 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, November 15, 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 7:38 am. Those in attendance follow:
Members Present Chair Rex Burkholder (Chair)—Metro
Roland Chlapowski—City of Portland (Alternate)
Commissioner Jeffrey Cogan—County of Multnomah
Doug Ficco—Columbia River Crossing (Alternate)
Executive Director Jeff Hamm—C-Tran
City Manager Dennis Osborn—City of Battle Ground
Mayor Royce Pollard—City of Vancouver
Commissioner Steve Stuart—Clark County Commissioner
Rian Windsheimber—ODOT (Alternate)Staff and Public Present Andy Cotugno—Metro
Lynda David--RTC
Kim Ellis—Metro
John Gillam—City of Portland
Carolyn Long—Washington State University/Vancouver
Sharon Nasset—Citizen
Susan Sale—Metro
Mark Turpel—Metro
Alice Ann Wetzel, City of PortlandChair Burkholder welcomed all participants.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2007 meeting as written. The motion was unanimously approved.
Chair Burkholder indicated that the first matter for discussion was the Washington/Oregon Interstate Cooperation Project Report/Findings and the potential actions that this committee may want to take. Carolyn Long from Washington State University/Vancouver was in attendance and the Chair asked her to discuss this issue. There are 4 ideas that are summarized in the October 11, 2007 memorandum and we want a little time here to discuss those ideas, and to decide if this group would like to make a recommendation that these efforts continue.
Metro’s COO Michael Jordan has spoken to Chair Burkholder about the work the institute is doing and we believe that Carolyn Long will be involved in that work. The idea is that this program actually becomes bi-state, versus being the Portland side and the Washington side. How do we take these ideas and move forward? I would like to have some time here for this group to discuss whether or not we want to make a recommendation on moving forward.
Carolyn Long summarized the report. She indicated they interviewed many of the stakeholders that the Metro advisory group had identified. We talked to them about some of the barriers to cooperative efforts and whether or not these barriers might be overcome by various institutional mechanisms. The report lays out a continuum of the type of mechanisms that are available to pursue. After talking to the respondents, the responses were coded in order to find out if there were similarities in what the stakeholders were saying and how they wanted to move forward. There were diverse responses from the people interviewed, but several trends were picked out as to how the stakeholders wanted to move forward. Most everyone wanted to continue cooperative efforts and thought that was a great idea, despite some of the barriers that were identified in the report. All were in favor of moving forward. Based upon those interviews, we made a number of recommendations. These are recommendations culled from the interviews, not necessarily Sheila Martin’s or Carolyn Long’s thoughts about this project moving forward. It was necessary to identify whether or not the public felt it was important to work cooperatively on big policy issues. That is something we did not include in the report, and so we suggested that might be something that you may want to pursue as a group. We believe we should become much more formal with the bi-state forms. We wanted to make the study more formal and use the bi-state forms as an opportunity to continue talking about further bi-state issues. One of the things we found in the research was that public partnerships were key to working cooperatively across the states, and that people in the community representing organizations had to be a part of this conversation. The people from the private organizations we talked to were very much in favor of cooperative efforts; perhaps more so than elected officials. Your group will have to battle something that should be pursued rather strongly.
One of the things that we looked at was the issue of interstate and multi-state compacts. I want to point out that when we interviewed individuals, we didn’t say, “How do you feel about a compact as one formal institutional mechanism for working cooperatively”. About 25% of the people we spoke to indicated that a compact was a good idea, and something that should be pursued. However, there was tremendous diversity in how they envisioned this type of formal institutional mechanism. Some wanted super compacts that dealt with all the major policy issues identified, like transportation. Some wanted compacts that dealt with one issue, like higher education. The idea being that if it was more narrowly constructed it would be much more acceptable to people and it would also be successful, which many thought was very necessary. A couple of people thought it was not necessary for some of the policy areas identified (transportation and economic development), thinking that these policy issues were being dealt with by mechanisms such as this group.
We decided that the best thing to do was to recommend the formation of an advisory compact, which is a little more palatable to people who might see this as threatening. What we need to do is formalize an organization to deal with policy issues. This would be less controversial, based on the interviews.
