 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, February 20, 2008, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Coordination Committee was called to order by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder at 7:35 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Members Present Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
John Gillam, City of Portland Alternate
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Addison Jacobs, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Alternate
Phil Selinger, TriMet Alternate
Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner
Don Wagner, WSDOT SW Region Administrator
John Williams, City of Battle Ground AlternateStaff and Public Present Ed Barnes, Citizen
Jack Burkman, WSDOT
Lynda David, RTC
Doug Ficco, Columbia River Crossing
Alan Lehto, TriMet
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Sharon Nasset, Citizen/ETA
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCSTEVE STUART MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2007, MEETING REPORT AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Burkholder noted that the meeting report contained a good discussion about the bi-state governance issue and ways that might move forward.
Chair Burkholder said he saw a presentation by Michael Galeton, a well-known economist who works with regions and how they plan for the future as an economic region. He basically says that our borders that were designed from the 1600s on the east coast to the 1800s on the west coast really get in the way of our discussion and our planning for competing in the global economy. He said he has done a lot of work in Florida and Rhode Island, and a group had asked him to take a look at the Portland area. Mr. Burkholder said what struck him about his maps is that the center of the Pacific Northwest region from Eugene to Seattle is the I-5 Bridge. His map is quite different than the maps that we use when we think about our planning. His map was showing the Columbia River and the I-5 as the key transportation corridors that connect this region to the rest of the world. Mr. Burkholder said he thought why can’t we get that across to both sides of the river when it comes to the Columbia River Crossing project. He said the center of the region was not downtown Portland or downtown Vancouver, not Seattle or Eugene; it was the river and all the Port activities going on there. Mr. Burkholder said it was an interesting presentation, and that he would try to get a copy of it.
Chair Burkholder said they would soon be releasing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Columbia River Crossing. The major transportation project in this area, and the largest undertaken in the state of Oregon. Mr. Burkholder asked to have the various governments that sit on the Bi-State Committee share where they are on the project. He said included in the meeting packet was a letter that he sent to the Metro Council with his recommendations, as a Task Force Member, and key issues and concerns. He said he would like to have a discussion of the concerns of the various other constituencies of the Bi-State group and whether there are common pieces that we might all weigh in on that might also be conditional. Also, he said as we come out of the DEIS phase, what are the things that need to be addressed in the next steps of the project. Mr. Burkholder said along with the bridge choice and transit mode, tolling issues need to be addressed. Mr. Lookingbill noted the bulleted list on page two of the memo listed some of the issues and ideas that were more bi-state related. He said for the individual jurisdictions, there are even more issues to address.
Steve Stuart said he and Mr. Burkholder have discussed this. He said the 60-day public comment period will be coming up soon. The Bi-State Committee has an opportunity to be an advisory body to RTC and Metro and have a conversation about what we as a Bi-State body see as the issues that need to be developed and need to be part of an LPA. He said the Bi-State Committee is uniquely seated to be able to have that conversation since they are half Washington and half Oregon and represent most of the partners involved in the signatory authority for the Columbia River Crossing Project. Mr. Stuart said he would not be pushing for any specific pieces of an LPA until they receive more public comment. He said there was a neighborhood forum that evening with 15 different neighborhoods participating on the Washington side and discussing light rail specifically. He said there is general consensus around a replacement bridge and light rail. He said the questions then will be: what the bridge looks like, how to minimize the number of lanes and maximize the throughput to be as cost effective as possible, how to minimize the footprint, does that mean transit in a box, twelve lanes instead of fourteen lanes, how do they look at a cap, or as Thayer Rorabaugh suggested calling it, a community connection. Mr. Stuart said Mayor Pollard has talked about this. He said from the perspective of representing the people who live in the Vancouver area for noise pollution and the ability to just connect the community is a good opportunity. He said the same thing with the idea of transit in a box with the ability to minimize the footprint and open up more waterfront property for redevelopment. Mr. Stuart said on the transit side, at the State of the County Address, Commissioner Morris talked about the Columbia River Crossing Project and equity on the bridge between Oregon and Washington. She also