 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, April 17, 2008, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.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 Chair Rex Burkholder (Chair)—Metro
Jack Burkman—WSDOT (Alternate)
Commissioner Jeffrey Cogan—County of Multnomah
Executive Director Jeff Hamm—C-Tran
Addison Jacobs—Port of Vancouver (Alternate)
Alan Lehto—TriMet (Alternate)
Commissioner Steve Stuart—Clark County CommissionerStaff and Public Present Ed Barnes—Citizen
Richard Brandman—Metro
Andy Cotugno—Metro
Kim Ellis—Metro
Doug Ficco—Columbia River Crossing
John Gillam—City of Portland
Jim Howell—Citizen
Joseph Jannuzzi--Citizen
Donald Leap—Citizen
Dick Malin—Citizen
Shoshanah Oppenheim—City of Portland
Christie Parker—Washington Legislature
Philip Parker—Washington State Transportation Commissioner
Sharon Nasset—Citizen
Chris Ransdell—Citizen
Ross Roberts—Metro
Dale Robins—RTC
Susan Sale—Metro
Karen Schilling—Multnomah County
Mark Turpel—MetroChair Rex Burkholder called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm, and welcomed all participants.
Chair Burkholder stated because there is not a quorum present that the minutes from the last meeting cannot be approved at this time. He remarked that if a quorum is available before the end of the meeting, the committee will move for approval. Otherwise, approval will wait until the next meeting.
Rex Burkholder remarked that the substantive discussion for this meeting is the letter that is a request to the DOT’s to consider having the Bi-State Committee become the advisory or review group for the Columbia River Crossing once the Task Force finishes its work. As you all know, the Task Force gets released from its bondage after its next meeting.
The second item is looking at the High Capacity Transit plans. Both sides of the river are in the midst of High Capacity Transit plans.
The third item is looking at what the Oregon side of the river is assuming for Clark County for our transportation updates, so that we can put them in a model. We want to make sure that the committee is aware of that.
On the orange paper handout there is a draft letter. Mr. Stuart and I sat together and talked about this problem we saw that there is no identified advisory group set up as part of the CRC project following the expiration of the Task Force’s charge. The fact is that the Bi-State Committee is organized around the issues of transportation and economic development around the river. The key issue obviously right now is the Columbia River Crossing and if we do get approval of the locally approved alternative and move ahead, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Also, the DOT’s deserve to have advice as they move ahead. Since we have the key personnel from both sides of the river, this committee is a logical starting point. I think we had the same discussion a few years ago about the Task Force. I think of some of the concerns that I have heard from my fellow elected colleagues who are going to be helping out by watching over and advising the DOT’s as the process goes forward. Right now there is no group designated. I don’t know what the committee’s thoughts are. We are here and we are interested and we are the right group.
Doug Ficco remarked that Rex is right and that we do need another group to go on and we do need an answer before the Task Force reconvenes. The letter should be sent.
Rex Burkholder stated that he and Steve Stuart sat down and determined that there is a gap here and that needs to be addressed. I would like to have the rest of the committee comment.
There was a comment from Commissioner Cogen regarding the nature of the Bi-State Committee. His question was answered by Andy Contugno who stated that the committee is chartered by all the member governments, not just by the two MPO’s. The predecessor organization was chartered by the two MPO’s (Metro and RTC) and was strictly advisory. Now every governing body who is a member chartered this committee. This is a committee that serves all ten governments.
Rex Burkholder commented that the governments’ representatives share information and ideas and, in my case, I go to the Council and tell them what is going on with this committee and share those ideas with them and try to get direction from them. In terms of the recommendations that come out of this group, we have discussions and occasionally send letters stating what we believe is the right thing to do. This body does not have decision-making power in that sense.
Commissioner Stuart stated that this committee will be moving forward from decision points to shepherding, which will be years worth of work. There will be multiple paths. I am supportive of having an advocacy group that is outside of government. A group that are not government agencies, but are non-profit, non-partisan agencies that get a coalition built of other agencies, including neighborhood associations and other constituent groups.
Shoshanah Oppenheim suggested that there could be policy discussions at the committee level and an executive committee that votes and forwards their issues onto the CRC.
Chair Burkholder commented that we are trying to be efficient with time and not add a whole new committee. If we are going to talk about anything, we should do it with this group. We could add or subtract people if that is what the DOT’s want. I think Doug’s suggestion to just send off the letter off to the DOTs and see what kind of response we get from the DOT’s. I know this group will exist. We will be here whether it is formal or not. Formal makes it a little easier.
