Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, October 18, 2007, 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.

Meeting Report

I. Welcome and Approval of July 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes

The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Metro Councilor Rod Park at 7:40 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th floor Training Room, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:

Committee Members
Roland Chlapowski, City of Portland Alternate Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO Rod Park, Metro Councilor Alternate Larry Paulson, Port of Vancouver Executive Director Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator John Williams, City of Battle Ground Alternate
Staff and Interested Guests
Ed Barnes, Washington State Transportation Commissioner Jack Burkman, WSDOT Andy Cotugno, Metro David Cusack, Clark County Kim Ellis, Metro Mark Harrington, RTC Carolyn Long, Washington State University Vancouver Dean Lookingbill, RTC Sheila Martin, Portland State University Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County Sharon Nasset, Citizen/ETA Dale Robins, RTC Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Mark Turpel, Metro Diane Workman, RTC

While waiting for members to arrive for quorum, Mr. Park began with agenda item 2.

II. Washington/Oregon Interstate Cooperation Project – Final Report, Findings

Dean Lookingbill noted the memorandum included in the meeting packet and copies of the Draft Final Report were distributed. He said about a year ago, there was a Bi-State discussion that fostered the idea of looking into the issue of bi-state compacts which was expanded into a broader look at interstate cooperation ideas. This led to the use of PSU and WSU Vancouver to provide a survey and report on an Interstate Cooperation Project. Highlights of the report have been presented to the Bi-State Committee, but there is now a final report. Sheila Martin and Carolyn Long would present the Final Report and Findings. Mr. Lookingbill said the memorandum in the meeting packet highlights the findings. He said they are seeking any feedback on the report from members. The report would then be finalized.

Carolyn Long said they would briefly go over some of the findings in the report and their recommendations. Ms. Long said they started this project several months ago. They were asked to look at opportunities for bi-state cooperation between Washington and Oregon. She said it evolved over time as to what they were looking for, but they were looking at creating an inventory of opportunities for cooperation between the states. They were reviewing interstate cooperation in other states and models or mechanisms that have been used successfully. They were charged with looking at benefits and challenges to bi-state cooperation and describing some of the mechanisms that are used in other states and our states as well.

Ms. Long referred to page 2-3 of the final report listing some of the ways that states work together. These were listed from most formal to least formal. The most formal being

1. Interstate Compacts. Ms. Long highlighted the mechanisms on down to the least formal.
2. Uniform Laws,
3. Multi-state Legal Actions,
4. Administrative Agreements,
5. National Associations,
6. Regional Associations,
7. Voluntary Associations,
8. Informal Administrative Agreements (a.k.a. Mutual Assistance Agreements),
9. Memorandum of Understanding,
10. Advisory Committees,
11. “Gentlemen’s Agreements”, and
12. Ad Hoc Cooperation.

The types of mechanisms used by states is dependent primarily on the type of the policy issue that they are facing as well as political and social conditions, which make certain mechanisms more amenable than others. Which mechanism that is appropriate varies on a number of issues. If it is a major issue, most would suggest that a formal agreement is useful.

Ms. Long highlighted some of the main points of the Findings. She began with the challenges to bi-state cooperation. She said many of the respondents indicated that the most significant challenge to cooperation is the political and bureaucratic differences between the two states. The two states are organized differently as far as when their legislators meet and the types of constituencies that the legislators are representing. There are differences in the size of the two major cities, which affect the focus of the legislature as far as their dollars. When the political structure is different, the bureaucracies align differently. That is seen most remarkably in transportation and how transportation agencies are different between the two states. Another limitation, which is structural, is an overall perception that people believe that the cooperation is difficult because of these structural concerns.

A second challenge identified is the differences in taxes and funding between the two states. Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax and Washington doesn’t have an income tax, and those different tax structures were a barrier to some to cooperation. Most of the respondents focused on the fact that there are a number of Clark County residents that work in Portland and pay an income tax to Oregon and they feel that the number of Washington people affected by that creates a concern that cooperation is difficult because there is taxation without representation issue.

