 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, May 17, 2007, 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.
Chair Rex Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m.
Committee Members Present Sam Adams, City of Portland
Rex Burkholder, Metro Council (Chair)
Jack Burkman, WSDOT (Alternate)
Jeff Cogan, Multnomah County
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN
Fred Hansen, TriMet
Dennis Osborn, City of Battle Ground
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver (Vice Chair)
Steve Stuart, Clark County
Don Wagner, WSDOT
Bill Wyatt, Port of PortlandStaff and Public Present Ron Anderson, CRC
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland
David Cusack, Clark County
Kim Ellis, Metro
Bart Gernhart, WSDOT
John Gillam, City of Portland
Marian Haynes, Portland Development Commission
Dean Lookingbill, SW Washington RTC
Tom Markgraf, CRC
Dr. Sheila Martin, PSU
Josh Naramore, Metro
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Susan Sale, Metro
Phil Selinger, TriMet
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Mark Turpel, Metro
Walter Valenta, Bridgeton Neighborhood Assn.
Rian Windsheimer, ODOT
Joe Zehnder, City of PortlandA motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2007 meeting as written. The motion was unanimously approved.
Vice Chair Royce Pollard indicated that continuity is important in the performance of this committee. Mayor Pollard made a motion that Rex Burkholder continue to be the Chair of this committee. The nomination was seconded.
Royce Pollard indicated that because of his many responsibilities as Mayor of Vancouver he would prefer to not continue as the Vice Chair of this Committee. However, he would be willing to continue to serve on the Committee.
There was discussion regarding the Vice Chair position. Steve Stuart indicated he would be willing to serve as the Vice Chair. He was nominated and the nomination was seconded.
A voice vote was taken and Rex Burkholder and Steve Stuart were unanimously elected as the Chair and Vice Chair, respectively, of the Bi-State Coordination Committee.
Rex stated that the committee needs to focus on two main projects: Updating the Regional Transportation Plan and Land Use Plan. The RTC and City of Vancouver are also involved in similar projects. The key issues are how to align time constraints and, assessing the CRC process, are two bridges going to handle all the problems or are other solutions needed.
Dean Lookingbill discussed the handouts in reference to the SW Washington Transportation Planning overview and project implications. There are number of large scale long-range projects on the Clark County side of the Columbia River. He discussed upcoming projects and how to align the Washington and Oregon projects.
Dean indicated that HCT and transit corridors are being evaluated. The HCT map illustrates where in the process RTC is at the present time. We are determining what are the best alternatives to study further. The map is recommendation and has been through many screenings. The corridor is illustrated on the map.
Not shown on the map is a SR502 interchange into Battleground. It was not shown on the corridor and mode narrowing recommendations map. Dean does not know if it will be selected when the final decision is made.
By the end of 2007, there will be a refinement of this recommendation. There will be a blueprint of the community’s long-range solutions and an alternatives analysis study on the Columbia River Crossing issue.
Regarding the New Transportation Corridors Visioning handout, the questions are:
- How can the population get around when Clark County has one million people?
- Where would the 1million people and ½ million jobs be located?
- Where could new transportation corridors be located?
- Where are the future travel flows?
The Current and Possible Future Urban Centers map was discussed (2024=600,000 people), with 20 districts used as center points.
In the results of the study, they will be looking for alignment between the corridors, with a large number of north/south desire lines. This study shows a 20-year growth span. The projection is that the whole area fills up. This is a very different scenario than what we have today. The Columbia River Crossing is always a key issue. By fall, we will have the backbone of this study.
Jeff Hamm asked if a desire line overlays existing corridors, does that mean a particular area is already over burdened.
Dean indicated that this study is putting down a print for the future.
Steve Stuart stated he is waiting for the entire county to be identified with urban growth. If the area continues on the same growth path, the whole county will be filled. And, he is trying to convince people of this. We need to identify the transportation corridors and the greenspaces for conservation. We will focus on determining where the natural spaces and buffers will be.
In referring to the Washington Legislative Budgets for “Nickel” and Partnership Projects handout, Dean indicated that the “Partnership” package included a 9.5-cent per gallon gas tax increase phased in over 4 years. This money will be used on projects on I-5, I-205 and SR 500. Items that have been included in the long-range plan will be built. Inflationary factors are a major part of the amounts of money allocated. We need to stay with these projects.
Fred Hansen asked if that was authorization or allocation of funds.
Don Wagner indicated that the funds have been allocated.
Fred Hansen wanted to know if the Legislature identifies all projects. Can WSDOT use some of the money for non-specific projects?
Don Wagner indicated that the Legislature makes all the decisions, except for minor projects, where WSDOT can use their discretion.
Dean advised that the “Nickel” spreadsheet shows all projects approved, even if it doesn’t come exclusively from the gas tax.
Don Wagner indicated that too much shouldn’t be read into the map.
Steve Stuart advised that there are other alternatives. As long as legislators come home with all these transportation funds, there will never be talk about transit, rail, etc. Moving freight and people within the region is very important, but we will always be behind. A lot of money is being spent on a single mode.
Rex Burkholder asked how the gas tax was shared.
Don Wagner answered that, out of the 9.5-cent increase in the gas tax, 1 cent goes to the cities and counties (0.5 cents each).
Sam Adams indicated that there is a $127million gap in transportation projects in the City of Portland.
Kim Ellis discussed potential issues and recommendations for Metro’s 2035 RTP.
Local governments and TriMet are analyzing what their needs are. JPACT recommended that the RTP needs to be completed by December 2007. Metro is focusing on what is needed to begin the first round of analysis. The program needs to be accepted by the Federal government by the end of the year.