That was our recommendation based upon the interviews. One of the things that came up in the meeting last month was how an advisory compact would differ from the Bi-State Coordination Committee. I believe it would be a much more formal institution. I wouldn’t characterize this particular committee as an informal institution, but a compact does raise the bar as far as a formal mechanism, with tremendous buy-in for members. You are also getting a lot of buy-in from the state legislatures, which are saying that this is the mechanism necessary to have discussions about regional problems. I do think there is a difference regarding the level of formality, but I think that is a good question that we need to continue to think about. Those were our recommendations as far as moving forward. I know there are a lot of questions and I want to be able to answer those.
Chair Rex Burkholder stated that he would like the group to have a discussion about the expansion of this group in terms of the people around the table—not necessarily this group, but formalized bi-state forums that take place. Or, going further in terms of trying to look at whether we institutionalize this group’s efforts on a different level, either a compact or some similar relationship. Is there any recommendation that we would like to make in terms of what are the next steps in terms of are ability to carryout improved bi- state cooperation? Are there other things that we could be doing to be more effective? We had an interesting discussion earlier about one of the big issues being the integration of the two transit systems and how well they will work or not work for our customers, who are the people who live here. There are limited means for us to address these issues. I want to open up the discussion here for the people who have ideas and responses to share with the group. Talk about going forward or if we wish to go forward.
Doug Ficco indicated that he had heard something about an advisory compact. I also heard comments about schools and other services in the presentation. The Bi-State Coordination Committee at this time deals with transportation. Will there be a whole different set of people sitting here? I got confused when you started talking about schools.
Carolyn Long explained that an advisory compact could cover a number of different types of issues, so it would be up to this group as to how it would be formed and what its mission would be. To answer your question, you could have an advisory compact that just focuses only on transportation, or you could make it much larger with a mission that the compact is to look at various ways to explore cooperation across the states.
Chair Burkholder remarked that he thinks it may not be this group, in terms of these players. I do imagine if we did something like that it would be a broader group and it would probably supplant this group. In the sense that this group has a special purpose and mission, I could see this group being integrated into a larger effort that talks about other things.
Commissioner Stuart asked what issues do we want to talk about for a bi-state compact. We have had that conversation with many people. What about cooperation between the university systems and making sure that there are active reciprocal agreements for in-state tuition for citizens of the Portland Metropolitan Region. People on the Washington side of the river are certainly interested in this topic. People would like to be able to pay in-state tuition per term. Now that WSU is a four-year university, it gives us an opportunity to have more of an equal footing to set something up. Yes, it could be different players, but germinating from the group of leaders that sit around this table.
Commissioner Cogen indicated he has some concerns about the mission and composition of the group. I don’t think it is necessarily a good idea to create a group in search of a mission. I am all for bi-state cooperation. I am not sure who the right players or the right roles would be for a bi-state cooperation group. I am hesitant to create a group that will just sit around and ask what do we do.
Mayor Pollard agreed with Jeff. We have been searching lately to identify things that are meaningful for this group to do. One of my concerns is our ability to hold people to the fire. We can come up with lots of recommendations and a lot of people paying attention to us. I am speaking generally. If the states are going to bless this, then my question is who is going to decide what we are going to do. Then, the formality of it, should be recognized. If it is going to be worthwhile, it has to have the ability to actually get things done. We have a lot of advisory commissions in Clark County and Vancouver and other boards and commissions. A lot of them are advisory and that means that they tell us what they think and we make up our own minds. The difference is whether it has some teeth to keep people in their seats to get things done. I don’t know if we would ever get that kind of authority. I do have some questions about it. It is good to have both states trying to do things here and add their support.
Jeff Cogen stated that it would be helpful to have a clearer set of exact problem statements that exist between the two states, whether it is tuition or housing or transit system integration. A subcommittee with expertise in those areas could decide if the problem is great enough that we want to look at bi-state solutions and craft some options that would actually have some teeth. Sometimes we put together these groups that just don’t have any authority or resources to solve the problems. There needs to be a better idea of what the problems are and if anything can be done to resolve them.
Rex Burkholder stated that this group needs to recognize that there are four recommendations. The advisory compact is only one of those. There is a bi-state forum, which I would call an occasional forum, which occurs when you have the energy and time to put it together and an issue that we might be able to look at and provide support for. We should have much more involvement where education is involved for people on both sides of the river. We should support other issues with the idea of being supportive of public/private partnerships. I am currently in sessions with the National Consensus Center. Even on the Oregon side of the river, we have challenges engaging the business and non-profit communities. This should be bi-state or four counties in nature.