spoke to equity in tolls as well. There is a concern of low income populations where transit does not work for them, and they need to drive their cars. The question is if there is a way to be able to help them. Mr. Stuart said there is something that can be done and a conversation that needs to be held. He said this could be through direct subsidy or subsidy of organizations that subsidize those individuals who would apply. Mr. Stuart said that folks were frowning when Commissioner Morris said she did not like light rail, that she liked bus rapid transit better. He said he focused people on the words that she said which were that she believes that light rail is an inevitability into Vancouver, which is the first time that people have heard her say this publicly. Mr. Stuart said the Board of County Commissioners is starting to rally around a concept that would bring light rail into Clark County. He said his goal is to get what we need, which is that he thinks that we need light rail for this project to happen. If we are going to have light rail come across, he said he would like to see that his Board is supportive of that and how it can be done so they are supportive, and the conditions they need to see for us to get support for that. Mr. Stuart said they will need to pass a tax measure in order for any of this to go anywhere. He said FTA will require it for light rail and to support the transit system. Mr. Stuart said he has discussed this with Mayor Pollard and has said that he would like to let the public comment period work it self out. He said he has talked about this with Congressman Baird as well. He said to give people their options and the public comment will start figuring it out for you. The C-TRAN Board will have conversation as a Board as well. Mr. Stuart said that Congressman Baird had asked him to mention that if it was not local steel and local products that go into the bridge, not to come to him for funding. Mr. Stuart said he thought this had something to do with what happened with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge where the materials were imported. Congressman Baird had said if it is not local jobs and local materials, we would not get any funding as long as he is there. He wants local jobs building it, local jobs producing it, and local businesses benefiting from that. Steve Stuart said we have steel foundries in our local area.
Rex Burkholder said to the issue of tolling and dealing with the low income, he sees a needs reimbursement program. He asked if they had discussed the length of the tolling, if it would be applied for recovering, or basically forever as a transit demand management tool. Steve Stuart said they have not taken a position or had that discussion of the length of time the toll would be in place. He said they have had the conversation, because of SR-520 in Washington, of having tolling begin early. Begin it on the I-5 Bridge before building it even starts. He said that seemed to be a nonstarter, because the idea that you are paying for something that you are taking out. Mr. Stuart said there is tolling legislation at the state level to change it up a little. This means that the legislature would be more involved and the ones approving tolling. Don Wagner said as it is now, they would approve the projects for tolling, and the Commission would set the rate for the toll. Mr. Stuart said the legislature is saying that tolls are part our future and they want to be involved in that. Mr. Stuart said there will be some argument as to what the tolls are used for: for the bridge it self, which means can they be used for transit or can they be used for transit operating? Mr. Stuart said his Board is nervous about using tolls for transit. If they have to go to a sales tax vote, and they have already pulled money from the drivers from their tolls for transit, it becomes less likely that they will support a sales tax increase specifically for transit. He said their goal in looking at this is how they can pass a sales tax measure and make sure this moves forward.
Chair Burkholder asked John Gillam if the City of Portland had discussed the LPA, and if there were any issues. Mr. Burkholder said he knew that Hayden Island was a big issue, but asked if there were any other concerns that the city had. Mr. Gillam said he thought the bulleted list was good and that it addressed many of the issues, and he said he thought Mr. Burkholder’s letter was also very good. He said he was writing a similar memo, and it was addressing the same issues and the same discussions. He said it captures it very well. Mr. Gillam said they are looking at this in terms of issues that may become conditions for LPA support. He said they are also looking at separating and distinguishing what they think as design issues, issues of design that they feel need to be worked out. There are also process issues that they have not really figured out. An example is as the Task Force closes their work, what is going to be the discussion and resolution body for the design issues even as the project goes forward toward actual design and construction. He said that needs to still be thought out. Mr. Gillam said in Portland, the size, bulk, cost issues are still there, and at the technical level they have figured out that that is just what it is going to be. He said it is hard to scale something like this back or into phases, but he said there continues to be public concerns about that. That translates into issues of the cost, the economics, and those are issues he said that he thinks they can do a better job of