is going on?
Mr. Ficco indicated that he was with the commission last night and they are fully versed on the project.
Rex Burkholder remarked that we have a sense for some of the issues that we can work on in the next year to influence the DIS and also to talk about the operational aspects of the bridge.
Commissioner Adams said for the record that he is not interested in plowing ground that gets plowed at the other meetings.
Chair Burkholder said that this is an opportunity to present and represent items that are not getting done.
Sam Adams indicated he is interested in issues that are unique.
Rex Burkholder indicated that is the committee’s intention.
Dennis Osborn asked if we have a Gant chart for the CRC group. A Gant chart would help, so this committee won’t be rehashing issues.
Chair Burkholder commented that we would deal with important areas that are not being discussed and/or reviewed by another group. We can do analysis. We would deal with the issues in more detail.
Doug Ficco indicated that there was one item on the November 8, 2006 letter (third paragraph) regarding population and job forecast numbers used in the upcoming draft environment impact statement for the CRC project. The project is ready to go into the next round of modeling. Whatever information is completed by November 30, 2006 is the modeling that will be used. The modeling is very important to the schedule. Two months have already been lost on the schedule and there can’t be any more delays. A locally preferred alternative is needed by the end of the year. If this phase of the project is not completed by then, the project is in trouble.
Dean Lookingbill had some further comments regarding the direction of the committee. As we approach the narrowing of alternatives, as we discussed before, part of the forecast will include a draft alternative requested by Clark County and its member cities. We adjusted the forecast for that alternative. At that time, it was made clear that there would be a final DEIS, which is now being prepared for publication, by the first of the year. The idea was to take advantage of that forecast, and remold the forecast to be used for the Columbia River Crossing to reflect Clark County issues. In the meantime, the Oregon jurisdictions had continued discussions. The other issue that is ongoing is that there are discussions going on between the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. For FHA, we need a 20 year forecast from the time a project is done which pushes towards a 2035 time frame. The FTA project forecasts across the country are 2030. We have discussions underway between Federal Highways and Federal Transit to indicate which forecast year is correct. There shouldn’t have to be two forecasts. That needs to be resolved.
Mark Turpel added that we need to affirm that the forecast date will stay with a 2030 horizon. There are a number of changes and we would like to come back to you with specific numbers and recommendations as to how we worked this out, so that RTC is not held up and you can move ahead on the draft part.
Chair Burkholder stated that we do not want to slow down the process. Is 2030 the appropriate year to use for a forecast?
Dean Lookingbill questioned what is expected of this committee before the end of the month with the WSDOT alternative deadline?
Rex Burkholder advised that the members will be informed as to where this is going. We will work closely with Washington State, so the process is not slowed down. We will advise if there are any issues that need to be resolved by the end of the year.
Richard Brandman had a comment about the CRC project. There is an enormous amount of information available for the Columbia River Crossing project that will never go to the task force or this group because it is so detailed it would take hours to convey. There is far more information available than you are actually getting. One of the things that we have done in the past when we are at decision time for moving projects forward or narrowing is to have workshops. They may be one-half day workshops for interested officials and those who are interested in getting that level of detail. The workshops really get into the traffic data, the pros and cons of replacing bridges and supplemental bridges, etc. and the issues related to all of those kinds of decisions. There is an enormous amount of work performed. Because of the time constraints and the dynamics of the task force, it is hard to get that level of detail any other way.
Chair Rex Burkholder welcomed Dr. Sheila Martin (PSU) and Associate Professor Caroline Long (WSU-Vancouver) to present their proposal for a PSU/WSU joint project to go beyond the CRC.
Dr. Sheila Martin introduced herself and Caroline Long. We are trying to preserve the idea of bi-state cooperation. Many of you were at the bi-state conference this past March and at that conference you heard both of the Governors (Oregon and Washington) speak very eloquently about the importance of bi-state cooperation and their enthusiasm for having us all work together on finding better ways of cooperation between the two states. During the small group discussions, there were a lot of ideas developed that could resolve issues with bi-state cooperation.
The business community is already moving forward on these things. They have a proposal for a four county council and there is some follow-up happening on some of these ideas. There was a meeting this past summer in Congressman Baird’s office, where he encouraged us to continue to move forward and try to find positions that will help us cooperate, without the interference of the Federal Government. That is an important factor here. The attendees of that meeting decided it was time to stop talking in generalities and strive to identify some of the tangible benefits of developing better arrangements for bi-state cooperation.
Background research has been done and Caroline talked about how many states have been moving toward cooperation.
Professor Long stated that it is probably no surprise that there are institutional arrangements that states use in order to address broad policies and concerns. The arrangements vary as far as the topic, but basically the policies, including transportation, are not within state borders. Sheila and I started to look at what other states are doing in order to address some of these larger policy issues that are beyond state borders. Our research is looking at cooperative state solutions to share interstate challenges. We do this to avoid preemption by the Federal Government, so the states can have more control. Also, the states don’t feel like they are risking their sovereignty by entering into arrangements with other states.