The Bi-State Coordination Committee could say we endorse this, which could mean some sort of financial or time support, if nothing else. We, as leaders, could say these are important things to do and presently they could slip through the cracks because we have this river between us. We should become more efficient and do a better job.
Carolyn Long added that one way we can look at this is to have a conference in lieu of an advisory compact to deal with these issues. We need to get together and discuss these issues. That might be a way we can easily obtain recommendations. I do want to mention that a lot of the stakeholders said there are key areas where bi-state cooperation is necessary. Among those areas are transportation, economic development, higher education, work force training and also planning. There were policy areas that were identified as needing much more emphasis on cooperation across the river. These are policy issues and a compact or forum may not be the best way of solving some of these issues. People indicated the 5 areas in which they wanted to see more cooperation. They are very big areas.
Commissioner Cogen commented that they are too big. There would be pressure for both sides to do something.
Carolyn Long pointed out that’s why some people said having one policy area, like higher education, which was identified by many individuals, where some of the issues in that one area could be examined. Working on that and having success there would be really helpful in showing both your constituents and the community why cooperation is a good idea.
Chair Burkholder suggested looking at the next step. There is actually a recommendation here, which is having this group call upon the Governors of both states to recognize some of the major issues that need attention. I know the Governors attend the bi-state forums, but it is very low level of commitment. Doing something like this, where we actually are part of the request and also participate to get this going along. We have always been very narrow in focus, looking at land use and specifically transportation issues in this area. It is up to this committee as to what it would like to pursue in this area. I just want to say that I think the work that you did was very useful. This is a very pressing problem. How do we get across these institutional barriers? We face them; everyone faces them. These barriers sometimes make it difficult to cooperate. The state line is a little more complicated, but it is not much different than a county line. I feel this is the one group that talks about this, so that is why I thought it was important that we move this forward and put it on the table. We don’t have any other groups that are actually talking about this in a comprehensive manner. I don’t see a motion out there. Is there someone who would like to keep working on this with both the RTC staff and the Metro staff about what might be the next steps for actual concrete action.
Commissioner Stuart said that would be my question. What is the next step? This study should have the opportunity to come back to us with some meat on the bones. What could we actually do at the Governors’ Bi-State Forum that would hone in on more specifics under the umbrella that has been identified.
Chair Burkholder asked if this sounds like a doable thing.
Carolyn Long responded that it did.
Chair Burkholder indicated that one thing that this group could do is commit to working with the two universities in terms of the Bi-State Forum, including preparation for the forum, preparation of problem statements and presentation of potential actions to be taken. I was very excited to get 300-400 people who were very interested in this. What was the action that came out of that forum? This group should consider being part of the preparation and assembling of action items that can be talked about and presented at the forum.
Commissioner Cogen stated the forum might potentially be a viable place to explore question of a compact.
Chair Burkholder stated that it is definitely something we are trying to accomplish here. We should take advantage of that and put in the time and energy to poll the governors. We should be able use that forum as a way to advance our concerns as well.
Professor Long stated she would like to get things done and show the success.
Chair Burkholder commented that the next item is the Columbia River Crossing. The task force is meeting on the 27th of this month (the first time in 6 months). The staff has been hard at work pulling data together on the various options and will be presenting the data.
The question for this group is how do we want to help develop the recommendation of the task force. There are some key issues, which I wanted to talk about today. I think we need to know what propositions you are facing. The other piece is how the recommendation is going to affect the governments monetarily for a project of this size. Obviously, the teams are the lead agencies, but we are elected to represent the people who are affected by it. Traditionally, the staff would come out with the numbers and this is what we think is the best choice to make. We should about how we can influence that, or make a recommendation to the task force outlining which way to proceed. That’s the key question before us. How do we use this group? Do we get together and share our issues and concerns with each other in order resolve the big decisions.
Dennis Osborn asked if the meeting on the 27th was a voting meeting. Is it an informational meeting?
Doug Ficco commented that the vote is not actually until March. There will be public involvement.
Commissioner Stuart said that, between November and January, there will be information taken from a lot of different sources so that the draft recommendation will come forward in January. The vote will be in March.
Doug Ficco stated that once the November Task Force meeting is completed, comments will be solicited so that the process can start moving toward the draft of the preferred alternative. Between the November and January meetings, a draft will be developed. In January, we will tell the Task Force what we heard from the public and that will be part of the draft preferred alternative.
Commissioner Cogen asked if this group will be giving input to the task force.