explaining and talking about. Also, some of the regional land use aspects of this doesn’t support their regional land use plans on both sides of the river. He said there continues to be some talk of what this means. He said he thought the Bi-State Committee would be the best prepared existing body to actually take that on as an assignment to look at the land use issue and the regional land use support issue. He said the Committee had the right people at the table to work through that issue and develop findings about if this really supported our regional land use planning. Other things are the Hayden Island Plan is currently in process. He said they are looking at some design recommendations that would help to tie in the local circulation system better on the island as a result of their plan process. Their moratorium expires in July. One of the corrective actions that they declared with the state for the moratorium was the LPA, so that is very closely tied. The timing becomes overlapping and critical in terms of being able to say they have addressed the conditions of the moratorium with the LPA being one of those and the Hayden Island Plan being the other. An area of concern that they have is the interchange area management plan requirement on the Oregon side. He said that is not moving very smoothly. He said they are very concerned with the time line of that, because they are in very sensitive land use planning discussions with key property owners and access or any kind of idea of development caps has to be part of the Hayden Island Plan. He said this is an area that needs to be addressed more closely. Mr. Gillam said they are going to the Planning Commission on March 11 and have a Council Work Session on March 17. They are seeking advice and commentary from the Planning Commission. He said another question is the plan amendment aspect. He said he was a little unclear about that. He said the way that he looks at their Transportation System Plan is that they do not have to amend their Plan to support the project, but he said he heard that Metro feels that they need to. He asked if an RTP amendment was necessary and when that needed to happen. Mark Turpel said they will recommend to the Metro Council that there be an RTP amendment. Rex Burkholder said currently there is a placeholder for a project in their Plan, but something would need to be amended into it in order to do their air quality conformity analysis. Mark Turpel said currently, there are some very general statements about problems, but what the solutions should be need to be provided. The Transportation System Plans are what the local jurisdictions adopt, but those need to be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. He said they would be making recommendations to the Council that there be an RTP amendment and it would be followed by the local jurisdictions. Mr. Gillam said that introduces more time and more exposure. He said the way that they have the Columbia River Crossing project in their TSP, and they do need to be consistent with the RTP, but they look at projects in their TSP as being a statement of need and mode. He said they have both the need and the mode identified. The details of number of lanes etc. is not really the way they write their TSP. If there is a Plan amendment process included, he asked if that needed to happen before the Metro Council can vote on the LPA. Mr. Burkholder said that is a good question to be answered.
Jeff Hamm said in January, the C-TRAN Board made a pivotal decision when on an 8 to 1 vote, that decided to be the project sponsor for the high capacity transit component of the project for New Starts purposes and to be the owner operator of the transit portion of the project on the Washington side of the river. He said this directed him to proceed to develop a Memorandum of Understanding, which would then proceed to an agreement between the WSDOT, ODOT, C TRAN, TriMet, and the two cities regarding the further project development and design process about the construction of the high capacity transit component and the operation of the transit component. Within that, there were some guidelines that were set forth for the creation of that agreement. 1) That they maximize the use of Washington State toll credits to minimize or eliminate the amount of local match required for the capital portion of the project. 2) That there would be equity in cost bearing and revenue sharing between the operating agencies, TriMet and C-TRAN. 3) That they have the most cost effective and efficient LPA possible. 4) That who benefits should pay regarding the taxation, the sales tax increase that Commissioner Stuart referenced. 5) There should be some equity in terms of who benefits the most from the transit portion of the project and who is going to be paying for it. Revised legislation is needed to create an HCT sub-district within C-TRAN’s existing boundaries in order to pay for the CRC project. 6) Let the DEIS run its course before the C-TRAN Board takes a position on the LPA. Mr. Hamm said the Commissioners have been closely engaged in the project as have the three Vancouver City Council Members. The C-TRAN Board also has three small city representatives, and they have not had the same depth of discussions. He said that over the course of the next eight weeks, he would be going with those representatives to the councils of Camas, Washougal, Ridgefield, La Center, Battle Ground, and Yacolt to give them an overview of the project and what the transit issues are at stake for the C-TRAN Board and the votes that they will be taking.