Richard Brandman added that there will be hundreds of decisions a group like this will be making down the road and some are financial decisions through effective local governments. Some of the decisions will be local. Some of the decisions are global decisions. Maybe when the global issues get put on the table, the project and senior staff can create a matrix that these are some of the issues that can go back to Bi-State. The more specific localized issues should go back to local governments. I think you are desirous to make sure that all of the decisions of import have enough eyes looking at them in agreement that there is comfort that it is the right decision down the road. What are the kind of decisions that need to come back to this committee.
Steve Stuart added that there will be financing questions. We will have to collaborate between the local, state and federal and create consensus around what we are doing and then create power behind to go to federal and state legislators and lobby for money. It is going to be a huge task. Get everyone on the same page because that is how we will have the power to move forward. We are all going to have to be doing internal and external communications at every level because it is so complicated.
Shoshanah Oppenheim commented that the first paragraph ends with a list of issues that are of import and the City of Portland would like land use to be specifically called out in that section.
Chair Burkholder stated that all the members agree that the letter should be sent. We want to get this discussion started before the Task Force disappears. We will send this letter off and wait for a response.
There will be a further discussion at the June 19 meeting in Vancouver to regarding the committee’s oversight/advisory role.
Rex Burkholder said that next item on the agenda is the HCT plans. Not all of us get the chance to see this. Dale Robins and Ross Roberts will discuss the HCT plans.
Dale Robins stated that Clark County started the HCT study in late 2006. They have established goals and objectives. Assessed travel sheds and used the goals and objectives to narrow the corridors from 15 to 5. We also narrowed the modes from 9 to 5. Five corridors were examined individually to see how they would work for high capacity transit. The corridors were I-5, I-205, Mill Plain and 4th Plain. The handout map is the strategy that came out of the analysis.
Dale Robins added that the initial analysis indicated that the I-205 bridge has some limitations in getting light rail across it. We should probably have additional discussion with Metro and RTC staff as we move forward as to how we can have HCT across the I-205 corridor. Mr. Robins passed around a memo on recommendations that were made.
Steve Stuart asked that if we wanted to bring it across the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge, what would that mean.
Dale Robins remarked that they have the strategy and are testing 6 scenarios. One thing being studied is what system would get the most ridership. Even with a BRT option, there needs to be significant discussion between Oregon and Washington. The study should be wrapped up in July.
Ross Roberts stated that they are just starting on the Metro study the HCT Plan. (Ross displayed a 1980 map showing regional transportation projects—most of the projects have been built.) Where are we going? Ross displayed a map that shows the existing systems, plus some intriguing possibilities. We are looking at what kind of regional system will be growing over the next 20-30 years. By the end of the calendar year, we will have a system of HCT lines that seem to be the most promising. From about January to March next year, we will go through a prioritization process, which is going to be driven by JPACT and we will come out with a list of priorities that will move forward to the RTP and what will be the next wave of transit projects.
Ross Roberts added that we will be doing land use analysis in the midst of all the other planning. It is still in its early stages.
Mr. Roberts stated that we are looking at 2035 as our forecast year. We will certainly look at some of the big system improvements in a longer time frame.
Richard Brandman commented that we are going to have a lot of outreach with this effort. This will be rail, BRT and other transportation choices, not just rail.
Ross commented we will be coordinating and have been coordinating very closely with the City of Portland’s Streetcar System Plan.
Jeff Hamm asked if this is more a centers land use approach than a corridors approach, or is it a hybrid?
Mr. Roberts stated that the 2040 concept is clearly focused on accessibility to and from regional centers with HCT. They also serve corridors.
Richard Brandman responded that it is not either/or. There would be a variety of places it would serve. There are all kinds of destinations along the way and corridors that would also be served. There are lots of transit-oriented destinations along the corridors as well as the centers.
Rex Burkholder introduced the last piece. Dale Robins, Kim Ellis and Mark Turpel will discuss the Regional Transportation Plan. We want to get feedback from the committee about the assumptions for this plan.
Mark Turpel (blue handout) said that we wanted to give a summary of the transit system and help in this discussion and focusing on the two items on the last page. Kim is going to talk about Oregon side and Dale about the Washington side. Which of the HCT for Clark County will work on the Portland side. Think about those as you hear these presentations.
Kim Ellis commented that we have now initiated the state RTP. We have to comply with certain state planning requirements. We will be evaluating the effect of various land use policies to compliment these various land use scenarios. We need your input on what kind of assumptions you should be bringing forward into this analysis. We will begin testing some of the new policies we implemented last December and the test system performance and monitoring system. We will be working to frame the financial tradeoffs. Next year, we will begin developing a hybrid alternative that will actually be analyzed to develop a recommended alternative in 2009. There is other work going on to help identify a more stable funding strategy for all the transportation needs we have.