Chair Burkholder stated that this is a forum for sharing. My question for you here is whether we actually want to come up with a recommendation. Would this group like to present their preferred alternative to the task force?
Mayor Pollard indicated that we are an advisory group and our opinions are valuable to the decision-making process. Some of our organizations may or may not accept the recommendations. We are not one of the groups who have a vote. I think the task force should be advised of the consensus of the bi-state group.
Steve Stuart agreed with that statement. Ultimately, we are advisory, but at some point some groups are going to have to start having real discussions about the bottom line issues that are going to have to be part of the solution. They will need to get a consensus and there are very few groups, other than this one, who I can think of who would be able to do that. We need the Oregon side be able to hear the Washington side. The people here can go back to their commissions and boards and pass on the information. It is good information for me to be able to take back.
Royce Pollard stated that there probably will be comments in here that we might not hear any place else.
Commissioner Stuart agreed.
Commissioner Cogen commented that we have the project sponsors represented on this body, plus other major stakeholders. Maybe this is the place where, once the project sponsors have worked through what their interests are, the topics of the forum can be formulated. Maybe this is where those discussions take place after the major players have firmed up their interests.
Chair Burkholder stated that this helps in terms of thinking how do we schedule future meetings. Most people will get the information on November 27th. We should schedule a time between the 27th and January to review the findings and identify some issues. Steve, I think your suggestion is a good one. We then come back and determine what we really think. This should be a useful forum, so that we can actually get the issues out and have it show up on a newspaper someday. We were talking earlier about having a presentation on the design workshops on both sides of the river. Did we have that arranged, Mark?
Mark Turpel responded that John Gillam is here today to talk about the Hayden Island Plan and that is one part of that goal.
Chair Burkholder remarked that it is a key issue to know what is going to happen on each side of the river.
Doug Ficco stated that there are many groups working on this crossing and it would be nice to have those groups come in and talk about the work they have completed. The groups have done a great job redesigning some of the interchanges. They would have some important information for this group.
Chair Burkholder, in reference to the timing, asked Doug if this would precede the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Doug Ficco responded that some of the interchanges could be talked about pre-LPA. Regarding the alternatives, many of the interchanges are the same. Relating to the bridge itself, discussions could be on high-level design details. I am concerned about talking too much before the LPA. A lot needs to be decided on a major structure.
Chair Burkholder said that the key thing here is that we need to work closely with you. This seems like a good time to get feedback on the various pieces of this.
Doug Ficco added that there is also a community environmental working group that is doing a lot of work right now. They are determining what communication materials will be used at our meetings, etc. There is a lot of work going on that this group sees.
Commissioner Stuart remarked that if we are getting reports on community environment, biking, etc. from the task force then we don’t need to do another study. This group is good from the standpoint of being able to work straight across the table and next door and ask what they have. As far as the presentations go, we need to make sure that we get those from the task force. I need my board to get some of those as well. I wouldn’t want to send people out to a bunch of different meetings to re-create the same presentations.
Mr. Ficco added that what is tough is that you build a task force and they are such a diverse group, that they are always given as many details. We would likely give more details to this Bi-State Coordination Committee, because there is more time allowed and more meetings. We could be doubling up on some of the information and some of it we wouldn’t be doubling up.
Chair Burkholder commented that is something we will work on in terms of trying to assist with the crossing issues as a group.
Phil Selinger stated there is a lot of institutional detail that is going to go with this whole river crossing program that is going to have to be worked out on a two by two basis. Those issues and discussions are going to have to be raised. Maybe this group is indeed a first tier for working out the details and they can discuss them at the two by two level.
Chair Burkholder remarked that we will be working with various staffs and talking among ourselves about what other kinds of issues this group could present as a forum for discussion on one project.
Chair Burkholder asked Kim Ellis to come up and make a presentation about RTP 2035. The public comment period deadline is today. We have some recommendations regarding the RTP--issues the Bi-State Coordination Committee might consider recommending to Metro.