Don Wagner said as one of the DOTs on this project, they are very pleased with the progress that has been made over the last couple of years. He said they have had a very aggressive schedule. He said not too many were sure they would meet that schedule, but it does look like they are very close to meeting that schedule. He said when they started the project with the 39 member Task Force; they had 30-plus different alternatives that they were moving forward, and now are at a spot where they are seeing general agreement around the LPA is unbelievable. He said there are a lot of people in Seattle watching us and asking how that happened. He said they are very pleased with where they are. Mr. Wagner said while they are making good progress, the real world around the Columbia River Crossing continues. He gave an example of that. On Saturday morning about 9:00 a.m., Oregon did a bridge lift for maintenance on the southbound bridge. The bridge went up, traffic came to a stop, and there was an accident on I-5 southbound blocking traffic. The bridge was put down, and the accident was cleared. Thirty-five minutes later, Oregon continues their maintenance bridge lift. The bridge goes up, traffic comes to a stop, and there is another accident southbound on I-5 blocking traffic. Mr. Wagner said this continued three times until Oregon decided to not do a bridge lift for maintenance. He said the problem is that the bridge needs to be maintained. He said the bridge is old, and even though they are investing money in making sure that it functions properly, the bridges are getting old and they need to be checked before the barge gets there. Mr. Wagner said usually there is about one accident for every three bridge lifts. He said these are not serious fatalities, but property damage accidents only, but basically I-5 did not recover at all on Saturday. This is a clear message that something needs to be done. As time goes on, it will probably get worse.
Mr. Wagner said that tolling is a huge issue for the two states. He said first is that they are two different states, and also that they are both in different places in their tolling scenarios. On the Washington side, there is legislation currently moving through that he expects to pass and be signed by the Governor. This is primarily around the 520 bridge, but 520 could easily be I-5 and I-90 could be I-205 with Seattle being Oregon, and it is the same thing down here. Mr. Wagner said a pre-completion tolling concept is being looked at. He said maybe there is some work that they could start on the CRC that didn’t actually impact the bridge, and on the Washington side that might be some work around SR-500 or Fourth Plain. That would still be part of the CRC project. He said a possibility is that when that work starts, they could start tolling on the segment. He said this would be a small piece of a couple million dollars, but it might precede the actual bridge work by a couple years. That could generate a bit of revenue early in the process by putting in pre-completion tolling. Mr. Wagner said on the Washington side, they are very enthusiastic about time of day tolling. He said they are quite interested in I-205, as not only a revenue source, but it gets through some of the questions of about getting the local share money. Mr. Wagner said they think there is a mechanism for getting there that is fair from a corridor standpoint. There is also an issue of how long to toll. He said there are questions of a construction only debt or if it is a long-term funding source. The legislature is currently debating these issues, generally around Seattle, but Vancouver and Spokane are also in this conversation. The Spokane situation is not a bridge; it is open road tolling on a major segment of highway. Mr. Wagner said he wished ODOT was present to answer where Oregon was, but he said it would be safe to say they have not advanced the discussions quite as far as Washington has. Mr. Wagner said these are Washington’s comments, and they still have a lot of discussion with Oregon about this.
Mr. Wagner said they have made so much progress that they are about to run out of money. He said they are really pushing the end of the available funds. They have a cash flow problem of a few million dollars even to get to the Record of Decision. He said the $15 million in federal dollars in Corridors of the Future would fill the gap, but said he does not think we can get that funding in time. He said it was getting dicey, and he did not want to lose the momentum on the project. Mr. Wagner said they are at about $1.5 million a month in costs to keep the project moving forward.
John Williams said the CRC team gave a presentation to the Battle Ground City Council a couple weeks ago. Some of the concerns that they heard from the Council and a few citizens included the tolling issue, cost concerns of a new structure, but also realizing the existing bridge did not meet the needs of the bridge crossing long term as well. There was concern of the impact to I 205, and concerns of transit and transit type. He said I-5 is the key economic development corridor for anyone in North County. If they are trying to attract business into the North County, it is obvious they will want to use I-5 to get across the bridge and service to the north or to the south. He said they did not come to any specific recommendations, and no action was taken. These were just concerns that they spoke of.