Ms. Ellis discussed the Key Policy Variables to Test, Cause and Effect Transportation Investment Scenarios Analysis and Recommendation for RTP Hybrid Analysis and Received Alternatives. The RTP will be a combination of each of these four pieces. We want to hear from you about what we should be including in these scenarios. Help us to go forward next year with the RTP.
Dale Robins stated that Kim covered it very clearly.
Rex Burkholder said that the scenarios are extremes. We can test what impact they might have. These things are possible and we should look at them. I think the issue of a new bridge on the eastern section seems to make sense.
Jack Burkman commented that the west side is going to be more challenging.
Addison Jacobs added that freight and patterns for freight mobility within the region and through the region should be considered on both sides of the river. Clark County is considering a study of freight pattern and I think it would be a good idea to do that on the east side as well.
Kim Ellis stated that we will be looking at that where there are bottlenecks.
Ms. Ellis commented that we are starting the networks from May until June. We will be working with RTC to develop the assumptions consistent with their processes are heading. That is including all of the corridors, including the Columbia River Crossing to bring forward into the assumptions we will be analyzing.
Jeff Cogen remarked that it appears to be a sensitivity analysis to see what you are going to get in terms of land use patterns. We would want to go with one of the more intensive HCT alternatives on the Clark County.
Steve Stuart said what modes would be available on whatever corridor we may study. How are you going to move people through the corridors, west and east.
Jeff Cogen commented that it is worth looking at all things. We need an expansive view. Need consistence between Washington and Portland side.
Jack Burkman remarked that we need to have a sense for both sides of river.
Citizen Jim Howell commented that what we have for the CRC is highway engineer’s solution to the CRC project. It basically has 4 build options. There has been no discussion of a no build option. Least cost planning has never been considered. Jim passed out information that discusses the lowest cost way to build. Low cost planning has never been done and I think now is the time to look at that to see if we are going in the right direction. The same process could be used for the other projects we are talking about.
Rex Burkholder asked if there were any other citizens who wished to make a comment. Sharon, is that a comment?
Sharon Nasset stated it has been said that if it wasn’t light rail and this bridge that it is over. She does not believe that certain requirements have not been met if there is only one bridge and one form of transit. She believes that this group wants it to be all or nothing.
Rex Burkholder answered that the process has looked at a lot of issues and there will be a choice coming up. It should be based on the data. That is how I see the process working. The data should let each person make their own choices.
Ms. Nasset believes that we are at the point that it looks like all or nothing. There are a lot of people that believe that what that bridge will do is more damaging than doing nothing.
Rex Burkholder indicated a citizen named Ray.
Ray commented regarding a balanced investment in transportation. The Tribune reported the Metro region needs 8B dollars to fix transportation. It seems to me that it is time to think and act outside the box. We need to do things differently in the future. It is time to stop pushing bottlenecks around at huge costs that we cannot afford. We have a very serious crisis—energy, federal deficit, land use. Alternatives must be implemented. You should think seriously about upgrading the existing bridges and build a new one to accommodate light rail. Remember that it is transportation that determines land use.
Rex called on Mr. Barnes to speak.
Edward Barnes remarked that the cost of fuel is escalating. We need to take advantage of the Delta Park and Airport areas. The Bi-State Committee has a roll to play in this process. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter are important. I am concerned about the workers that work on this side of the river, because this where the jobs are. We have not found a way to create jobs on the Vancouver side of the river. People need an alternative to get to the Portland side of the river where the jobs are. Need to get rid of the politics and we are here representing people. Paragraph 4 gives outside people the opportunity to get into the process. You need to have a mix of people and not just elected officials, because sometimes elected officials get tunnel vision. I would urge the Bi-State Committee that the citizens would be better off in the process. We need an alternative until we can get jobs on the Washington side of the river.
Rex Burholder asked if there were any more comments. Sir, would you like to make a comment.
My name is Chris Ransdell and I am just starting to get involved in looking at the bridge closely. The entire corridor south from the border to the Terwilliger Curves is running at capacity. I am surprised that people are talking about putting more people on the I-5.
Rex Burkholder commented that we have wrestled with all these issues to get here. Please check the CRC website.
Chair Burkholder thanked everyone for coming and announced that the next meeting is June 19, 2008 in Vancouver, WA.
Steve Stuart stated that we are not chartered to only be a transportation group and it gets kind of dry always talking about the bridge, so we want to talk about things that are bi-state. We want to use this forum to have those conversations also.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|