It appears that the main vehicle for cooperation is the proliferation of bi-state or interstate compacts, which are formal legal arrangements to pursue a variety of issues from vital concerns to transportation, education and even correction issues. This keeps a level of state control. Compacts vary as to what they do. Some are advisory, where states come together and decide they want to study an issue and want to formalize an advisory group. Other compacts are more specific, i.e., they establish regulatory agencies, review guidelines in order to address policy issues, etc. There are more states using these compacts in order to address bi-state/multi-state issues. Last year, 49 states extended existing compacts or created new compacts.
It has been very interesting and an experimental concept that is increasing, so there is a possibility for this bi-state region. There have been successes and we would like to investigate further as to whether or not there might be a bi-state cooperation opportunity here.
Dr. Martin stated that the question is how are we going to find out what are the best opportunities. Where is the most leverage in these bi-state agreements. What we are proposing to do is ask the business community about their experiences in trying to work across the river. They don’t pay attention to jurisdictional boundaries the way many of us in the public sector do, so we want to ask them about their experience in operating in a bi-state region. We want to ask how it affects the economy in general and how it affects their business in particular. We will take their ideas and the issues they raise and bring those responses back to the public sector. We will attempt to figure out why some of the problems are occurring or why some of the opportunities are never there or are not being taken advantage of. We will be looking at some of the other states with state cooperation agreements to see what ideas they have come up with for addressing some of the barriers we have found in our own region.
Professor Long indicated that their approach will be twofold. They will conduct background research, which will be used to find the successes in other states. There are some resources available. There is a national center that has a database that evaluates past efforts. It is not as thorough as they would like. We would like to find out what has been successful in the past and why. Then we are going to focus on learning more from the business community. We are posing a number of open-ended interviews with major stakeholders in both Oregon and Washington to further investigate issues. Items that have been successful/unsuccessful would be researched. These are open-ended interviews, which will help us find out about the past and guide us in the future. These interviews will also find out what solutions they recommend. We would bring back that information to the public sector. By taking this approach, we will try to evaluate the level of buy-in from the business community and also community members in order to find out if this is the path that should be pursued.
Sheila Martin remarked that this committee could help to shape what would be done with all the information. A report would be provided summarizing the results. We could develop brochures and presentations that could be used to take the information out to the public.
Chair Burkholder indicated that there is a catch. Sheila and Caroline need resources to produce this study. This is a great proposal and it is something that would help us. This is a problem solving mechanism. We have identified a problem and we are responding to that problem. Caroline and Sheila need money to go ahead with this study. The total requested funding is $25,000, which comes out to about $2,000 from each agency. What I would like to ask each of you is whether your organizations can commit $2,000 or more (some of the organizations may have some resource restrictions).
Why aren’t we doing some of these things to work together. We should take advantage of this opportunity because we are one metropolitan area. Can we count on a commitment from your organizations? Metro has already committed some dollars and additionally has offered help from our Data Research Center for this project. It seems to me like a good idea and I would like to ask each of your organizations to throw in that fairly small amount of money, so that we can get the project up and running. We will just go around the table and you can respond.
Commissioner Adams responded that this is fantastic work that we are contemplating and he is very supportive. The City of Portland will put in $5,000, because we are much larger than some of the other local governments around the table. I see this as a high priority. The Commissioner asked Sheila and Caroline who they view as the sponsor of their work. Is it this committee?
Professor Long indicated that everyone contributing funds would be a sponsor.
Commissioner Adams clarified that, by sponsorship, he doesn’t mean logo and credit. Who do you anticipate taking your work and determining what will be done with the study. That is what I mean by sponsorship. Does this fit with the initiative of the Bi-State Coordination Committee?
Rex Burkholder remarked that sponsors could be found after the work is done.
Sam Adams wants to identify the sponsors as soon as possible, so that they feel some enlistment with the work before it is done.
The contributors include City of Portland ($5,000), Clark County ($5,000), Port of Portland, Multnomah County, and City of Battle Ground ($2,000). Dean Lookingbill and Mark Turpel will follow up with the remaining Committee Members.
Addison Jacobs stated that the Port of Vancouver will probably contribute, but she must check with Larry Paulson before committing to the contribution.
Sam Adams commented that if something comes of the study that is not germane to the Columbia River Crossing, but would be of use and interest to local governments and agencies that would be of value.
Chair Burkholder thanked the members for contributing. This is really good work.
Chair Burkholder noted that past meetings of this committee have been scheduled on an as needed basis. How frequent should meetings be? We should probably have bi-monthly meetings, if not less frequently.
The committee is cognizant of the difficulties the people from Washington experience getting here at 7:30 a.m. When we have a meeting in Portland, we can schedule it in the afternoon, instead of the morning, so that the Washington people can travel against the traffic flow. We can schedule an afternoon meeting time when the committee meets at Metro.
Rex Burkholder wanted to advise the committee members that there is a conference entitled “Is Tolling in Our Future?” scheduled in Vancouver, WA on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 12:30 to 5:30 p.m., at EB Hamilton Hall at the Historic Reserve. There is an announcement in the handout package.
Jim Howell brought a handout, entitled “What a Comprehensive Columbia Crossing package built around a new Multi-modal Bridge will do”. Mr. Howell indicated that the study outlines four compromises for the Columbia River Crossing problems. The handout will be copied and sent to the members.
There being no other comments or business, Chair Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 8:41 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Sale
Recording Secretary
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|