RTC is currently forecasting to the year 2030. The issue is what we should use as a list of projects on the Oregon side. Metro staff has recommended the use of the current adopted RTC 2030 financially constrained network for Clark County for the Metro 2035 financially constrained network. That leaves a 5-year gap. Three rounds of modeling will be conducted Summer 2007 and two additional rounds in Winter/Spring 2008.
Rex Burkholder commented that we might be ignoring some plan, i.e. Columbia River Crossing. What is the downside of not including 5 years of planning on the other side of the river?
Kim Ellis indicated that it is difficult to determine changes from 2030 to 2035. There will be many changes in 2030 and will include all WSDOT projects.
Fred Hansen stated that he is less concerned about speculation in 2030 versus 2035 than he is in land use in Clark County in 5 years. Land use is a very important issue.
Rex Burkholder indicated that we are trying to resolve this issue.
Fred Hansen commented that Option 2 on the Memorandum handout would ask Clark County to come up with a list of potential projects.
Dean explained that completing HCT into 2030/2035 would bring it in earlier than we would be ready for. Currently, the Columbia River Crossing project is not included. Will Metro expand the Columbia River Crossing project?
Steve Stuart observed that what happens at river makes a difference in Metro’s modeling.
Kim Ellis stated that the RTP does not include the CRC project. However, she believes that the crossing should be included.
Chair Burkholder remarked that RTC would be coming up with sample projects for the 5 years.
Dean Lookingbill indicated that we should stay with staff recommendations.
Fred Hansen wanted to know what is going to happen with the second HCT option.
Dean stated there were illustrative project plans. What is Metro’s policy discussion with items outside 2030/35?
Fred Hansen remarked that HCT in the aspirational modeling would make him feel better.
Rian Windsheimer remarked on the financial feasibility assumption in both states.
Mark Turpel remarked that on the low end we are conservative on assumptions. At the aspirational end, tell staff what you want and we can study the issues.
Kim Ellis remarked that the additional analysis process regarding the corridors will promote additional HCT, HDT, and other transit alternatives. Presently, we are leaving the analysis open.
Jeff Hamm indicated that the disparity is greater than he thought.
Dean Lookingbill commented that the assumption will be a larger transit system. We are clearly in HCT in those corridors. The CRC is making an assumption of a leg of that with additional transit. We need to have a conversation at the RTC as to whether we want to tag onto the Metro assumptions. We need some level of transit service above and beyond the current plan. We know there is need and demand.
Chair Burkholder stated that we will be coming back to you with the first run; better bus service, roadway improvements, etc. We will be having discussions on what is happening with the models. If this is agreeable to the committee, please indicate by an aye. That is agreeable to the committee per ayes.
Rex Burkholder indicated that Marian Haynes from the Portland Development Commission and Sheila Martin from PSU are here.
Marian Haynes indicated that the Portland Development Commission had modeled a regional business plan after the Oregon Business Plan. Regions have developed their own plans and have grown more popular. Competition is fierce. The importance of focusing on a region is more important. Clusters are dependent on local assets. We have to look at problems regionally. Change is constant. This region is not the cheapest place to do business.
The Commission talked to people throughout the region. Education and workforce were major concerns. Transportation is a major issue; both for moving freight and workers. Elected officials’ concerns were on the funding side. Land availability was listed as critical.
The regional business plan was meant to be an umbrella plan. Connections weren’t being made. There was no one place to go for workforce issues. Workforce agencies have joined together in the region and can be contacted at one phone number. The Freight Mobility Taskforce discusses the issues of freight and the CRC. The CRC is the priority bi-state project.
Land use was the most troublesome area. Laws, regulations and taxing environments make it difficult to get around land availability in the region. Businesses want to be close to airports. Vancouver is close to the airport and freight for Portland area. A four county economic development commission was created. A strong region benefits everyone.
The main issues are land, transportation, human beings and education. Every region is facing the same thing. In some areas, we are ahead of the game. We need to coordinate bi-state public and private sectors.
Chair Burkholder thanked Ms. Haynes for coming to this meeting and making her presentation.
Sam Adams said that family income in the City of Portland is declining. The working poor represent twenty-one percent of the working people in Portland.
Dean Lookingbill asked if there was some additional information on the 4 county development commission.
Marian Haynes indicated she thinks it would be a great idea for the commission to have a discussion with this committee.
Sheila Martin from PSU presented an update on the PSU/WSUV Work Plan. She indicated she had interviewed many of the people in this room and wanted to thank them. Caroline Long has been doing the same type of interviewing in Washington. The interviews are not finished yet. Cooperation is very important from an economic standpoint. One sensitive issue is marketing from one state to another state.
The planning issues are interesting. Dr. Martin and Professor Long are trying to get Metro and Washington people together regarding forecasting. There should be some study findings by the July meeting.
Sheila indicated they are interviewing people throughout the country with a bi-state compact. The strongest partnerships seem to be based in personal relationships.
Rex Burkholder thanked Sheila for her report. We are asking the two universities to see what other issues we can discuss.
John Gillam and Joe Zehnder from the City of Portland presented their handout regarding Hayden Island Planning Projects. They discussed the East and West Hayden Island Plans. The concept plan for East Hayden Island will be completed in approximately 90 days. The planning process for West Hayden Island will start in September 2007. A draft of the Hayden Island Plan will be completed by June 2008.
No one indicated that they wished to make a public comment.
There being no other comments or business, Chair Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|