Funding was also an issue that was expressed. States have different priorities. Some legislators in Washington would say that they focus on education more than perhaps Oregon does. The differences in priorities are a challenge and a barrier to overcome. Another barrier is incomplete information. They were very interested in how many respondents that indicated that old stereotypes or lack of knowledge of what the other side of the river is doing. They admitted that this is a challenge to cooperation because of incomplete information and challenges to obtain that information. There are problems sometimes with communication between the states and those problems mean that cooperation becomes a little more difficult. A subtle barrier that was identified by many respondents was what they called parochialism, which are attitudes and perceptions of one another. She said that many people believe that there are differences between the two states and there is a lack of trust at times in dealing with each other cooperatively because of past history. That is a barrier that does still exist, even though many of the respondents were noting that there is a shift that is occurring and that they really say that there are more positive relationships between the two states both with the elected officials as well as stakeholders.

The main advantage of cooperation that was expressed was efficiency. It is easier if both states work together on major policy issues because they both will benefit and also make better use of public resources. A second advantage is regional and global influence. Because the states are interdependent in many ways (sharing transportation, economy, workers), this interdependence means that the states will have a bigger voice on a regional, national, and local scale if they work together to address major policy issues and to compete. The respondents said they are not competing against each other; they are competing against other regions. They need to come together regionally in order to be more effective in this manner. Another advantage to cooperation that was identified is the fact that we are able to get more support from both congressional delegations if they come together and find a united front. Many federal officials are looking for that type of cooperation to exist prior to requests for funding. There is the expectation that we will work together in order to address some major issues. Another advantage to cooperation is information. Although the states are very similar, each state has pioneered some important policy solutions to issues that have existed. For instance, Oregon works more than Washington with minority populations. Respondents indicated that Washington could learn a lot from those experiences. Also identified was the regional imperative. Many issues involve costs and benefits that are external to a single state. If these are external, the only way to address them is to come together and look regionally. One noted that the collective approach has the multiplier effect. We show that we are part of a regional group and illustrate what we are trying to do collectively.

As for the disadvantages of cooperation, many interviewees did not speak to the disadvantages of cooperation. Despite the many benefits, some acknowledged that extensive regional cooperation also carries costs. The most common of these is the time required to develop relationships and make decisions with a larger and more diverse body of decision makers. The second is the loss of autonomy. The risk that one participant may dominate over another and lose some of their own authority. Finally, there are times when despite the time spent to reach an agreement between states, a solution is not forthcoming, the resulting frustration can damage attempts to restart negotiations or work toward other bi-state solutions.

Ms. Long introduced Sheila Martin to present examples of bi-state cooperation that have been successful. She said they had an international conference in Portland that was hosted by both the state of Washington and the state of Oregon. There were people coming into Portland from over 45 different countries. They had organized tours both in Seattle and in Portland. The idea was that those flying into Seattle would do the Seattle tours on Monday; if they were flying into Portland they could do the Portland tours. She said that people did not understand that they could not do both in one day. She said the perception that is out there internationally is that there is not a differentiation between the Seattle area and the Portland area much less the Portland and Vancouver areas. She said the image is that we really are an integrated region.

Ms. Martin said in terms of what we already do well is interesting. She said the things that we already do well are also the things that people want us to continue to work on. Transportation is an obvious one, because people understand that things have to meet in the middle and cooperation is necessary in order to work. The cooperation between the two states in transportation in the past was sited as going well. There were some differences of opinion with respect to whether or not more formal arrangements are needed in order to prove that. The second example was the cooperation of the two Ports. The Ports have a private sector orientation, but with the ability to cooperate because they are immune to some of the antitrust legislation that other private sector companies are subject to. A third point is workforce. This is partially driven by the fact that the two people running the workforce agencies have each been at each others job. They have each lived in each other’s state and been in each other’s jobs in the past. They really understand the political environment that each other is working in. The lack of understanding of the political environment of a state can be a barrier, and in this case there is understanding and not a barrier for things to move forward. Economic development was also mentioned as something that we do well, but would like to do better. There has been a lot of movement toward bi-state economic development organizations, but there also is still a real sense that this an area where the incentive structure is such that everyone is creating jobs in our own territory and it is very difficult to escape that. Ms. Martin said the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies is held up as an example of a place where the two states have come together to do some good in the region.