Thayer Rorabaugh said that Mayor Pollard apologized for not being in attendance. He was attending a Portland meeting. Mr. Rorabaugh said he was able to talk with the Mayor the night before about today’s meeting. He said Commissioner Stuart was correct in that we are revolving into a new kind of phase of the project where all the technical studies are winding down. However, he said in the city’s mind it leaves two separate issues. There are still some more global, regional issues that will continue such as the tolling discussion, the equity discussion, and land use issues. There are also local issues that they as a city are concerned about as well. He said those are the bike/pedestrian issues, waterfront connections, what all the construction that happens in their city is going to look like. He said in looking at a $4 billion project, there is $2 billion in the middle of the river, and $1 billion on the Portland side as well as the Vancouver side. Mr. Rorabaugh said regardless of how much money is spent, when a billion dollars is spent in the city, they want to be sure it is done right, and they have as much input and control over that as they can. He said this is in terms of what the waterfront connections mean along with the community connections. He said they have talked with the CRC folks about a national competition to see what that could look like. He said not only bring in some great minds, because it is not only the entrance to the state, but it is the entrance to their city that 100,000 people a day get to see. He said it is very important to them. The planning and engineering is extremely important to them. He said it is one thing to land in an LPA, and he said they feel that by the time they get to the LPA, a lot of the decisions are going to be made. Mr. Rorabaugh said Commissioner Stuart spoke of the number of lanes and how wide it is, and that will flush itself out as they go through the process and begin to narrow in on the LPA. How that happens, what the footprint will be like as it comes into and through the city has certain implications to their National Historical Site and implications to the downtown area. He said that the CRC staff has been good to work with and have done everything to help them minimize impacts to both. He said there have been tradeoffs to both sides, but it has been a good process. Mr. Rorabaugh said they are now in the next phase of that, and what that will look like and how they will arrive at that answer is perhaps more important. He said they really need to engage their downtown, engage their neighborhoods further, so they believe that is a whole separate process from the more regional issues. He said he is not sure how all that will ultimately flush out, but certainly they want more control over what is happening locally. The regional issues are still important to have a regional input, but they want the right people at the table when the discussion is for the city.
Addison Jacobs said the Port Commission had a resolution in late January that unanimously approved the replacement option for the bridge. She said this was a major step for the Commission. She said that was a milestone for them. They did not grapple with the mode choice on HCT at that particular discussion. That issue will be brought back to the Commission. Ms. Jacobs said their major issues are around freight and freight mobility in the system trade and economy. She said they need the trucks and the employees to be able to get to and from the Port of Vancouver so they can continue to be the economic engine that they are and to meet the planned growth that they have at the Port. She said that is their key point. Access to I-5 and the interchanges are critical to them. Fourth Plain and Mill Plain design and access will be very important to them. Choice on the HCT, they are holding judgment on the western alignment that would be up Main Street. They have concerns about truck access to I-5, so those are being expressed in many of the venues. Ms. Jacobs said they continue to have very active involvement in, and would like to continue to have active involvement in the waterfront impacts, because of their Terminal One at the Quay. She said they would like to be involved in any process or decisions around that. The neighborhood issues are an issue for them as well, because they have planned growth in the lowlands. They have already engaged the neighborhoods between them and I-5, and as the discussions around impacts and mitigation for neighborhoods between the Port and I-5, they will be involved in those discussions. Ms. Jacobs said that continued Bi-State conversations, some sort of formalized decision discussions would be important to the Port as well. She said that could be the Bi-State Coordination Committee or another option.
Ms. Jacobs said that she is a trustee at Clark College. She said they have not made a decision on an HCT alignment that might brush against Clark College, but she said they would be very interested in discussions about that. On a final note Ms. Jacobs said she was a part of a small group of folks, the Port of Portland, the Portland Business Alliance, Identity Clark County, and some other interested folks in forming a Columbia River Crossing Coalition. She said they have just begun, and are trying to raise enough money to identify a staff person so they can begin to grow some synergy around support for this project that goes far beyond our region. She said we need a place where folks who do support the project can put their name on it, similar to the Columbia River Channel Deepening process.