Kim Ellis stated that at the last committee meeting, she gave an overview of the draft plan that was released for public comment on October 15, 2007. Today is the close of the comment period. There have been a series of open houses and public hearings. At the Metro Council meeting this afternoon, they will be taking final testimony on the draft plan. Staff has been working to prepare a comment log of recommended changes that have come out of the comment period and we are now working through our advisory committees on the Oregon side to work through that. We have a Transportation Policy Advisory Committee and staff workshop on Monday. They will then be making a recommendation at their November meeting to JPACT. There are copies of the draft plan on the table. I have worked with Mark Turpel and Dean Lookingbill to identify some recommended potential changes to the draft to better incorporate the Bi-State Coordination Committee within the regulatory context description. We have also prepared the green memo in your meeting packet that lays out some other questions that we wanted to have guidance on. Lynda David from RTC is also here. They are also updating their plan to meet SAFETEA-LU in the same time period as we are. The current RTP on the Oregon side expires in March of next year, so this is really focusing on getting the current level plan up to date to meet Federal requirements. We have another year of our process that is going to continue to address some of the outstanding policy issues that are on the poster on the back wall. Notably, we are figuring out new performance measures and goals that we have in the draft plan. Also, transportation finance reported last month that we have about a seven billion dollar shortfall to serve the region. We expect only nine billion dollars of revenue. We also have state planning requirements we need to address next year. There were amendments to the Oregon Transportation Plan, as well as the Transportation Planning Rule, and so we will be working with all of our partners to ensure that the plan that we develop next year adequately serves the 2040 concept and has a financing strategy that defines how we are going to get the money from the constrained system that we are limited to. The Federal system will not provide the output to accomplish all the goals that we have been establishing for the system.
Mark Turpel stated that Lynda David from the RTC is here. We are in a position where we have two transportation plans that have the comment periods ending this month. We want to see where we might find the commonalties and opportunities for coordination. We have a number of recommendations that we have prepared for your consideration. We are seeking guidance on whether these are the directions you would like to take. We can do this in several ways. We can work our way through the memo or possibly the committee wants to pick out items that they want to discuss.
Chair Burkholder remarked that we will have a discussion on each one.
Mark Turpel commented that the first one (on page 3) is where we need to recognize two sets of goals. The goals have some similarities and they have some differences. What we are suggesting here is not that either plan change goals, but recognize that just because there are some differences doesn’t mean we can’t coordinate and cooperate and move ahead. We put the two sets of goals side by side. We believe we can move ahead with coordination and cooperation, even though there are some differences there.
Chair Burkholder remarked that the staff analysis says that these are consistent. We did a lot of public outreach and public research and came up with the values that are here. Value statements are used, rather than the more traditional transportation statements.
Commissioner Cogen asked Mark to summarize nuances or differences in the emphasis between the two sets of goals. How would you do that? Do you perceive differences in emphasis between the two sets of goals?
Mark Turpel answered that both sets of goals have to meet SAFETEA-LU. You will see a number of different themes in here. Both goals are about sustainable transportation systems. That is one theme that both of them have. They also talk about economic competitiveness and development in another. Both of those are getting to the same thing. As far as differences, I think the RTC goals in some cases are more specific and the RTP goals are more generalized.
Ms. Ellis remarked that Metro is focusing on value statements. There are a series of objective statements that are more like the RTC goal statements. I think there are a lot of similarities in what is trying to be achieved. We have not put the draft RTP defined priorities within the goal statements themselves. One of the things that we will be working on next year is how do we use these to better prioritize the investments within the plan itself, recognizing that we don’t have unlimited resources. We are going to have to make some choices. What should be the basis for making those performance measures work? What we do next year is going to really conform to that, as well as other concessions from our policymakers. I look at the goals as being very similar to the objectives statements. We had to establish a priority, except we wanted to have investments that accomplishing multiple goals, to the extent that we are able to.
Lynda David stated that the framework for the RTP is to achieve the land use vision presented in the local comprehensive plans and support economic growth and sustain the region’s quality of life. It is not in this table of goals, but it is on Page 2. Looking at the differences and similarities in the goals, Metro’s goals are engendered in our committee vision and creative values, so we are working along the same lines.
Chair Burkholder remarked that the next item appears to be of a more practical concern. You might describe what the intent was here.
Mark Turpel noted that this was one where both the plans talk about the road share, but they weren’t quite the same. We took the information from the RTC MTP plan, so that we could make an apples to apples comparison between the two counties on the Oregon side and use that to compare it with the Clark County side. What the table points out is that the driving alone component is substantially larger. You can see that carpooling is about the same for each of area. There are differences in transit and walking that make up the difference in driving alone. This represents the journey to work and there is demand on both systems.