Some of the things that are seen as needing better work include the transportation piece and economic development as well. She said there is some confusion about what roles will be played by all the different economic development organizations that are being formed in the four-county region. Some suggestions for moving forward include convene more regular discussions between the legislatures. There has been some of that. People would like to see the Bi-State Conference that IMS has put on occasionally be more regular with a work plan that comes out of it. The suggestions also include that the two states within the region should do better at long term planning, but also hesitancy of moving towards the idea of integration of the land use and planning. Ms. Martin said there was an editorial in the September 4th Oregonian calling for Clark County to have a voting representative on Metro. This is probably not the first time it has been suggested, but said the idea that our regional governance should include Clark County is out there.

Ms. Martin said the respondents were asked if they had any specific recommendations for the committee. She said that some of the challenges that were identified earlier in the report are difficult to recommend how to fix. She said their recommendations address some of the larger challenges to bi-state cooperation. They have some that they think will help move this forward. Many of these come from the interviews, but also their own thoughts after reviewing the findings.

The first recommendation is to identify whether grass roots support exists for regional efforts. The level of public support for cooperation could be measured by a quantitative survey or focus groups. If elected officials are aware that their constituents view cooperation as a viable mechanism for problem solving, they may be more likely to support it. A second recommendation is to institutionalize a regularly held bi-state cooperation forum. While a bi-state forum is an informal mechanism for cooperation, they are confident that the participation of major stakeholders in the region will provide the momentum for more formal institutional arrangements. Action items at the end of the forum direct participants to work toward achievable goals. The third recommendation is to encourage public-private partnerships to advance the interests of the bi-state region. One of the key factors that were a variable to the success of the cooperative efforts were partnerships with private industry and partnerships with other public agencies. If you have those partnerships, you are more likely to have success. The last recommendation is to form an advisory compact. About 25 percent of the stakeholders identified the creation of a bi-state compact as one formal mechanism that could be used to address regional policy issues. However, for a number of reasons, they are recommending an advisory compact – an agreement between the states to create study commissions that examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings. As the least formal type of compact yielding the least authority, this type of agreement can address sensitive issues without prompting concerns regarding loss of authority. It will therefore be easier to adopt, as it will be less controversial within each state and will not require congressional approval.

Sheila Martin said they encourage the Bi-State Coordination Committee to lead the effort to implement these recommendations. She said a Bi-State Task Force, appointed by the Governors of Oregon and Washington, could discuss these recommendations, formulate a work plan, gather data from the public, and draft an advisory compact that would address the key issues cited in the report. Ms. Martin said they are happy to take suggestions for revising the report, and welcomed comments by e-mail or phone calls.

Dean Lookingbill said our challenges to cooperation have more of the institutional character to them. He said the challenge is whether to try something on the institutional side or try something on the functional side. He said it seems that the advisory compact has some institution piece; it is really heavier on the function side.

Carolyn Long said they asked people where they thought they should go as far as picking a project. She said the responses varied widely.

Jeff Hamm said he was struggling a bit with the advisory compact recommendation. He said it seems that effective cooperation means that the two regions need to align their decision making and better integrate the allocation of resources. He said that means that they circumscribe the decision making on each side of the water, and asked how an advisory compact leads us to that. Sheila Martin said that she viewed that as a first step. She said they got a range of answers from the question about more institutional forms of cooperation. She said there is a lot of sensitivity around the notion of giving up those individual decision-making authorities. A Bi-State Compact trumps state law and federal law. There is a lot of sensitivity in going that far. They and many others were concerned that would be too big of step to take at first. She said they need to get there, but an advisory compact is a way to take the first step and handle issues that could be handled in a regulatory compact. Caroline Long said that some respondents said that beside the Coordination Committee forum, there is not a forum that mandates to deal with interstate or bi-state cooperation. This would bring those people together, and force those conversations to help lead.