Phil Selinger said he would be pretty general in TriMet's comments, but said it was safe to say that they are pleased with the general move toward light rail as the mode selection. He said they think that is important for regional connectivity to a regional system, but realize that is not an easy decision to get to. For tolling, they understand that maybe you can’t get there from here without tolling. They do appreciate that tolling can be an effective TDM strategy, but they also understand the equity and the sensitivities around tolling. He said they are still pretty open on that. In terms of the light rail minimum operating segment, they simply want to be careful as we select a terminus for light rail that it’s understood where the County and the region needs to go long-term with light rail on the Washington side of the river, and suggest to keep the options open or at least understand where that is going. The impact of the project is important. On the number of lanes, less is more, but they understand that there is technical work that has to support that decision.
Chair Burkholder said he appreciated everyone taking the time to share the information. He said the Metro Council will have a work session on April 1, but will have a public hearing on a resolution to provide him direction as the Task Force representative, on the 10th of April. Mr. Burkholder said he hoped this was helpful for Don Wagner and Doug Ficco in terms of hearing a bit about the issues of what happens next. He asked after the Task Force has their last meeting in May when they make their decision, what the process is to engage local governments and also the citizenry over the period of time. He said clarification is also needed on some of the processes to make sure the next steps are not too complicated with TSP amendments, etc. Mr. Burkholder said he heard that they share very similar issues, similar sensitivities about a number of things, but a similar desire for this to be a successful project, and pretty clear on the LPA. The details are going to be very important.
Dean Lookingbill posed the question to the Bi-State Committee that while there seems to be general agreement toward the LPA decision, there are still individual issues among the jurisdictions. He asked what role does the Bi-State Committee want to play. He asked if it was just to allow for them to individually work through issues. That may be fine, but we may also find ourselves in a position where we have one jurisdiction wishing to do something that doesn’t fit another. He asked what collective process would the Committee like to follow. Rex Burkholder said John Gillam suggested the Bi-State Coordination Committee might be the group that looks at least on the land use part of it in terms of preparing some findings regarding the impact of the project in that area. Chair Burkholder said that was one suggestion of a role. He said that would mean they would ask the staffs of the two MPOs to do that. Steve Stuart said from his perspective, there will be a Task Force meeting and all at this table are representative on that group and that is when the decision making will be done collectively, but then individually each council, commission, and body will be getting together and looking at their own individual recommendations before that point. So to have some sense of where the collective is would be helpful. Steve Stuart said to know where others are at when they are having their own individual discussions will help his discussion, such as some of the conditions that others may have. To have those in hand while having your own discussions would help when all were together at the Task Force. This would allow for better success when the Task Force does meet. He said with the time lines, he did not want the Task Force to meet and folks not knowing where others stand and not be able to come to an agreement and delay the schedule even more. He said that is a concern of his he would like to avoid given time and money. He said the Bi-State Committee has an opportunity to start informing each other as they go along in this process. Rex Burkholder said that was the intent at today’s meeting. Chair Burkholder noted the next scheduled meeting for the Bi-State Committee as April 17, which is a few weeks prior to the Task Force and many of the groups will have clarity on their positions. Mr. Burkholder said a piece of that is understanding clearly what is the LPA decision versus all the design or FEIS. He asked Dean and Mark and Doug and said it would be helpful for him to know just what exactly the Task Force will be voting on. What is the actual decision that they will go through, and what are the other pieces that are further down the line? He said folks hear that “later” we will talk about design stuff, because we need to talk about design stuff now, but the actual decisions on the design stuff will be later. He said it would be helpful for the April meeting to know that. They will be more clear on where their own jurisdictions are as well.
Don Wagner said to keep in mind that it sounds pretty final that the Task Force goes away, but there are going to be working groups set up as part of the Task Force that will work all the way through design and probably through right-of-way acquisition and construction. The other thing that has not been discussed are the members of the Task Force that represent something other than a government body, businesses, trucking associations, barge groups, and etc. Those folks also need to continue their input. He said they are very interested in how the group collectively thought that might be done. He said they are unsure as well. He said the Task Force function was to get us to the LPA, but they still have value to add all the way through. Mr. Wagner said they have a lot of technical issues that will need to be worked out in design, that will go right back to the community. He asked how the community would respond with concerns. They know they need to do that, but have not figured out the mechanism yet. He said they would welcome any thoughts and comments. He said he thought it would be individual as well as collectively. He said they know they need to work with the individual localities, but they also have a collective need. Mr. Burkholder said this is looking at long term time commitments. He said there are models of how they can maintain that community involvement and the interest group involvement over time over large projects that take a long time to conceive and deliver. He said they would put some thought to that and get some response back to him.