Chair Burkholder commented that, in terms of the plan, we don’t want to tell you what language to use. This is a concern. If the numbers continue like this, there will obviously be a lot of people driving alone through Portland. The plan is attempting to be more aggressive in it efforts to provide more transportation choices with transit, walking and biking within the communities and there is more awareness there is a difference here. The issue is that some of the impact is felt on the Oregon side of the river.
Lynda David advised that in 2006 there was a big difference in the transit percentage. In the MTP for the year 2030, we are forecasting a 106% annual service hours increase for C-Tran over 2006. This compares with a 54% increase in population. With MTP, we are definitely being more aggressive in terms of increased transit service hours, compared with the MTP adopted in December 2005. In 2006, the transit system was reeling from the motor vehicle excise tax and C-Tran had some difficult challenges to come up with funding for the transit system. I think we are certainly more stable now versus 2 years ago, when the 2005 MTP was adopted. I think we are a lot more positive about the future of the transit system now. Also, we recently adopted a regional commute trip reduction plan, which affects several jurisdictions in Clark County (Vancouver, Camas, Washougal and unincorporated Clark County). They have all adopted commuter trip reduction plans, so there are efforts there to try to balance the road share.
Phil Selinger wanted to make a quick comment. I don’t mean to state the obvious, but you would have a hard time comparing Washington County to Multnomah County, because they are urbanized in very different ways. It is a little hard to compare the Oregon side with the Washington side directly without recognizing that the geography is different. It would be nice if they normalized for that. Possibly a land use index would help understand what the expectations should be.
Commissioner Stuart stated that there are a lot of jobs on the Washington side of the river. The ratios that we set are more aggressive. If we are successful, at the end of the 20-year period, we should be aligned with the rest of the metropolitan region with number of jobs per household. As far as transit goes, there are hubs of development that are set up for transit, but the housing development patterns are still relatively spread-out. The city is certainly helping build hubs for transit development that will help with overall transit share. The other thing is that the numbers Lynda talked about do not include high capacity transit. Any high capacity transit solution moving across the river would dramatically increase our transit share.
Ms. David noted that she pulled the numbers for the three separate counties on the Oregon side of the river just to look at the differences. It is interesting to note that perhaps Clark County sees itself more in comparison to Clackamas County. Clackamas County had a 4.6% share of transit. It is certainly more than we are achieving on the Clark County side.
Doug Ficco said that C-Tran is in the midst of a 20 year transit development plan and are going to step up and address what it is going to take to get to that 100% increase. There are going to be some rough decisions. If you look at the Columbia River Crossing project that is coming, the 2030 estimate is 20% transit crossing.
Chair Burkholder noted that this is an informational piece about the differences. The next piece is actually asking this group to submit comments on bi-state cooperation, so that we can actually make some change in the Metro Regional Transportation Plan. Kim, would you like to give a summary of what this memorandum is saying.
Kim Ellis advised that we are looking for a recommendation from the Bi-State Committee to bolster the description of the Bi-State Committee in the draft plan just to emphasis the importance of the coordination that this committee does in dealing with a number of different issues. Also, updating the refinement planning descriptions. Should we include something from the interstate compact study that was completed or leave that until the committee has more time to figure what it wants to do. We want to put the options on the table. Should we put an action item that the Bi-State Coordination Committee will continue working to implement the recommendations from the study? We need to get some feedback from you on how to coordinate all these various studies. A high capacity transit study is going on in Clark County; Metro is going to begin a study later this year on high capacity transit on the Oregon side. How do we ensure that those studies and recommendations are coordinated? We would like some feedback on how you would like us to share that coordination. Do you want us to bring things forward to this group? Does there need to be a description of that coordination in Metro’s RTP? Does it also need to be in the MTP?
Chair Burkholder stated that the first 3 items in the memorandum are fairly non-controversial. Number 4 does not have a recommendation.
Commissioner Stuart said that he is in agreement with #2. He would like to see something actually done on mode share. The more we have been talking about the river crossing project, the more it become obvious that what we are doing is selling a trip to work. We are not selling a single project. We are selling the ability for someone to get to work more quickly. They need to know what they are getting for the money. There needs to be a commitment in the plan to identify the bottlenecks and capacity improvements that need to be made. We need to try and get people on board to solve these bottleneck problems. There should be some commitment within the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan to at least consider those capacity improvements. Those system improvements would be very helpful and there would be something to point to and say they are looking at it.