Phil Selinger said TriMet and C-TRAN for example, may have an agreement on revenue sharing for fares. He asked if that would reside in the compact or would that still stand alone. He said he thought that it would stand on its own, and that the compact would have to be modular because it would cover so much territory and range of services in order to manage it. Ms. Martin said basically a regulatory compact is a contract between the two states that cannot be changed unless both states approve the change, and in some cases the Federal government. It would be a longer term legal instrument that would remove your individual authority over the area that the compact covers, and create a new governmental structure to make those decisions. Ms. Long said an advisory compact does not do that.

Larry Paulson said he would think that TriMet and C-TRAN have an agreement. He said the Ports have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that is set as a certain groundwork basis for the cooperative effort. He said there might be several smaller steps that can be taken and lot of cooperative efforts that might be bundled together. Ms. Martin said some of the examples of existing bi-state compacts include the Gorge compact. The land use decisions regarding the Gorge are made by that compact and the individual counties do not have authority within the Gorge to make those land use decisions. With an MOU, with a written notice within a specified time, changes can be made. This is not the cast with a regulatory compact.

Ed Barnes said the congressional delegation both in Washington and Oregon get along fairly well together in cooperating with bills to help each state. He said the Governors of the two states have been very cooperative with the various studies such the CRC. They have met here in the Portland-Vancouver area to show the two states are working together for the Columbia River Crossing project. He said the Vancouver Mayor and the Portland Mayor work cooperatively, as does the JPACT committee at Metro. He said that he thought Dean Lookingbill has done a fine job in making sure that there is input from both Oregon and Washington when there are issues that pertain to the both states. The biggest item at this time is the Columbia River Crossing. Mr. Barnes said he thought they had a good report and that he would like copies to take with him for the Commission at their next meeting.

Don Wagner asked in thinking about the Bi-State Coordination Committee, how they see the next step that they are recommending of the advisory compact differing from this current body. He said this body is a creature of the two regional transportation groups, but it was originally formed not just to talk about transportation, but to discuss all sorts of things. The focus was on transportation lately because of the Columbia River Crossing. He said he did not see the advantages of having the Governors sponsoring the group. Ms. Martin said the key difference is that each of the legislatures would pass the agreement, so it would have the state authority behind it. When you have issues at state level revenue that that need to be addressed, then having that authority would be the difference.

Mr. Wagner said with I-5 recently being named a corridor of the future, they are about to start negotiating with the Federal Government on an agreement on what that means and how they move funding between three states. He asked how that played into a bi-state compact. Ms. Martin said there are many multi-state compacts. Mr. Wagner said he understood that it would be with the federal government, not a compact, but an agreement that if there were an agreement in our immediate area, he asked who negotiated that issue. He said it is not I-5 for five miles, but now I-5 for 1,500 miles. Ms. Martin said there are compacts that cover the western states for higher Ed. It is an advisory compact, but they do a lot of things. They administer a lot of the agreements between the states about tuition reciprocity and a lot of things in the higher Ed realm. The multi-state compacts are not unusual. If it includes areas of authority that would force the federal government to devolve some of their authority to the compact, then congress has to also pass an offer as the compact. She said without knowing the details of the specific I-5 corridor of the future agreement would entail, it is possible that a tri-state compact approved by congress would be a way to handle that. She said there are a couple attorneys that she has talked to of the Council of State Governments with who work specifically on these issues and how to draft those kinds of agreements.

In closing, Mr. Parks said a question to be answered is if there was any correlation between the formality of the agreements and the levels of success.

Mr. Park noted that members were now present for quorum, and asked if there were any corrections to the July 19, 2007, Bi-State Coordination Committee Meeting Report.

DON WAGNER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE, JULY 19, 2007, MEETING REPORT. LARRY PAULSON SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED.

III. Transportation Corridor Visioning Study – Discussion of Additional Columbia River Crossing Corridors

Dean Lookingbill said RTC is midway through the Transportation Corridor Visioning study process. He said given the short amount of time left for today’s meeting, he said he will just identify issues rather than go through a full discussion of the additional Columbia River crossing corridors, but note key issues raised by both sides and bring those back as another item another meeting.