Chair Burkholder said Metro is in the middle of its Transportation Plan update. The Corridors Visioning Study being done by RTC has come out with their draft report, which was distributed to members. He said what is interesting is that the river has a totally different meaning to the two different states. He said the question for the committee is how to integrate the Long Range Transportation Plans for the two halves of the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area. He said it is very much one economy and community, yet our structures are not integrated well. Chair Burkholder said this is an example of two efforts going on that need to be integrated. He said the question is whether or not the Committee should make a recommendation to our respective Boards, the RTC and Metro/JPACT, about whether there should be a work program developed that is focused on the river and the connections or lack of across the river so actually it becomes a conscious part of both the planning efforts and be a coordinated planning effort. Mr. Burkholder said they have never done that as a work plan on their side of the river. He said the Corridor Visioning Study gets to the river, but not across the river. He said the Bi-State Committee is the group to discuss those kinds of issues. He said if they are going to have something like this, this is the group that that needs to say let’s spend the dollars and the time and energy to work on this.
Dean Lookingbill said to echo what Mr. Burkholder said, is listed on page 2 of the memo that was included in the meeting packet. He said that is the question at hand, and to add some substance to that question, he referred to the Corridor Visioning Study. Mr. Lookingbill referred to page 26 displaying the Vision Plan Candidate New Regional Corridors Map. He said they are in a process where they have now gone through their Steering Committee, and the map displayed the consensus findings or recommendations for that Steering Committee. He said this is scheduled to go before the RTC Board in March. He said RTC started this study with the question of what happens when there is a population of one million in Clark County and a lot more jobs than today. He said they broke it in to the West side and the East side and how to connect to the north with the land use assumptions, and then they looked at how to connect across the Columbia River. Mr. Lookingbill said they did not start with the question of how we connect across the Columbia River, and then what to do in Clark County. The question then becomes for the Bi-State Committee, just how we proceed in the future. This is a very large scale look at a whole new Columbia River Crossing. He said there are many issues that lead up to that point.
Rex Burkholder said they are currently doing a high capacity transit study to look at the next 20 years of work they will do in terms of HCT. Mr. Lookingbill said they have an HCT study underway looking at a 20-year timeframe as well. Mr. Burkholder said both have “ghost” lines supposedly connecting with the other side. He said they have not actually made that connection of how that connection could or should be made. Mr. Burkholder said he was asking Committee Members for some action or a request to the two MPOs to develop a joint work plan or IGA to put this into their planning process. Mr. Burkholder said their Regional Transportation Plan update schedule is included with the memo. They are proposing to extend it another year, because of the amount of work that needs to be done. Mr. Lookingbill said that RTC did their Federal MTP update in December and would not anticipate opening an entire redraft. He said that they do recognize that as stated earlier the Columbia River crossing is going to take an MTP amendment, C-TRAN’s TDP will probably take an MTP amendment, and RTC’s HCT System Plan; all amendments, but not a complete reopening of the MTP. Mr. Burkholder asked if members wanted the two MPOs to add this as part of their work program as a joint work program. It was asked if this would be a UPWP amendment at Metro. Mr. Lookingbill said yes that those are the official documents that both Metro and RTC listing the work plans, and is echoed in RTC’s Budget as well. Resources would need to be identified and milestones set. Mr. Burkholder said this would not be immediate, in terms of funding and budgeting. He said it may be added in the list of things that we need to figure the cost, how to coordinate, etc. He said he saw it in the sense that if anyone is going to ask for it, it would be the Bi-State Committee.