Chair Burkholder asked if that is a comment that people feel comfortable with. If so, we can figure out how to actually integrate it. Typically, how do we deal with comments that we “agree to in part” or “disagree to in part”. Do we recommend new language? People should be assured that the RTP considers these issues. I am not seeing any objections. I don’t think we would be comfortable with #4. We need to coordinate with the Southwest RTC North of the river in these kinds of studies. It makes a lot of sense. This is a great study. This map tells me that you are thinking South. If you look at our maps, none of them show new lines going North. That coordination is a critical piece here. We have to work together, coordinate more and oversee contracts together. If this group thinks this is an important thing to do, we should speak up. I see nods. Are there any details under #4 that the committee is not comfortable with? Does anyone see this coordination as being unnecessary?
Dennis Osborn had a question. Going back to the process again. Is this a 5-year update?
Chair Burkholder answered that it occurs every 4 years. On the Oregon side of the river, we have this odd thing. We are doing a two parts, two phases update. One is to meet our federal requirements, which need to be done at a certain time, because we need the money. This will take until next summer or early fall. Our state requirements are slightly different. We actually will be coming back in the next six months for the State requirements.
Lynda David commented that we have the federal requirements at least every 4 years and the State every 2 years. Historically, we have done the updates to our plan every two years.
Commissioner Cogen wanted to comment on #3, Proposed Refinements to Metro 2035 RTP, Paragraph 1, the last sentence in the underlined section. Is that how this group has been operating? Do JPACT and RTC recognize that this body looks at issues.
Kim Ellis replied that the particular language Jeff Cogen is questioning came from the charter for the committee.
Chair Burkholder stated that #5 is a big issue—air quality. Metro has several attainment plans it maintains. Key issues will be coming up from the EPA and also from a Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. I have a feeling that there will not be a ruling until this current administration is out of office. Even though they promised quick action. Should the Bi-State Coordination Committee make recommendations of coordination and integration of the air quality analysis and attainment work that we need to do? That is what we are asking for here. We will keep a public comment log. That will be an opportunity for us all to make sure these comments are actually captured.
Kim Ellis replied that TPAC is having a workshop on Monday. The TPACT recommendations will go to JPACT. You will be part of those JPACT discussions on December 13, 2007. That is when JPACT is scheduled to take final action on this air quality conformity analysis that we are required to do over the winter.
Chair Burkholder asked Lynda David what the schedule was for the final RTP document?
Ms. David stated that the final public forum is tonight. On December 4, 2007, there is a RTC Board Meeting, where they will be asked to adopt a plan. We hope that they will take action to adopt, otherwise it will jeopardize our transportation plan.
Chair Burkholder asked Lynda David how badly is a quorum needed at that meeting.
Linda David replied, “Very badly”.
Chair Burkholder said the RTC can call him if they need his support. Thank you for presenting these issues. The City of Portland is doing some work with the CRC on Hayden Island. Next, John Gillam is here to discuss Hayden Island.
John Gillam wished everyone a good morning and introduced himself as being with the City of Portland Transportation Division. He also introduced Alice Ann Wetzel, who is with the Bureau of Planning. Alice Ann is the Project Manager for the Hayden Island Plan. We were here last summer and talked about how the Hayden Island Plan was one of the corrective actions for the Hayden Island Moratorium, which is currently in place. There is recognition through the CRC that there are severe capacity and safety limitations on I-5 to serve Hayden Island. We also recognize that it is one of the larger chunks of general commercial zoned property in the City of Portland. Hayden Island has not had a neighborhood plan. This is an opportunity to also address the neighborhood issues. We just completed a 5-day public open house to begin addressing some of these issues.
Alice Ann Wetzel introduced herself and stated that she is the lead planner on this project. We have been working pretty much non-stop since July in order to keep up with CRC project. If you were at the Jantzen Beach Supercenter from the 16th to the 20th of October, there were community design workshops in a storefront. There were representatives from almost all the organizations sitting around this table participating in this direct process. It was very successful. There was a large number of people who walked in, who probably would never have walked into a storefront to learn and voice their opinions. It was publicly located. There was good public participation. Our project is to create a neighborhood plan for Hayden Island that looks at its growth, its current land uses, and its connections to Vancouver, as well as to Portland. This is a community that does care what is going on North of it, because they are the meat in the sandwich. We are working on a vision statement. There are some real challenges on Hayden Island. It has a very small population (about 2,500 people), with very large expectations. They feel very isolated because of the traffic. They can only get on and off the island at certain times. They plan their lives around what the traffic is, so they feel they should have access to all kinds of services (a library, a community center, a whole host of things, including doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs), on the island. We will need to add new residences to meet the level of services that they would like. We also need to optimize our investment in light rail. We are constrained by our vehicles and the capacity of the interchange. Even when built out, it is still going to have constraints for West Hayden Island and the Port property of 850 acres. Half of Hayden Island (the Eastern part of the island) is in the Noise Contour for the airport. Areas North of the red line on this map are prohibited from having new residential development built on them. Residential development is what creates the least number of trips to and from the island. Because of the noise contour, we are between a rock and a hard place.