Mr. Lookingbill said the Transportation Corridor Visioning Study began as a look at 50 years out and that was translated into “How do we get around Clark County when the population reaches 1 million and we have 500,000 jobs?” The transportation component of that are the options for new, regional transportation corridors within the county. The Bi-State component addresses the options for a new crossing over the Columbia River.

Mr. Lookingbill said the housing and job growth assumptions compares the existing 2024 Comprehensive Plan and Vision Plan assumptions, which assumes 500,000 jobs and a million people. They also assumed that within the established urban growth boundary, those would be pretty much built out by their year (2024) and they then projected ahead with no housing above an evaluation of 800 feet and no jobs above 400 feet elevation. He displayed a series of maps showing first the base year with 151,000 households located across the county. The second map showed the addition of the 2024 Growth Management Plan and adds households. That is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, so it is looking at the future, and it identifies comprehensive land use areas where housing and industrial areas are identified. The third map shows what it takes to get to the 1 million people with 417,000 households. Roland Chlapowski asked what density assumptions were used. Mr. Lookingbill did not have those numbers, but it what is in the current Growth Management Plan. It is close to what is seen in Clark County today with some higher levels of density. He said he could get those figures. Mr. Chlapowski asked if those could be modeled differently in different areas. Mr. Lookingbill said they could identify an area that might seem appropriate to make a different set of assumptions and assume a different density and go out from there. He said they did not do this at this time. This is a first look at what happens if we grow to 1 million people with 500,000 jobs per the comprehensive plan density policies. Mr. Lookingbill then displayed the current year with jobs map, the GMA jobs map, and the 500,000 jobs map.

Mr. Lookingbill then looked at new candidate regional corridors. He said they have gone through some steps in getting there. They have looked at the district to district travel patterns and went through a screening process where they identified a set of criteria to answer what a new regional corridor was, how it connects the activity nodes, if it carries at least 10,000 person trips a day, and an average trip length of 8 miles, etc. Mr. Lookingbill displayed a map with that outcome and highlighted those corridors. There were two corridors on the east side, a corridor to the north, and a corridor to the west. There were two west side alignment areas and a portion goes through a National Wildlife Preservation area. He said they are not aware of anywhere where a roadway is able to be built through a preservation area.

Mr. Lookingbill displayed a map showing the Westside candidate corridors crossing the Columbia River near the rail bridge and highlighted the corridor. He then displayed the two Eastside candidate corridors crossing the Columbia River. He said in the past, there had been discussion of a Lady Island crossing discussion. The Port of Camas Washougal had a full rendering of what a river crossing might have looked like in 1958. The other corridor crossing is near 192nd at SR-14.

Mr. Lookingbill highlighted some of the initial findings for the new Westside Corridor Crossing West of I-5. There is minor relief to I-5 (about 8% fewer trips). This is consistent to what they have seen in the past. Some of I-205 trips backfill onto I-5 Bridge. There is minimal relief to I-205 due to trip shifting. There are land use implications on each side of the river along the corridor. It increased cross-travel about 3-4% (latent demand). Some of the Clark County trips shifted off of I-5 corridor north of the Columbia River. The Washington side exhibits characteristics of both a regional and sub-regional corridor: half of Clark County trip ends are Ridgefield and north, half are central/west Vancouver area. For the Oregon side, over half of the trip origins/destinations are longer distances: central Portland and I-5 south, Cornelius Pass, and northwest along US-30.

Findings for the new Eastside Corridor and Crossing East of I-205 showed no impact to I-5. It does provide some relieve to I-205. Major land use implications on each side of the river along the corridor because most of the travel on that corridor is defined about three miles north and three miles south of the crossing. There is more land to be developed on the Washington side and to a degree on the Oregon side. It becomes an opportunity to more fully develop that side of the area. It does increase cross-river travel about 7-10% (latent demand). The Washington side exhibits characteristics of a sub-regional corridor: most Clark County trip ends south of 18th Street and east of I-205. For the Oregon side, over half of trip origins/destinations are within 2-3 miles of crossing: sub-regional corridor.