Phil Selinger asked if Clark County was a bit ahead of the Oregon side in where it is looking at the corridors. He said it is a much broader geographic range of considerations than the Portland side has. He said for example HCT is not anywhere near looking at a Troutdale/Camas connection. He said he is not sure even on the highway side. Mr. Selinger asked how they addressed the scale or the scope of the undertaking and how they sync them up better even before they try to directly connect them. Rex Burkholder said there is a difference between the Vision Plan which is looking out 50 years and saying “What If”, and the actual MTP which includes these issues, but neither the MTP or Metro’s RTP has actually specifically looked at cross-river needs. He said this may or may not be an outcome of a joint effort looking long term in the future. The fact that we have not said let’s look specifically at the issue of cross-river transportation needs as a work program in either of their Plans.
Mark Turpel said also, most of the river crossings that are shown on the visioning map are from earlier studies that date back 10 – 15 or more years, some of which were looked at on the Oregon side as well. What is being suggested today is that given the work the work that Clark County has done and the fact that Metro in the region on the south side of the river is looking at the state component of the RTP. He said the question is do the members of the Bi-State Committee think that there should be work done? If so, there are a whole number of steps that would have to be taken. The UPWPs for each MPO would have to amended as a work program that we will do, the timing of that, the funding of that, and others, much less where would those corridors even be looked at. Those are questions that can’t be answered at this point, but they are raising the fundamental question of should we be looking at this whole Columbia River not necessarily as a boundary or a border, but the potential connections that we may have. If that is of interest, then they would go back to JPACT/Metro and RTC Board and begin to work that in the queue of work programs, not trying to decide something at this point. He said the question they are asking is if there is value in it.
Thayer Rorabaugh said he thought it was imperative to press on with this process, and try to integrate the two. He said we are starting the steep side of the expediential curve of population growth. In the horizon year that the Visioning study looked at, we are looking at two and a half times of what we have today. Mr. Rorabaugh said he thought it was very important to move on. In just looking at the I 5 process, the bridge would already be in place, and we have been discussing how to replace it for the past 10 years let alone build a new one. He said in looking now at building something somewhere and add10 years and we will be at 2020. That is almost half way there. He said he did not think we could afford to not move forward to integrate these and work collaboratively to get this.
Chair Burkholder asked if he should have Dean and Mark prepare a proposal that would go to RTC and to Metro/JPACT that said let’s put it in our work program with the definition of the need, etc. Dean Lookingbill said this is at an early stage, and a draft proposal could be brought back to the Bi-State Committee prior to going before the MPOs. Members concurred with bringing a proposal back for their review.
Chair Burkholder noted the ease in the drive from Portland that morning. He said he knew how difficult it was for the Washington folks to have to drive to Portland in the mornings to the meetings. He asked if the bi-State meetings that occur on the Oregon side be at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. Members agreed that the Oregon meetings would be held at 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and the Washington meetings would remain at 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. This change would begin with the April 17 meeting at Metro. Chair Burkholder noted the meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year. The April 17 meeting would allow members to meet prior to the CRC decision in May.
Sharon Nasset of Portland noted several reports that she downloaded from the I-5 Trade and Transportation Partnership project and encouraged folks to read them. She said the Columbia River Crossing project is based on theI-5 Partnership project. She said she saw several statements in the reports that conflicted with those of the CRC. Ms. Nasset said she thought the ball had been dropped between the NEPA process, which was supposed to get rid of the political will process. She said if statements are heard that seem to political will to get it in writing and take it to the Federal Government and they will be willing to do something about it. She said that everyone needs to stand up and be the great leader they should be. Ms. Nasset said it is important that the NEPA process is followed.
Ed Barnes of Vancouver said he hoped the folks who attend the public meeting on light rail with the neighborhoods at the Water Resources Building that evening forget about the politics and remember the people that they are representing and not be there campaigning. Mr. Barnes commended Henry Hewitt and Hal Dengerink for the tremendous job they have done as co-chairs for the CRC Task Force along with the work of the staff in putting the whole program together. He said they have done a great job in the time they have done it. Mr. Barnes said in discussions of tolls and being fair and the cost to the low income, he feels that tolls should be the same for all. Start with a low toll, and toll both bridges so all share the cost, both the east side and the west side.
John Gillam noted the economic profiles on the east and west sides. He said the Oregon and Washington sides were almost opposites. He said the I-205 corridor on the Oregon side is lower income and population and the Washington side is higher in both.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for April 17, 2008, at Metro at 5:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|