Chair Burkholder asked if the airport noise contour is controlled by the FAA.
Alice Ann Wetzel replied, “Yes”. That is an international modeling system. It takes a large chunk of the island. Although there is residential underneath it, if it wasn’t zoned residential, we technically cannot change the zone, pursuant to planning policies without opening up the policy for the entire noise contour area. The airport, being a regional asset, is not something the City wants to change. Currently, we have 600 acres in retail use on the island. Eighty percent of it has single ownership—the Jantzen Beach Super Center—and the owners of the super center are in the process of doing a redevelopment of that property. They have been working with us throughout this entire process. Right now, our market analysis is showing that the big box format is the best use for the land. We came up with a set of principles and goals under three main categories: (1) Getting around; (2) Creating an island community; and (3) The environment and open space.
The CRC intersection will be very large. It will look like an aircraft carrier landing on Hayden Island. It does bring a plan for development. The green areas on the presentation slide show opportunities for redevelopment, especially in the eastern part of the current interchange. We will be working with ODOT on this issue..
Chair Burkholder asked if this is the replacement bridge.
Alice Ann Wetzel replied, “Yes”. In this process, we looked at the build as supplemental and the replacement bridge alternative. The replacement bridge provides the best access on and off of Hayden Island. That was the preferred option of the Hayden Island community. Every configuration you see from here forward is because it provides access to Marine Drive without getting on the main span of I-5. Hayden Islanders can go to Portland without getting onto the main section of the bridge. That is why you will see that all the way through.
The next big question was light rail. Where should light rail go? There were three options looked at in the course of the charrette. One was immediately adjacent to I-5, one was in the center of the Jantzen Beach Super Center and the third was all the way to the west of the super center. We felt the west alignment had the best opportunity for transit oriented development and redevelopment, although it would impact the industrial areas in far West Hayden Island. It also provided an opportunity to redevelop the expo center site, if possible. It also provided the opportunity for light rail to come to ground, which is a big issue on Hayden Island because of getting over the North Portland Harbor and getting up to the Columbia River Crossing.
Chair Burkholder wanted to know what the key issues are.
Ms. Wetzel replied that the key issues are the design of the center. We did look at the land use. We did look at what this means to the shopping center and its redevelopment plans and can it be phased. If we combined the alignment with a high quality station, we could redevelop the center. The plan is to have phased residential to far West and mixed use residential to the South.
John Gillam remarked that this also corresponds to the air noise contour and has mixed use, which reduces the overall traffic production in the area and creates additional customers for local services.
Alice Ann Wetzel stated there are still some considerations regarding the noise. The eastern area provides redevelopment opportunities for residential/commercial development.
They want a high quality rail station and not just a light rail station. This has to be a high quality piece of architecture to make an entrance point and combine into the urban design of the bridge and the corridor, with world-class pedestrian/bike facilities and high quality bridge architecture to tie into that. How the road underneath I-5 is treated is very important to create thoroughfares for this island, instead of creating barriers.
Chair Burkholder asked if there were any comments.
Commissioner Stuart commented that it sounds like a really expensive alternative. Is there any idea where the money will come from?
Ms. Wetzel indicated that another cell site will be purchased as part of the preferred alternative.
Steve Stuart stated that Clark County doesn’t want to pay for it in total. How will it be paid for?
Alice Ann Wetzel indicated that the transferring of land will have to be looked at. This is at the end of the process.
Citizen attendee Sharon Nasset made comments regarding getting the freight out of our neighborhoods. She is looking for a formal statement from the committee. Does this project include the ports and the rails?
Chair Burkholder indicated he would talk to Ms. Nasset after the meeting.
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, and unanimously carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 am.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|