Mr. Lookingbill said they are looking for some feed back from the Oregon side. Rod Park asked if they looked at the impacts to freight. Mr. Lookingbill said they haven’t really looked at freight. This is just an initial look.

Phil Selinger said he was confused as to if this was a first look at how development might occur. He said it seems that when you look at the land use projections together with the transportation projections, the transportation is going to chase the land use, rather than trying to take advantage of the infrastructure we have today and a future high capacity transit infrastructure that might be able to channel some of that growth to be manageable. Mr. Lookingbill said that is the conversation that starts given the flow of information. The premise is what has been planned of the 20-year and pushed out to the higher growth level. The idea is to try and look in the future and where we think there might be new corridors and do some sort of preservation or some way to provide for those in the future. He said they haven’t tried at this point to look back at transit in an extensive fashion. They have not ignored it. They have a High Capacity Transit study that they are doing that looks at existing corridors. Given the time, Mr. Park asked that Mr. Lookingbill move into the next agenda item.

IV. Clark County High Capacity Transit Study – Overview of I-5 and I-205 Corridors

Mr. Lookingbill noted on the I-205 bridge that in the past, if light rail transit was put on the I-205 bridge, there is no shoulder if the four lanes of travel are kept. He said they have looked at an exclusive guideway bus rapid transit option, which allows a wider shoulder on one side and a narrow shoulder on the other still maintaining the four lanes. Mr. Lookingbill said in looking at their high capacity transit system in the Bi-State context, with the Columbia River Crossing study looking at how we cross the river, the modal options on I-205 are moving more and more toward the thought that they may not be able to put light rail transit vehicles on the existing I-205 bridge. They may be looking at a new structure if that is the mode chosen versus different ways of doing BRT. There is a Bi-State issue for discussion on the I-205 crossing while RTC is in this phase of their study, and depending on what results from the study and what corridor is chosen, if I-205 is one of those corridors, discussion will be needed. Mr. Lookingbill said that is one of the main points that he wanted to present to the Bi-State Committee at this meeting.

Don Wagner had a comment about the I-205 Interstate Bridge. He said the question that this really answered for WSDOT is that it is unlikely that they will be able to just retrofit the bridge as we know it. He said what it doesn’t answer is the question if there is an engineering way that you can use the two structures to suspend another structure underneath it that could fit light rail. He said they know that they can fit in a modified bus rapid transit, but the next step has not been taken like the Columbia River Crossing to see what other options there are. They are pretty sure the bridge can hold the weight of a light rail system; the question is how to do that. Mr. Lookingbill said that is a much more complicated engineering question than the HCT study can answer at this point. Another BRT related idea is a Bus on Shoulder that basically makes a bus only lane that runs on the shoulder. The shoulder is then available for emergency, and the bus would only use that lane when the traffic slows to a designated speed, say 40 mph or less. The bus would then move into this lane, and it could not have a different speed of 15 mph than the traffic. So if the traffic slowed to 30 mph, the bus could move over but not go over 15 mph. This is modified version of how to get a bus across an existing structure yet try to give it some time advantage. Mr. Lookingbill said there will be further discussion on the I-205 bridge at a later time.

V. Metro Regional Transportation Plan – Introduction to Public Review Draft – Federal Component and Outstanding Issues for State Component

As Kim Ellis was setting up, Rod Park asked the committee at what level they would like to weigh in on Metro’s RTP public comment. Copies of the slide presentation were distributed. Kim Ellis said this for information to let members know where they are in the process. She said at the next meeting, they would like some sort of formal recommendation or comment on the Draft RTP from the Bi-State Committee. The closing comment period is November 15, which coincides with the date of the next meeting. Ms. Ellis highlighted the project timeline. She said they are currently focusing on the federal component of the RTP and look for action from JPACT and Metro Council on December 13th. They initiated their public comment process on Monday, October 15. Draft copies of the document were available. The 2040 Growth Concept is their long range vision for managing growth in the region, and the RTP is a key tool for how they achieve that vision in the future. She listed some of the steps they have taken as they have worked to get to the financially constrained system that is proposed to represent their priorities for investments over the plan period which is 2008 to 2035. After the Council and JPACT action in December, they would then initiate the completion of their air quality conformity analysis that is federally required by the time their current plan expires (March 2008). They have taken this to many policy and technical advisory committees, stakeholder workshops, regional forums, and a variety of other public process elements.

The updated Plan that was released has a new set of goals that will guide them as they implement the 2040 Growth Concept. They respond and build on the policy framework that was developed last spring. Ms. Ellis noted the 7 goals. She said there are three additional goals that are more governance related on how they get there ensuring equity, sustainability, and delivering accountability.

The draft Plan continues to emphasize the importance of having a well connected street network, both at the local and regional level. Retrofitting and building any new facilities to have sidewalks and bike lanes and other like facilities and providing better access to transit. It also calls for frequent transit service on all major streets. The policy also is strongly emphasizing and elevating the importance of mobility in the region to connect to the centers, primarily for industry and freight, and also longer trips that are going through the region. The Plan calls for an ideal of sizing of streets throughout the region recognizing that they will not always be able to achieve this, and there may be areas that may require going beyond what is called for. This is to achieve the mission to build a complete system.

In looking at the investment priorities, they are looking at a $7 billion gap. Ms. Ellis said the full range of projects that were brought forward by the different transportation providers was about $16 billion. This does not include a full Columbia River Crossing project. The financially constrained project list includes preliminary engineering for the CRC, but it does not have construction. She said the shortfall is primarily on the freeway and arterial and bridge areas in terms of where the biggest gap in funding and transit is a significant gap as well, but not as large as the others.

Ms. Ellis said they feel the RTP is at an important crossroad. She said the draft 2035 RTP set the stage for new performance measures of the region’s mobility strategy. Concepts of a complete system, system management, and mobility corridors are formalized in the draft policy. The financial forecast evidences the continued shift of funding burden expected from federal to local government. The forecast represents about 60 percent locally generated revenues. The 40 percent is what they expect to come from the state and federal level. escalating costs and aging infrastructure continue to threaten the ability to fund new capacity. There are a lot of opportunities for the region. She said new data and technologies are emerging rapidly. They are looking at new measures, measuring things differently, and trying to expand on the ones they currently use.

Ms. Ellis said four areas for discussion and collaboration include: Transportation Corridor Visioning Study, High Capacity Transit Study, the Performance Measures, and Transportation Finance. Ms. Ellis noted that after the December 13 action on the federal component, they will begin the land use goals as part of the state component in January 2008. The project Web site and draft document can be accessed at www.metro-region.org/rtp

Mr. Park noted the large maps that were distributed. They were from the Oregon MPO Consortium for different regions around the state of Oregon in regard to traffic volumes. Mr. Park said the information stopped at the river not crossing into Washington. He said that is something that needs to be considered, because the people do not recognize the difference between a jurisdictional boundary. He noted that in some areas they are seeing an increase of about 40% of traffic over the years of 1998-2004. That is about three times faster than the Portland metro region, and they need to look to the future as to the impacts to road capacity and patterns.

VI. Public Comment

Sharon Nasset noted that at the last meeting she had requested a formal letter stating that the Committee was aware of the boundaries of the Columbia River Crossing, and that those boundaries include the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Portland. She said there are four or five documents of the original Columbia River Crossing that state the center of their project are the Ports and the Ports need to be studied saying the previous studies did not have enough information. Ms. Nasset said the I-5 Task Force documents state the location of the Bridge Influence Area includes the Ports. She noted part of the information of the Port have a west arterial crossing. Ms. Nasset said she had talked with Kate Deane about the inclusion of this information with the Ports and the Bridge Influence Areas. Ms. Nasset said she is looking for a letter that states either the bridge influence area does include the Ports or that it doesn’t and what the boundaries are, or that you are uncertain or unwilling to give one. She said she has requested this for a year, and will continue. She said it is the law to have everything on the table and wants everything studied in order to decide.

Mr. Park said he would turn this over to Chair Rex Burkholder upon his return.

The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2007, at Metro.

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

More Information

Dean Lookingbill Transportation Director, RTC 360-397-6067

Andy Cotugno Transportation Director, Metro 503-797-1763

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